06/18/2002 (2)
':, ~ .
.,
.-
.'
.';i,t::
,
. .,1.
,.'
./
",
.\t'.. <
.. .'
,(7)
',.': <';;:"
. "
:1'
, ,~ ' ,
j;' ~ ~
.;~~:' r'
,.-
!It.
".' j
r,I';..
t=:..
:.1;.
t t. >j~
~1,1..' . I'.' .
F:):~::~:.. ,;~ ~:' '-
{1i,"~I,?');., .'
.;.~'.: 'I;. ! ~ < .' ,
~;;~;;;,~ti', ::
~',i;..:~~r;l
::').~'
t.<
;'.
,n
I'.
,< 'J
\."
e' e',',!
"
,"
",
. " C "~'l:. ..:.
::.' J .;<fl#.1
:' :r;~'~:"'l~.)
." 'l' ",,'.~
~ . "-/
,~ }
','
. ,
..
1-\e
\'
r,
.
'.\,
'.
"I'
; ~ .
.'
I'"
.
"
",
, ,
:'
,',
;,
..,'
,
~ c i ' '. ,~
"
"
.!
',.
"
. ' ,I' ~ '
.. ,::'.
, "
,> .
:..'r','
.,'
.. .'. .,b........~'")~}:'~..';!,1 ,e/"',(~
d'
e~'" .
. 1<
"
..
" .
"
'.\
COB
.0'
" 'C,ol!lmu,riity Development Board Meeting'
MINUTES
':
~ J.
.'i
, /
;,
r.
',>
';,Date,'
r-
oia/, g "D;L.
, ~
'.'
'.'
,'.
, '
"
.)
; ,
"
. ,.
II.-l
c,
"
'r"
,.
, .
,'1'
" :f
" "
,
"
,Ie.
.' '
I"~
,.
','
"
. t;
.,
"
, .'
'.
'.'
'.
, '
, '
','
{p,1/
. .
, '
.. ,
,..
"
~~1"" ;."".....~W1fi '1.. -t.,.Ji........~n...'t.:~#,_~--,.,-"';. ..~,
< ..~_....": ...........J.,,_ u..:...'.......~.......t _ ,.'Io.....L-.""~~~..
'.p~l.....",.. ,'I :, ~.', .~; ~.,. I'.:"., '. '.',\.~:. .~ ,..;..::.\.; r ~ ".~ ','t.. 'I,":~'!....-::".~.'.'."~""'~, ':.~;'
..,...;..............II\..~
. ........,..~_........__.........~'"i.............oJ...-l, .t4'14.I....l=.lo-lIIH.
,..,.1....
, ,
, ' 6'flIt.
" .-.,
" (::)
,'a'
~'
. . ',"
A.
\i
ACTION AGENDA - COMMUNnV DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
June 18, 2002
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: May 21,2002
ACTION: Approved 7:0.
B. CONSENT AGENDA: ,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. (Item 1) .
1.
Case: FLD 02-04-09 - 1120 N. Betty Lane (Master address; Request involves 1120
Fairburn Avenuet 1212 N. Betty Lane and 1215 N. Betty Lane) Level Two Application
Owners: Everybody's Tabernacle Inc. and Homeless Emergency Project Inc.
Applicant: Homeless Emergency Project Inc. (H.E.P.)
Representative: Barbara Green.
Location: 3.37 total acres located on the east and west sides of North Betty Lane,
between Cedar Street and Engman Street (including 1.01 acres on the southwest corner
of Engman Street and N. Betty Lane (Site A -1212 N. Betty Lane), 0.35 acres on the
east side of N. Betty Lane across from Engman Street (Site B - 1215 N. Betty Lane) and
2.01 acres on the west side of N. Betty Lane, east side of Fairburn Avenue, between
Cedar Street and La Salle Street (Site C - 1120 Fairburn Ave'nue).
Atlas Page: 269B.
Zoning: C, Commercial District (Sites A and B) and I, Institutional District (Site C).
Request: Flexible Development application I as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, with the following requests:
Site A":" Permit the construction of a retail sales use (thrift store) in the Commercial
District with 1) a reduction in the front (east) setback along N. Betty Lane from 25 feet to
, ' 24 feet to pavement; 2) a reduction in the front (north) setback along Engman Street
from 25 feet to 19 feet to building and from 25 feet to 15 feet to pavement; 3) a reduction
in the front (west)'setback along Fairburn Avenue from 25 feet to 15 feet to building and
pavement; and 4) a reduction in required parking from 56 spaces to 47 spaces;
Site B - Permit a residential shelter in the Commercial District with 1) a reduction in'
front (west) setback along N. Betty Lane from 25 feet to 15 feet to stairwell and from 25
, feet to 23 feet to building; and 2) a reduction In the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to 10
. feet to stairway ramping; and
Site C - Permit the expansion of an existing social service agency in the Institutional
District with 1) a reduction in the front (west) setback along Fairburn Avenue from 25 feet
to 8.64 feet to building and from 25 feet to four feet to pavement; and 2) a reduction in
required parking from 11 spaces to 6 spaces for the expanded floor area.
Proposed Use: The proposal includes a 13,975 square-foot retail thrift store (Site A),
. an 8~unit residential shelter (Site B) and the addition of a two-story addition I a second-
floor addition and a second.floor connecting walkway between buildings for the H.E.P.
administrative offices and dental clinic (Site C), as part of a master plan for the site.
Applicable Conditions: '1) Any change in ownership on Site A (retail thrift store) be
evaluated for complementary operational characteristics and parking demand, and may
require approval by the Community Development Board (COB); 2) the landscape plan
for Site C be amended to include a hedge along the north and east sides of the parking
lot in the northeast corner of the property, to the satisfaction of Staff, prior to the
issuance of any permits for Site C improvements; 3) any existing or future dumpsters on
either Sites A, B or C be located, designed, properly enclosed and constructed In
Mcd0602.act
1
6/18/02
,....
accordance with City standards; 4) the color of proposed buildings be consistent with
existing buildings and be approved by City staff prior to the Issuance of building permits ,
for those buildings; and 5) all slgnage meet Code, Including the removal/redesign of any
existing nonconforming signs, through building permits prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the appl1cable site.
Presenter: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner.
, .
ACTION:
Approved 6:0.
C. NON-CONSENT AGENDA: (Items 1 ~6):
1. Case: FLD 02~02-03 - 18. Glendale Street Level Two Application
Applicant: Mr. Scott Ogilvie. .
Location: 0.1 O~acres located on the north side of Glendale Street, approximately 150,
feet west of Mandalay Avenue.
Atlas Page: 258A, .
. Zoning: MHDR, Medium High Density Residential District. ,
Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the required front (south) setback
from 25 feet to 1.6 feet (to deck) along Glendale Street and to reduce the side (west)
'setback from 10 feet 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.
Applicable Conditions: 1) All after-the-fact building permits for the deck be obtained
by August 18, 2002, and final inspections be obtained by October 31, 2002; 2) the
vertical obstruction of the dec,k over the existing reclaimed water meter be reduced
t'~~ 'through a cutback in size or relocation of the water meter 'at the owner's expense, as
t "~;.!t' acceptable to the City's Engineering Department, prior to the issuance of a building
, permit for the deck; 3) a four-foot wide concrete sidewalk be installed, with applicable
. permits in accordance with City specifications, within the right-of-way along the street
. frontage by October 31,'2002, subject to approval by the City Engineer; and 4) 'the deck
will be finished In a manner similar to the house (paint).
Presenter: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner.
ACTION:
Approved 5:2.
2. Case: TA 02-04-03 - Text Amendment Level Three Application
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Legal Department. .
Request: Amendment to the Community Development Code darifying procedures and
time frames related to development applications and appeal process to the Community
Development Board and Hearing Officer.
Presenter: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director.
ACTION:
Recommended approval - 7:0.
3.
Case: TA 02-04-04 - Text Amendment Level Three Application
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Legal Department.
Request: Amendment to the Community Development Code providing additional
standards for review of certain sign applications and to provide additional flexibility for
signs In the Downtown and Tourist Zoning Districts.
Presenter: Cyndl Tarapani, Planning Director.
<:J'
.',
Mcd0602.act
2
6/18102
'mh:{~;,/:'::I:;i.:;~',,~ ;;,'~ .:".:.~;,\;: ,,>,' :.'.;:, .;'.:;,'
_.' I
c '/;T .~~.
~ , . ~ .. .
, 1,\ '>"'"r.~ " ~ L ,I:, . ".
. ,. ,::' ~
C'~ "l.l:>jl:,;~~'!~~L.<;,:(~;::~',~,~,,,~\~~'l~~ ':~;1' ::fl~ ," ;:.,'
. : :(~, '.;.., t':,.,:.:".'.'..,::,.:<:~;,;"::\:,:."/':'
:.' . <
. '
;4,
.""
. i. .
"
ACTION:
Recommended approval -7:0.
6. Case: Z 02-03-02 Level Three Application
Applicant(s): Island Estates Neighborhood.
Location: Generally, residential properties located on land known as Island Estates,
.>G",,", lying northerly of the northerly right of way line of Memorial Causeway between the
. \:~} mainland and Clearwater Beach. .
" Request: Rezoning to the IENCOD,'lsland Estates Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District, as an overlay district in addition to the existing LMDR, Low Medium
D.ensity'Residentlal, MDR, Medium Density Residential, MHDR, Medium High Density
Residential, HDR, High Density Residential, I, Institutional and C, CommercIal Zoning ,
Districts for the Island Estates Neighborhood.
, Presenter: Gina L. 'Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager.
"'~)'
l '
'- '
4.
'Case: Island Estates Neighborhood Plan . Level Three Application
, Applicant(s): Island'Estates Neighborhood.
Location: <?enerally, residential properties located on land known as Island Estates,
lying northerly of the northerly rightwof-way line of Memorial Causeway between the
mainland and Clearwater Beach.
Request: Approval of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan pursuant to Section 4-608,
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District provisions, of the Community Development
Code.
Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Long Range Plan~ing Manager.
ACTION:
Approved 6:1.
5. . Case: TA 02-03-02 - Text Amendment Level Three Application
Applicant(s): Isla'nd Estates Neighborhood.
,', Request: Amendment to the Community Development Code creating the Island Estates
, ' . Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District regulations.
e Presenter: ,Gina L.' Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager.
ACTION:
Approved 4:3.
. ACTION:
. Approved 6:1. .
D. DIRECTOR'S 'TEMS: (Items 1-4)
1. Case: 'FL 01-06-25 (Time Extension for Osceola Bay Club)
Applicant: Joanne Fuchs, President, Matrix Development.
Request: One-year time 'extension for approval granted on August 21,2001
ACTION:
Approved 7:0.
2. ' Case: FL 01-0Sw23 (Time Extension for Dolphin Point)
Applicant: Roger Larson, Badger Properties LLP.
. ' Request: One-year time extension for approval granted on August 21,' 2001
, ACTION:
Approved 6:0.
3.
Courier Service
Mcd0602.act
3
6/18/02
. ,
{r~J~!J~~t~~~~k 1:;/;;: i;'{;'::,:';t'2: i~,:"::: >t~':~~i~<t:;'r:;'::"~:";(':l:~:~::'" ,:,':i<.,i!\,,:(~ ',1\("'" \,;'~'~ ..:::,{., ;,: :~',; ~ >:;:,;:::),:'~t:';';x;~~"~/;~/~:~'::,';,:,t:.~::::(~'2:.,:::.~:,:, ,:,,:: ,:' ,', :, ~,:': ',.:.;::.
."
H ,.
'.' ,
,;:; >"~,,,,:,' ;;,;;.~"\~ii::,i),~t~:f:
5f:.,....,:' ': ..,.14
. ','
,I, \
",<
, "
'.'
.'t'
.',
.i. ;
~ " '
....
" '
,
" '
..'
..j, '
'" ."'.
, ,
,I :
?" "
I,
.,,'
'Il:
\ .
'"
.\' ':
"
.'
;
"
~', '.:-
,'. '"
"
! ,c
<,
,',
.,
:;~' ;1\ I, '11
, , ~,
:;..';';<
;"'
~ ~ '...
I' .
\
{,'
..
'~ ~': ~o: . ~
I~. .
f.
','
',1
j
~
I
~l:j;'
'{~J:A~
'". '
..1
.ACTION:
"
. Consensus was to allow staff to Instruct courier service to leave
"meeting packets at des,fgnate~ addressesj nc:>> signature req,:,lred.
.:Remlnder - Financial Disclosure forms due to clerk by July 15, 2002
~. ,. " ," ".
.',
A.
E. . " ADJOU,RNMENT - 5:27 p.m.
..
...
. ,
~<~::/ .::; .1
!;~:d:,:'"
~/"-:':' ';:',> ',\ ,'"
'. n' '.. ;'<\ . '.f+' >' . :".
~]:)",
'i~.;:1; , ."
:Jj~; ': :
.. \'l~'" -
~~:W:::-;,.;'
?t~~':'. '~,
,,"',~ ", ~. , .
\;';~~
}~;:1~,: ':'
~~ (.~,:..' ~
, ...~ - . i <
~:).r{~>
~~/+~~'" "
)~}\\':<:' .
}~" l:"~/
"
;.
",
",
"
, .
','
"
~ ~ ;l
I ./
'. '
'.
"
, t~ < '\ " .j
,
!
"
i,
i'.,'
;,:
",
.'
,'.
. "
" .
~ t'
'"
:, .'
, ~',
... ~ ~
',,
'.
.'
, i
"
c'l.
,I
;.
"p
'.'
"
" 'c'
.., .
> ~. Cc
':1'
, ,
> ;:' c
. "
, ,
"
~ :
I,
"
'.' '
. I:
'. .
.,.
T: '
','
't.
,,1'1.
~ j.'
'.'
"
<,
.,
.' .
," .:
" '<'
"
"", .
;,
/, 10 '.
t. "
,I. '
" ,
'"
'"
",>,.
.' I.,
"
.L
I,"""
:) .
, .
"
.'
"
.'"
., .
, I ~
'"
" .
.'
"
,;
1'"-
\
:'
','
d'
'\ ',.
c', ;,
" ,.
.:.
','
,\,
:~{~/~~;<~: n.'>'
'Q~{::;: ,;,:,MCd~602.acf
}f{\;'" . ", ' .' ' ,
'~);;;/"..\..,:~', ".,.J~'.,,\ ,p ,~.;', ,.".;,,:, "',. : ,.. ,,, ',':"" ~:",,:, 'I'" .,;" '..., ,,,:' ."'1', ,<::". :I,'."e"" ..'" ,"'1,',. :::",'''';'':',,'!N:;'V[;
'l~J1::;a~~r;l'i/:\ '~'Jtl.r.;Jh'q~~'tL\f~\t\li':~~"l';"~l...:'q.f ..." '~"~1'\~~"/,]}~'1 ,II,~ ~~I\' ~t~/~;I'I,>O:"'~'f:"/.ptl ~'~.r{~I~,) r"'lof ,\". "b"~'J.'~\~}\;'i~..~..~~\-.-t].J~'~\^'~lli'1;;
{,'";.-, ?Wif.mWl''S;;.~:<' "Vi'itir/~l{\t<M*!Itn.'l1tlfh~:l ef!;:~ J,~(t).~t.~ ~: s \ :',iAhi'\\~~~\""'.'XliiJYif.I:';'>\',{ ::t~;r:l.;J#/lr. :t.1I<~~t~M,~tl r.~$~~~W:ll;i0-~ \t: .1~~l'\'f:t~,'i;A' '. ~ <1J..~'~!fli;':' \ \;"\.1, it.: hI It,\ ;;[,"I~ ;,f':~~\'l~~'I~htJj
"
"t,
4
6/18/02
".
.'~'I",;",,'...~.4.: ~:"~ I.,.,~~L :..,.: ".'~"'f:,',"4,..'. ..'4.,."/\: :....;';.'_.~I. "..~..',.. :.I:,...,I..::..+.~... :-.......:.I::~I.,'..:"'f:4 .':: : p. ,I .....:'.,.,..t'..:
-
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT' FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
L-"51 NM,iE- HltST :\'AME -MIUDI.E SAME
G ( eDees c..eeoe ~ 'D ~ AfCro,J
, AIUNG ADDRESS
1 ~~sD 9Af.J PeDiUl Si-
CilY
CL Gf4IZWArert.
TE OCCURRED
OJ-
NAME OF BOARD. COUNCI . COMMISSION. AUT 1I0RIn'. OR COMMITIEE
C e-wUuup IT &:vel.lt'vU fJAM
TUE BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR COMM1TIEE O~
WlflCU I SEll. VF. IS ^ UNIT OF:
lI/t'fTY 0 COUNTY 0 01llEII. LO('AI. AGtNC'!'
COUNTY
NAME OF l'OI.I1ICAI. SUlIOIVIS10N:
c'tr't fft" dt..~h1erL
MY rOSITION IS:
o ELECTIVE
~rOINTI\'E
WHO MUST FilE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appoinled or elected board,
council, commission, authority. or commillee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting connict of interest under Seclion 112.3143, Florida:Stittutes. ' . I, "'
\'Our responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of inlerest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
, ".
.' ,
., . -: :',.', . j I . I . '.' . . ~ .
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
.'^~~-,A. person hol~ing elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public oflice M UST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure
"",~~'hich inures ib'his sPedaJ.private gai':1' Eat:h.'electC{jor"appoin,~ed,local oflicer also, is prohibited from k~o.wingly ~oting on a measure
which inures to the special gain' of a principal.(ather than '\a' government agency) by' whom he is retained (inclu~ing the parent
organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he is retained); to the special private gain of a relative; or to the special
private gain of a business associate. CommiSSioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and
officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one.acre,one.vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's (ather, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in.
,law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on II business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (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 silUations described above. you must disclose the connicl:
PRIOR TO THE VOTe BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to lhe 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 (arm wilh the person responsible for"
recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must llbstain froin voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However.
you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt 10 inOuence Ihe 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 TUE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WLL BE TAKEN:
. You must complete nnd file this form (be(ore making any aUempt to inOuence the decision) with the person responsible (or
" j recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporale the form in the minutes.
':--. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The (orm must be read publicly at the next meeting lifter the form is filed.
CE FORM 8B. 10-91
"AGE I
.... .". .',,:" ., ""~,,,,'."".., .', .,~' ,"~ ..'~ .' .,:~...~,,"" ..;.j ..... ~J ..., .... ' " .: ...:, "4, I~..,"'. .:...'~L-.l "
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DEdslON EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION ATTHF. MEETINO:
· You mmt disclose orally the nature of your connict in the mCllsure before panicipating.
· '''(o~ ,mus€,co.mplcte)he'fornian.d ~Ic'it withih IS.days after the votc:oc~ur~ with t~e p~r50n responsible for recordil)gJ.he minutes of
the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provIded immediately to the...ather
members of the agency, and the form must be read publidy 01 the next meeting after the form is filed. , '.' ~
. . .... ~ J
.
. .. ~ . :
1\.~,"'...:.,.:\~~1~~ , ~.~ ..1
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, OkV ID 'f,. bU.:OfSl2.dH..EevG I hereby disclose that on . "'lr4 02...
. \ ~ \ 'J
ri9'""" _:
. ..
. (a) A ~sure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
~ured to my special private gain;
_ inured to the special gain of my business associate,
,_ inured to the special gain of my relative,
. ./jnured to the special gain of . 10 PrD E ..v1UM, r::/J c.
whom J am retained; ~r .
~ inured to the special gain of
" is the parent organilll.tion or subsidiary 'of a principal which has retained me.
. ,
(b) The measure before my.ogency and the nature of my, conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
. by
. which'
. ~ ,
, "
, ,
ltef ~ J:~t~(Lf8tUili'O 'C}k5r?~ Fi. 0;1-04-d1
F("'GXv;~e DG1I6Uif~ As?p~{J ~
1 teP 1:tJe. f.,c;. C (, t 6 fJr . err- WADe..T ~Uil1=' JX. I y.A. '1 L~ Pitxt EK.
1
'_o.-J. .
{"'j
>/. ......
. t f
,.' Co J7 1J CT
Date Filed ' .
",
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317 (I99I).A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAYBE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOW~:
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION. REDUCfIO J
SALAR Y. REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5,OOO.
CE FORM SB. 10.91 PAGE J
.............~'..(/~~..:;.~.<J~1...:~~\.,.;:~i., "I.":
\..,) . ,ro.' ..... '.:' ,.. :.~;: .' ~I' '.,; '.'.- ..........,., .~,' :" . ':'.~' ~. ~ r " .' ~" .:':I.~.L t', '... : ..,,\,.:.., ....,:..,.. ,....., ~....:..: . ,.,...,.....,
I
I
"
. IF YOU MA!<E NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DEcisION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
· You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before par1icipating.
.. Xo~ ,musi,complcte lhe form an.d filc'it wilhih IS,days aner the \'~ic oc!=urs With {PC p~rsan responsible for recordil)g Ihe minutes of
the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately 10 Ih~,~Iher
members of the agency, and the fOfm must be read publicly althe next meeting after the form is filed. ( ,
. . \ ' (
"1/' . of....: i ...
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I,DItv H)J:>. b U':06l2::SLGrqvG , hereby disclose thai on (p ~ 02...
~_:
(~sure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
- inured to my special private gain; .
--.:... inured to the Special gai~ ormy business associate,
-:-- inured to the special gain of my relative.
/lnured to the special gain of l.0 PrD 6 ..f1UM, r:", c
,whom J am retained; or
.- inured to the special gain of
, is ,the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency an~ the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
. by
, which
~ef J '):f..DcmLftTt'lAl11f) ~ 1?:tf.. Ft. 0 ;l' - 0 4 -l:fr
FU;~~l.-e DGYewf~ Ar;pUJ.Rr1PK} .
LteP 1:,..,,, l,S' Ct,tefJr ~ ~ADe"'T@Ut,'r,.x. I '/AI' (f7HP~6K.'
1 .
( ~,1: :
. f4tnt'O '0-
Date Filed .
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112,317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOW" ''1:
IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM 'OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION,REDUCfIO", 'J
'SALAR y, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENAL TV NOT TO EXCEED $'i,ooo.
, CE FORM 88.10.91
P"OE2
"."'''''''. ~l~~"'1I,~ C:>1,j- 'i'~';-<f.'\"'~~."..''''''; .,.... ~
.. . .. " c ., ..' "/d'.~. . ~. .
\. ~ ," :";', .'.::' ~~II"'''''' ':, <~."':"'" '::.'.~ ::~.~." .:....,i...li~.: .~. ,..,,1. . .....;.....' ~ :""""~ r:~"':':'1.';',';~,,:-,,/,,~,~.,~ :.:...:,:~:~..:.." ;~.\>'::.~. ',', i":~j':'~'l
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
~OUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NMAE~ HRSl NAME -MIDDLE NAME
MAZ{). ~bwAp-b
MAILING ADDRESS
'3'
NAME OF IlOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTlI,ORITY, R COM"'"fEE
C, .. bev~/a L 130l
TIlE BOARD. COUNCIL. MMISSION. AUTlI In' OR COMMlnEE 0'1
WUlCU I SER VE IS A UNIT OF:
by-
f:'L
COUNTY
Bn~
o COUNTY
o OHlER LOCAl. AGENCY
NAME Of roLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
Cj'ii 1'F
MY POSITION IS:
APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other 10calleveJ of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or commillee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting conniel orinterest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibililies under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close aUention to .the instructions on this form
before compleling the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143. FLORIDA STATUTES
,"'> A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or olher local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure
, . ",) '" hich inures to his special private gain. Each elected or appointed local officer also'is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure
.. which inures 10 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~peci!ll private gain of a relative; or to the special
private gain of 11 business associate. Commissioners of communilY redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and
. officers of independent special tax districls elected on a one-acre, onc-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, father-in-law. mother-in-
law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the ofljcer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property. or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the
corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abslaining from voting in the situations described above:, you must disclose the conmct:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nalUre: 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 lhis form with the person responsible: for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporale the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain froin voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participale in these mallers. However,
you must disclose the nature 0(. the connict before making nny allempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and
whether made by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY AITEMPT 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 allempt to innuence the decision) with the person responsible for
recording the minules of the meeting, who will incorporale the form in the minutes.
\.~ . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
CE FORM 88.10.91
I'AGF. I
~,.."'.......,.." :~.:.~~ :'-=: ..': -:...../....,::~ .,::.. ,'~' ,..... ",'. I., '.: ....,.. .~.. ~ ....~,~:::~.. ,.... .~.'. -'. ~~.', ~: ..::', ,'~':':. ..":~; ,", ..i.I~'. ~. ,',1 ,"',: '::.:: -.0.. .,..'.r
,,'
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DEdslON EXCEPT BY DlSCUSSION Al:' THE MEETING:
'-, Yo~ must disclose orally the nature of your connict in the measure before participating:
, , .
. , .. Yo~ mus,t COlJlplcle.the (arm and nle it, ~ithin l~ days after the vote occur~ wilh t,he perso':l tesponsibl~ for recording ~he.hi"utes of
. the meeting, who must incorporate the form In the minutes. A copy' of Ihe form" must be provided immediately to Ihe ~cr
mem~rs of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting afler the form is filed. ' . .(,
I: Edw"rrL&5vr
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
J V ,hereby disclose that on ";/8"'/ tJ "2-
~
.~
" .
(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 busi{less associate,
~. inured to the special gain of my relali\f; .
I\( inured to the special gain of /J.,c.d, ~ ,-
. whom I am retained; or
_ inured 10 the special gain of
is the parent organirntion or subsi,diary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conn,icting inte.rest in the measure is as follows:
,orvf~""+c.h / t."'''
, by
? which
-L ~ (~ FL.Oj-Ob .2.-3) ~ .
~~~r-~ J:rT~ . . .
j~ ~ (pj,,-;J"'~;r ~Ah~ j
...........
,.
!
\.
.'J......
'> '
Date Filed
#~"L
, ------
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISlONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112,317 (199]). A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DlSCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAYBE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOW~
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFlCE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTlOi ,
SALARY. REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5,OOO. '
CE FORM 80-10-91
, PAGE:
. ...~. ~ ,I ...' r. r' 4'~.-i ,.,.... 'j. ~
.'\,. '...
. ~. '/ ~. .. ...!
'."'''':'.. t..' ,...,.....':. ~:.~, :'.I~' :..'t:I,: .~..';.~..l'.;"" ...... ,.'.~~. .: ~ ",~..I.....~ ; ..:'.~.:. :.:.~ .'. '.::.:: >' ~'~.~::'.' .:.... .:. ': ".:..~';.I '~"...'.
IF YOU MAKE NO AITEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DEcisION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
· You must disclose orally the nature of your connict in the m&tsure before participating.
.. You must cOl}1plele. the form and file it within I S days after the vote occur~ with tpe person responsible for recording the minutes of
the mccting, who must jncorpornt~ the form in the minutes. A copy of the form" must be provided immediately to the Plher
members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. ' (
. I, Eit..r/ JI:;v/"
DiSCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
J V ,hereby disclose thai on ~;/8"1 1)"2-
t~';
(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 relati'1' '
~ inured to the special grlin of &d7 ~ r
whom 1 am retained; or ,
__ inured to thl'! special gain of
.' ,is. the parent organimtion or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my connicting interest in the measure is as follows:
f'rvf"""+~ I t.(". r
. , by
. which
7t.. ~ (~ ~'-O/~Ob -'2..3) ~
~ ~ ~r- =- J::i.J~ .
~ ~. ~ (PiP,-;-J",- ~;r ~-L j
(~.~>
Date Filed
~t19 h '-
( , ,
~
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317 (1991). A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLlOWI""~'
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTJON, REDUCflON
SALARY. REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED 55,000.
CE FORM 10.10.91
PAGE;
...............
.~". ~ t.b~.~~.>~. ~.. ." .. . >.. , .f.r.T..._.~".....-,..n ..
. .,..In~'h", '. '.., .', c,_' ..'<,.>:,..'I.....~"'"'~i'.
'~
. . j' ~
, ,
.r~
. ,.J
.< "'h~4'j
. .
:J
~l',~;~~.(: .
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
June 18, 2002
Present:
Ed Hooper
Edward Mazur, Jr.
'David Gildersleeve
Shirley Moran
Alex Plisko
John Doran
, Kathy Milam
Vice-Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Board Member - Voting
Absent:
Carlen A. Petersen
Chair
Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides
Cynthia Tarapani
Lisa Fiorce
Gina Clayton
Brenda Moses
Assistant City Attorney
Planning Director
. Assistant Planning Director
Long Range Planning Manager
Board Reporter
The Vice-Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall.' Member' .
Gildersleeve offered the Invocation and the Vice-Chair led the Pledge of Allegiance.
. , To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed In that order. '
A.
AP,PROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: May 21,2002
Member Mazur moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 21, 2002,
as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and
carried ,unanimously.
B. CONSENT AGENDA: 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. (Item 1)
1.
Case: FLD 02-04:-09 - 1120 N. Betty Lane (Master address; Request involves 1120 .
Fairburn Avenue, 1212 N. Betty Lane and 1215 N. Betty Lane) Level Two Application
Owners: Everybody's Tabernacle Inc. and Homeless Emergency Project Inc.
Applicant: Homeless Emergency Project Inc., (H.E.P.)
Representative: Barbara Green.
Location: 3.37 total acres located on the east and west sides of North Betty Lane,
between Cedar Street and. Engman Street (including 1.01 acres on the southwest corner
of'Engman Street and N. Betty Lane (Site A -1212 N. Betty Lane), 0.35 acres on the
east side of N. Betty Lane across from Engman Street (Site B -1215 N. Betty Lane) and
2.01 acres on the west side of N. Betty Lanel east side of Fairburn Avenue, between
Cedar Street and La Salle Street (Site C - 1120 Fairburn Avenue).
Atlas Page: 269B. .' .
Zoning: C, Commercial Dtstrict (Sites A and B) and II Institutional District (Site C).
Request: Flexible Development application, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project; with the following requests:
mcd0602
1
6/18/02
";'1."'. :',. "l~~~~; td.':::~-:
, .
'. .l',C;',
..,. ,
4- ~.t ~ ,
. ',r~. [.'. ~ .
. : '~>' '.~:. ~ ::.\, ::~.~,
. .
".. :.'~,',1,"(';,~~.~.; .... "
! '
~, , I .
, i . ' '" ,
',1
:.~..~ ; I' _' ~ . . -.." ',' . . ~ " I,L. . ~I. '.' .... '~'I ." ',J '. '\ . I,..;; ":'I.,~I" ",: r,' .:. .'.oj' .' .~". .' I' '.' .... :.' ,:; f '''.t. :,:.' / ~~"'~ :'. .' -~'.~'. .::: /., ' ...:. '.,:~:: ," :~"L.. .
''1
rl'
, ~i!:~1
'J
Site A - Permit the con"strucllon of a retail sales use (thrift store) in the Commercial
District with 1) a reduction in the front (east) setback along N. Betty Lane from 25 feet to
24 feet to pavement; 2) a reduction In the front (north) setback along Engman Street
from 25 feet to 19 feet to building and from 25 feet to ,15 feet to pavement: 3) a reduction
I~ the front (west) setback along Fairburn Avenue from 25 feet to 15 feet to building and
pavement; and 4) a reduction In required parking from 56 spaces to 47 spaces;
Site 87'" Permit a residential shelter in the Commercial District with 1) a reduction in
front (west) setback along N. Betty Lane from 25 feet to 15 feet to stairwell and from 25
feet to 23 feet to building; and 2) a reduction In the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to 10
feet to stairway ramping; and
Site C - Permit the expansion of an existing social service agency in the Institutional
District with 1) a reduction In the front (west) setback along Fairburn Avenue from 25 feet
to 8.64 feet to building and from -25 feet to four feet to pavement; and 2) a reduction in
required parking from 11 spaces to 6 spaces for the expanded floor area.
Proposed Use: The proposal includes a 13,975 square-foot retail thrift store (Site A).
, an a-unit residential shelter (Site B) and the addition of a two-story addition, a second.
floor addition and a second-floor connecting walkway between buildings for the H.E.P.
administrative offices and dental clinic (Site C). as part of a master plan for the site.
Presenter: Wayne Wells. Senior Planner.
The Development Review Committee reviewe"d the application and supporting materials"
on May 16; 2002. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application, as a Comprehensive lnfill Redevelopment Project, with the following requests:
Site A - Permit the construction of a retail sales use (thrift store) In the Commercial
District with 1) a reduction in the front (east) setback along N. Betty Lane from 25 feet to
24 feet to pavement; 2) a reduction in the front (north) setback along Engman Street
from 25 feet to 19 feet to building and from 25 feet t015 feet to pavement; 3) a reduction
"in the front (west) setback along Fairburn Avenue from 25 feet to 15 feet to building and
pavement; and 4) a reduction in required parking from 56 spacesto 47 spaces;
Site 8 - Permit a residential shelter in the Commercial District with 1) a reduction in
front (west) setback along N. Betty Lane from 25 feet to 15 feet to stairwell and from 25
feet to 23 feet to building; and 2) a reduction in the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to 10
feet to stailway ramping; and
Site C - Permit the expansion of an existing social service agency in the Institutional
District with 1) a reduction in the front (west) setback along Fairburn Avenue from 25 feet
to 8.64 feet to building and from 25 feet to four feet to pavement; and 2) a reduction in
required parking from 11 spaces to 6 spaces for the expanded floor area; under the
provisions of Section 2-704.8 and Section 2-1204.A, for the site generally located at
1120 North Betty Lane, with the following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as
a Comprehensive l"fill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.8 and Section 2-1204.A; 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
surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. "
Conditions of Approval: 1) any change in ownership on Site A (retail thrift store) be
evaluated for complementary operational characteristics and parking demand, and may require
approval by the Community Development Board (CD8); 2) the landscape plan for Site C be
amended to Include a hedge along the north and east sides of the parking lot in the northeast
, 'mcd0602
2
6/18/02
!~
(~'
.. .v:I
.~
corner of the property, to the satisfaction of Staff, prior to the Issuance of any permits for Site C
improvements; 3) any existing or future dumpsters on either Sites A. B or C be located.
designed. properly enclosed and constructed in accordance wlth City standards; 4) the color of
proposed ~ulldlngs be consistent with existing buildings and be approved by City staff prior to
the issuance of building permits for those buildings; and 5) all slgnage meet Code. including the
removal/redesign of any existing nonconforming signs, through building permits prior to the
Issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the applicable site.
Barbara Green. representative from Everybody's Tabernacle. thanked the CDS
(Community Development Board) for their contributions to the shelter In December 2001. She
said plans are to tear down a number of old buildings and replace them with eight new
apartments and a free dental clinic. The CDS will be invited to the Grand Opening.
.\
Member Moran moved to approve Item #81, Case FLD 02-04~09. 'The motion was duly
seconded and upon the vote being taken. Members Moran, Mazur, Pliska. Doran and Milam,
and Vice-ChaIr Hooper voted "aye"; Member Gildersleeve abstained. Motion carried.
C. NON-CONSENT AGENDA: (Items 1-6):
1.
Case: FLD 02-02-03 - 18 Glendale Street Level Two Application
Applicant: Mr. Scott Ogilvie. . .
Location: 0.10':acres located on the north side of Glendale Street, approximately 150
feet west of Mandalay Avenue.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning: MHDR, Medium High Density Residential District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the required front (south) setback
from 25 feet to 1.6 feet (to deck) along Glendale Street and to reduce the side (west) ,
setback from 10 feet to 1.9 feet (to deck), as a Residentlallnfill Project under the
provisions of Section 2-404. ,
Proposed Use: A 264 square foot wood deck as accessory to an existing dwelling.
" Applicable Conditions: 1) All after-the-fact building permits for the deck be obtained by
August 18. 2002., and final inspections be obtained by October 31. 2002; 2) the vertical
obstruction of the deck over the existing reclaimed water meter be reduced through a
cutback in size or relocation of the water meter at the owner's expense,.as acceptable to
the City's Engineering Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
deck; 3) a four-foot wide concrete sidewalk be installed, with applicable permits in
accordal')ce with City specifications, within the right-of-way along the street frontage by
October 31,2002. subject to approval by the City Engineer; and 4) the deck will be
finished in a manner similar to the house (paint).
Presenter:' Wayne Wells, Senior Planner.
This 0.1 Q-acre site is located on the north side of Glendale Street, ,approximately 150
feet west of Mandalay Avenue. The parcel is nonconforming with respect to lot area, lot width
and all setbacks. The site is comparable to many neighboring sites in terms of lot coverage and
limited open space. The site contains an existing one.story "old Florida~ beach-style house with
a detached garage, typical of the beach environment character. .
The immediate vicinIty includes a mix of detached and attached dwellings. Two mid.rise
apartment buildIngs are located to the south across Glendale Street with parking beneath.
Another mid-rise apartment building is located on the west end of Glendale Street, also with
parking beneath. Single-famlly (detached) houses and other small attached dwellings otherwise
mcd0602
3
6/18/02
.',<".\!. .
, ,
~ ' .' I
'< .
~
/;,.)
Ie .
...,....>~/~.
,~
dominate the surrounding area. The majority of these structures are located on relatively, small
lots.
The neighborhood is identified in a special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design1
as the 1I0ld Floridall district. The Plan identifies this area as a primarily residential neighborhood
with limited retail uses that serve local needs. It recommends the redevelopment of the area
with single-family dwellings and townhouses. Beach by Design acknowledges that a lack of
parking In this area may hinder revitalization.
The proposal includes a wood deck addition to the south side of the house at the same
elevation as the dwelling's finished floor. The wood deck replaces a cement and block patio of
greater dimensions than the wood deck, allowing for a slight increase in the site's open space. e
The wood deck is 1.6 feet from the front (south) property line and 1.9 feet from the side (west)
property line. The dwelling itself is located 14.1 feet from the front property line. Many of the
e residential units west of Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street have
outdoor patios with patio furniture in the front yard as "informal" living or recreational spaces.
Most of the residential units are built close to or at the front property line. The wood deck is
compatible with the character of the neighborhood; and furthers the outdoor living space
concept of these'beach-:style homes.
While the survey indicates the deck is 1.6 feet from the front (south) property line, the
deck is physically situated over a reclaimed water meter. Vertical obstructions impeding City
access to. the meter are not permitted. The meter cannot be moved closer to the roadway, as
the meter and hose bib would represent a tripping hazard to pedestrians. A four-foot wide
sidewalk is required to be constructed by the applicant along the site frontage within the right~of-
way per City standards. Given these circumstances, either the deck must be cut back1
removing a cantilevered portion that is over the meter of approximately two to 2.5 feet, or the
water meter must be relocated at the owner's expense to a location acceptable to the City.
Since the deck has already been constructed, all after-the~fact building permits will need to be
obtained and all work completed within set time frames.
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 front (south) setback from 25 feet to 1.6 feet (to
deck) ,along Glendale Street and to reduce the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 1.9 feet (to
deck)1 as a Residentiallnfill Project at 18 Glendale Street, with the following bases and
conditions:
. ,Bases for Approvat': 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as
a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-404.F; 2) the proposal is in
, compliance with other standards in the Code, including the General Applicability Criteria of
Section 3~913; and 3) the proposal is compatible and consistent with the surrounding area. '
Conditions of Approval: 1) All after-the.fact building permits for the deck be obtained by
August 18, 2002, and final inspections be obtained by October 31,2002; 2) the vertical
obstruction of the deck over the existing reclaimed water meter be reduced through a cutback in
size or relocation of the water meter at the owner's expense, as acceptable to the City's
Engineering Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the deck; and 3) a four-
foot wide concrete sidewalk be installed, with applicable permits in accordance with City
specifications, within the right-of-way along the street frontage by October 31,2002.
mcd0602
4
6/18/02
,~ ; .'.'
.', ".1"
~
Senior Planner Wayne Wells said two letters were received in opposlUon to this
application (one opposing the deck; one opposing the sidewalk). In response to a questlon, Mr.
Wells said the City generally uses concrete for sidewalks because of cost and maintenance
factors. Pavers tend to become uneven and cause safety hazards. He said there are many
sites in this area with landscaping instead of sidewalks. Staff will consult with the Engineering
Department regarding bricks and pavers for sidewalks. Mr. Wells said there is one sidewalk at
the end of this street. and a continuous sidewalk from Mandalay to the beach on the south side
of Glendale. Sroken asphalt can be found toward Mandalay Avenue.
Mr. Scott Ogilvie, applicant, said he would use pavers or whatever the City prefers for
the sidewalk.
Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce said sidewalks were discussed at the DRC
(Development Review Committee) level. The Traffic Operations D'epartment requested this
applicant provide a sidewalk because the area is very pedestrian oriented.
Concern was expressed that the applicant had already made some improvements
without permits and inspections. It was requested that future plans be submitted prior to the
, CDS's approval as this site is in a flood zone.
Mr. Wells said prior to construction of this deck, the site had a concrete patio that.
covered even more of the lot. Ms. Fierce said this area is informal with many open recreation
,areas. A variety of designs could be applied to this property. '
Ms. Tarapani said the property owner was issued a stop work order during the
/"U~) construction of the deck. It was suggested the deck be painted to match the colors of the
'.",.' house. It was commented that although there are sidewalks on both sides of the street on
Mandalay, people don't use them; they walk on the street. It was felt that the applicant's design
lacks landscaping and character, and the deck is a visual obstruction. Ms. Tarapani said the
type of deck the applicant has chosen provides an open feeling.
Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said the applicant cannot get a building' permit today
as he doesn't meet the setback requirements. If the COB approves this application, the
applicant will be required to submit to the permitting process. In response to a question, Ms.
Tarapanl said there are many nonconforming properties In this area. The area is intensely
developed with fairly small lots. The ISR is high which allows up to 90% of lots at the beach to
be "covered".
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item # C 1, Case FLD 02-02-03, including staff's
. recommended conditions, amending Condition #3 to state 11Th at a four foot wide concrete
sidewalk be installed, with applicable permits in accordance with City specifications, within the
right-of-way along the street frontage by October 31, 2002, subject to approval by the City
Engineer", and that Condition #4 be added to read "The deck will be finished in a manner similar
to the house (paint)". The motion was duly seconded.
Mr. Ogilvie said this project is a long-term project. He said he stopped work when he
received the stop work order. The entire street was sand, paving blocks, and cement, which
extended all the way to the road. He removed those materials to make room for green space.
He said he is willing to install a sidewalk if the City feels it is necessary.
.J
.mcd0602
5
6/18/02
", \..;,,-,,,,
. t .. ~ l
'(
'"
, , '
.1 .\.' .~"....:L L
. .: ~ I , .t. I
, ,
\" .~ ~ I ~ l III ".' c ~ .
, , .
:,. ~L"l..f"~!~" ~
" ,
,,".
> . . .' ~
.'
. l 'L'~" .,
.,.
"~
,',
Upon the vote being taken, Members Gildersleeve, Mazur, Moran, and Doran, and Vice-
Chair Hooper voted "aye"; Members Plisko and Milam voted "nay". Motion carried.
In response to a question, Ms. ,Tarapani said the Community Response Team patrols
neighborhoods on weekdays and weekends in an effort to educate citizens about the need for
permits and inspections. It was suggested that staff contact C-View TV to request they Include
that information In their programming on a regular basis.
2.
Case: TA 02-04-03 - Text Amendment Level Three Application
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning and Legal Departments.
Request: Amendment to the Community Development Code clarifying procedures and
time frames related to development applications and .appeal process to the Community
Development Board and Hearing Officer.
Presente,r: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director.
Article 4 of the Community Development Code provides for development review and other
procedures, Including the review of decisions involving sign permits. In a recent federal lawsuit,
Granite State Outdoor Advertisino Co. v. City of Clearwater. et ai, a Georgia corporation alleged
that the Code's review procedures involve an unconstitutional"prior restraint" on free speech.
Generally, in instances where there are First Amendment (free speech) concerns, an ordinance
requiring pre-approval should contain adequate viewpoint-neutral standards to guide an official's
deci~ion and render that de~ision subject to effective judicial review.
The City maintains (a) that the Code's current provisions do not involve any review or prior
approval of the "viewpoint" that may be expressed by a sign, and (b) that the Code does not involve
,(.tio\) any "prior restraint" on free speech for the reasons expressed a recent United States Supreme
i..1<l-i' Court decision, Thomas v. Chicaao Park District; 534 U.S. 316, 151 L.Ed.2d 783 (January 15,
2002). The City believes, however, that it would be in the public interest to add provisions to Article
,4 of the Community Development Code to clarify the circumstances under which an application for
development approval shall be deemed denied, time frames for review of applications and
clarification of the appeal process.
The following sections of the Community Development Code are proposed to be
amended as follows:
o
Section 4-202 - Applications for development approval (paoe 3 of Ordinance)
, Section 4-202.C.2 and C.3 specifies that any application for development approval must
be determined to be legally sufficient. Proposed Ordinance No. 6998-02 modifies these
provisions to clarify that if an application Is determined to be legally insufficient, the notification
of Insufficiency issued by the Planning Department is an administrative decision that may be
, appealed pursuant to Section 4-501.A.2. At present. Code Section 4-501.A.2 specifies that a
decision of an administrative official may be appealed.
Section 4-20'7 - Time Frames for Review of Application (paoes 4~5 of Ordinance).
, Proposed Ordinance No. 6998~02 creates a new section (4-207) that requires the
preparation of an annual schedule for the review of flexible standard and flexible development
applications. The schedule must incorporate and comply with the time frames for review
established in the Code and the regular meetings before those administrative bodies that review
mcd0602
6
6/18/02
. ~. . . :. '," . .. t' '..'. I
.:, ' ~
. . . .' ~ .
I,"
~
, "
these applications. This proposed amendment codifies policy under which the Planning
Department has been operating since the new code went into effect In 1999.
This proposed new section also expressly provides that those time frames for review may be
extended by mutual agreement of the applicant and the City. It also clarifies that an application
shall be deemed denied and subject to appeal, as set forth In Section 4-501, if there is a failure to
act by administrative officials or administrative bodies other than the City Commission within the
applicable time limits.
Section 4-302 - Staff Review. Report and Recommendation (oaoes 5-6 of Ordinance)
Sections 4-302.A. and B are being modified to make clear that the time limits set forth for
making a decision on a minimum standard and flexible standard development are "working"
days and that the Community Development Coordinator may deny applications for failure to
meet applicable requirements and standards. The existing provision addresses applications as
being approved or approved with conditions.
" "
Section 4-404 - Community Development Board Decision (oaqes 5-6 of Ordinance)
An amendment is proposed to Section 4-404 that clarifies that the time limit for review and
the public hearing by the Community Development Board shall occur within thirty days after the
Community Development Coordinator has determined an application complete and sufficient. This
time frar)1e is currently reflected in the diagram provided for Level Two reviews on page CD4: 17 of
the Code. The amendment also provides that a decision has to be rendered within seventy days
" after the initial hearing; however, an extension of those time frames may occur if the Board and the
C~) applicant both agree to an extension.
Section 4-501. 504 and 505 - Appeals (oaoes 6 - 7 of Ordinance)
Revisio'ns are proposed to the appeal provisions of the Community Development Code in
order to make clear that the Community Development Board and the hearing officer, as the case
may be, have the authority to hear appeals whenever a denial is deemed to have occurred as a
result of the failure of an administrative official or body to act, other than the City Commission. The
proposed ordinance further clarifies in the Appeals Section that each decision-maker must act
within prescribed time limits.
Proposed modifications to Section 4~504, which addresses appeals to the Community
Development Board, codify the actual practice of scheduling appeal hearings before the Board. ,It
also provides additional specificity for the time limits for hearings to be concluded and decisions to
be made. Furthermore, it expressly provides for extensions by mutual consent. Proposed
amendments to Section 4-505 are similar in that they codify and clarify the time frames within which
appeal hearings are scheduled before a hearing officer.
, These changes are intended to clarify or codify current practices and should be severable in
the event that any of the provisions are challenged in court.
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code.
They further clarify existing development review procedures and the appeal process and codify
existing practices and procedures used by the Planning Department since the new code went
into effect In 1999.
i.J
mcd0602
7
6/18/02
", /.1", 1'1'~ "'f"'}l,'. >~, ~"".'
<., " :.::, i
, ",
~ . The Planning and Legal Departments recommend approval of Ordinance No. 69,98-02,
which makes revisions to the Community Development Code. .
<~
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapanl said staff considered adding language that
provides for appeals to the City Manager instead of the COB. Staff felt It best for the CDS to
review those appeals and make recommendations to the City Commission first.
Member Gildersleeve moved approval of Item C2, Case TA 02-04-03. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3.
Case: TA 02-04-04 - Text Amendment Level Three Application
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning and Legal Departments.
Request: Amendment to the Community Development Code providing additional
standards for review of certain sign applications and to provide additional flexibility for
signs in the Downtown and Tourist Zoning Districts.
Presenter: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director.
Ordinance No. 6997-02 proposes to make revisions to the following sections of the City's
sign regulations.
A. Section 3-1803 - Prohibited Signs (pages 2-3 of Ordinance)
The Clearwater,Community Development Code prohibits certain sign types, but provides a
limited exception for governmental and public purpose signs approved by the city manager or city
commission that are for special events, that are limited In time, and that are limited in frequency
(Section 3-1803(8)]. The Code also prohibits sandwich board signs, except In the Downtown
, District [5ectlon3-1803(1)]; prohibits signs located on publicly owned land or easements or inside
, street rights-of-way, but provides for various exceptions including an exception for signs on public
property which are required or erected by permission of the City Manager or City Commission,
which signs have in practice been limited to signs providing for public notice of public meetings and
special events open to the public (Section 3-1 B03(L)]. '
mcdOG02
8
6/18/02
;Et':.I'~ ~:.I ',.\1., ::~>: '~'T" ~.,.l<; .
, ,'.>
, <
~ <"' > I I
f ; ~ . .' ~ ' .' ~ :, '.
Code Section 3~1806.B.5 allows changeable copy signs if they are located on public
property in a non~residential district and serve a significant public purpose. 'Proposed Ordinance
No. 6997~02 identifies more specifically the criteria to be used in determining whether such sign
(~:J permit should be granted. '
Section 8~102 - Definitions'
;'\
~
',",
,
,',
, ..
'.'1'
....P
_....\
, ,
"
, '.
'"
, "
: '
~ j ".
, '
. "
, .
, '
:. .
, '
-, ,.
1"/
~ ;
~', '"
-.,
':"1
~. ~
,. ,
.'c;",
'.'
" ,
"
(::,
:I.~.~~
l"',~ l
. ','~
.~~ .~J.
'.." ~
....'..
: I' ~.
-,
".11,.
, .
, "
/~;~I
" '
t.,:.
, "
.. '
w';,",
"
'i ".. ~
'.,;',',
.,
~ '.
. . ~.
;~.' I' ,
'.'1': I
.~ . I
., .
. "
., '
,. ':t.
j" '"
:.'...,';
.~
...."
,",.
. ':
',(
'.~ I
, I 1~
'11, ,
. ,,~, '...:
I I". ~
t,
Proposed Ordinance No. 6997 ~02 amends these three subsections by deleting the specifics
of the exception and referring to provisions regulating temporary signs and changeable copy signs
found under Sections 3~1805 and 3-1806.
Section 3~1805 ,- SiQns Permitted Without a Permit (pages 3~5 of Ordinance)
Proposed Ordinance No. 6997-02 makes amendments to temporary and other signs that do
not require permits.
At present, the Code permits certain temporary signs on a case by case basis without
development review, if the temporary signs are .for (a) a special event, and/or (b) a public purpose,
and further provides that the Community Development Coordinator shall approve the sign type, the
sign size, the sign design, and the length of display [Section 3-1805(C)(2)]. The proposed
amendment to Section 3M1805.C identifies more specifically the criteria to be used in determining
whether or not the following signs should be approved: temporary special events and/or public
purpose sighs; balloons, cold air inflatables, streamersj and pennants as governmental and public
purpose signs; and signs on publicly owned land or easements or inside street rights-ot-way. The
proposed ordinance also specifies that the number of sandwich board signs is limited to two per lot
in the Downtown' District.
Section 3-1806 - Permitted Slons Requiring Development Review
Proposed Ordinance No. 6997-02 provides a definition of public purpose sign to clarify
what types of uses qualify for a public purpose sign.
Section 3-1807 - Permitted Siqnaoe - Comprehensive Siqn Program
Amendments are proposed to Sections 3~1807.B. t 3~1807.C,2 and CA to allow signage
within the Downtown and Tourist zoning districts to be eligible for the comprehensive sign program.
The proposed ordinance limits potential sign height of freestanding signs in these districts to a
maximum of six (6) feet, whereas they are permitted up to four (4) feet as of right. The
amendments also require that signs approved through the comprehensive sign program be
consistent with Beach by Design, the Downtown Redevelopment Plan or any other applicable
special area plan.
All of these above proposed amendments should be the subject of severability in the event
that there are any future legal challenges.
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code,
They more s'peclfically identify the criteria for granting approval of temporary signs and
changeable ,copy signs. The proposed amendments also allow greater flexibility In th~
Downtown and Tourist Districts by allowing the comprehensive sign program to be used in
these Districts. .
mcd0602
9
6/18/02 .
'. .' .'. . :,~,':, '..'
, 'f~',"'. ",' :" ' ,"
, I
" .'
'.~ ;.. ." ~ ., ,~ .~
l ..,". ~. . ~.'.'
~
(i'^,,'h ,
\..,,:)
l ;.'~
, '-}
.'u'
. ,.
. The Planning and Legal Departments recommend approval of Ordinance No. 6997-02,
which makes revisions to the sign provisions of the Community Development Code.
. It was noted that one letter was received requesting that the maximum height of
freestanding monument sIgns be eight square feet versus staffs recommended six feet, in the'
Downtown District. One person from that same firm spoke reiterating the request.
. Ms. Tarapani said instead of requesti~g 14-foot high signs, applicants with multiple
frontages could theoretically have two signs. Staff feels that six-foot high signs are in scale with
people, rather than with people in cars. It was remarked that the four-foot signs are more
aesthetically pleasing.
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item C-3, Case TA 02-04-04. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
4.
Case: , Island Estates Neighborhood Plan Level Three Application .
Appllcant(s): Island Estates Neighborhood. .
Location: Generally, residential properties located on land known as Island Estates,
lying northerly of the northerly right-of-way line of Memorial Causeway between the
mainland and Clearwater Beach. .
Request: Approval of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan pursuant to Section 4-608,
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District provisions, of the Community Development
Code.
Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager.
Staff presented Items #C4, #CS; and #C6 simultaneously.
Long Range Planning Manager Gina Clayton commended former City employee Lochen
. Wood for,her efforts regarding the Island Estates NCOD (Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District).
When the City of Clearwater adopted its new Community Development Code in 1999, a
new planning tool known as the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) was
established. The purpose of the NCOD is to ensure that redevelopment activities and infill in
existing stable neighborhoods are consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood.
The NCOD has a list of nine criteria that neighborhoods must meet in order to be eligible for the
designation. Once it has been determined that a neighborhood complies with the criteria,
including that owners of sixty percent (60%) of the re.al property within the neighborhood agree
to pursue the NCOD, the process begins. The neighborhood, in conjunction with City staff,
must prepare a special area plan that includes goals and objectives. In addition, a
neighborhood may develop a unique set of development standards that are consistent with the
neighborhood plan and appropriate to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the
neighborhood. Once the City Commission approves the plan, the NCOD is to be applied to the
zoning atlas and the development standards of the NCOD added to the Community
. Development Code..
The purpose of the neighborhood plan Is to provide a framework for neighborhood
enhancement, change, and maintenance. It wlll serve as an official document for Island Estates
and the City of Clearwater. It should be used to coordinate public and private initiatives, as well
mcd0602
10
6/18/02
:::~}'f.~I.'I<~\':~"": .~'~.:<.ll':::'''I~ ~:':':'.'j. '. .," .oC
" ., I
" <.;"l..
" '
~. > c .< . .
.' H ~ .
. '. \
I. .,
. I. _ ~
, ,
, ..,
.~
as to provide the basis for the implementation of development standards unique to the
neighborhood.
The Island Estates neighborhood is located on the west side of the City, between
Clearwater Beach and downtown Clearwater. It Is approximately 210 acres in area. Island
Estates is a unique neighborhood within the City of Clearwater in that almost every property is
on the waterfront. The neighborhood consists of a series of islands and peninsulas that were
created through a dredge and fill process. The land for the neighborhood was filled during the
1950s and 1960s. According to Pinellas County plat books, the island was platted for
development between 1957 and 1969. With only one ingress/egress, which is located on the
Memorial Causeway, the neighborhood is geographically Isolated from the rest of the City. Most
of the neighborhood has residential land use, ranging from large single-family homes to multi-
story, multi-unit condominiums:
Island Estates is ~he second,neighborhood to use the NeOD. The neighborhood
became interested in the NeOD because its members want to maintain the existing character
and established standards of the neighborhood. They were concerned that lack of compliance
with various deed restrictions, lack of compliance with existing City code and the potential for
flexibility from existing standards would change the character of the neighborhood. They
worried that such lack of .compliance could ultimately lead to a decline In property values and
neighborhood stability. The neighborhood believes that the implementation of the NCOD will .
achieve its objective to keep Island Estates a strong and viable neighborhood.
In December 2000, a group of Island Estates citizens presented petitions of approval
from property owners to the City Planning Department to pursue an overlay district. The petition
/"~\ stated, "Yes, I, the ,undersigned, petition the City of Clearwater to initiate the process to '
'<..,,"NJ establish Island Estates as a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District." .
On April 19, 2001, the Island Estates neighborhood was approved by the City
Commission to proceed with planning for an overlay district. When the Island Estates NCOD
was initially proposed, it was to include only the single~family areas (zoned Low Medium Density
Residential) of the neighborhood. There were 574 properties in the proposed overlay district.
Owners from 367 separate properties signed and returned petitions. Once these petitions from
sixty-four percent (64%) of the property owners were received, the City Commission initiated the
planning process, which included public meetings and the establishment of a citizen study
committee. The study committee is composed of eleven (11) residents who committed much
time, energy and expertise to the project. '
From the first few study committee meetings, it was determined that the overlay district
should include all residential properties (single-family and multi-family) in the neighborhood as
well as S1. Brendan's Church. In order to do thisl the study committee proposed to expand the
NCOD by 51 additional multi-family residential properties for a total of 625 properties. These
,include properties ranging from duplexes to multi-storied condominiums. Petitions of approval
, were received from 395, or sixty-three percent (63%), of these property owners. This expansion
added properties in the Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, High
Density Residential, Institutional and Commercial zoning districts. The boundary expansion was
p~esented to the City Commission on September 6,2001, and approved unanimously.
Between ,September 2001 and ~ebruary 2002, a total of seven (7) public meetings with
the neighborhood were held. All the neighborhood planning meetings were held at 51. '
, Brendan's Church on Dory Passage in Island Estates.
\~~,
, mcd0602
11
6/18/02
~ Notice was gIven to all Island Estates properties through a letter describing the NCOD
process'and inviting all property owners to atte!1d the meetings. The dates and times of each
meeting were included in the notice. In addition, the public was noticed through the City Clerk's
department, on t~e City web page and on an electronic signboard placed on Island Way several
days prior to each meeting.
The first meeting included an overview of the NCOD and a brainstorming session for
neighborhood strengths and weaknesses. At the second meeting the strengths and
weaknesses from the first meeting were reviewed, discussed in small groups, and then ranked
to determine the neighborhood's priorities. At the third meeting, the residents broke into small
groups and discllssed goals and objectives that could help emphasize the strengths and
am'ellorate the weaknesses.
, .
, The fourth meeting included a presentation of general development standards and a
ranking exercise for those standards. This ranking exercise proved to be very important to the
. development of the plan. From the results, the more comprehensive list of objectives and
development regulations was established. At the fifth meeting, the proposed development
standards were compared to the current City code and the neighborhood deed restrictions. The
sixth meeting consisted of a presentation of the preliminary text of the neighborhood plan,
including the development regulations. The residents provided comments that were
incorporated Into the final draft. At the seventh meeting, the plan was reviewed for the final time
before being submitted for approval to the City Commission. In addition, the procedure arid
schedule for.voting on proposed development standards were announced.
/:p;;w, The Island Estates Neighborhood Plan contains an Introduction (pp. 1~12) describing the
\;r::'1 NCOD, the Island Estates planning process, a description of the neighborhood, and a
description of the Island Estates Civic Association. The next section of the plan (pp. 13-14)
delineates the strengths and weaknesses identified by Island Estates citizens. The top
strengths for the neighborhood include the flexibility of not being in an overlay district, access to
reclaimed water, well~maintained property, and access to good services such as grocery, gas
station, store; bank and park. Other strengths that emerged as significant are the Civic
Association, the Clearwater Marine Aquarium, the several annual neighborhood events, and
waterfront accessIbility. Most people enjoy the boating lifestyle, the water views, and the higher
property values .associated with waterfront property.
In addition to strengths, the neighbors identified the aspects of Island Estates that could
use improvement. Despite that the neighbors are satisfied with the general upkeep and
appearance of the community, most of these address specific issues that detract from the
appearance of the area. These include the presence of aboveground power lines, presence of
gravel yards, lack of yard maintenance, parking issues, and building setbacks. Other
weaknesses include lack of water flow through the canals, contaminants being dumped into the
canals, speeding vehicles on neighborhood streets, and variations from existing City codes.
The third section of the Neighborhood Plan describes neighborhood Goals and
Objectives in seven categories (pp. 17- 22): Neighborhood Amenities, Waterfront and Canals,
Traffic and Street Use, Neighborhood Appearance and Maintenance, Character of .
Redevelopment, Utilities and Infrastructure, and Minimum Rental Periods. The goals for these
categories are listed below. The Objectives generally describe ways that the goals may be
reached in the neighborhood.
;, ..a
"'WI
mcd0602
12
6/18/02
.. .~,
()
\-...,1)
'I
,
...."t. <' I.
'".\ .'
, , .
. The Neighborhood Amenities goal Is to continue to enhance the neighborhood amenities
that make Island Estates appealing 'and attractive to its residents, property owners and
businesses. The Waterfront and Canals goal is to maintain safety, views, access, and water.
quality along the Island Estates waterfront. The Traffic and Street Use goal is to maintain '
pedestrian and vehicular safety, in all public rights-of-way on Island Estates. The Neighborhood
Appearance and Maintenance goal is to maintain, improve, and promote high standards of
property maintenance on public and private property on Island Estates in order to ensure an
attractive neighborhood appearance. The Character of Redevelopment goal is to ensure that
development and redevelopment is compatible with the character and scale of surrounding
properties to promote high property values, a good quality of life, and consistent and appealing ,
appearances throughout the neighborhood. The Utilities and Infrastructure goal is to maintain
and improve existing public utilities In order to protect neighborhood aesthetics and safety. The
. M.inimum Rental Periods goal is to minimize the disruption associated with short-term rentals in
the single-family areas of Island Estates.
The fourth section of the plan describes the implementation of the plan through'
development standards, neighborhood requirements, and other strategies. A set of
development standards has been developed that will help implement the goals and objectives of
this plan. The standards include regulations for permitted uses, minimum lot size, building
'setbacks, building height, parking on private property, fences, screening, landscaping, minimum
. rental period, outdoor storage, and deviations from these standards.
Beside development regulations, the plan includes neighborhood activities that will help
further the goals and objectives. The Island Estates Civic Association (lECA) has volunteered
to take responsibility for this aspect of plan implementation. They propose to educate the
neighbors about the NCOD, the plan and the regulations and they propose to provide the initial
means of enforcement for the development regulations.
The Community Development Board is reviewing the plan in its capacity as the Local
Planning Agency (LPA). The Board should make a recommendation regarding the Plan to the
. City Commission. .
The Island Estates Neighborhood Plan furthers Goal 2 of the Clearwater Comprehensive , .
Plan, which states that "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." The
Plan is innovative in the sense that it promotes amendments to the Community Development
Code that are specifically geared to protecting the unique characteristics of the Island Estates
neighborhood. . The Plan provides the neighborhood, as well as the City, strategies for ensuring
neighborhood preservation and appropriate redevelopment.
The Island Estates Neighborhood Plan is evidence of the neighborhood's desire to
maintain existing neighborhood standards and quality of life. It provides a framework for
neighborhood enhancement and charges and will serve as an official document of the
neighborhood and the City. This special area plan will be used to coordinate public and private
. initiatives, as well as provide the basis for the implementation of the Island Estates
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The Island Estates Neighborhood Plan is also
consistent with the Clearwater Compre~ensive Plan.
The Planning Department recommends approval of Resolution No. 02-23 that adopts the
Island Estates Neighborhood Plan. ' '
~cdO'602
13
6/18/02
, ~~. .'. J ',~ It,<\..: ".~ >1" . . i"I.:> r' lfc:,',",~+ '.:'t. .~I,' c:.
... ' r /, .:{:. ~, '.
::'lc' ...~'o;.')'.:f}-,~t.'\'>':"r.~'1
. ",
. I .1
.\"-:-:
;, ""
~
(P.)
, . ~ I
.:' Ir~'
'. ':""i
'-'
.' "
,-
, "
., \ ( . ~ > ~"
. .!
5.
Case: TA 02-03-02 - Text Amendment Level Three Application
Applicant(s): Island Estates Neighborhood. _.
Request: Amendment to the Community Development Code creating the Island Estates
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District regulations.
Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager. .
, The Items proposed in the Neighborhood Plan for development regulation were put to a
vote in the neighborhood. One owner for each real property in the NCOD boundary was mailed
a ballot on March 13t 2002. The ballots were to be returned to the Planning Department or
postmarked by April 5, 2002. Nearly 66% of the ballots were returned (421 returned out of 641
mailed.) On April 25t 2002 the ballots were tallied at City Hall.
.Proposed Ordinance No.,6981-02 creates the Island Estates Neighborhood
, Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD), which contains amendments that are specific to the
:Island Estates neighborhood. Ballot items that received at least 51% of the received votes in
favor of the regulation are included in the attached ordinance. Below please find a description
of each proposed amendment.
, .
1. Purposet Jurisdictional Boundaries and Relationship to Underlying Districts.
The general purpose of the proposed IENCOD is to ensure that infill and redevelopment
activities-are consistent with the protection of the existing established character of Island
Estates and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. All of the
proposed development standards are intended to preserve the unique characteristics of the
Island Estates neighborhood and maintain its stability.
Tile proposed IENCOD will govern most of the property located on land known as Island
Estates, lying northerly of the northerly right of way line of Memorial Causeway between the
mainland and Clearwater Beach.
The proposed IENCOD provides regulations in addition to those required by the exi,sting
zoning districts. Any issue that is not addressed by this overlay district will be governed by
the remaining provisions of the Community Development Code. The overlay district is not
, intended to totally replace the existing districts nor the balance of the Code. There are a
limited number of provisions unique for Island Estates and all other development regulations
. in the Code ~H1 still apply to the neighborhood. '
2. Permitted Uses and Dimensional Standards in the Island Estates Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District.
The permitted uses and dimensional requirements of the proposed IENCOD are organized
in the same format as used in all of the other zoning districts. Allowable uses are permitted
as minimum development. flexible standard development and/or flexible development.
Existing legally permitted uses and structures generally will be grandfathered when the
following development regulations are enacted.
, .
. A. Permitted Uses (pg. 3 of ordinance)
mcd0602
14
6/18/02
.',
"
, ,
.1
~
10
.el
In single-family areas zoned LMDRIIENCOD. permitted uses shall be restricted to single-
family dwellings (including community residential homes with up to 6 residents) and
infrastructure/utility installations. In multi-family areas zoned MDR/IENCOD,
MHDR/IENCOD,. HDR/IENCOD, and C/IENCOD and institutional areas zoned I/JENCOD
permitted uses are governed by the underlying districts instead of the IENCOD.
The proposed use requirements of the IENCOD implement the following goals and
'objeCtives of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan.
Objective b: Enforce existing zoning in order to prevent commercial uses of
Goal 4 residential areas.
Goal 5: To ensure that development and redevelopment is compatible with the
, character and scale of surrounding properties to promote high property
values, a good quality of life, and. consistent and appealing appearances
throughout the neighborhood.
Objective d: Preserve single-family character in the Low Medium Density Residential
areas by prohibiting the rezoning of this property to multi-family use.
Objective e; Development and redevelopment must be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Island Estates Neighborh~od Plan.
B. Minimum Lot Size (pg. 3 of ordinance)
In single-family areas zoned LMDR/IENCOD, the minimum lot size shall be 7,500 square
feet, as opposed to 5,000 square feet required in the current regulations for LMDR districts. In
multi-family areas zoned MDRlIENCOD, MHDR/JENCOD, HDR/IENCOD, and CIIENCOD and
institutional areas zoned IIIENCOD minimum lot size requirements shall remain consistent with
the current City of Clearwater Community Development Code.
The proposed lot size requirement of the IENCOD implement the following goals and
objectives of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan. ,
Goal 5: To ensure that development and redevelopment is compatible with the
character and scale of surrounding properties to promote high property
values, a good' quality of life, and consistent and appealing appearances
throughout the neighborhood.
Objective a: Establish minimum lot sizes consistent with the deed restriction.
Objective d: Preserve single.family character in the Low Medium Density Residential
areas by prohibiting the rezoning of this property to multi-family use.
Objective e: Development and redevelopment must be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan.
, C.' Buiiding Setbacks (pg. 3 of ordinance)
In sIngle-family areas zoned LMDRIIENCOD, building setbacks for principal structures
shall be:'. ' ,
mcd0602
15
6/18/02
1IIII........;0;",-~ :....~('..~~"'.~~;~'[... ;~~';'.I:.' ,',~ l',~ '.....~.. r< I" .
> '. I J.~. .:: I: "', .'. \, . .,' .:~
..... '. . I
. ..,.- oII".~ ','. '-,.: ~. :.:~....,..:.I:'!;'.' ".,. iJ.I' .'.~ ,.'...: .., ,."oj '. . ,"'. ';".,'J > .:....., . ...'.....,. ",:I'~'..' ~ .'......,.t '.: '..'.j' .::. l ~"I .~: ". ;t' . :".,
,\
',"
"c
~
" ,,<1)....
, )
" ,
. .'~i.,J
':
,;J",
"
\ .
, f. 't c
i~~', ~.'" : c:.. .;
Front setback: 25 feet "
Side setback: 7.5 feet
Rear setback:" 15 feet (nonRwaterfront) ,
25 feet (waterfront) ~ If adjacent structures on either side of the lot are
setback 20 feet, then the minimum rear setback shall be 20 feet.
In single-family areas zoned LMDR/IENCOD, building setbacks for accessory structures.
inCluding screen pool enclosures shall be: "" ,
Side setback: 5 feet
Rear setback: 10 feet
Current regulations are similar, with the exception that the current side setbacks for
principal structures in the LMDR District are set at 5 feet rather than 7.5 feet.
, Throughout the Community Development Code, side setback requirements for principal
and accessory structures in any given zoning district are the same. The proposed ordinance
" deviates from this pattern because of the results of the neighborhood vote. In this instance,
8allot Items 4 and 6 both proposed extending side yard setbacks from 5 feet to 7.5 feet.
However, the neighborhood advocated the larger side yard setback for principal structures in
Item 4, but did not advocate the larger side setback for "accessory structures in Item 6. Item 4
"received 51.6% app~oval and Item 6 received 47.2% approval.
Because ofthe Inconsistency with the current format of the Community Development
Code, the Planning Department proposes three options of how to address this issue of
conflicting votes:
1) Adopt the proposed ordinance as presented with this staff report based on
the approval of items by 51% of the neighborhood vote;
2) Adopt the ordinance without any provisions for a 7.5-foot side setback for
either principal or accessory structures. This option would set the side" ,
setback at the current requirement of 5 feet for both principal and accessory
structures; or
3) Adopt the ordinance with the addition of the 7.5-foot side setback for
accessory structures in addition to principal structures. This option would
require the side setback for both principal and accessory structures to be 7.5
feet. "
The Planning Department recommends option 3 for several reasons. First, the pattern is
established in the Community Development Code that side setbacks are the same for principal
and accessory structures in any given zoning district. Second, the administration of a regulation
that deviates from the City's current format may lead to confusion and inconsistency. Finally,
because the principal structure Is seen from the street and is generally the most dominant
structure on a site, the side setback for the principal structure generally affects the character of
the neighborhood more than the side setback of accessory structures. Because the proposed
regulation for side setback at 7.5 feet for principal structures was approved by the
neighborhood, the side setback for accessory structures should be the same, 7.5 feet.
mcd0602 "
16
6/18/02:
,\1,'1':.. "\."~".".~':~',,,,r','.'..',~.'.~.' .0. .~I: 'l.,:..!.t:, ...'...:'....r.'.:.::..,. :":..:..:"::. :":,'~":,:",,,,",.'" ~"."1':.'..:..'.::..; "....:.1:. :.<:.'...:!...',..t.::..1 :,\':"
",
, .
tJ
\','
1''''''-.
"'fl."':tl
(")
t,~..~:"..,
,lJ'
In addition, any pool exceeding 1 foot In height above grade shall comply with the
, required rear setback for the principal structure~ '
In multi-family areas zoned MDRIIENCODt MHDRIIENCOD, HDR/lENCODt and
C/IENCOD and institutional areas zoned I/IENCOD bullding setbacks shall remain consistent
with the current City of Clearwater Community Development Code.
These proposed requirements of the IENCOD implement the following goals and
objectives of ' the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan.
'Goal 2:
To maintain safety, views, access, and water quality along the Island Estates
waterfront.
Objective a: Preserve water views by restricting the heights of fences and structures in the
waterfront yard and by maintaining established side building setbacks, rear
building setbacks and site triangles.
" Goal 4:
,To maintain, improve, and promote high standards of property maintenance
on public and private property on Island Estates in order ,to ensure an
attractive neighborhood appearan~e. ' '
Objective d: Require elevated pools to be in compliance with setbacks established for
principal structures In order to prevent the blocking of views, to maintain
openness in rear setbacks, to preserve consistent appearance in waterfront
yards and to control building bulk. -
Goal 5:
. To ensure that development and redevelopment is 'compatible with the
character and scale of surrounding properties to promote high property
values, a good quality of life, and consistent and appealing appearances
throughout the neighborhood.
Obje9tive b: ,- Establish setback requirements consistent with deed restrictions.
Objective d: Preserve single~family character in the Low Medium Density Residential
areas by prohibiting the rezoning of this property to multi-family use.
Objective e: Development and redevelopment must be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan.
D. Suildin!':! HelQht (pg. 3 of ordinance)
In single-family areas zoned LMDR/IENCOD, building height shall be limited to 3D-feet
above base flood elevation. This proposed regulation does-not deviate from the current building
height requirement of the LMDR District. In multi-family areas zoned MDR/IENCOD,
MHDR/IENCOD, HDR/IENCOD, and CIlENCOD and Institutional areas zoned I/IENCOD,
building height shaU'be governed by the underlying zoning districts.
, -
. These proposed requirements of the IENCOD implement the following goals and
objectives of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan.
mcd0602
17
6/18/02 -
<,- .' ; ,I ' .. ~ ", ~ i J :1 .. j '" I . ',_ " c \
C Ie, J ~: >""
~"
(~.~.\
';:tJ,,;rI
, " \
"~
I:
, ~ ~ \.
Goal 5:
To ensure that development and redevelopment is compatible with the
character and scale of surrounding properties to promote high property
values, a good quality of life, and consistent and appealing appearances
throughout the neighborhood. .,
Objective c: Maintain current city regulations on home heights.
Objective "e: Development and redevelopment must be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan.
E. Parklna on Private Property (pp. 9 & 10 of ordinance)
The first proposed parking regulation Is that in single-family areas zoned
LMDRlIENCOD, muJti~family areas zoned MDR/JENCOD, MHDR/IENCOD, HDR/IENCOD, and'
CIlENCOD, parking on any landscaped area shall be prohibited. Currently, Code Section 3-
1407 A.4 allows one designated parking space on the grass in' a required front setback adjacent
to the driveway located on the property. These proposed requirements of the IENCOD would
not permit such a space in the Island Estates neighborhood. The protection of the existing
neighborhood character is the central concern of Island Estates residents. The possibility of
vehicles parking on landscaped areas would detract from this neighborhood, which has well
maintained and attractively landscaped properties.
The second proposed parking regulation applies to the multj~family areas. In multi~family
areas zoned MDRIIENCOD, MHDR/IENCOD, HDR/IENCOD, and C/IENCOD, all boats, "
personal watercraft, recreation vehicles, trailers, commercial vehicles, race cars, dune buggies,
farm equipment, go karts, A TV's or other similar vehicles shall be prohibited to be parked
between any portion of the principal structure and any right~of-way line. The temporary parking"
of such vehicles within the front setback shall be permitted for no more than four (4) consecutive
days no more than twice a ~onth. Commercial vehicles may be'parked between any portion of
the principal structure and any right~of-way line If onslte to actively conduct business on the
premises. 'Parking of personal automobiles and motorcycles shall be permitted between any
portion of the principal structure and any right-of-way line.
Existing Code Section 3-1407 is very similar to this proposal. However, it does allow
boats or comrTJercial vehicles measuring less than twenty (20) feet in length to be parked in the
front setback. In addition! City Code Section 3~1407 limits temporary parking for loading
unloading and cleaning to four hours, two times per month. Island Estates residents are
sensitive to the fact that many residents have boats or recreational vehicles or other equipment
that may need to be parked In the front yard on a temporary basis. The neighborhood is
suggesting that such vehicles be permitted to park in the driveway for no more than four (4)
consecutive days no mare than twice a month.
This regulation is another instance where the results of the neighborhood vote
somewhat conflict. The parking restrictions for certain vehicles (all boats, personal watercraft,
" recreation vehicles, trailers, commercial vehiclesl race cars. dune buggies, farm equipment, go
karts, ATVs or other similar vehicles) were approved for multi-family areas in Ballot Item 12, but
were not approved for slngle~famlly areas in Ballot Item 11. Item 11 received 50.8% approval
and Item 12 received 52.3% approval. Approving this new regulation for one part of the
neighborhood, but not for the other may lead to an inequity.
mcd0602
18
6/18/02
. .:, I . , :' J, . . oj. .' '. ~. . ", . .. ~': ' ,.... ~ II.' ' , .. , ". '. ' 'I '. . . L . '.: '.' ~'~ , , ' " : I . j" ' " :', ' ' : '" J..' .': :: '.. ....' I,.. ' ~ I ' , '. ., .,: . I. ~ "':::'.:. ' . I" ',' . ,~ . , ',. .'..' . ~. ' ~
'J
, '
.)
',.1.
,.,
" '
/'......
, 'i~)
o
I 'c.
Because of this conflict In the votes, the Planning Department proposes three options of
how to address this issue of conflicting votes:
1) Adopt the ordinance as presented with this staff report based on the approval
of Items by 51% of the neighborhood vote;
2) Adopt the ordinance without any new provisions for parking in the front
setback. This option would defer the parking restrictions to the existing code,
which allows boats and commercial vehicles not exceeding 20 feet in length
to be parked in the front setback.
3) Adopt the ordinance with the addition of the parking requirements for single-
. family areas in addition to multi-family areas.
.The Planning Department recommends option 3 for several reasons. First, approving .
the regulation for all residential areas, rather than just one, is equitable. Second, the intent of
the regul~tion based on public sentiment at the neighborhood planning meetings, was to
maintain this character throughout the entire neighborhood. Third, keeping the regulations
similar through out the neighborhood reduces the chance of confusion and inconsistency in
administration. Finally, the approval of Item 10 on the ballot, which prohibits parking on
landscaped areas, demonstrate that the neighborhood supports stricter parking regulations.
"
. These proposed requirements of the IENCOD implement the following goals and
objectives of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan.
To maintain, improve, and promote high standards of property maintenance
on public and private property on Island Estates in order to ensure an
attractive neighborhood appearance.
Objective m: Promote the enforcement of the prohibition of parking on grassy medians and
cul-de-sacs.
Goal 4:
Prohibit permanent parking of boats; trailers and recreational vehicles outside
of garages.
F. . Fences (pP. 9.10. & 11 of ordinance)
. Objective r.:
In single-family areas zoned LMDR/IENCOO. multi-family areas zoned MOR/IENCOO,
MHDR/IENCOO; HOR/IENCOD, and C/IENCOD and institutional areas zoned IIIENCOO,
fences shall not exceed 6 feet in height between any portion of the principal structure and any
. side lot line. In addition, all fences between the rear building setback line and the seawall shall
be non-opaque (see-through.) These are current regulations in the Community Development
, Code but have been called out as being ~peclfically important to the residents of Island Estates.
In addition to these regulations, there are two fence regulations that were not supported
by the neighborhood vote. The neighborhood did not support Ballot Item 13 that would have
required all fences to be restricted from the front yard. The neighborhood also did not support
. Ballot Item 15. which required fences In the rear yard for waterfront properties to be limited to 3
feet (or 4 feet for yards with pools.) The provisions of Ballot Item 15 are already In the current
City fence regulations; therefore, properties will have to comply with this regulation even though'
It Is not Included in this proposed ordinance.
,mcd0602
19
6/18/02 ' .
, .
~
"I., "
j;.,
: It.l~
~'o\lr.:.1
,.,
;' ."
y
This proposed requirement of the IENCOD implements the following goals and
objectives of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan.
Goal 2: To maintain safety, views; access, and water quality along the Island Estates
waterfront. .
Objective a: Preserve water views by restricting the heights of fences and structures in the
waterfront yard and by maintaining established side building setbacks, rear
building setbacks and site triangles.
Goal 4: To maintain, improve, and promote high standards of property maIntenance
on public and private property on Island Estates In order to ensure an
attractive neighborhood appearance. .
Objective a: Maintain existing height limitation for all fences'.
To ensure that development and redevelopment is compatible with the
character and scale of surrounding properties to promote high property
values,. a good quality of life, and consistent and appealing appearances
throughout the neighborhood.
Objective e: Development and redevelopment must be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan.
Goal 5:
G. Landscaping (pp. 9,10 & 1 ~ of ordinance)
The first proposed regulation for landscaping Is that in single-family areas zoned
LMDRJIENCOD, multi-family areas zoned MDR/IENCOD, MHDR/IENCOD, HDRIIENCODt and
C/IENCOD and institutional areas zoned IIIENCOD, use of gravel, stones, cinders and other
similar material in any yard shall be prohibited unless included as an integral, but minor,
element of a landscaping plan. There are currently no regulations regarding the use of gravel, '
stones, or cinders for la'ndscaping.
The second proposed regulation for landscaping is that in the multi-family areas zoned
MDRIIENCOD, MHDR/IENCOD, HDR/IENCOD, and CIIENCOD, 25% of the area between any
portion of the principal structure and any right-of-way line shall be landscaped. The Community
. Development Code has ISR (Impervious Surface Ratio) requirements for all properties in the
City. ,However, the requirelT1ent for percentage of landscaping would be unique to Island
Estates. The Land Development.Code in effect prior to the current code included a similar ,
minimum landscaping percentage as proposed in the IENCOD provisions.
This regulation is another Instance where there seems to be a conflict in how the
neighborhood voted. The third instance of inconsistency Includes Ballot Items 19 and 20. The
landscaping requirement for a certain percentage of the front yard to be landscaped was
, approved for multi-family areas In Item 20, but was not approved for single-family areas In I~em,
19. It~m 19 received 48.7% approval and Item 20 receiv~d 51.9% approval.
, Because of this conflict in the Votes, the Planning Department proposes three options of
h~w, to address this Issue of confHctlng votes:
mcd0602 '
20
6/18/02
., ,".,.,
c . ~ I '
.. +'. .
, d .,
~" "
,: ~
1 '
"
"j
(:)
,
, '
.,'
"
,
. Q:"~
, '
I
. 1) Adopt the ordinance as presented with this staff report based on the approval of
items by 51 % of the neighborhood vote;
2) Adopt the ordinance without the proposed regulations for a required percentage of
landscaping In the front setback in any area of the neighborhood. This option would
remove the requirement for multi-family areas; and
3) Adopt the ordinance with the proposed regulations for a required percentage of
landscaping In the front setback in any area of the neighborhood. This option
requires 35% of the front yard in single-family areas to be landscaped and 25% of
the front yard in multi~family areas to be landscaped.
. The Pianning Department recommends option 3 for several reasons. First, approving
the regulation for all residential areas. rather than just orie, is equitable. Second, the intent of
, the regulation' based c;m public sentil'J1ent at the neighborhood planning meetings, was to
maintain the character of the entire neighborhood - not just segments of the neighborhood. ,
, :' Third. keeping the regulations similar through out the neighborhood reduces the chance of
confusion and inconsistency in administration. Finally, the approval of Item 18 on the ballot,
which prohibits gravel or stone yards, demonstrates that the neighborhood supports more and
better landscaping standards,
. These proposed requirements of the IENCOD implement the following goals and
objectives of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan.
To maintain, improve, and promote high standards of property maintenance
on public and private property on Island Estates in order to ensure an
attractive ,neighborhood appearance.
Objective f: Prohibit new gravel, rock or cinder yards in order to maintain a landscaped
appearance throughout the neighborhood, as well as ensure proper drainage
within the neighborhood.
Goal 4:
Objective g: Maintain certain percentage of vegetated landscaping In front yards in order
, to preserve a landscaped appearance throughout the neighborhood.
To ensure that development and redevelopment Is compatible with the
character and scale of surrounding properties to promote high property
values, a good quality of life, and consistent and appealing appearances
throughout the neighborhood.
Objective e': Development and redevelopment 'TIust be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan.
Goal 5:
H. Outdoor Storaae (pp. 9 & 10 of ordinance)
The stotage of commercial fishing and crabbing equipment shall be prohibited outdoors
on any residential property. Per CltyCode Section 3-~502 G., outdoor storage Is generally
prohibited on residential lots. Island Estates residents have chosen to specify fishing and
. 'crabbing eqUipm,ent as prohibited types of outdoor storage.' .
mcd0602
21
6/18/02
} <'.'
, , . L " .c. ~ .
..1~/',:1;:~'.."<':.: ...,.,...c.\~'~.' '.~. I .
~ \ ,>::c '" ~. , <
:' '~. .
'. .,' . ,.
, , ,
. I
,.,
T' _, ,~
'.l
./. :r'~I)
", ~t~(\
" .
\~
. I
.,1 ,
This proposed requirement, of the IENCOD implements the following goals and
. objectives of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan. .
Goal 2:
To maintain safety, views, access, and water quality along the Island
Estates waterfront. '
O~jective a:
Preserve water views by restricting the heights of fences and structures in
the waterfront yard and by maintaining established side bUilding setbacks,
. rear building setbacks and site triangles.
Objective b:
Restrict the docking of commercial boats and the storage of commercial
fishing and/or crabbing equipment on residential waterfront property in
order to preserve the residential character of those areas.
'GoaIS:
To ensure that development and redevelopment is compatible with the
character and scale of surrounding properties to promote high property
values, a good quality of life, and consistent and appealing appearances.
throughout the neighborhood.
3. Comoliance with Prooosed Development Standards
All new construction must be in compliance' with the provisions of.the Island Estates .
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Any existing legally permitted use, lot size,
setback"building height, fence, and landscaping in accordaflce with the development standards
set forth In the overlay district will be considered a legal nonconforming use and may continue to
exist and be maintained as allowed by the Clearwater Community Development Code.
Any vehicle parked in ~iolation of the standards established in the overlay district
(parked on landscaped areas or specific vehicles parked outside of a garage), and any
commercial fishing and crabbing equipment stored In violation of the standards (stored on
residential property) shall not be considered a legal nonconforming use and must comply with
the overlay di~trict requirements,
. Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text
amendments. Any code amendment must comply wit,h the following.
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, poliCies, and objectives
. of the Comprehensive Plan.
Below is a selected list of goals, objectives and policies 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 bl1ghted
areast and encourage Infill development.
Policy 2.2.1 -
On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site
plan approval process shall be util1zed In promoting Infill development
and/or planned developments that are compatIble.
mcd0602
6/18/02
22
"'~.~"'."I.'" ~" ....:.': ......... .:'ft ':.~r/'\..:'I.':,..<..,~.rl.~':'lr,.,:,':/,,':'~':
, \
"
. .1
'~l
" . The proposed IENCOD is an Innovative concept that was specifically created to ensure
neighborhood preservation. The provisions included in the proposed IENCOD require that Infill
and redevelopment is consistent and compatible with the existing character of the Island
Estates neighborhood.
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 create the development standards for the Island Estates
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The proposed amendments are consistent with
the following purposes of the Code.
Section 1 ~1 03.A. - It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the
Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health., safety, general welfare and quality of
life in the city; to guide the orderly growth and development of the city; to establish rules of
, procedures for land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the
preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and
property owners of the City;
Section 1-103.8.2. - It is the purpose 'of this Community Development Code to create value
for its citizens of the City of Clearwater by ensuring that development
and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the value of
surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting ,
development and redevelopment which will enhance the value of
surrounding properties;
.'; .
.1:)
, ,
. '
-
. "
. i
."
-J.;
J
, I
~
w
! I ~ :
r,
I."
0".
;' .
. ,
;,'
~.~
;'~:.,
,.' .
:. \
",'. .' ; . -,,' : '::: ~:::;. ',;; ";, ":.(:
Section 1~103.E.2. - Protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts
of the city through the establishment of reasonable standards, which
encourage the orderly and beneficial development of land within the
city; . ,
Section 1-103.E.3. ~ Protect and conserve the value of land throughout the city and the
value of buildings and improvements upon the land, and minimize the
conflicts among the uses of land and ~uildlngs; and
Section 1-103E.8. - Establish zoning districts of a size, type, location and with standards
that reflect the existing and desirable characteristics of a particular
area within the city.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Community Development Code. The amendments will provide the residents of Island Estates
additional development standards that will protect the character of the neighborhood. The
,IENCOD will require development to be consistent with existing development patterns and
property maintenance standards consistent with prevailing neighborhood standards.
The. Planning Department recommends approval of Ordinance No. 6981 ~02 that revises
the Community Development Code and establishes the Island Estates Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District, with the following additions and revisions: .
1. Revise minimum side setbackfor accessory structures from 5 feet to 7.5 feet.
mcd0602
23
6/18/02
J ~', '. c .
. . ~ . .
, "~I .
> '~ .
.:; L"':r~r
'"
,~
,
,
. 1Pl)
r'
l.
+:'-l'..i
o
,\
, ~ r .r. '
'2. Add a requirement specifying that in single~family areas zoned LMDR/IENCOD, all.
. boats, personal watercraft, recreation vehicles, trailers, commercial vehicles, race cars,
dune buggies, farm equipment, go karts, A TV's or other similar vehicles shall be
required to be parked In a garage. The temporary parking of such vehicles outside of a
garage shall be permitted for no more than four (4) consecutive days no more than twice
a month. Commercial vehicles may be parked outside of garages if onslle to actively
conduct business on the premises. Parking of personal automobiles and motorcycles
shall be permitted outside of the garage in a driveway.
3. Add a requirement specifying that in sjngle~family areas zoned LMDR/IENCOD, 35% of
the area between any portion of the principal structure and any'nght-of-way line shall be
landscaped.
6. Case: Z 02~03~02 Level Three Application
Applicant{s): Island Estates Neighborhood.
Location: Generally, residential properties located on land known as Island Estates,
lying northerly of the northerly right of way line of Memorial Causeway between the
mainland and Clearwater Beach. .
Request: 'Rezoning to the IENCOD, Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District, as an overlay district in addition to the existing LMDR, Low Medium
Density Residential, MDR, Medium Density Residential, MHDR, Medium High Density
Residential, HDR, High Density Residential, I, Institutional and C, Commer'cial Zoning
Districts for the Island. Estates Neighborhood. '
Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager.
Ms. Clayton reviewed how the Island Estates NCOD was initiated and developed,
reviewed the process which took place at public meetings, the Island Estates Neighborhood
Plan, the text amendments for Island Estates, and the proposed rezoning designation to
IENCOD.
The Island Estates neighborhood currently has five (5) different zoning designations. All
the land uses are residential except the church located in the Institutional District. The 11
properties in the Commercial District are townhouses. '
The Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay (IENCOD) would apply to a
significant portion of the neighborhood and would fulfill the intent of the Island Estates
Neighborhood Plan.
The proposed IENCOD is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is also
" consistent with and implements provisions of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan, which )s
the special area plan required to be developed for any neighborhood conservation overlay
district pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-608. The proposed rezoning is
compatible with the surrounding area, supports the needs and existing character of the
neighborhood and City, does not require nor affect the provision of public services, and the
boundaries are appropriately drawn.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the rezoning of the Island Estates
subdivision as follows:
,mcd0602 .
24
6/18/02
~~~;'<~.~'~:~~.:~:;:}~~i:'~!.::r.lr~':i:< :t.':;~ .. ,:,.'. "<'T
". '~i:.~.J""'!~~W,~,,h!,\...J-.', ',I ~1.rYj:1 ~j I' ~'~I~<~'./~. .
:: !' ,:: .', ~ ;;, I,: ',:',: ~o.:,;' :' ~;,:',: y~ :,\ >,.',.~. ".': , : "~I~:\".:~i.j\,j::">?;":""J~ /i,i::" i:".,! .
" . I
, ., I'. '"
:"j, .~ ,~'. : './"
, ..
1. <.. c: ". \.: ~\::.
.~' c ~ > \.> .
..! ':J. ~<~':, ::.\ ,;"~c;1.l'~/:
;, ," .' 1", . ~. ~~"'..., .~. ~ '~,~.' 'I. .:.~(:.: ", :1 ':, ,., ;..,....J.. :: O':I.~'.'. ."J 0.. ::..~.~: ".:'.' I....~. .. ;'::;'. l,..\ .r~ J:'.'.,\':.~:: :f,......~; .;.'
, '"
~
To rezone the Island Estates SubdivisIon from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR),
Medium Density Residential (MDR), Medium High Density Residential (MHDR). High Density
Residential (HDR), Institutional (I) and Commercial (C) to Low Medium Density
, Residential/Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (LMDR/IENCOD),
Medium Density ResldenUalllsland Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
(MDR/IENCOD), Medium High Density Residential/Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District (MHDR/IENCOD), High Density Residential/Island Estates Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District (HDRIIENCOD), Institutional/Island Estates Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District (I/IENCOD) and Commercialllsland Estates Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District (C/IENCOD).
Discussion ensued regard the voting process. Ms. Clayton said all except 51 properties
in this area are single family homes. Concern was expressed that condominium owners only
received one voice per condominium association rather than individually. Ms. Clayton said as
condominium owners jointly own one piece of property, staff determined they should receive
one vote.
Ms. Tarapani said prior to the public hearing process, neighborhood meetings were held
and letters sent to all property owners regarding the NeOD, including condominium owners.
She said staff's concern was that the amount of land occupied by single family homes is
substantially greater than that of multifamily/condominiums. Therefore, staff felt more of the
regulations would be geared to single family homes as it is the predominant land use.
Homeowners were informed that this process was involved a straw vote. The City Commission
, will make the final decisions and determine if changes to the NCOD are needed. The NCOD .
process gave residents of Island Estates the opportunity to make their feelings known about the
("~) . issues discussed.
'1~...."\~ .
Concern was expressed that if residents wish changes to be made, it would be too
difficult due to the way the voting process was established. Ms. Tarapani said the City
Commission has directed staff to monitor the progress of the NCOD and report back to them
within one year after its adoption. She said the COB could recommend to the Commission that
an annual review be made.
::;
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said feedback from public meetings regarding.
some of the items on the NCOD ballot that, nearly passed indicates that staff should not have
the authority to grant deviations but that any deviations would require a public hearing. It was
felt that they would be comfortable with a staff review except for above grade items, which
should be approved by the COB at a public hearing and expansions of noncomforming
setbacks. Ms. Clayton said staff made it clear in the development standards, that for an Island
Estates resident to request a deviation from Code, it also must be consistent with the IENCOD.
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said the IENCOD can be less restrictive than the City's
Land Development Code in some instances.
Ms. Tarapani said the IESC (Island Estates Steering Committee), applicant, has
prepared a presentation regarding the IENCOD. She thanked them for their efforts and for their
cooperation In working with staff and the public throughout the process.
Curt Waldon, member of IESC, said the IESC held 17 meetings. At the Island Estates
NCOD meetings, approximately 50 to 1.00 residents attended: He said he was impressed with
the neighborhood participation during the process. He felt the IENCOD will aid the City in
reviewing permit plans for Island Estates. He thanked City staff for their assistance in facilitating
. . ,
mcd0602
25
6/18/02
',"J,... ,
, ,
.p.,'I.
",
, ,
~ the meetings. He said he agrees with and supports staff's recommendations regarding approval
.. of the IENCOD. the ordinance amending the Code, and the rezoning designation.
Phyllis Soksen, member of IESC, said she also is the current President of the Island
Estates Civic Association. She said Island Estates is a unique neighborhood. Sixty-five percent
(66%) of the ballots were returned, which gave a true reflection of how Island Estates citizens
feel. . During the public meetings, she got a strong feeling that the citizenry wanted to protect
. and sustaln'the current standards in the neighborhood. She said City staff did a phenomenal
job;during the process. The Board of the Island Estates Civic Association requested Ms.
Boksen let the COB know that they fully support the fENCOD. They felt it was a democratic
. process that provided public meetings and notification of progress through the Civic
Association's newsletters. She said all residents were provided the opportunity to participate in
. the process. The process was extended to include 7 meetings instead of the original 5 that
were planned.
Five persons spoke in opposition of the IENCOD.
Fran Sriskman, applicant, said when Coachman Ridge NCOD adopted its NCOD, it was
implemented without a vote. . She said one of the people who spoke in opposition of the
IENCOD today was the one person who requested the Commission require a vote. She said
t~at shows the impact one person can have. She said 64% of the .residents in Island Estates
signed a petition to hold the NCOD process. The numbers speak for themselves. She said she
checked with the City's Community Response Team, which indicated they have had no .
proble'ms with the Coachman Ridge NCOD to date.
(~j Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the City is not enforcing deed
restrictions in Island Estates. She said in previous legal sufficiency hearings, the aesthetic
provisions of an overlay district were upheld. She said staff does not feel any of the proposed
regulations or Code provisions would rise to the level of taking of property rights I as was
mentioned by some residents.
J,;)
Ms. Tarapani said staff and the Commission never stated the I ENCOD vote was a
mandate. The reason for the vote was to determine the level of neighborhood interest for an
.NCDO. Staff and the IESC endeavored to use many different methods of informing residents
about the IENCOD process. Strong feelings were voiced throughout the process. .
Chuck Stebbins, member of IESC, thanked staff for their outstanding job during the
process. He said the IENCOD gives residents the opportunity to tie deed restrictions to the
plan. When residents purchase homes in Island Estates) they agree to abide by those deed
restrictions. He said the majority of residents in Island Estates are in favor of the IENCOD. He
said he walked the neighborhood handing out Information regarding the IENCOD. Residents
wanted the IENCOD to ensure the regulations remain in place in the event City Code changes.
The IENCOD regulations were based on residents' preferences, not the City's. He was
disappointed that some Island Estates residents distributed misinformation regarding the
,IENCOD. although the majority of residents still voted for it.
, Concern was expressed that condominium owners only received a collective vote. It ,
was remarked that because It was agreed upon prior to the vote that only the items on the ballot
. that received 61 % of the vote would pass, the three items staff brought forward should not be
. included in the recommendation to the Commission. It was remarked that everyone involved in
the IENCOD process should be commended. A comment was made that in the absence of a
. mcd0602
26
6/18/02
~
'0
, '
,:..;
"
.~ ,;. ,-l
'..'. ,
mandate. everyone should take into consideration what Island Estates residents want and what
Is best for them and the City. '
, In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said these three'lsland Estates items will go
before the Commission on August 8, 2002, for first reading and on August 20, 2002, for second
reading if recommended by the COB. Ms. Tarapani said as some of the items on the ballot
were linked, they felt the obligation to bring them to the COB's attention. Ms. Dougall-Sides said
if those three items were added to the COB's recommendation and to the proposed ordinance, it
would not present any legal ramifications.
Member Doran moved to approve Item #C~, Island Estates Neighborhood Plan. The,
motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Gildersleeve, Moran,
Pliska, Doran, and Milam, and Vice~Chair Hooper voted "aye"; Member Mazur voted "nay".
, Motion carried.
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item #C6, Case 202-03-02, minus staff's
recommendation to add the following three items from the Island Estates Ballot Tally: 1) Ballot
Item #6 - In single family area, side building setbacks for accessory structures, including screen
pool enclosures shall be 7.5 feet; 2) Ballot Item #11 - in single family areas, all boats, personal
watercraft, recreation vehIcles, trailers, commercial vehicles, race cars, dune buggies, farm
, equipment, go I<arts, A TVs or other similar vehicles shall be required to be parked in a garage.
The temporary parking of such vehicles outside of a garage shall be permitted for no more than
four (4) consecutive days no more than twice a month. Commercial vehicles may be parked
outside of garages if onsite to actively conduct business on the premises. Parking of personal
automobiles and motorcycles shall be permitted outside of the garage in a driveway; and 3)
Ballot Item #19 - in single family areas, 35% of the area between any portion of the principal
structure and any right-of-way line shall be landscaped. .
, It was remarked that staff did not recommend that the three items referenced in the
above motion 'be added to Item #C6, but added to Item #C5.
The motion failed due to the lack of a second.
Ms. Tarapanl said if the COB adopts Agenda Item #C6, that action assumes that the
CDS would adopt Agenda Item #5, the overlay district. She suggested the COB consider voting
, on Agenda Item #C5 first.
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item #C5, Case TA 02-03-02, including staff's
recommendations to Include Items 6, 11, and 19 of the Island Estates Ballot Tally. The motion
was duly seconded.
,In response to a question, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said different
criteria for the same language is an administrative issue, not a legal one.
Upon the vote being taken, Members Gildersleeve, Moran, and Doran voted "aye";
Members Mazu,r, Plisko, and Milam, and Vice-Chair Hooper voted "nay". Motion failed.
Members expressed their concerns regarding why they voted "nay". It was felt that
although Ballot Item #4 on the Island Estates ballot passed, another related item, Ballot Item #6,
failed but should have been included as part of Ballot Item #4. Another concern reiterated was
the way the voting process counted single~family ,votes versus condominium votes.
mcd0602
27.
6/18/02
I.'.'....., .l~..,~,..:.:..,~.: :.....: .~~.:, I.~.'. "....~_:I."...<..'..,..~I.........:I. ~:.;1.,."...'.i(I<..., ~,..lj,:+.,!.......,~!'!;::.r'll.,'.,.~~,~..,. ,.~..:-I,.'.'.~~:.....
>~ ..'
! ..~ ',' : ;
....
~
Member Doran moved to approve Item #C5. Case TA 02-03-02 as written. The motion
was duly seconded. .
Concern was once again expressed that Ballot Items #4 and #6 should not have been
separated. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said she did not know why one passed and
one failed. . '
Upon the vote being taken, Members Gildersleeve, Moran, Doran, and Milam voted
. "aye"; Members Mazur, and Pl1skot and Vice-Chair Hooper voted "nay". Motion carried.
. It was suggested that individual motions be made regarding the items that staff
suggested be added to the ordinance. .
',i
Member Mazur moved to recommend that Item #6 of the Island Estates Ballot Tally be
a~ded to Agenda Item #C5, Case TA 02-03-02. The motion was duly seconded and upon the
. vote being taken,. Members Doran and Milam voted "aye"; Members Mazur, Plisko, Morant and
Gildersleeve, and Vice-Chair Hooper voted "nay". ' Motion failed.' .
..
"
:liU)
(t\,~
Member Mazur recommended that Item #11 of the Island Estates Ballot Tally be added
to Agenda Item #C5, Case TA 02-03-02. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote
. being taken, there were no affirmative votes; Members Gildersleeve, Moran, Pliska, Doran, and
Milam. and Vice-Chair Hooper voted "nay". Motion failed.
,Member Mazur recommended that Item #19 of the Island Estates Ballot Tally be added
to Agenda Item #C5, Case T A 02-03-02. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote
being taken, there were ,no affirmative votes; Members Gildersleeve, Moran, Pliska, Doran, and
Milam and Vice-Chair Hooper voted "nay". Motion failed.
Member Gildersleeve moved approval of Item #C6, Z 02-03~02. The motion was duly
seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Gilderlseeve, Moran, Plisko, Doran, and
Milam, and Vice-Chair Hooper voted "aye"; Member Mazur voted "nay". Motion carried.
D. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: (Items 1-4)
1. Case: FL 01-06-25 (Time Extension for Osceola Bay Club)
Applicant: Joanne Fuchs, President, Matrix Development.
Request: One-year time extension for approval granted on August 21, 2001
, Ms. Fierce said Osceola Bay Club has requested a one-year time for submittal of a
building permit. . The site plan was approv~d on August 21, 2001.
Member Mazur moved approval of Item 01, Case FL 01-06-25. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Case: . FL 01-06-23 (Time Extension for Dolphin Point) ,
Applicant: Roger Larson, Badger Properties LLP.
Request: One-year time extension for approval granted on August 21, 2001
,,) , i. ' Ms. Fierce said Badger Properties, LLP has requested a one-year time extension for
'-' submittal of a building permit granted on August 21. 2001.
. "
mcdoe02
28
6/18/02
. ~ "
~~:\~'~::~ ,I '. \ I l .
.: E,;; '"":.,.";..:;:'.',".' I~ "<l.'1(~~ IL. ..',.I."..:.'......"+'.....'~.
"~,~I ,"'~.I, ~. ....' ,:: " " :. '~,' ".. J., ,. \:_,: :~ ",~,,,,:.... I'" '. ','. .':io' :", ..... . .'.'-'I~ : .: '".,,: ."., :'~ '" ,',' :.:'~' '0 ..".":.:',~:"..,"'~
..
, ,
I
c l
~ , '~ . ~ " .
;', ,:,\?:';>: ,}\' :' ::i:, :',> :,: '" ",
c;~ (, ':,.. . j "
1';.: ~',' .
;~ , : .' .
1-0,' .
:i" '
// : ~ ,~ .',
'."1'
.:' , :
,':.'t:i"
c I,.
.. '
, .
.>' .,
~ . " ,
. ~. ,
:.., '.
~; .1"
., .
:~~\::~'c'
",<.. .
,,'
",
~h.'~;<-~' .
~.\.':. ":,
:;r; 1 :.1,: i
~:~:!,: ,~:' '
!/ <':It. :.'.
-J'I ''':, . .c
'~<S,,; ,
'.;: . . ~ '
L '..."
" .
~/L/ ~~~ '
'~:',:.o'
/;,' r
~I~ ::., ' 1,
; ~ 'c~' J.
".,0..
,.".'<
:.';'"
I ","::i\
~.
, "I I '.
., ,
,', ~ " ~. : ~ .
.1" .'
.:. 'I
,"
. , . ~ >
. .
" '
, ~ " .
,I
.' , f '
. " Member Gllder~leeve moved approval of item 01, Case FL01-06-23. The motion was
. duly seconded and upon the vote b.elng taken, Members Gildersleeve, Moran. Doran. Pliska.
and,MiI~m,and Vl~e.Chair Hooper voted "aye"; Member Mazur abstained. 'Motl~n carried.
, 3.
Courier Service
'. Ms. Fierce requested that COB packages be sent to members' homes or bus'inesses
prior to each meeting. Consensus was to allow the courier leave packages without obtaining
signatures. '
. ,
".The meeting adjourned at 5:27 p.m.
~CGr~~.
Chair
Community Development Board .
,. .
'I
"
. ) ,
" ~".'
~l/l/?J~'
. .
.,' '
" .'
I '
, " ,~
. .
mcd0602
6/18/02
29
, "
. '
. , . . ' , ,
~ '"+,'': P j ;: ~:.' ~J'~~~ ~~c'~ L.['; - ~ \: 'f{" ..~.(~' j.;.~ ~ II~~"'" ~, .'{ 0,. .\. '.', /~, . c', '. ~q, >. t'c < ..':' . J " . t :'}.":: c', 'J c .' T. ~ I" . .~.., ~t....++ '\ : r: ,: ,:T . ;:.: " ;~~ ,4; \ < .,,',..' . ..:.' c;" '. : < ~ ;'1 .~"I . '. ,.' t, ;'/ '.:'" ~ ~ : c :,.:.~i~: ,~ ~1lJjj
.\. L.,\~,f~t:\' ~ ~ft ~J,~~~,,~, ~%~nl~~1~f~a\lc\:gw~+\',~f lij)\ ,(:~ )ii7 {I(~" ~ '.~T~~i ~..)i~t :~:::~~\~'.l3: :";:.,~ ~;t~.!;~'~::\~'; r'~I~~l-J';~~l~~~t~~;!,~~h.,~}~;U"';,~7t.:'hi '1,flt;~~~ Vi~~t: {I. :/~ ~:i ~J~',..~!.1t~~~;";1.:~/~VA'l;,,!,.~ 1-1J~~~\~I;~~'t~ ~~+~l~~~k~~{~~