The URL can be used to link to this page

12/16/2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER December 16, 2008 Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair Thomas Coates Vice Chair Dana K. Tallman Board Member Jordan Behar Board Member Frank L. Dame Board Member Doreen DiPolito Board Member Richard Adelson Board Member Norma R. Carlough Alternate Board Member Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Gina Clayton Assistant Planning Director Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: October 21 and November 18, 2008 Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of October 21, 2008, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. Regarding the November 18, 2008, minutes, page 2, paragraph 1, sentence 3, it was stated the word “homeless” should read “vagrant.” Member Dame moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of November 18, 2008, as changed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. D 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: (Items 1 – 2) Community Development 2008-12-16 1 1. Item Pulled from Consent Agenda Level Two Application Case: FLD2008-07019 – 473 East Shore Drive and 475 Poinsettia Street Owner: William A. Day Living Trust. Applicant: Billy Day. Representative: Albert P. Carrier, P.E., Deuel and Associates (4625 East Bay Drive, Suite 211, Clearwater, FL 33764; phone: 727-822-4151; fax: 727-821-7255; email: al@deuelengineering.com). Location: A total of 0.64 acre located on the east (0.37 acre) and west (0.27 acre) sides of East Shore Drive, approximately 280 feet north of the intersection of Papaya Street and East Shore Drive. Atlas Page: 267A. Zoning: Tourist (T) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the addition of a 3,269 square-foot, 10-slip dock as a marina and marina facility in conjunction with an existing 13-unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District with an increase to the maximum length of the dock from 75 percent of the lot width (90 feet) to 207 percent of the lot width (248.6 feet), under the provisions of Sections 2-803.E, 3-601 and 3-603. Proposed Use: Marina for 10 boat slips. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III. See Staff Report: Exhibit FLD2008-07019 2008-12-16 Member Coates moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of Zoning, Site Plan analysis, planning in general, Landscape Ordinance, Tree Ordinance, and Code Enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. Planner III Scott Kurleman said the application is for a marina, with the majority of slips for hotel guest use; the remainder will be leased. It was recommended that the height of lifts be restricted. Applicant William Day said he would accept that condition. Member Dame moved to approve Case FLD2008-07019 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of approval as listed, plus a condition that low profile lifts, not exceeding a height of three feet over the dock, be used. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. A resident requested to address the board. Member Coates moved to reconsider the previous motion for approval. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. A resident expressed concern that area parking already is limited and the project might restrict his ability to extend his dock. Community Development 2008-12-16 2 Mr. Kurleman said the applicant will provide five parking spaces, marked for marina parking only, on the Poinsettia property. The resident can apply to extend his deck; each case is considered separately. Member Dame restated his motion to approve Case FLD2008-07019 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of approval as listed, plus a condition that low profile lifts, not exceeding a height of three feet over the dock, be used. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. 2. Case: FLD2008-10030 – 20060 US Highway 19 N Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Congo River Golf & Exploration Co. Representative: Ty Maxey, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (3001 N. Rocky Point Drive E., Suite 300, Tampa, FL 33607; phone: 813-282-3855 fax: 813-286-2308; email: tym@ehaplanners.com). Location: 1.737 acres located at the southwest corner of the intersection of US Highway 19 N and Druid Road. Atlas Page: 299B. Zoning: Commercial (C) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit modifications due to an eminent domain taking of property for additional right-of-way for an existing outdoor recreation/entertainment use (miniature golf) in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 75,664 square feet (1.737 acres), a lot width of 480 feet, a front (east) setback of 0.5 feet (to existing pavement), a side (north) setback of five feet (to existing concrete putting green and pavement), a side (south) setback of four feet (to existing pavement), a rear (west) setback of 30 feet (to existing concrete putting green), a building height of 25 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) and 51 parking spaces, as well as the allowance of a three-year time frame to submit for a building permit, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer width on the east side from 15 feet to 0.5 feet (to existing pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Existing Use: Outdoor recreation/entertainment use (miniature golf). Neighborhood Associations: Tropic Hills Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. See Staff Report: Exhibit FLD2008-10030 2008-12-16 Member Dame moved to approve Case FLD2008-10030 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application(s) and the Staff Report(s), and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report(s), with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. E. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL: (Item 1) Community Development 2008-12-16 3 1. Case: APP2008-00006 – 513 North Belcher Road Owner/Appellant: Murphy Business and Financial Services, Inc. Representative: Steven W. Moore, Law Offices of Steven W. Moore (8200 Bryan Dairy Road, Suite 300, Largo, FL 33777; phone: 727-395-9300; fax: 727-395-9329; email: attorneymoore@tampabay.rr.com). Location: 0.82 acre located at the northeast corner of Belcher and Sharkey roads. Atlas Page: 281A. Zoning: Office (O) District. Request: An appeal from a Level One (Comprehensive Sign Program) approval decision pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4-502.A., that the requested increase from one attached sign to five attached signs as a Comprehensive Sign Program is inconsistent with the comprehensive sign program review principles as set forth in CDC Section 3-1807.C.1. Proposed Use: Existing Office. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III. See Staff Report: Exhibit APP2008-00006 2008-12-16 Member Behar moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of Zoning, Site Plan analysis, planning in general, Landscape Ordinance, Tree Ordinance, and Code Enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. Mr. Kurleman said after the freestanding sign at the corner of Belcher and Sharkey was permitted and installed in August 2005, the Owner/Appellant added four attached signs without permit, and later added a fifth sign. Following citation by Code Enforcement, the owner applied for the comprehensive sign program. Staff determined that the signs were excessive, especially for a commercial property abutting a single-family residence on a road with more residential than commercial traffic. The property owner did not accept staff’s recommendation that awning signage be removed, the freestanding sign be moved south on Belcher Road, and a second freestanding sign be constructed on Sharkey. Staff recommended denial of this appeal. Comprehensive sign program applications are considered on a case-by-case basis, with greater weight afforded the use of high quality materials. The two freestanding signs suggested by staff would exceed sign code restrictions. Each suite would be permitted signage if each had a separate business tenant. Representative Steven Moore said Murphy Business and Financial Services, Inc. installed the freestanding sign when it moved into the building. He said the awnings, installed for shade, line up over four separate suites. He said the firm thought adding the company logo to the awnings would be more attractive and was not done for signage purposes. He said the fifth awning was painted over after the tenant left and Murphy Business took over the entire building. He said the firm was willing to remove the fifth awning. He said the area has a commercial character; the firm is on a side street, facing a large commercial building. He said if the business wanted more signage, it would have agreed to install the additional monument sign. He said required landscaping obstructs monument signs and views of the awnings. He said the awnings do not affect the general public. He said staff’s decision regarding excessive signage and material quality had been subjective. Community Development 2008-12-16 4 Discussion ensued regarding positive results of the sign code and comments that the board previously had denied a business’s request to wrap its awnings with company signage. It was felt while the awnings were attractive, the signage was excessive and did not improve the building’s aesthetics. Member Coates moved to deny the appeal, Case APP2008-00006, and affirm the Staff’s denial of the application based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Staff’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. F. LEVEL III APPLICATIONS: (Item 1) 1. Level Three Application Case: CPA2007-06003 – Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department. Request: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of the City as adopted on May 18, 2000, and subsequently amended, by amending the Table of Contents and all elements of the comprehensive plan, making substantial changes to the elements based on the 2006 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the Comprehensive Plan, and making minor editorial changes, in accordance with Florida Statutes. Type of Amendment: Large Scale Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Sandra E. Herman, Planner III See Staff Report: Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16, Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008- 12-16 RESPONSES, Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 ORC REPORT, and Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND. Planner III Sandy Herman reviewed the motion to amend, based on the DCA (Florida Department of Community Affairs) report. She reviewed the authorities responsible for the local water supply. SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District) has acknowledged that the City’s water supply is sufficient for all development. Lawn watering is not considered necessary. Staff was complimented for their efforts. Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case CPA2007-06003 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. G. DIRECTOR’S ITEM: 1. Amendments to the Community Development Board Rules of Procedure Regarding PowerPoint Presentations See Staff Report: Exhibit RULES OF PROCEDURE – REVISED 2008-12-16 Community Development 2008-12-16 5 Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton reviewed proposed revisions. All presentations must be compatible with City audio/visual equipment. Technical staff will be available to assist presenters. Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes said new material can be submitted at quasi- judicial hearings. Staff will review materials for readability, not content. Presenters would be able to update presentations until the meeting day. A reasonableness standard would afford presenters sufficient time to correct a minor technical glitch. The majority of the board had requested that hard copies of PowerPoint presentations be submitted. It was stated should computer problems occur, hard copies would provide a backup that could be projected from the ELMO. Concern was expressed that non-technical members of the public would be disadvantaged when making presentations. Discussion ensued regarding PowerPoint presentations, with comments that they are less effective now that more people are familiar with the technique. Discussion ensued regarding rules' language, as the term "PowerPoint" has a trademark. Staff will modify the language and resubmit the rules on January 20, 2009, for board consideration. Ms. Grimes will provide updated language for motions for Level One appeals. The Chair will provide Ms. Grimes with a copy of his opening statement. Board members were thanked for their contributions to Community Pride. All were wished Happy Holidays. H. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 3:21 p.m. ~ Chair Community Development Board ( { -, Community Development 2008-12-16 6 Exhibit FLD2008-07019 2008-12-16 CDB Meeting Date: December 16, 2008 Case Number: FLD2008-07019 Agenda Item: D2 Owner: William A. Day Living Trust Applicant: Billy Day Representative: Albert P. Carrier, Deuel and Associates Addresses: 473 East Shore Drive and 475 Poinsettia Street CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit the addition of a 3,269 square foot, 10-slip dock as a marina and marina facility in conjunction with an existing 13-unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District with an increase to the maximum length of the dock from 75 percent of the lot width (90 feet) to 207 percent of the lot width (248.6 feet), under the provisions of Sections 2-803.E, 3-601 and 3-603. CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District, Marina District of Beach by Design CURRENT FUTURE LAND Resort Facilities High (RFH) Category USE CATEGORY: PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Overnight Accommodations (13 Rooms) Proposed Use: Marina Facility including 10 slips totaling 3,269 square feet (in association with an existing 13-unit overnight accommodation use) EXISTING North: Tourist (T) Duplex SURROUNDING ZONING South: Tourist (T) Overnight Accommodations AND USES: East: Preservation (P) Clearwater Harbor West: Tourist (T) Overnight Accommodations ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The subject property consists of two parcels totaling 0.64 acres that are located approximately 280 feet north of the intersection of Papaya Street and East Shore Drive with one parcel on each side of East Shore Drive. The 0.27-acre parcel located at 475 Poinsettia Street contains three overnight accommodation units and 14 off-street parking spaces, and the 0.37-acre parcel located at 473 East Shore Drive contains 10 overnight accommodation units. In addition, there is a refuse enclosure and 11 on-street parking spaces within the right-of-way adjacent to 473 East Shore Drive. While the Poinsettia Street parcel is not located along the waterfront, the East Shore Drive parcel has 120 feet of waterfront frontage. Development Proposal: The development proposal includes the removal of the existing dock, lifts and tie poles and the construction of a 3,269 square foot dock and 10 slips. The 10 slips are proposed for a marina use at the existing 10-unit overnight accommodation use on the upland portion of the East Shore Drive parcel. The slips are proposed Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-07019 – Page 1 Exhibit FLD2008-07019 2008-12-16 to accommodate six boats up to 40 feet in length and four boats up to 50 feet in length. No covered boatlifts, roof structures or vertical walls are proposed as part of this marina. No improvements to either parcel is proposed regarding the upland uses. Pursuant to CDC Section 2-803.E, marinas and marina facilities are permissible in the Tourist district through the Flexible Development approval process. The applicable review criteria for this use include a provision that all marina facilities comply with the commercial dock requirements set forth in CDC Section 3-601.C.3 as well as marina facilities requirements set forth in CDC Section 3-603. The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the Community Development Code is discussed below. Minimum Lot Area / Lot Width: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-803, marinas and marina facilities are required a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 50 feet. Compliance is achieved with the criteria as the parcels contain 27,907 square feet and have a lot width of 100 feet (poinsettia Street) and 120 feet (East Shore Drive). Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-803, marinas and marina facilities are required one off-street parking space per two slips. As ten slips are proposed, a total of five parking spaces are required for the marina. The aforementioned property located at 475 Poinsettia Street has three overnight accommodation units and 14 parking spaces, of which 11 are in excess to requirements. The applicant proposed to utilize five of these excess parking spaces to meet the demand of the proposed marina. As these parking spaces are within 600 feet of the marina (as per the requirements set forth in CDC Section 3-1404.A), this arrangement will meet Code, subject to a few issues being addressed prior to the sign-off on any permits for the construction of the docks. These issues are as follows: A off-site parking agreement will need to be entered into between the owners of the respective ?? properties and the City, and be recorded in the public records; While the Poinsettia Street parcel currently has 14 parking spaces, one of these is impeding traffic flow ?? and will be removed; and There is currently a business tax receipt (FKA occupational license) for a 14-space parking lot on the ?? Poinsettia Street parcel. However, as three of these parking spaces are required for the existing overnight accommodation units onsite, five will be required for the proposed dock, and one will be required to be removed as per the above condition, only five parking spaces will remain. As such, the business tax receipt will need to be amended accordingly. COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA 2-803.E: The Flexibility criteria for marinas and marina facilities set forth in CDC Section 2-803.E state that the proposed marina shall not be located in any of the areas of environmental significance as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed marina is not located in any of the areas of environmental significance with the exception of its proximity to Clearwater Harbor grass beds. However, those sea grass beds were mapped prior to the dock design phase and the proposed dock has been located in a manner so as to avoid any sea grasses. There are no residentially zoned properties adjacent to the proposed dock (adjacent properties are zoned Tourist District). No commercial activities will be permitted in the leased slips; live aboard vessels will be prohibited; and no upland development is proposed. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.E (Marinas and Marina Facilities): Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-07019 – Page 2 Exhibit FLD2008-07019 2008-12-16 Consistent Inconsistent 1 1. The parcel proposed for development is not located in areas identified in the X Comprehensive Plan as areas of environmental significance including: a. The north end of Clearwater Beach; b. Clearwater Harbor grass beds; c. Cooper's Point; d. Clearwater Harbor spoil islands; e. Sand Key Park; f. The southern edge of Alligator Lake. 2. No commercial activities other than the mooring of boats on a rental basis shall be X permitted on any parcel of land which is contiguous to a parcel of land which is designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas, unless the marina facilities are totally screened from view from the contiguous land which is designated as residential and the hours of operation of the commercial activities are limited to the time period between sunrise and sunset. 3. Setbacks: X a. The reduction in the front setback contributes to a more active and dynamic street life; b. The reduction in the front setback results in an improved design and appearance; c. The reduction in the side and rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by emergency vehicles; d. The reduction in the side and rear setback results in an improved site plan, more efficient parking or improved design or appearance. 4. The design of all buildings complies with the Tourist District design guidelines in X Division 5 of Article 3. 1 5. All marina facilities shall comply with the commercial dock requirements set forth X in Section 3-601.C.3 and the marina and marina facilities requirements set forth in Section 3-603. 1 See Analysis for discussion of consistency/inconsistency. COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA 3-601.C.3.a-g: The first criteria in CDC Section 3-601.C.3 is not applicable as the proposal is for a marina, as such the users may not necessarily be occupants of the principal use; however it is anticipated that they will. The dock will meet the setback requirements, width requirements and tie pole requirements. The entirety of the subject properties are within the Marina District of Beach by Design which supports the redevelopment of this district into a pedestrian and boater friendly destination that includes a mix of hotels, commercial, restaurant, residential and mixed use development, as well as a variety of dock facilities and water related uses. While the request for the length deviation significantly exceeds the allowable 75 percent lot width calculation, it is significantly less than 25 percent of the width of the waterway and does not constitute a hazard to navigation. The established character in the general vicinity is consistent with this request. Regarding impacts on water recreation activities, the City Harbormaster has reviewed the dock proposal and indicates that there is compliance with those criteria as well as the remaining environmental criteria. The following table depicts the consistency with the Flexibility criteria set for in CDC Section 3-601.C.3.a- g. Specific responses to each of these criteria have been provided by the applicant and are included with their application. Consistent Inconsistent Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-07019 – Page 3 Exhibit FLD2008-07019 2008-12-16 Use and CompatibilityX a. : i) The proposed dock shall be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort, convenience or necessities of the users or the occupants of the principal use of the property; ii) The proposed dock shall be in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent properties and the neighborhood in general; and iii) The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the general vicinity. Impacts on Existing Water Recreation ActivitiesX b. : The use of the proposed dock shall not adversely impact the health, safety or well being of persons currently using the adjacent waterways for recreational and/or commercial uses. Furthermore, it shall not hinder or discourage the existing uses of the adjacent waterway by uses including but not limited to non-motorized boats and motorized boats. Impacts on NavigationX c. : The existence and use of the proposed dock shall not have a detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation, transportation, recreational or other public conveniences. Impacts on Marine EnvironmentX d. : i) Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid injury to marine grassbeds or other aquatic resources in the surrounding areas; and ii) Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery feeding grounds for marine life, or established marine soil suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life; manatee sanctuaries; natural reefs and any such artificial reef which has developed an associated flora and fauna which have been determined to be approaching a typical natural assemblage structure in both density and diversity; oyster beds; clam beds; known sea turtle nesting site; commercial or sport fisheries or shell fisheries areas; and habitats desirable as juvenile fish habitat. Impacts on Water QualityX e. : i) All turning basin, access channels, boat mooring areas and any other area associated with a dock shall have adequate circulation and existing water depths to ensure that a minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between the lowest member of a vessel (e.g. skegs, rudder, prop) and the bottom of the water body at mean or ordinary low water (-0.95 NGVD datum); and ii) The dock shall not effectively cause erosion, extraordinary storm drainage, shoaling of channels, or adversely affect the water quality presently existing in the area or limit progress that is being made toward improvement of water quality in the area in which the dock is proposed to be located. Impacts on Natural ResourcesX f. : i) The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of wildlife, marine life, and other natural resources, including beaches and shores, so as to be contrary to the public interest; and ii) The dock shall not have an adverse impact on vegetated areas; vegetative, terrestrial, or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species providing one or more of the requirements to sustain their existence, such as range, nesting or feeding grounds; habitats which display biological or physical attributes which would serve to make them rare within the confines of the City; designated preservation areas such as those identified in the comprehensive land use plan, national wildlife refuges, Florida outstanding waters or other designated preservation areas, and bird sanctuaries. Impacts on Wetlands Habitat/UplandsX g. : The dock shall not have a material adverse affect upon the uplands surrounding. COMPLIANCE WITH DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS: The dimensional standards criteria for setbacks set forth in CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h state that docks shall be located no closer to any property line as extended into the water than the distance equivalent to ten percent of the width of the waterfront Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-07019 – Page 4 Exhibit FLD2008-07019 2008-12-16 property line. Docks abutting adjacent waterfront single family or two family properties must be setback a minimum of one-third of the applicant’s waterfront property width from the adjacent waterfront single family or two family property. The width of the waterfront property line on the subject property, which is adjacent to a two family waterfront property on the north side, is 120 feet; therefore the proposed dock must be set back from the north property line a minimum of 40 feet. As proposed, the dock will be set back from the north property line by a distance of 40 feet. Regarding the setback on the south side, the dock must be setback a distance equivalent to ten percent of the property width. This equates to 12 feet and as proposed exceeds this requirement at 12.2 feet. With regards to length, commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line or seawall of the subject property more than 75 percent of the width of the subject property as measured along the waterfront property line; thus the length of the dock is limited to 90 feet. As proposed, the dock has a length of 248.6 feet. The deviation request is to allow the proposed dock to be 158.6 feet longer than permitted by Code. CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h.ii allows tie poles to extend beyond the dock provided such poles do not extend 25 percent of the width of the waterway and do not constitute a navigational hazard. The waterway width in this area is approximately 1,454 feet; therefore tie poles may extend up to 363 feet, approximately 114 feet beyond the dock. The proposal has no tie poles extending beyond the dock. The Belle Harbor dock, just to the north, has an approximate length of 269 feet and just to the south the Frenchy’s dock has an approximate length of 360 feet. With this established character of existing docks in the vicinity, staff supports the request for an increased dock length. The same threshold that applies to length also applies to width; therefore the width of the proposed dock cannot exceed 90 feet. The dock has a proposed width of 67.8 feet; thus compliance with this standard is achieved. The following table depicts the development proposals consistency with the standards and criteria as per CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Dock Setbacks 10% of the width of the subject South: 12.2 feet X (Minimum) property (12 feet) 1/3 the width of the subject North: 40 feet X property (40 feet) 1 Dock Length 75% of the width of the subject 248.6 feet X (Maximum) property (90 feet) Dock Width 75% of the width of the subject 67.8 feet X (Maximum) property (90 feet) 1 See discussion above COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA 3-603: Compliance has been met with the Flexibility criteria for marinas and marina facilities as set forth in CDC Section 3-603. While proposed for a marina facility, there will be no living aboard, no fueling facilities, no launching facilities, and no chartering and/or servicing of vessels. Since a portable sanitary pump out station is proposed, no holding tank will be located over water. Public restrooms have been provided landside for marina users. The restrooms will be available 24 hours a day. Additionally, the proposed dock will be constructed on pilings only to aid in tidal flushing and aquatic flushing. No construction will take place that will inhibit tidal flushing. Manatee awareness signs will be posted on the docking facility. The City Harbormaster has determined that the proposed marina poses no hazard or obstruction to navigation. Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-07019 – Page 5 Exhibit FLD2008-07019 2008-12-16 The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria in CDC Section 3-603. Specific responses to each of these criteria have been provided by the applicant and are included with their application. Consistent Inconsistent 1. All proposed activities including, but not limited to, fueling, pumping-out, X chartering, living-aboard, launching, dry storage and the servicing of boats, motors and related marine equipment shall require approval in accordance with the provisions of the zoning district in which the marina or marina facility is proposed to be located. 2. For marina facilities located adjacent to residential districts, no fueling or launching X facilities shall be located within 20 feet of the residential property line, and no fueling or servicing of boats shall occur at such marinas after 9:00 p.m. or before 6:00 a.m. 3. No fuel storage facility or sanitary pump-out station holding tank shall be located X over water. 4. The marina shall pose no hazard or obstruction to navigation, as determined by the X city harbormaster. 5. The marina shall not adversely affect the environment, including both onshore and X offshore natural resources. 6. Adequate sanitary facilities shall be provided landside and a sanitary pump-out X station shall be provided and shall be available to marina users 24 hours a day. 7. A manatee protection plan shall be provided and appropriate speed zone signs shall X be posted to control boat speed for manatee protection. 8. Adequate spill containment areas shall be provided on the property. X 9. Design of the marina shall maintain existing tidal flushing and aquatic circulation X patterns. 10. In the event of conflict between these standards and federal or state law or rules, X the federal or state law or rules shall apply to the extent that these standards have been preempted; otherwise, the more stringent regulations shall apply. COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS: As previously discussed the development of the land (submerged) relating to scale, bulk, coverage, density and character with adjacent properties and the immediate vicinity have been found to be consistent. The marina project represents an appropriate addition to the waterfront and complements Beach by Design. The scale and coverage of the proposed marina is appropriate for this location, as it has been designed to not exceed the lengths of other existing docks. The marina will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development or redevelopment of adjacent properties. Moreover, the proposed marina is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. The proposed docks will not affect the health or safety of persons working or residing in the neighborhood as they meet state and local guidelines by not extending past the 25 percent waterway width and will be illuminated well with no tie poles beyond the length of the dock. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913.A of the Community Development Code: Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-07019 – Page 6 Exhibit FLD2008-07019 2008-12-16 Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of October 2, 2008, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the December 16, 2008 Community Development Board (CDB) meeting based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact: 1. That the 0.27 acres are located on the east side of Poinsettia Street and addressed as 475 Poinsettia Street; 2. That the 0.37 acres are located on the east side of East Shore Drive and addressed as 473 East Shore Drive; 3. That the parcels are located on both the east and west side of East Shore Drive approximately 280 feet north of the intersection of Papaya Street and East Shore Drive; 4. That the parcels are located in the Marina District of Beach by Design; 5. That the combined upland development consists of a total of 13 overnight accommodation units; 6. That the existing dock and slips are to be removed; 7. That the site has approximately 120 feet of waterfront frontage on Clearwater Harbor between the north and south property lines; 8. That the proposal consists of the construction of a 3,269 square-foot, 10 slip dock to be used as a marina; 9. That based on a parking ratio of one parking space per two slips and there being 10 proposed slips, a total of five parking spaces are required; 10. That there are no residentially zoned properties adjacent to the proposed dock; 11. That the proposal includes a deviation to increase the maximum length from 75 percent of the lot width (90 feet) to 207 percent of the lot width (248.6 feet); 12. That the proposed dock complies with the setback and width standards of CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h; 13. That the development proposal is compatible with dock patterns of the surrounding area; and 14. That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.E; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the commercial dock review criteria as per CDC Section 3-601.C.3; Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-07019 – Page 7 Exhibit FLD2008-07019 2008-12-16 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the marina review criteria as per CDC Section 3-603; and 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria as per CDC Section 3-913.A. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit the addition of a 3,269 square-foot, 10-slip dock as a marina and marina facility in conjunction with an existing 13-unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District with an increase to the maximum length of the dock from 75 percent of the lot width (90 feet) to 207 percent of the lot width (248.6 feet), under the provisions of Sections 2-803.E, 3-601 and 3-603 with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That prior to the sign-off on any permits for the construction of the docks, an off-site parking agreement will need to be entered into between the owners of the respective properties and the City, and be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County; 2. That prior to the sign-off on any permits for the construction of the docks, the existing parking space on the south side of 475 Poinsettia Drive by removed to allow one-way traffic flow; 3. That prior to the sign-off on any permits for the construction of the docks, OCL9319461 must be amended to decrease the number of allowed parking spaces to be rented from 14 to five; 4. That the five required marina parking spaces are clearly identified as such on the 475 Poinsettia Street parcel; 5. That the public restroom facilities are identified as such on the facility; 6. That there be no fueling facilities at this marina; 7. That live aboard vessels are prohibited; 8. That covered boat lifts are prohibited; 9. That plans are revised to provide correct information concerning fire department FDC and 2.5 inch hose; 10. That plans are revised to provide correct information to the fire department concerning under dock piping; 11. That plans are revised to provide correct information concerning fire department FDC and Double Detector Check Valve; 12. That signage be permanently installed on the docks or at the entrance to the docks containing wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the vicinity; and 13. That a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP Permit and any other applicable environmental permits, Corps of Engineer's Permit and proof of permission to use State submerged land, if applicable, be submitted to the Planning Department prior to commencement of construction. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________ A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; Photographs of Site and Vicinity; and Resume S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\East Shore 473 East Shore Resort Docks (T) - 12-16-08 CDB SK\East Shore - 473 Dock Staff Report.doc Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-07019 – Page 8 Exhibit: FLD 2008-10030 2008-12-16 CDB Meeting Date: December 16, 2008 Case Numbers: FLD2008-10030 Agenda Item: D1 Owner/Applicant: Congo River Golf & Exploration Co. Representative: Ty Maxey, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. Address: 20060 US Highway 19 N CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit modifications due to an eminent domain taking of property for additional right-of-way for an existing outdoor recreation/entertainment use (miniature golf) in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 75,664 square feet (1.737 acres), a lot width of 480 feet, a front (east) setback of 0.5 feet (to existing pavement), a side (north) setback of five feet (to existing concrete putting green and pavement), a side (south) setback of four feet (to existing pavement), a rear (west) setback of 30 feet (to existing concrete putting green), a building height of 25 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) and 51 parking spaces, as well as the allowance of a three-year time frame to submit for a building permit, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer width on the east side from 15 feet to 0.5 feet (to existing pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND Commercial General (CG) USE CATEGORY: PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Outdoor recreation/entertainment use (miniature golf) Proposed Use: Outdoor recreation/entertainment use (miniature golf) EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District Overnight accommodation use SURROUNDING ZONING South: Commercial (C) District Vehicle sales/display AND USES: East: Commercial (C) District Automobile service station and Retail sales and services West: Mobile Home Park Mobile Home Park (MHP) District ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 1.737 acres is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of US Highway 19 N and Druid Road. The site is currently improved with an outdoor recreation/entertainment use (miniature golf). Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-10030 – Page 1 of 7 Exhibit: FLD 2008-10030 2008-12-16 There exists to the north an overnight accommodation use. A vehicle sales/display (Lokey) establishment is located to the south. Across US Highway 19 N are also commercial uses, including an automobile service station and retail sales and services. The South Gate Mobile Home Park is located to the west of this miniature golf establishment. Development Proposal: Improvements are planned to US Highway 19 N for the Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Seville Boulevard/Druid Road intersections, consisting of widening and/or constructing overpasses at these intersections. Frontage roads within the US Highway 19 N right-of-way will provide access to the local businesses. In order to construct some of these roadway improvements, the State of Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has purchased private property through the eminent domain procedures, including the subject property. A 5,185 square-foot, triangular-shaped portion of the subject property has been purchased from the subject property, with the shorter leg of the triangle on the north side. This triangular area taken is presently primarily grass and a retention area, includes a freestanding sign, but does not affect any parking, building or miniature golf playing area. The Stipulated Final Judgment was approved August 18, 2008, and was for a total of $2,175,000 plus $356,774.50 in attorney and expert witness fees and costs. The applicant will be relocating the sign to the southern portion of the site. The applicant intends to continue operation of the existing outdoor recreation/entertainment use (miniature golf). Section 6-110.B of the Community Development Code states: “In the event that an eminent domain action renders a site nonconforming with respect to the development standards of this Code, the property shall be required to comply with the development standards to the maximum degree physically and financially feasible as determined by the community development coordinator. The community development coordinator may require mitigation and/or improvements to the site that are related to the specific conditions of the site, that adequately improve the public safety issues of the site and which implement the purposes of this Code.” This proposal includes a reduction to the front (east) setback along US Highway 19 N from 25 feet to 0.5 feet (to existing pavement) and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer width on the east side from 15 feet to 0.5 feet (to existing pavement). The acquisition of this triangular portion of the subject property creates a nonconformity, where the required front setback and landscape perimeter buffer have been reduced below Code requirements, and as such can remain. However, the applicant is requesting approval of these reductions to make the property conforming to Code requirements. The proposal includes, in fulfillment of the Comprehensive Landscape Program intent, the planting of additional shrubs to fill in gaps in the existing buffer hedge, additional shrubs and groundcovers to enhance this front buffer and the planting of four additional trees to meet the perimeter buffer requirements. A building permit is required for the installation of the proposed on-site improvements. With the construction of the right-of-way improvements, the FDOT will reconstruct and re-orient the northern driveway to the proposed frontage road. This re-orientation creates a triangular area on the north and west side of this new northern driveway that is existing pavement left over from the existing driveway orientation. This leftover paved, triangular area, which is directly related to the FDOT improvements as a result of the eminent domain taking, becomes irrelevant and should be removed, the new pavement edge curbed and it should be landscaped with shrubs and groundcovers in a manner acceptable to the Planning Department. The site plan should also be corrected to show the concrete truck access approach apron outside of the dumpster enclosure on the southeast side of the enclosure. Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-10030 – Page 2 of 7 Exhibit: FLD 2008-10030 2008-12-16 The applicant is requesting a three-year development order due to construction timing of the FDOT US Highway 19 N improvements. Section 4-407 specifies that an application for a building permit must be submitted within one year of the date the CDB approves the project, unless otherwise specified under this approval. The applicant checked with FDOT as to their timing schedule when requesting this extended time frame. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, the maximum floor area ratio for properties with a designation of Commercial General (CG) is 0.55. There is 905 square feet of enclosed floor area on the property. The existing FAR is 0.0112. After the eminent domain taking of the 5,185 square feet of land, the proposed FAR is 0.0119, still way below the maximum allowable FAR. Impervious Surface Ratio (I.S.R.): Pursuant to Section 2-701.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable I.S.R. for properties with a designation of CG is 0.95. Not including the concrete putting greens, sidewalks and other covered areas on the site, the proposed I.S.R. is 0.308 (paved areas + enclosed floor area), which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum lot area for outdoor recreation/entertainment uses is 20,000 square feet. The subject property after the eminent domain taking is 75,663 square feet in area. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for outdoor recreation/entertainment uses is 100 feet. The lot width of this site along US Highway 19 N, after the eminent domain taking, is 470 feet. The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum front setback for outdoor recreation/entertainment uses can range between 15 – 25 feet, the minimum side setback is 10 feet and the minimum rear setback can range between 10 – 20 feet. The proposal includes a front (east) setback of 0.5 feet (to existing pavement), a side (north) setback of five feet (to existing concrete putting green and pavement), a side (south) setback of four feet (to existing pavement) and a rear (west) setback of 30 feet (to existing concrete putting green). The side and rear setbacks are existing and are not the subject of this application. The reduction to the front setback from 25 feet to 0.5 feet to the northeast corner of the existing pavement is due to the eminent domain taking. The setback to the southeast corner of the existing pavement scales to 25 feet (to the new property line). The proposal is consistent with reduced setbacks in similar eminent domain takings on other properties for this US Highway 19 N corridor and is necessary for the construction of the roadway improvements. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable height for outdoor recreation/entertainment uses is 25 feet. The tallest building on this site is 25 feet in height to the midpoint of the pitched roof, in compliance with Code requirements. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum required parking is a range between 1 – 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of land area (or as determined by the Community Development Coordinator based on ITE Manual standards), or a range of 76 - 760 parking spaces. Currently there exist 51 parking spaces, which is not proposed to change. The existing parking has appeared to be sufficient for this use over the years and is not a subject of this application. Prior to the issuance of the required building permit, the site plan should indicate the width dimensions of the drive aisle and parking spaces (regular and handicap). The southern driveway will remain in its current location with the roadway improvements. The existing northern driveway currently accesses the Druid Road/US Highway 19 N frontage road located in a northerly orientation. With the proposed roadway improvements, the frontage road is being moved and this Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-10030 – Page 3 of 7 Exhibit: FLD 2008-10030 2008-12-16 northern driveway will be re-oriented to an east/west orientation. With this re-orientation, there is a triangular paved area of the existing driveway that will no longer be necessary for the functioning of this driveway. Staff recommends this triangular paved area be removed, the new pavement edge curbed and it be landscaped with shrubs and groundcovers in a manner acceptable to the Planning Department. Landscaping: The existing site meets the perimeter landscape buffer width requirement of a minimum of 15 feet along US Highway 19 N. As part of the eminent domain taking, the proposal includes a reduction to the buffer width from 15 feet to 0.5 feet (to existing pavement), as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program. The applicant is proposing to plant additional shrubs to fill in gaps in the existing buffer hedge, plant additional shrubs and groundcovers to enhance this front buffer and plant four additional trees to meet the perimeter buffer requirements. This meets the intent of the Comprehensive Landscape Program, where additional plantings exceeding minimum Code requirements are proposed to offset the areas where minimum Code requirements are not being met. The applicant is proposing red jatropha shrubs to fill in the hedge where there are gaps. Razzleberri fringe flower is proposed to surround the four proposed little gem magnolia trees in areas where there is no existing tree canopy. Yellow allamanda and fountain grass are proposed at the base of the relocated sign. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use proposal with the standards as per Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704 of the Community Development Code: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent FAR 0.55 0.0119 X I.S.R. 0.95 0.308 (paved areas + X enclosed floor area) Lot Area 20,000 sq. ft. 75,663 sq. ft. X Lot Width 100 feet 470 feet X 1 Setbacks Front: 15 – 25 feet 0.5 feet (to existing X pavement) 2 Side: 10 feet North: Five feet (to existing X concrete putting green and pavement) 2 South: Four feet (to X existing pavement) 2 Rear: 10 – 20 feet 30 feet (to existing X concrete putting green) Height 25 feet 25 feet (to the midpoint of X the pitched roof) 2 Off-Street 1 – 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square 51 parking spaces X Parking feet of land area (or as determined by the Community Development Coordinator based on ITE Manual standards) (76 - 760 spaces) 1 See analysis in Staff Report 2 Existing condition and not a subject of this application Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-10030 – Page 4 of 7 Exhibit: FLD 2008-10030 2008-12-16 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations X from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the X proposed development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: Changes in horizontal building planes; ?? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, ?? pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures; ?? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ?? Building stepbacks; and ?? Distinctive roofs forms. ?? e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-10030 – Page 5 of 7 Exhibit: FLD 2008-10030 2008-12-16 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of November 6, 2008, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact: 1. 1.737 acres is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of US Highway 19 N and Druid Road; 2. The site is currently improved with an outdoor recreation/entertainment use (miniature golf); 3. Roadway improvements are planned for US Highway 19 N for the Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Seville Boulevard/Druid Road intersections by the State of Florida Department of Transportation, consisting of the widening and/or constructing overpasses at these intersections; 4. In order to construct roadway improvements to US Highway 19 N, the FDOT has purchased private property through the eminent domain procedures, including a 5,185 square feet, triangular-shaped portion of the subject property; 5. A Stipulated Final Judgment was approved August 18, 2008, for a total of $2,175,000 plus $356,774.50 in attorney and expert witness fees and costs, for this portion of the subject property; 6. This triangular area taken is presently primarily grass and a retention area, includes a freestanding sign, but does not affect any parking, building or miniature golf playing area; 7. The existing freestanding sign will be relocated by the applicant to the southern portion of the site; 8. The acquisition of this triangular portion of the subject property creates a nonconformity, where the required front setback and landscape perimeter buffer have been reduced below Code requirements; 9. The applicant is requesting approval of a reduction to the front (east) setback and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer width along US Highway 19 N from 25 feet to 0.5 feet (to existing pavement) to make the property conforming to Code requirements; 10. The proposal includes, in fulfillment of the Comprehensive Landscape Program intent, the planting of additional shrubs to fill in gaps in the existing buffer hedge, additional shrubs and groundcovers to Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-10030 – Page 6 of 7 Exhibit: FLD 2008-10030 2008-12-16 enhance this front buffer and the planting of four additional trees to meet the perimeter buffer requirements; 11. The northern driveway will be re-oriented with the roadway construction, which creates, as a result of this re-orientation, a triangular area on the north and west side of the new northern driveway that is existing pavement left over from the existing driveway orientation. This triangular paved area becomes irrelevant and should be removed; 12. Section 4-407 specifies that an application for a building permit must be submitted within one year of the date the CDB approves the project, unless otherwise specified under this approval; 13. The proposal includes a request for a three-year development order due to construction timing of the FDOT US Highway 19 N improvements; and 14. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code; and 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit modifications due to an eminent domain taking of property for additional right-of-way for an existing outdoor recreation/entertainment use (miniature golf) in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 75,664 square feet (1.737 acres), a lot width of 480 feet, a front (east) setback of 0.5 feet (to existing pavement), a side (north) setback of five feet (to existing concrete putting green and pavement), a side (south) setback of four feet (to existing pavement), a rear (west) setback of 30 feet (to existing concrete putting green), a building height of 25 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) and 51 parking spaces, as well as the allowance of a three-year time frame to submit for a building permit, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer width on the east side from 15 feet to 0.5 feet (to existing pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That application for a building permit to construct the on-site improvements be submitted no later than December 16, 2011, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code; 2. That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the site plan be revised to show the following: a. the leftover paved, triangular area adjacent to the west and north of the new northern driveway be removed, the new pavement edge curbed and this area be landscaped with shrubs and groundcovers in a manner acceptable to the Planning Department; b. indicate the width dimensions of the drive aisle and parking spaces (regular and handicap); and c. correctly show the concrete truck access approach apron outside of the dumpster enclosure on the southeast side of the enclosure. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________ Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Location Map ?? Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-10030 – Page 7 of 7 Exhibit: FLD 2008-10030 2008-12-16 Aerial Map ?? Zoning Map ?? Existing Surrounding Uses Map ?? Photographs of Site and Vicinity ?? S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\US Hwy 19 N 20060 - Congo River Golf (C) - 12.16.08 CDB - WW\US Hwy 19 N 20060 Staff Report.doc Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 FLD2008-10030 – Page 8 of 7 Exhibit APP2008-00006 2008-12-16 CDB Meeting Date: December 16, 2008 Case Number: APP2008-00006 Agenda Item: E1 Appellant/Owner: Murphy Business and Financial Services, Inc. Agent: Steven W. Moore/Law Offices of Steven W. Moore Address: 513 North Belcher Road CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: An appeal from a Level One (Comprehensive Sign Program) approval decision pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4- 502.A. that a requested increase from one attached sign to five attached signs is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Sign Program principles as set forth in CDC Section 3-1807.C.1. CURRENT ZONING: Office (O) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY: Residential Office General (R/OG) PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Detached Dwelling Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling EXISTING SURROUNDING North: Office (O) Office ZONING AND USES: South: Institutional (I) Office East: Low Medium Density Residential Detached Dwelling (LMDR) West: Commercial (C) Retail BACKGROUND: The subject parcel comprises 0.82 acres and is located at the southeast corner of North Belcher Road and Sharkey Road. On October 1, 2007, a Comprehensive Sign Program (CSP) application was submitted requesting an increase from one attached sign to five attached signs. The five attached signs had previously been constructed and erected without the necessary permits. Following a determination that the application was complete on December 1, 2007, staff reviewed the request. CDC Section 3-1807.C.1 requires the proposed sign’s design, character, location and/or materials to be demonstrably more attractive than signs otherwise permitted under the minimum sign standards. Additionally, the signs must be architecturally integrated into/with the design of the building and/or site using similar and coordinated design features, materials and colors. Review by staff determined that the attached sign on the west side was not demonstrably more attractive than minimum code would allow, nor was it attached directly to the building façade. Likewise, the location of the other four attached signs was not demonstrably more attractive than otherwise would be permitted under minimum sign standards. CDC Section 3-1807.C.4 requires the Community Development Coordinator to evaluate the height, area, number and location of signs based on the overall size of the site, relationship between the building setback Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 APP2008-00006 – Page 1 of 3 Exhibit APP2008-00006 2008-12-16 and sign location, frontage, access and visibility to the site, traffic circulation and scale and use of the project. Review by staff determined the number of and location of five attached signs to conflict with the use of the project. While businesses rely on signage to attract attention, an office use is not one that compels drivers to make an impulsive stop such as a retail use. An office use is a destination and typically is located by an address. As such five attached signs were determined to be excessive in number. Additionally, the four attached signs on the north side face Sharkey Street which is predominately a residentially traveled street. Thus, the four attached signs were found to conflict with the intended use of signage in that the frontage in which they are attached should be of a commercial nature. It was suggested by Staff on January 30, 2008, that the existing monument sign along Belcher Road be relocated farther to the south, that another monument sign be erected along the Sharkey Street frontage and that three of the attached signs on the north side and the one attached sign on the west side of the building be removed. On November 14, 2008, in the absence of the submittal of a revised application upon which positive findings could be made, the Planning Department issued a development order denying the application, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusion of law: Findings of Fact: 1. That the 0.82 acres is located at the northeast corner of Belcher Road and Sharkey Road; 2. That the subject property is currently developed with an Office use approved through FLS 02-01-11 on April 19, 2002; 3. That the existing monument sign was approved on July 1, 2005; 4. That the attached sign on the west side was erected without a permit; 5. That the four attached signs on the north side were erected without permits; 6. That the attached sign on the west side is not demonstrably more attractive than would be permitted under minimum sign standards and is not attached directly to the building façade; and 7. That the four attached signs on the north side are excessive in number of attached signs. Conclusion of Law: 1. That the Comprehensive Sign Program request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Sign Program review principles as per Section 3-1807.C.1 of the Community Development Code. An appeal from the above Level One (Comprehensive Sign Program) decision was filed on behalf of the property owner by the Law Offices of Steven W. Moore on November 21, 2008, consistent with the timeframe established for an appeal to be initiated in CDC Section 4-502.A. Pursuant to CDC Section 4- 501.A.3, the Community Development Board (CDB) has the authority to hear appeals from Level One (Comprehensive Sign Program) decisions. Pursuant to CDC Section 4-504.A, the CDB shall review the application, the recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application, and render a decision in accordance with the provisions of CDC Section 4-206.D.5 granting the appeal, granting the appeal subject to specified conditions, or denying the appeal. It is noted that pursuant to CDC Section 4-504.B, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or modifying the decision appealed from, the CDB shall find that based on substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or other party that each and every one of the following criteria are met: 1. The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of this development code; and Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 APP2008-00006 – Page 2 of 3 Exhibit APP2008-00006 2008-12-16 2. The decision of the CDB will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this development code; and 3. The decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. Prepared by: Planning Department Staff: ________________________________ A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: ??Development Order Issued on November 14, 2008 ??Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity ??Location Map ??Future Land Use Map ??Zoning Atlas Map ??Site Photos ??Resume S:\Planning Department\C D B\Comprehensive Sign Program\Belcher\Belcher N 0513 Murphy Financial\Staff Report - CSP Denial-Murphy Business.doc Community Development Board – December 16, 2008 APP2008-00006 – Page 3 of 3 Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 CDB Meeting Date: December 16, 2008 Case # CPA2007-06003 Ordinance # 7993-08 Agenda Item F-1 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS REQUEST: Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND ANAYLSIS: On August 26, 2008, the CDB reviewed and recommended approval of Ordinance No.7993-08 which would amend the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan consistent with the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The City Council approved the ordinance on first reading on September 4, 2008 and the amendments were transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) consistent with Florida Statutes. The DCA, along with other state agencies, have reviewed the proposed amendments and issued an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report which requires revisions to proposed Ordinance No. 7993-08. This agenda item involves changes to the EAR-based amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, both substantive and editorial, pursuant to the Florida Department of Community Affairs’ (DCA) Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC). The Planning Department is requesting that the Community Development Board, acting as the Local Planning Agency, review the proposed changes to the EAR-based amendments and recommend approval to the City Council. The following information is attached for your convenience in making this recommendation: ?? Ordinance 7993-08 ?? Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report ?? Response to the Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report by the Planning Department ?? Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 on Second Reading. S:\psulliva\CDB\Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16.doc - 1 Page CPA2007-06003 Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 ?? Link to review the Map changes: Browse to Comprehensive Plan Maps username: vendor password: clearwater open folder name: 2008 Comp Plan Map Changes on Second Reading The Motion to Amend makes substantive and minor editorial changes to the Future Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Utilities, Coastal Management, Intergovernmental Coordination, Capital Improvements, and Public School Facilities Elements, including maps within the Future Land Use, Transportation and Coastal Management elements, as required by the ORC. Editorial changes remove 2 text blocks and make minor typographical corrections. Revisions have also been made to several maps. Substantive revisions change policies relative to: ?? affordable housing ?? transportation ?? post disaster redevelopment plans The Response to the ORC Report identifies sources of these changes as well as the changes to various goals, objectives and policies, as well as changes to several maps. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-603(F) no amendment to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards: 1. The amendment will further implementation of the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the goals, policies and objectives contained in the plan. The proposed amendment further refines the City’s existing policies and objectives. The proposed amendment is consistent with the existing goals, objectives, and policies contained in the comprehensive plan. 2. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The available uses, if applicable, to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property in question and compatible with existing and planned uses in the area. S:\psulliva\CDB\Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16.doc - 2 Page CPA2007-06003 Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 The proposed amendment is a text amendment (and includes maps within the elements) that is not directly related to a specific property. 4. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property. The proposed amendment is a text amendment (and includes maps within the elements) that is not directly related to a specific property. 5. The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment. The proposed amendment seeks to provide consistent and coordinated efforts for the processes and procedures for preserving and enhancing the natural environment in coordination with other agencies such as Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Tampa Bay Water (TBA) within several of the elements including Conservation, Coastal Management and Future Land Use as recommended in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. 6. The amendment will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area. The proposed amendment is a text amendment (and includes maps within the elements) that is not directly related to a specific property. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION : In response to the Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report issued by the Department of Community Affairs, revisions need to be made to the EAR-based amendments contained in Ordinance No. 7993-08 on second reading. Due to the number of revisions required to be made, it is necessary for the Community Development Board, acting in its capacity as the Local Planning Agency, to review the proposed changes. Planning Department staff recommends approval of the revisions contained in the Motion to Amend which affects the Future Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Utilities, Coastal Management, Intergovernmental Coordination, Capital Improvements, and Public School Facilities Elements, by making both substantive and editorial changes, pursuant to the Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report, Florida Statutes and the Rules of the Florida Administrative Code. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: Sandra E. Herman Planner III ATTACHMENTS: S:\psulliva\CDB\Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16.doc - 3 Page CPA2007-06003 Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 Ordinance No. 7993-08 Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report Response to Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report Motion to Amend on Second Reading S:\psulliva\CDB\Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16.doc - 4 Page CPA2007-06003 EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES RESPONSES TO: DCA’S OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT FOR THE CITY OF CLEARWATER AMENDMENT 08-2AR Note: This response uses the underline/strikethrough method of changing the Goals, Objectives and Policies (GOPs) that were approved on first reading of City Ordinance #7993-08 on September 4, 2008. I. CONSISTENCY WITH CHAPTER 163, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTUES (F.S.), AND RULE 9J-5, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (F.A.C.) The City of Clearwater’s proposed Amendment 08-2AR is the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based plan amendments to update the Comprehensive Plan. The City’s responses are provided below to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report: A. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT: 1. LACK OF PLANNING TIMEFRAME: Response: As per discussion with DCA staff, Map A-3 changed to reflect the planning timeframe of the of 2018. Population projections as well as the Future Land Use Element Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Introduction and Needs Summary were also revised to reflect the planning timeframe: A. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT INTRODUCTION The purpose and intent of the Future Land Use Element is to provide a framework for land use and zoning decisions. It establishes the allowable use, intensity and density of land and provides for consistency between land use classifications and zoning atlas districts. Additionally, this element provides for a citywide design structure consisting of a hierarchy of places and the linkages between them to guide future development. Since Clearwater is effectively built-out, the element provides for sustainable redevelopment and infill development, as well as neighborhood preservation. Goals, objectives and policies are designed to preserve and enhance community character and quality of life, while ensuring the continued economic vitality of the community. The City of Clearwater’s planning horizon for the Comprehensive Plan is 2018. Future Land Use Needs Summary The following summarizes the Future Land Use Element: ****** ?? Clearwater has a current population of approximately 110,831 people. Seasonal residents add about 10,110 people during the winter months. The permanent population is projected to increase to 120,028 121,352 by the year 2018 2020. ****** ?? The planning horizon for the City’s Comprehensive Plan is 2018. This is a 10-year plan as per Chapter 163, F.S. following adoption of Ordinance 7993-08. S:\psulliva\CDB\Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES.doc - 1 - EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES 2. DENSITY BONUSES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES: Response: Revised Policy A.2.2.7 in consultation with DCA personnel for greater specificity as follows: A.2.2.7 The City will provide density bonuses for affordable housing developments that demonstrate that a minimum of 15% of the total units are reserved as affordable housing units. Such bonuses shall not exceed 50% of the density permitted by the Future Land Use Map and shall not include properties located in the Coastal Storm Area. The density bonus shall be established by ordinance in the Community Development Code. The City will provide density bonuses to developers of affordable housing and/or mixed-income developments based on recommendations established in the City’s Local Housing Assistance Plan and implemented through the City’s Community Development Code. Since density bonuses are covered by A.2.2.7. , the following was revised in consultation Response: with DCA personnel to support Objective C.1.10. C.1.10.1 Consider providing density bonuses for Encourage affordable housing projects that are constructed consistent with US Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) principles or the Florida Green Building Coalition’s (FGBC) Green Land Development and Building Standards. 3. OBJECTIVE A.4.1 AND POLICY A.4.1.1 – REGARDING LOS FOR “TRAFFIC CIRCULATION” – CHANGE TO “ROADS”. Response: Revised as per DCA and Florida Department of Education comments: A.4.1 Objective – The City shall examine and upgrade the Concurrency Management and information system as appropriate for granting development permits. This system shall continue to consider the current, interim, and ultimately desired Levels of Service for roads traffic circulation, transit, water, sewer, garbage collection, public school facilities, and drainage systems and shall provide data on sub-sectors of the City in which service deficiencies exist or in which services are adequate to serve existing and planned new development. This level of service status will be considered and made part of the staff recommendation at the time of zoning, site plan, or plat approval. The level of service monitoring system shall be adjusted, at a minimum, annually to determine adequacy of service capacity. Should a requested development permit result in approvals which would burden service systems above adopted levels, permission to proceed with the development will not be granted until the City has assured that adequate services will be available concurrent with the impacts of development. A.4.1.1 No new development or redevelopment will be permitted which causes the level of City services (roads, traffic circulation, recreation and open space, water, sewage treatment, garbage collection, public school facilities, and drainage) to fall below minimum acceptable levels. However, development orders may be phased or otherwise modified consistent with provisions of the concurrency management system to allow services to be upgraded concurrently with the impacts of development. S:\psulliva\CDB\Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES.doc - 2 - EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES B. COASTAL ELEMENT: 4. COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA MAP:THE COLORS USED IN THE LEGEND FOR THE EVACUATION AREAS SHOULD BE MODIFIED FOR CLARITY. Response: The Legend for Map E-1 has been revised for clarity. 5. PUBLIC EXPENDITURES WITHIN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA: Response: In consultation with DCA personnel, it was determined that Policy E.3.1.3 requires no changes as long as E.3.1.4 is revised as follows and that E 3.1.5 is added : E.3.1.4 Ensure that construction of necessary infrastructure improvements in the coastal storm area are phased to coincide with the demands generated by development or redevelopment in support of the proposed densities permitted by the City’s adopted of the Future Land Use Element. Plan Map. E.3.1.5 The City’s public expenditures in the CHHA, when available, will include program improvements that will restore and enhance natural resources. 6. OBJECTIVE E.1.2 AND POLICY 1.2.1 – REGARDING THE CORRECT COASTAL STORM AREA MAP. POLICY E.4.1.9 – SET DATE FOR THE POST-DISASTER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Response: Objective E.1.2 and Policy E.1.2.1 have been changed as indicated in the ORC Report. Policy E.4.1.9 has been revised in consultation with DCA personnel. E.1.2 Objective - The coastal storm area shall be the area delineated in Map E-1 13-8 of the Coastal Management Element, which encompasses all of the following: (1) the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), which shall be defined by the Sea, Lake model to be inundatedfrom a and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) category one hurricane, as reflected in the most recent Regional Evacuation Study, Storm Tide Atlas, (2) all land connected to the mainland of Clearwater by bridges or causeways (3) those isolated areas that are defined by the model to be inundated by a SLOSH category two hurricane or above and that are surrounded by the CHHA or by the CHHA and a body of water, and (4) all land located within the Velocity Zone as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The City shall direct permanent population concentrations away from the coastal storm area consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the . Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Policies E.1.2.1 If 20% or more of a parcel of land is located within the coastal storm area, then the entire parcel shall be considered within the coastal storm area, with the exception of specific parcels located on the bluffs of Clearwater Harbor that the City has identified in Map E-1 S:\psulliva\CDB\Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES.doc - 3 - EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES 13-8 of the Comprehensive Plan. However, if either a parcel of land or a group of parcels that are part of a master development plan is equal to or greater than 5 acres and less than 50% of the parcel or group of parcels is within the coastal storm area, the property owner may elect to provide a survey of the parcel or parcels to determine the exact location of the coastal storm area. E.4.1.9 Prepare by 2012, a post disaster redevelopment plans in an effort to reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural disasters. C. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT: 7. LACK OF POTABLE WATER SUPPLY CONCURRENCY: Response: Policy I.1.3.2 is revised as per the ORC: I.1.3.2 The City shall determine, prior to the issuance of development orders, whether sufficient capacity of essential public facilities to meet the minimum standards for levels of service for the existing population and a proposed development will be available concurrent with the impacts of the proposed development. The applicable water supplier shall be consulted prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure potable water will be available prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 8. LACK OF A FIVE-YEAR SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: Response: Due to overlapping time frames for submission of the EAR-based amendments and the annual Capital Improvements Element update, the City’s six-year CIP schedule as adopted by the City Council on November 18, 2008, was submitted to DCA as a separate package on November 26, 2008. The schedule lists the projects by year and cites sources of funding, as well as references the applicable Comprehensive Plan GOP’s. It is the opinion of Planning Staff that the Capital Improvements Element as submitted on November 26, adequately addresses the concerns stated in Item C. Information will be included in the data and analysis materials for the EAR Based Amendments as required by DCA personnel. 9. LACK OF ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT: Response: Revised Policy I.1.3.7 to include a table summarizing level of service standards for CIE. I.1.3.7 Standards for the minimum level of service to be provided by essential public facilities within the jurisdiction of the City of Clearwater are established in the applicable element and outlined in the following Table: Summary of Level of Service Standards. Table: Summary of Level of Service Standards Facilities Element LOS Standard Transportation Transportation LOS C daily and LOS D pm peak for all roads in the City Sanitary Sewer Utilities Average of 127gallons per person per day (GPCD) Solid Waste Utilities Average Solid Waste Generator Rate of 7.12 pounds per capita per day Stormwater Utilities Design storm: 10 – year storm frequency for all new street development using the rational design method 25 – year frequency with positive outfall for major storm systems with S:\psulliva\CDB\Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES.doc - 4 - EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES basin time of intensities controlling the duration.* 50 – year storm frequency when no outfall and discharge is to street right-of-way.* 100 – year storm frequency when no outfall and discharge is across private property.* * Design standards for stormwater quality treatment/storage quantity shall conform to the current SWFWMD requirement [Presently being the SCS Unit Hydrograph design method, using the design storm frequency and a twenty-four (24) hour duration for sites ten (10) acres or more, and the rational design method for sites under ten (10) acres]. Potable Water and Utilities Average Water Consumption Rate Natural Ground 120 gallons per capita per day at a pressure of 40-45 psi.* Water Aquifer Recharge *Continue to maintain water consumption of one hundred twenty (120) GPCPD or less as per the conditions set forth by Clearwater’s Water Use Permit. Hurricane Coastal 16 hours (out of county for a category 5-storm event as measured on evacuation Management the Saffir-Simpson scale) Parks Recreation and 4 acres of parkland per one thousand (1,000) persons for Citywide Open Space application Schools Public School District-wide Level-of-Service Standard: Student enrollment plus Facilities vested students divided by Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) School Capacity plus additional capacity does not exceed 100 percent. This level-of-service standard shall apply to each type of public school facility 10. LACK OF CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR ROADS: Response: Policy I.1.3.3 Subsection 3 is being revised as follows to address FDOT’s comment. I.1.3.3 3. For roads and mass transit, transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place or under actual construction within 3 years after the City approves a building permit that results in traffic generation. the concurrency requirement will be satisfied by the criteria contained in Policy 32.3.3.1 or Policy 32.3.3.2 or if, in areas in which the City has committed to provide the necessary public facilities in accordance with the schedule of capital improvements, actual construction of the road or mass transit facilities is scheduled to commence in of before the third year of the schedule provide that the necessary public facilities will be available to accommodate the impact of the development. D. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: 11. LACK OF PLANNING TIMEFRAME ON MAPS: Response: The maps have been revised to reflect the appropriate planning timeframes. In addition, specific changes were made to some of the maps as indicated below: S:\psulliva\CDB\Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES.doc - 5 - EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES Map B-1: As per discussion with DCA staff, title block changed to more prominently reflect that these are Existing Levels of Service on major roads within the City, including those under State and County jurisdiction. Map B-2: Added planning timeframe of 2018 to map title block. Map B-3: Added planning timeframe of 2018 to map title block. Map B-4: Added planning timeframe of 2018 to map title block. Map B-5: As per discussion with DCA staff, title block changed to more prominently reflect that these are Existing Functional Classifications. Map B-6: Added planning timeframe of 2018 to map title block. Map B-7: Added planning timeframe of 2018 to map title block. Map B-8: Added planning timeframe of 2018 to map title block. Map B-9: Added planning timeframe of 2018 to map title block. Map B-10: Added planning timeframe of 2018 to map title block. Map B-11: Added planning timeframe of 2018 to map title block. Map B-12: Added planning timeframe of 2018 to map title block. 12. OBJECTIVE B.1.5 REGARDING REFERENCE TO THE STATE ROADWAYS ANDPOLICY B.1.5.5 REGARDING THE D LOS FOR US 19. Response: Objective B.1.5 has been revised as per DCA and FDOT comments: B.1.5 Objective – All County and State roadways in Clearwater, except those identified as backlogged or constrained by the Pinellas County MPO, shall operate at level C average daily/D peak hour. Response: Policy B.1.5.5 has been revised as per DCA and FDOT comments: B.1.5.5 The City shall continue to participate with the MPO and/or its Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) to ensure that the level of service standard for US Highway 19, a Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) facility is will be consistent with FDOT’s LOS designation of D for this road. F. HOUSING ELEMENT: 13. DENSITY INCREASES/ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS: For consistency with Policy A.2.2.7, Response: Policy C.1.9.1 has been changed as follows: C.1.9.1 The City will provide density bonuses for affordable housing developments that demonstrate that a minimum of 15% of the total units are reserved as affordable housing S:\psulliva\CDB\Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES.doc - 6 - EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES units. Such bonuses shall not exceed 50% of the density permitted by the Future Land Use Map and shall not include properties located in the Coastal Storm Area. The density bonus shall be established by ordinance in the Community Development Code. Permit density increases for development projects incorporating affordable housing units. Policy C.1.1.8 has been changed in consultation with DCA personnel as follows: C.1.1.8 The City may permit Consider one accessory dwelling units per lot wherever they such units can be accommodated by adequate lot area, and provided that they meet strict compliance standards such as building restrictions, visual buffering, parking and other requirements to be developed for inclusion in the Community Development Code. Delete the following as unnecessary due to revised policy C.1.9.1: C.1.9.4 Through the Downtown Public Amenities Incentive Pool, density increases shall be available to projects incorporating affordable housing units. Delete the following policies as unnecessary due to revised policy C.1.1.8 C.1.9.5 Accessory dwelling units may be permitted in certain areas of the Downtown, as an accessory use to a single-family or two-family dwelling, provided that sufficient parking exists. A.6.1.12 The City of Clearwater will continue to promote infill development and redevelopment to provide opportunities and conditions for the provision of accessory dwelling units. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER PROPOSES TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS TO THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES. THESE CHANGES ARE BASED UPON COMMENTS FROM OTHER REVIEWING AGENCIES, AS INDICATED. SOURCE: PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL. Add the following new policy to the Future Land Use Element: A.2.2.8 All land use categories on the Future Land Use Map shall be consistent with the density and intensity standards and other standards contained in the Pinellas Planning Council Countywide Plan Rules, including criteria and standards for nomenclature, continuum of plan classifications and categories, use and locational characteristics, map delineation, other standards, and special rules. SOURCE: LETTER FROM COUNTY 10/10/08. Make the following change to the Capital Improvements Element Policy I.1.1.8: I.1.1.8 The City shall, in cooperation with Pinellas County as approved by the voters in March 1997, and extended in March 2007, maintain a Local Government Infrastructure Surtax (LGIS) for the purpose of supplementing current revenue sources in order to fund the capital improvements called for in this Plan. SOURCE: LETTER FROM FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 9/11/08. Make the following change to new Policy H.1.1.11 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element: H.1.1.11The City shall establish specific policies to provide for enhanced hurricane and disaster management coordination between the City, Pinellas County, Pinellas County School S:\psulliva\CDB\Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES.doc - 7 - EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES Board, other cities, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, and the State of Florida with particular emphasis on public outreach and education. SOURCE: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 10/15/08. Make following changes to the Future Land Use Element: A.4.1.2 For the road links enumerated in the Transportation Element, a tiered level of service is established. The initial level of service for the purpose of issuing development permits shall be increased after improvements are complete, consistent with the construction initiation dates. A.4.1.2 A.4.1.3 The City shall recognize the overriding Constitutional principle that private property shall not be taken without due process of law and the payment of just compensation, which principle is restated in Section 163.3194 (4) (a), Florida Statutes. SOURCE: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 10/15/08. Add the following from the FDOT Adopted Work Program to the Transportation Element Objective B.2.3: ?? US Highway 19 From: N of Whitney Rd. to S of Seville Blvd. State Summary: Reconstruct US 19 w/Frontage Rd., Belleair Interchange ?? US Highway 19 From: S of Seville Blvd. To N of SR 60 State Summary: Reconstruct US 19 w/Frontage Rd., Seville Interchange SOURCE: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 10/15/08. Policy I.1.3.5.3 (c) iii of the Capital Improvements Element is amended as follows: iii. amend this Comprehensive Plan to modify the adopted standard for the level of service so as to reduce the required facility to equal the applicant’s needs, excluding Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), Federal Intrastate Highway System (FIHS), Transportation Regional Impact Project (TRIP) funded state roads. SOURCE: PLANNING DEPARTMENT. In order to provide for consistency with amended policy D.1.1.1., the second, third and fourth bullets of the Utilities Needs Summary for Sanitary Sewer are amended as follows: ?? The minimum level of service standard is an average of 127 gallons per person per day (GPCD). The Marshall Street treatment facility provides service at a rate of one hundred and twenty-four (124) gallons per capita per day (GPCPD). ?? The Clearwater East treatment facility provides service at a rate of one hundred and fourteen (114) gallons per capita per day (GPCPD). The East plant and Northeast plant are connected by a two-way force main. ?? The Northeast Regional Wastewater treatment facility provides service at a rate of one hundred and forty eight (148) gallons per capita per day (GPCPD). S:\psulliva\CDB\Exhibit CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 RESPONSES.doc - 8 - EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 ORC REPORT EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 ORC REPORT EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 ORC REPORT EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 ORC REPORT EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 ORC REPORT EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 ORC REPORT EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 ORC REPORT EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 ORC REPORT EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 ORC REPORT EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 ORC REPORT EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 ORC REPORT EXHIBIT CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 ORC REPORT EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND MOTION TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 7993-08 ON SECOND READING ON PAGE A - 1, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The introduction paragraph of the Future Land Use Element is amended as follows: A. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT INTRODUCTION The purpose and intent of the Future Land Use Element is to provide a framework for land use and zoning decisions. It establishes the allowable use, intensity and density of land and provides for consistency between land use classifications and zoning atlas districts. Additionally, this element provides for a citywide design structure consisting of a hierarchy of places and the linkages between them to guide future development. Since Clearwater is effectively built-out, the element provides for sustainable redevelopment and infill development, as well as neighborhood preservation. Goals, objectives and policies are designed to preserve and enhance community character and quality of life, while ensuring the continued economic vitality of the community. The City of Clearwater’s planning horizon for the Comprehensive Plan is 2018. ON PAGE A - 2, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The twelfth bullet of the Future Land Use Needs Summary is amended as follows: ?? Clearwater has a current population of approximately 110,831 people. Seasonal residents add about 10,110 people during the winter months. The permanent population is projected to increase to 120,028 121,352 by the year 2018 2020. ON PAGE A - 2, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The Future Land Use Needs Summary is amended with the addition of a fifteenth bullet as follows: ?? The planning horizon for the City’s Comprehensive Plan is 2018. This is a 10-year plan as per Chapter 163, F.S. and 9J-5.005(4), F.A.C., following adoption of City Ordinance Number 7993-08 on December 18, 2008. ON PAGE A – 14, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 1 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND Policy A.2.2.7 of the Future Land Use Element is amended as follows: A.2.2.7 The City will provide density bonuses for affordable housing developments that demonstrate that a minimum of 15% of the total units are reserved as affordable housing units. Such bonuses shall not exceed 50% of the density permitted by the Future Land Use Map and shall not include properties located in the Coastal Storm Area. The density bonus shall be established by ordinance in the Community Development Code. The City will provide density bonuses to developers of affordable housing and/or mixed-income developments based on recommendations established in the City’s Local Housing Assistance Plan and implemented through the City’s Community Development Code. ON PAGE A – 14, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The Future Land Use Element is amended by the addition of new policy A.2.2.8 as follows: A.2.2.8 All land use categories on the Future Land Use Map shall be consistent with the density and intensity standards and other standards contained in the Pinellas Planning Council Countywide Plan Rules, including criteria and standards for nomenclature, continuum of plan classifications and categories, use and locational characteristics, map delineation, other standards, and special rules. ON PAGE A – 15, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Objective A.4.1 of the Future Land Use Element is amended as follows: A.4.1 Objective – The City shall examine and upgrade the Concurrency Management and information system as appropriate for granting development permits. This system shall continue to consider the current, interim, and ultimately desired Levels of Service for roads traffic circulation, transit, water, sewer, garbage collection, public school facilities, and drainage systems and shall provide data on sub-sectors of the City in which service deficiencies exist or in which services are adequate to serve existing and planned new development. This level of Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 2 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND service status will be considered and made part of the staff recommendation at the time of zoning, site plan, or plat approval. The level of service monitoring system shall be adjusted, at a minimum, annually to determine adequacy of service capacity. Should a requested development permit result in approvals which would burden service systems above adopted levels, permission to proceed with the development will not be granted until the City has assured that adequate services will be available concurrent with the impacts of development. ON PAGE A – 15 AND A - 16, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy A.4.1.1 of the Future Land Use Element is amended as follows: A.4.1.1 No new development or redevelopment will be permitted which causes the level of City services (roads, traffic circulation, recreation and open space, water, sewage treatment, garbage collection, public school facilities, and drainage) to fall below minimum acceptable levels. However, development orders may be phased or otherwise modified consistent with provisions of the concurrency management system to allow services to be upgraded concurrently with the impacts of development. ON PAGE A – 16, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policies A.4.1.2 and A.4.1.3 of the Future Land Use Element are amended as follows: A.4.1.2 For the road links enumerated in the Transportation Element, a tiered level of service is established. The initial level of service for the purpose of issuing development permits shall be increased after improvements are complete, consistent with the construction initiation dates. A.4.1.2 A.4.1.3 The City shall recognize the overriding Constitutional principle that private property shall not be taken without due process of law and the payment of just compensation, which principle is restated in Section 163.3194 (4) (a), Florida Statutes. Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 3 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND ON PAGE A – 23, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy A.6.1.12 of the Future Land Use Element is amended as follows: A.6.1.12 The City of Clearwater will continue to promote infill development and redevelopment to provide opportunities and conditions for the provision of accessory dwelling units. ON PAGE B - 6, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Objective B.1.5 of the Transportation Element is amended as follows: B.1.5 Objective – All County and State roadways in Clearwater, except those identified as backlogged or constrained by the Pinellas County MPO, shall operate at level C average daily/D peak hour. ON PAGE B - 7, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy B.1.5.5 of the Transportation Element is amended as follows: B.1.5.5 The City shall continue to participate with the MPO and/or its Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) to ensure that the level of service standard for US Highway 19, a Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) facility is will be consistent with FDOT’s LOS designation of D for this road. ON PAGE B - 10, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Objective B.2.3 of the Transportation Element is amended by the addition of the following: ?? US Highway 19 From: N of Whitney Rd. to S of Seville Blvd. State Summary: Reconstruct US 19 w/Frontage Rd., Belleair Interchange ?? US Highway 19 From: S of Seville Blvd. To N of SR 60 State Summary: Reconstruct US 19 w/Frontage Rd., Seville Interchange ON PAGE C - 3, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 4 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND Policy C.1.1.8 of the Housing Element is amended as follows: C.1.1.8 The City may permit Consider one accessory dwelling units per lot wherever they such units can be accommodated by adequate lot area, and provided that they meet strict compliance standards such as building restrictions, visual buffering, parking and other requirements to be developed for inclusion in the Community Development Code. ON PAGE C - 10, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy C.1.9.1 of the Housing Element is amended as follows: C.1.9.1 The City will provide density bonuses for affordable housing developments that demonstrate that a minimum of 15% of the total units are reserved as affordable housing units. Such bonuses shall not exceed 50% of the density permitted by the Future Land Use Map and shall not include properties located in the Coastal Storm Area. The density bonus shall be established by ordinance in the Community Development Code. Permit density increases for development projects incorporating affordable housing units. ON PAGE C - 10, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policies C.1.9.4 and C.1.9.5 of the Housing Element are amended as follows: C.1.9.4 Through the Downtown Public Amenities Incentive Pool, density increases shall be available to projects incorporating affordable housing units. C.1.9.5 Accessory dwelling units may be permitted in certain areas of the Downtown, as an accessory use to a single-family or two-family dwelling, provided that sufficient parking exists. ON PAGE C - 10, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy C.1.10.1 of the Housing Element is amended as follows: C.1.10.1 Consider providing density bonuses for Encourage affordable housing projects that are constructed consistent with US Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) principles or the Florida Green Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 5 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND Building Coalition’s (FGBC) Green Land Development and Building Standards. ON PAGE D - 1, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The second, third and fourth bullets of the Utilities Needs Summary for Sanitary Sewer are amended as follows: ?? The minimum level of service standard is an average of 127 gallons per person per day (GPCD). The Marshall Street treatment facility provides service at a rate of one hundred and twenty-four (124) gallons per capita per day (GPCPD). ?? The Clearwater East treatment facility provides service at a rate of one hundred and fourteen (114) gallons per capita per day (GPCPD). The East plant and Northeast plant are connected by a two-way force main. ?? The Northeast Regional Wastewater treatment facility provides service at a rate of one hundred and forty eight (148) gallons per capita per day (GPCPD). ON PAGE E - 3, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Objective E.1.2 of the Coastal Management Element is amended as follows: E.1.2Objective - The coastal storm area shall be the area delineated in Map E-1 13-8 of the Coastal Management Element, which encompasses all of the following: (1) the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), which shall be defined by the Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model to be inundatedfrom a category one hurricane, as reflected in the most recent Regional Evacuation Study, Storm Tide Atlas, (2) all land connected to the mainland of Clearwater by bridges or causeways (3) those isolated areas that are defined by the model to be SLOSH inundated by a category two hurricane or above and that are surrounded by the CHHA or by the CHHA and a body of water, and (4) all land located within the Velocity Zone as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 6 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND The City shall direct permanent population concentrations away from the coastal storm area consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the . Clearwater Comprehensive Plan ON PAGES E – 3 AND E - 4, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy E.1.2.1 of the Coastal Management Element is amended as follows: E.1.2.1 If 20% or more of a parcel of land is located within the coastal storm area, then the entire parcel shall be considered within the coastal storm area, with the exception of specific parcels located on the bluffs of Clearwater Harbor that the City has identified in Map E-1 13-8 of the Comprehensive Plan. However, if either a parcel of land or a group of parcels that are part of a master development plan is equal to or greater than 5 acres and less than 50% of the parcel or group of parcels is within the coastal storm area, the property owner may elect to provide a survey of the parcel or parcels to determine the exact location of the coastal storm area. ON PAGES E – 9 AND E-10, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy E.3.1.4 of the Coastal Management Element is amended as follows: E.3.1.4 Ensure that construction of necessary infrastructure improvements in the coastal storm area are phased to coincide with the demands generated by development or redevelopment in support of the proposed densities permitted by the City’s adopted of the Future Land Use Element. Plan Map. The Coastal Management Element is amended by the addition of new Policy E.3.1.5 as follows: E.3.1.5 The City’s public expenditures in the CHHA, when available, will include program improvements that will restore and enhance natural resources. ON PAGE E – 13, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy E.4.1.9 of the Coastal Management Element is amended as follows: Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 7 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND E.4.1.9 Prepare by 2012, a post disaster redevelopment plans in an effort to reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural disasters. ON PAGE H - 4, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy H.1.1.11 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is amended as follows: H.1.1.11The City shall establish specific policies to provide for enhanced hurricane and disaster management coordination between the City, Pinellas County, Pinellas County School Board, other cities, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, and the State of Florida with particular emphasis on public outreach and education. ON PAGE I – 5, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy I.1.1.8 of the Capital Improvements Element is amended as follows: Policy I.1.1.8 The City shall, in cooperation with Pinellas County as approved by the voters in March 1997, and extended in March 2007, maintain a Local Government Infrastructure Surtax (LGIS) for the purpose of supplementing current revenue sources in order to fund the capital improvements called for in this Plan. ON PAGE I - 7, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy I.1.3.2 of the Capital Improvements Element is amended as follows: I.1.3.2 The City shall determine, prior to the issuance of development orders, whether sufficient capacity of essential public facilities to meet the minimum standards for levels of service for the existing population and a proposed development will be available concurrent with the impacts of the proposed development. The applicable water supplier shall be consulted prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure potable water will be available prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. ON PAGE I - 8, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy I.1.3.3 Subsection 3 of the Capital Improvements Element is amended as follows: Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 8 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND I.1.3.3 3. For roads and mass transit, transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place or under actual construction within 3 years after the City approves a building permit that results in traffic generation. the concurrency requirement will be satisfied by the criteria contained in Policy 32.3.3.1 or Policy 32.3.3.2 or if, in areas in which the City has committed to provide the necessary public facilities in accordance with the schedule of capital improvements, actual construction of the road or mass transit facilities is scheduled to commence in of before the third year of the schedule provide that the necessary public facilities will be available to accommodate the impact of the development. ON PAGE I - 9, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy I.1.3.5.3 (c) iii of the Capital Improvements Element is amended as follows: amend this Comprehensive Plan to modify the iii. adopted standard for the level of service so as to reduce the required facility to equal the applicant’s needs, excluding Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), Federal Intrastate Highway System (FIHS), and Transportation Regional Impact Project (TRIP) funded state roads. ON PAGE I - 9, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy I.1.3.7 of the Capital Improvements Element is amended as follows: I.1.3.7 Standards for the minimum level of service to be provided by essential public facilities within the jurisdiction of the City of Clearwater are established in the applicable element and outlined in the following Table: Summary of Level of Service Standards. Table: Summary of Level of Service Standards Facilities Element LOS Standard Transportation Transportation LOS C daily and LOS D pm peak for all roads in the City Sanitary Sewer Utilities Average of 127gallons per person per day (GPCD) Solid Waste Utilities Average Solid Waste Generator Rate of 7.12 pounds per capita per day Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 9 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND Stormwater Utilities Design storm: 10 – year storm frequency for all new street development using the rational design method 25 – year frequency with positive outfall for major storm systems with basin time of intensities controlling the duration.* 50 – year storm frequency when no outfall and discharge is to street right-of-way.* 100 – year storm frequency when no outfall and discharge is across private property.* * Design standards for stormwater quality treatment/storage quantity shall conform to the current SWFWMD requirement [Presently being the SCS Unit Hydrograph design method, using the design storm frequency and a twenty-four (24) hour duration for sites ten (10) acres or more, and the rational design method for sites under ten (10) acres]. Potable Water Utilities Average Water Consumption Rate and Natural 120 gallons per capita per day at a pressure of 40-45 Ground Water psi.* Aquifer Recharge *Continue to maintain water consumption of one hundred twenty (120) GPCPD or less as per the conditions set forth by Clearwater’s Water Use Permit. Hurricane Coastal 16 hours (out of county for a category 5-storm event evacuation Management as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale) Parks Recreation and 4 acres of parkland per one thousand (1,000) persons Open Space for Citywide application Schools Public School District-wide Level-of-Service Standard: Student Facilities enrollment plus vested students divided by Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) School Capacity plus additional capacity does not exceed 100 percent. This level-of-service standard shall apply to each type of public school facility ON PAGE I - 11, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy I.1.7.1 of the Capital Improvements Element is amended as follows: I.1.7.1 The City shall utilize the following level-of-service standard for public school facilities, which shall be applied consistently district- Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 10 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND wide by the School District and by the local governments within Pinellas County that signed the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement (the partner local governments). District-wide level-of-service sStandard: Student enrollment plus vested students divided by Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) School Capacity plus additional capacity does not exceed 100 percent. This level-of-service standard shall apply to each type of public school facility. District-wide level-of-service Standard: Student enrollment plus vested students divided by Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) School Capacity plus additional capacity does not exceed 100 percent. This level-of-service standard shall apply to each type of public school facility. ON PAGE J - 3, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy J.1.2.1 of the Public School Facilities Element is amended as follows: J.1.2.1 The City hereby adopts, consistent with Section 11 of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement, the following level-of-service standard, which shall be applied consistently district-wide by all partner local governments within Pinellas County and by the School District. District-wide level-of-service sStandard: Student enrollment plus vested students divided by Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) School Capacity plus additional capacity does not exceed 100 percent. This level-of-service standard shall apply to each type of public school facility. District-wide level-of-service Standard: Student enrollment plus vested students divided by Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) School Capacity plus additional capacity does not exceed 100 percent. This level-of-service standard shall apply to each type of public school facility. ON THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP #: A-3, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 11 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND The title block for the Future Land Use Element Map #: A-3 is amended as follows: Future Land Use: 2018 ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT MAP #: B-1, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The title block for the Transportation Element Map #: B-1 is amended as follows: Road Network: Existing Existing Level of Service (Major Road Network) ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT MAP #: B-2, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The title block for the Transportation Element Map #: B-2 is amended as follows: Road Network: 2018 2025 Level of Service (Major Road Network) ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT MAP #: B-3, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The title block for the Transportation Element Map #: B-3 is amended as follows: Lane Arrangement 2008 - 2018 ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT MAP #: B-4, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The title block for the Transportation Element Map #: B-4 is amended as follows: Road Network: Existing Jurisdictional Classification 2008 – 2018 Classification ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT MAP #: B-5, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 12 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND The title block for the Transportation Element Map #: B-5 is amended as follows: Road Network: Existing Existing Functional Classification ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT MAP #: B-6, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The title block for the Transportation Element Map #: B-6 is amended as follows: Road Network: 2025 2018 Functional Classification ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT MAP #: B-7, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The title block for the Transportation Element Map #: B-7 is amended as follows: Major Trip Attractors and Generators 2008 – 2018 ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT MAP #: B-8, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The title block for the Transportation Element Map #: B-8 is amended as follows: Bike and Pedestrian Routes 2008 - 2018 The Transportation Element Map #: B-8 is amended with changes to the Legend key and the map drawing to clarify and differentiate between the existing and proposed routes, including the addition of the Memorial Causeway/Druid Road Trail and the Progress Energy Trail. Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 13 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT MAP #: B-9, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The title block for the Transportation Element Map #: B-9 is amended as follows: Public Transit Routes 2008 – 2018 ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT MAP #: B-10, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The title block for the Transportation Element Map #: B-10 is amended as follows: Airpark Land Use 2008 – 2018 ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT MAP #: B-11, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The title block for the Transportation Element Map #: B-11 is amended as follows: Airpark Plan 2008 – 2018 ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT MAP #: B-12, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The title block for the Transportation Element Map #: B-12 is amended as follows: Airpark Noise Contours 2008 – 2018 ON THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT MAP #: E-1, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The Legend in the title block for the Coastal Management Element Map #: E-1 has been amended for clarity, with no changes to the map. Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 14 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND ON PAGE D - 16, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Objective D.5.1 of the Utilities Element is amended as follows: D.5.1 Objective – To maintain adequate Levels of Service for existing and future populations through the year 2018 2015. ON PAGE D – 16, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy D.5.2.1 of the Utilities Element is amended as follows: D.5.2.1 Ensure that land development regulations, building codes and City ordinances adequately address water system provisions by performing a thorough evaluation of City codes and by coordinating proposed provisions with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa Bay Water, Pinellas County and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. ON PAGE D – 17, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy D.5.2.6 of the Utilities Element is amended as follows: Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 15 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND D.5.2.6 The City shall continue to participate with and assist Tampa Bay Water, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Pinellas County Health Department, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in developing innovative techniques to augment existing water supplies to provide for future needs. ON PAGE D – 17, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy D.5.2.7 of the Utilities Element is amended as follows: D.5.2.7 Continue to identify, acquire, and develop sources of water supply and methods of water treatment to meet existing and future needs. Some ways this can be accomplished are through well rehabilitation projects and/or exploration and drilling of new wells. Some type of water treatment may be initiated. Additional volumes of water may be acquired from the Pinellas County Water System through Clearwater’s intergovernmental water service agreement. The City’s long range Water Master Plan updated in 2008 completed in 2004 shall serve as the guiding document for water supply and treatment methods. ON PAGE D – 17, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy D.5.2.8 of the Utilities Element is amended as follows: D.5.2.8 Ensure that water management projects are designed and operated to maintain and enhance natural systems as well as man made systems by working closely with the Southwest Florida Water Management District when proposing new projects and water management programs. The City’s long range Water Master Plan Water Supply Master Plan completed in 2004 outlines a work plan for continued coordination with the Southwest Florida Water Management District’s Regional Water Supply Plan adopted in December 2006. ON PAGE D – 17, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The Utilities Element is amended by the addition of new policy D.5.2.11 as follows: D.5.2.11 Encourage the development of local and regional water supplies within the jurisdiction of the Southwest Florida Water Management District to avoid transporting surface water across other district boundaries. Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 16 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND ON PAGE D – 18, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The Utilities Element is amended by the addition of new policy D.5.4.6 as follows: D.5.4.6 Encourage partnerships among federal, state, local governments, and the private sector that would identify and build needed potable water facilities and allocate such facilities costs among the partners in proportion to the benefits accruing to each of them. ON PAGE D – 18, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Objective D.5.5 of the Utilities Element is amended as follows: D.5.5 Objective – Continue to dDevelop a potable water system that is compatible with the environment and seeks to conserve and protect sensitive natural resources. ON PAGE D – 19, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy D.5.5.2 of the Utilities Element is amended as follows: D.5.5.2 The City’s building code shall be modified to include the requirement for water conserving fixtures in newly constructed or remodeled buildings. ON PAGE D – 19, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy D.5.5.5 of the Utilities Element is amended as follows: D.5.5.5 The City of Clearwater shall maintain its current Water Restriction Ordinance. ON PAGE D – 19, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy D.5.5.7 of the Utilities Element is amended as follows: Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 17 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND D.5.5.7 Reclaimed water service will continue to be extended to private residences based on the Twenty (20) Year Reclaimed Water Master Plan Reclaimed Water Master Plan Re-Evaluation, December, 2007. ON PAGE D – 19, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The Utilities Element is amended by the addition of new policies D.5.5.9 and D.5.5.10 as follows: D.5.5.9 The City will continue to develop strategies aimed at reducing potable water consumption by means such as water conservation rates, conservation codes, operational measures, rebate and plumbing retrofit programs, landscape and irrigation efficiency programs, research and evaluation, and re-use alternatives. D.5.5.10 The City will expand, in coordination with other stakeholders, educational programs to promote water conservation measures. ON PAGE D – 19, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The Utilities Element is amended by the addition of new policy D.5.6.6 as follows: D.5.6.6 The City will maintain a Water Supply Facilities Work Plan that is consistent with the Southwest Florida Water Management District’s Water Supply Plan by updating the work Plan within 18 months of an update to the District’s Regional Supply Plan that affects the City. ON PAGE D – 20, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy D.5.7.2 of the Utilities Element is amended as follows: D.5.7.2 The City of Clearwater shall include incentives in the Community Development Code for the protection of natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as identified in the Conservation Element of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. ON PAGE D – 20, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 18 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND Policy D.5.7.3 of the Utilities Element is amended as follows: D.5.7.3 The City of Clearwater shall continue to protect groundwater quality by enforcing the Wellhead Protection Ordinance within the area specified on Map D-2. Guidelines and criteria for protection of potable water wellfields include: 1. Issuance of a Permit (a) A wellhead protection permit shall be obtained from the engineering director for any new business, commercial, industrial or other nonresidential activity on property within the city if any portion of the subject property is within 1,000 feet of a potable water well. New residential construction on property located within the city should also obtain a permit if any portion of the subject property is within 100 feet of potable water well. 2. Permit Requirements: (a) Activities within a 1,000-foot radial distance around a potable water supply well shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 62-521, F.A.C., Wellhead Protection. (b) Activities defined as potentially high risk to ground water quality in Chapter 62-555.312, F.A.C. shall not be permitted within 100 feet of an existing potable water supply well. (c) Activities defined as a moderate risk to ground water quality in Chapter 62-555.312, F.A.C. shall not be permitted within 50 feet of an existing potable water supply well. (d) If any contaminating material is proposed to be used or stored for any business, commercial, industrial or other nonresidential use within 1,000 feet of a potable water supply well, a protection-containment plan shall be submitted. If any contaminating material is proposed to be used or stored for residential use within 100 feet of a potable water supply well, a protection-containment plan shall be submitted. Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 19 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND (e) A wellhead protection permit application shall at a minimum include a location map of the potable water well and 1,000 feet surrounding the well, plans for the proposed development or expansion/change of an existing use (if applicable), the location and identification of existing uses in a 1,000-foot zone for a commercial use application or a 100-foot zone for a residential use application, a listing of any contaminating material to be used or stored on the site and a protection-containment plan if necessary. 3. Permit Review (a) In reviewing a protection-containment plan submitted by an applicant for a wellhead protection permit, the following factors shall be considered when determining the sufficiency of the plan: (1) The amount, character and intended use of the contaminating material involved; (2) Storage, conveyance and handling techniques to be employed by the applicant; (3) The extent of any propensity to spill, break, lose or discharge contaminating material; (4) The type of containment devices to be employed; (5) The extent of employee safety training and practices; and (6) Any other consideration appropriate to the protection of the wellhead. (b) No wellhead protection permit shall be issued unless the protection-containment plan and permit application fully addresses all contamination and safety matters to the satisfaction of the engineering director. A wellhead protection permit may be issued subject to conditions related to the protection of the public potable water supply. Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 20 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND FOLLOWING UTILITIES ELEMENT MAP #: D-1, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The Utilities Element is amended by the addition of Potable Water Wells and Wellhead Protection Zones, Map #: D-2. ON PAGES I – 1 and I - 2, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The second, third, fourth and fifth bulleted items under the Capital Improvements Element Needs Summary are amended as follows: ?? The City’s Streets and Sidewalks Program is currently budgeted for $15.472 $17.976 million on the six-year CIP schedule with a funding source of road millage. ?? The City proposes a total of $48.44 $68.4 million of improvements within the City’s Stormwater Infrastructure Program over the six-year CIP period. The funding sources for this project are the Stormwater Fund and a future bond issue. ?? The $1.552 $1.262 million Commercial Container Acquisition CIP project is planned through Solid Waste funds. ?? The $21.066 $20.7 million Reclaimed Water Distribution System CIP project is being funded through: $1.3 million from Water Funds, $863,400 from FY ’09 Bond Issue $2.894 million from FY’08 Bond Issue, $13.841 $12.112 million from future bond issue, $4.833 from Sewer Revenue, and $1.529 $4.392 million from Utility Renewal and Replacement. ON PAGE I – 3, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy I.1.1.2 of the Capital Improvements Element is amended as follows: Policy I.1.1.2 The City shall be permitted to amend the Schedule of Capital Improvements two times during any calendar year and as allowed for emergencies, developments of regional impact and certain small-scale development activities pursuant to Florida Statutes 163.3187. The schedule of capital improvements included in the Clearwater FY2008/09 Capital Improvement Program Budget is incorporated as Schedule I-A of this Capital Improvements Element. Amendments to the Capital Improvements Element schedule may occur once a year and may be processed separately from the City’s two large-scale amendment submissions as necessary to coincide with the adoption of the City’s annual operating and capital budget. Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 21 - EXHIBIT: CPA2007-06003 2008-12-16 MOTION TO AMEND ON PAGE I – 12, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Policy I.1.7.6 of the Capital Improvements Element is amended as follows: I.1.7.6 The City hereby adopts by reference the School District’s Five-Year Work Program for FY 2008/09 through 2012/13 FY 2007/08 through 2011/12, as adopted by the School Board on September 9, 2008 11, 2007. On PAGE I – 12, AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: The Capital Improvements Element is amended by the addition of new Schedule I-A. Pamela K. Akin City Attorney December 18, 2008 Motion to Amend Ordinance 7993-08 - 22 - RULES OF PROCEDURE – REVISED 2008-12-16 CITY OF CLEARWATER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD RULES OF PROCEDURE ARTICLE I BOARD NAME AND PURPOSE The name of this board shall be the Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater, hereinafter referred to as the “Board.” The Board shall be governed by these rules of procedure; for any matters not covered by these rules, the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern. ARTICLE II AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION The purpose of the Board is to implement the provisions of the Community Development Code of the City of Clearwater and it shall perform the functions and exercise the authority granted to it in the Code. The Community Development Code is codified as Subpart B of Part II of the City’s Code of Ordinances, as originally adopted on January 21, 1999, made effective on March 8, 1999 and as may be amended from time to time. The Board shall have jurisdiction for all property within the corporate limits of the City of Clearwater pursuant to the Community Development Code. ARTICLE III MEMBERS AND OFFICERS Section 1. Members The City Commission shall appoint seven regular members and one alternate member of the Board who are residents of the City in accordance with the provisions of the Community Development Code. The length of a regular member’s term shall be four years and a member may be re-appointed for one successive four-year term. For the appointment of the initial Board, terms shall be staggered such that no more than two members’ terms shall expire in any calendar year. The alternate board member shall serve at the pleasure of the City Commission for a four-year term and may be reappointed City of Clearwater – Community Development Board – Rules of Procedure – Page 1 RULES OF PROCEDURE – REVISED 2008-12-16 for one successive term. In the event the alternate member is appointed as a regular member, the term already served, as an alternate shall not be considered part of the allowable term as a regular member. (CDC Article 5, Division 2) Amended by Ordinance 6680-01, effective April 5, 2001. Section 2. Officers The Board shall annually elect a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson at its meeting in April. All officers shall serve a one-year term and may be re-elected by the Board. Should the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson not be able to serve out the entirety of his term, the Board shall hold an election to fill the vacancy of the office. The newly elected officer shall serve only until the next regular election of officers. (CDC Section 5-204) Amended at the February 18, 2003 CDB meeting Section 3. Duties of Officers The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Board and shall have the duties normally conferred upon the office by parliamentary rules. The Chairperson shall have the privilege of discussing all matters before the Board and shall have the same voting rights as other Board members. If the Chairperson is absent from a meeting, the Vice- Chairperson shall preside at the meeting and perform all of the functions of the Chairperson. If both the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson are absent from a meeting, the attending members of the Board shall select a member to preside at that meeting. (CDC Section 5-204) Section 4. Staff and Legal Advisor to the Board The Planning Department shall serve as staff to the Board and shall provide it with the necessary professional support to carry out its duties. (CDC Section 5-204) The City Attorney’s office shall provide legal representation to the Board to assist it in its responsibilities. ARTICLE IV CONDUCT OF MEETINGS Section 1. Meetings The Board shall meet on the third Tuesday of each month beginning at 1 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall unless otherwise prescribed. All meetings of the Board are open to the public and shall be properly noticed in accordance with applicable Florida law. The Chairperson or a majority of the Board membership may call a special meeting when required for the conduct of its business. (CDC Section 5-203) Amended at the April 17, 2001 CDB meeting and effective June 19, 2001. Amended at the November 16, 2004 CDB Meeting and effective January 18, 2005. City of Clearwater – Community Development Board – Rules of Procedure – Page 2 RULES OF PROCEDURE – REVISED 2008-12-16 Section 2. Quorum and Vote A quorum of five members is required to conduct the business of the Board. The concurring vote of at least four members is required for action on any item before the Board. If a decision results in a vote of 3 to 2, the matter shall automatically be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board for a decision. In the event all regular members are present, the alternate member shall have all of the rights and responsibilities of a regular member except for the right to vote. In the absence of a regular board member at a board meeting or during an agenda item when a regular member cannot vote due to a conflict of interest, the alternate member shall also have the right to vote. (CDC Section 5-203) Amended by Ordinance 6680-01, effective April 5, 2001 Section 3. Conflict of Interest Any Board member who has a conflict of interest due to a special private gain shall announce his conflict prior to the beginning of the application and must abstain from discussion and voting on that item. The member must also file the conflict of interest disclosure statement as required by Florida Statutes within 15 days of the meeting. On all other matters where a member does not have a conflict of interest, a member must vote on the matter. Section 4. Order of Meeting Meetings shall generally be conducted according to the following order: Call to Order Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Approval of Minutes Requests for Continuances Continued Items Consent Agenda Items Approval of Consent Agenda Consideration of Level One Appeals (if removed from Consent Agenda) Consideration of Level Two and Three Applications Removed from the Consent Agenda Requests for Additional Time for Presentation Requests for Rehearing Level Two Applications- Flexible Development Order Applications Level Three Applications- Annexations Land Use Plan Amendments Rezoning Applications Text Amendments to the Community Development Code City of Clearwater – Community Development Board – Rules of Procedure – Page 3 RULES OF PROCEDURE – REVISED 2008-12-16 Appeals Board and Staff Reports/ Comments Special Studies and Plans The Board may utilize a consent agenda which shall include cases that the Planning Department recommends approval, the applicant is in agreement with any proposed conditions and no objections have been received from the public. The cases that meet the above qualifications to be placed on the consent agenda will be identified on the printed Board agenda. At the beginning of the Board meeting, the Chairperson shall ask if any member of the audience, the Staff or Board member desires to remove a case from the consent agenda due to objections or questions. If a case is removed from the consent agenda, the case will be heard in the regular order of the agenda. A full presentation on all other cases that remain on the consent agenda will not be required and the Board may approve the consent agenda with a single vote. Amended at the June 19,2007, September 18, 2007 and January 15, 2008 CDB Meetings Section 5. PowerPoint Presentations Applicants and members of the public may present a PowerPoint presentation to the Community Development Board using the City’s equipment provided that: Such presentation shall occur within the applicable time limits for oral presentations and cumulative time limits as set forth in Article V of these Rules; Such presentation is reviewed by the Public Communications Department no later than 5:00 p.m. the Thursday prior to the CDB meeting to ensure readability of the presentation on the T.V. monitors. It is the responsibility of the presenter to make arrangements with the Public Communications Departments to schedule such review. Any presentation that is not reviewed by the Public Communications Department will not be allowed to be presented at the Community Development Board meeting; The presenter shall make arrangements with the Public Communications Department to load the PowerPoint presentation onto the City’s equipment no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the Community Development Board meeting. The presenter shall provide the presentation in a format agreed to by the Public Communications Department; and A printed hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation shall be provided to the Board members, City Clerk, Board Attorney, City Attorney representative and City staff at the meeting. City of Clearwater – Community Development Board – Rules of Procedure – Page 4 RULES OF PROCEDURE – REVISED 2008-12-16 ARTICLE V REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS Section 1. Legislative Hearings Land Use Plan amendments, rezoning applications, annexations, development agreements and text amendments to the Community Development Code shall be reviewed in a legislative hearing open to the public and duly noticed. The order of the hearing shall be as follows: Presentation by Planning Staff (10 minutes maximum) Presentation by Applicant (10 minutes maximum) Comments by the Public Closing Remarks by Planning Staff (3 minutes maximum) Closing Remarks by Applicant (3 minutes maximum) Discussion and Vote by Board In general, the Planning Staff and applicant shall be limited in their presentation and closing remarks to the time limits as outlined above. Closing remarks shall be limited to a presentation of issues previously discussed and the speaker(s) shall not be permitted to present new information except to correct inaccuracies presented during the hearing. Each member of the public is limited to a presentation of three minutes. If an individual represents and will be speaking for a group, the Chairperson may authorize a reasonable amount of time for presentation from three minutes to a maximum of ten minutes. Where warranted by the complexity of the application, the Chairperson may extend the presentation time provided there is no objection by a Board member. Should a Board member object to granting additional time, the Board shall discuss and vote on the additional time request. Equal time shall be allotted to the Planning Staff, the Applicant and the opposition, if any. (CDC Section 4-206) Section 2. Quasi-Judicial Hearings All other applications of the Community Development Code not specifically detailed in Section 1 above shall be reviewed in a quasi-judicial hearing open to the public and duly noticed. The order of the hearing shall be as follows: Requests for Party Status Presentation by Planning Staff (10 minutes maximum) Presentation by Applicant (10 minutes maximum) Presentation by Persons with Party Status (5 minutes per party) Cross Examination of witnesses by Planning Staff Cross Examination of witnesses by Applicant City of Clearwater – Community Development Board – Rules of Procedure – Page 5 RULES OF PROCEDURE – REVISED 2008-12-16 Cross Examination of witnesses by Persons with Party Status (3 Minutes unless extended by the board Comments by the Public Closing Remarks by Planning Staff (3 minutes maximum) Closing Remarks by Persons with Party Status (3 minutes maximum) Closing Remarks by Applicant (3 minutes maximum) Discussion and Vote by Board Amended at the August 21, 2007 CDB Meeting In general, the planning staff and applicant shall be limited in their presentation and closing remarks to the time limits as outlined above. Closing remarks shall be limited to a presentation of issues previously discussed and the speaker(s) shall not be permitted to present new information except to correct inaccuracies presented during the hearing. Each member of the public is limited to a presentation of three minutes. If an individual represents and will be speaking for a group, the Chairperson may authorize a reasonable amount of time for presentation from three minutes to a maximum of ten minutes. Where warranted by the complexity of the application, the Chairperson may extend the presentation time provided there is no objection by a Board member. Should a Board member object to granting additional time, the Board shall discuss and vote on the additional time request. Equal time shall be allotted to both the Planning Staff and the Applicant. (CDC Section 4-206) Amended at the November 16, 2004 and the July 19, 2005 CDB Meetings. Section 3. Appeals Appeal of an Administrative Decision or Interpretation of Community Development Code An appeal of an administrative decision or interpretation of the Community Development Code shall be heard by the Board in a quasi-judicial public hearing according to Section 4-206 of the Code and these rules. (CDC Article 4, Division 5). Appeal of a Level One Development Order An appeal of the approval of a Level One Development Order shall be placed on the consent agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the Board. The appeal may be removed from the consent agenda for a hearing only upon the concurring vote of four members of City of Clearwater – Community Development Board – Rules of Procedure – Page 6 RULES OF PROCEDURE – REVISED 2008-12-16 the Board. If the appeal is not removed from the consent agenda, the Development Order stands as issued by the Community Development Coordinator. If the appeal is removed from the consent agenda, the Board shall conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing at that same meeting according to Section 4-206 of the Code and these rules. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board may uphold or reverse the decision of the Community Development Coordinator. The Board may attach specific conditions to the reversal of the Development Order. (CDC Article 4, Division 5). Section 4. Continuances Any application that is continued to a later meeting of the Board shall be re-advertised for the continued hearing in the same manner as the original notice requirements. (CDC Section 4-206 E) Amended by Ordinance 6526-00, effective June 15, 2000. An applicant for a development approval has the right to a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board if all seven members of the Board are not present to review his application. The request for a continuance shall be made prior to the public hearing on the matter. (CDC Section 5-203) ARTICLE VIBOARD ACTION AND EFFECT OF DECISION Section 1. Board Decision A written development order shall be issued which confirms the Board’s decision. The development order shall be effective upon the date of the decision made (date of the Board meeting). (CDC 4-405) Section 2. Time Limits on Approval An application for a building permit must be requested within one year of the development order and all certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within one year of the issuance of the initial building permit, unless different time frames are established in the development order Extensions to a valid Development Order may be made pursuant to the Community Development Code, Section 4-407, Expiration of a Level Two Approval. (CDC Section 4-407) Amended by Ordinance 7106-03 effective September 18, 2003 and by the CDB meeting of November 16, 2004. An applicant shall have the responsibility of identifying a realistic schedule based on the complexity of the project and may propose a phased schedule for the project. Approval of a schedule other than that described above shall be at the discretion of the Board depending on the project. City of Clearwater – Community Development Board – Rules of Procedure – Page 7 RULES OF PROCEDURE – REVISED 2008-12-16 Section 3. Reconsideration or Rehearing A reconsideration or rehearing of a decision of the Board may be requested by the Planning Staff, applicant or interested party and must be requested at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board. Any party who opposes the reconsideration may address the Board solely in regard to the reasons for reconsideration. A reconsideration or rehearing shall only be granted upon a determination by the Board that their decision was based on a mistake, fraud or misrepresentation. If the Board decides to rehear an application, notice of the rehearing shall be provided in the same manner as required for the original application. (CDC Section 4-206) Section 4. Appeal An appeal of a decision of the Board may be taken to a Hearing Officer as prescribed in the Code. (CDC Article 4, Division 5) ARTICLE VII AMENDMENT TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE The Board may amend these rules of procedure from time to time as is required. All amendments shall require the affirmative vote of four members of the Board. When the Board considers an amendment to the Community Development Code, it shall also evaluate the need for any revision to these rules of procedure. TH Originally adopted this 6day of April, 1999 Amendments: 1. Approved May 15, 2001 Article III, Section 1, Members Article IV, Section 2, Quorum and Vote Section 4, Order of Meeting Article V, Section 1, Legislative Hearings Section 4, Continuances Article VI, Section 3, Reconsideration or Rehearing 2. Approved April 17, 2001 by the CDB Article IV, Section 1, Meetings 3. Approved February 18, 2003 by the CDB Article III, Section 2, Officers City of Clearwater – Community Development Board – Rules of Procedure – Page 8 RULES OF PROCEDURE – REVISED 2008-12-16 4. Approved May 20, 2003 by the CDB Article VI, Section 1, Board Decision 5. Approved November 16, 2004 by the CDB Article IV, Section 1, Meetings Article V, Section 2, Quasi-Judicial Hearings Article VI, Section 2, Time Limits on Approval 6. Approved July 19, 2005 by the CDB Article V, Section 2, Quasi-Judicial Hearings 7. Approved June 19, 2007 by the CDB Article IV, Section 4, Order of Meeting 8. Approved August 21, 2007 by the CDB Article V, Section 2, Quasi-Judicial Hearings 9. Approved September 18, 2007 by the CDB Article IV, Section 4, Order of Meeting 10. Approved January 15, 2008 by the CDB Article IV, Section 4, Order of Meeting \\ms5a\pds\Planning Department\C D B\CDB Handbook\CDB Handbook\Rules of Procedure for CDB\Rules of Procedure revisions for January 2008 CDB mtg.doc City of Clearwater – Community Development Board – Rules of Procedure – Page 9 ----- ~ Clea~ater u Going Green with less paperwork TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager SUBJECT: DATE: Agenda Items for November 18, 2008 November 12,2008 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Unapproved minutes of previous meetings October 21, 2008 and November 18, 2008. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS: (Items 1-2) 1. Case: FLD2008-10030 - 20060 US Highway 19 N 2. Case: FLD2008-07019 - 473 East Shore Drive and 475 Poinsettia Street CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1): 1. Case: APP2008-00006 - 513 North Belcher THREE APPLICATION (Item 1) 1. Case: CP A2007 -06003 - Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan DIRECTOR'S ITEM (Item 1): 1. Proposed Amendment to Community Development Board Rules of Procedures ~ Date: ~ J b &008 I ~\\lM~V\ S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2008\12 December 16, 2008\1 Cover MM 12. 16.2008.doc ~ Clea~ater --- u Going Green with less TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager SUBJECT: DATE: Agenda Items for November 18, 2008 November 12, 2008 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Unapproved minutes of previous meetings October 21, 2008 and November 18, 2008. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS: (Items 1-2) 1. Case: FLD2008-1 0030 - 20060 US Highway 19 N 2. Case: FLD2008-070 19 - 473 East Shore Drive and 475 Poinsettia Street CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1): 1. Case: APP2008-00006 - 513 North Belcher THREE APPLICATION (Item 1) 1. Case: CPA2007-06003 - Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan DIRECTOR'S ITEM (Item 1): 1. Proposed Amendment to Community Development Board Rules of Procedures Date: /l-/;r /e> r I Signature: f(t..;1y{/c. L. ~ PRINT NAME S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBl2008\12 December 16, 200811 Cover MM 12. 16.2008.doc ~ Clea~ater ~- u Going Green with less TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager SUBJECT: DATE: Agenda Items for November 18, 2008 November 12, 2008 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Unapproved minutes of previous meetings October 21, 2008 and November 18, 2008. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS: (Items 1-2) 1. Case: APP2008-00006 - 513 North Belcher ~ ~ r- ~__ 1. Case: FLD2008-l0030 - 20060 US Highway 19 N 2. Case: FLD2008-070l9 - 473 East Shore Drive and 475 Poinsettia Street CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1): THREE APPLICATION (Item 1) 1. Case: CP A2007 -06003 - Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan .Jti'l DIRECTOR'S ITEM (Item 1): 1. Proposed Amendment to Community Development Board Rules of Procedures Signature: Date: S:\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDB\2008\12 December 16. 2008\1 Cover MM 12./6.2008.doc