Loading...
10/17/2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER October 17, 2006 Present: David Gildersleeve Chair Nicholas C. Fritsch Vice-Chair Kathy Milam Board Member J. B. Johnson Board Member Thomas Coates Board Member Dana K. Tallman Board Member Jordan Behar Board Member Daniel Dennehy Alternate Board Member Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Michael L. Delk Planning Director Gina Clayton Assistant Planning Director Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 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 September 19, 2006 Member Fritsch moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 19, motion 2006, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The carried was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote. Community Development 2006-10-17 1 D. WITHDRAWN ITEM(Item 1): 1. Case: FLD2006-07043 – 18740 and 18746 US Highway 19 N Level Two Application Owner: Forrest R. Garrison, Trustee. Applicant: Greg Jung, Earth Wash. Representatives: Todd Pressman (28870 US Highway 19 N, #300, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-716-8683; fax: 727-669-8114; e-mail: pressinc@aolcom); Bret Krasman (1714 County Road 1, Suite 14, Dunedin, FL 34698; phone: 727-380-0359; fax: 727-738-0380; e-mail: bret@ksaengr.com). Location: 0.931 acre on the west side of US Highway 19 N approximately 300 feet north of Nursery Road. Atlas Page: 317B. Zoning District: Commercial (C) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit limited vehicle service (car wash) in addition to existing offices and retail sales and services in the Commercial (C) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to zero feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 3.9 feet (to existing shed) and from 10 feet to four feet (to existing dumpster enclosure), reductions to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to eight feet (to existing shed), from 20 feet to 11 feet (to existing shuffleboard courts) and from 20 feet to zero feet (to existing concrete pad) and deviations to allow back-out parking into the US Highway 19 right-of- way, to allow car wash bays to face US Highway 19 and to allow the car wash contiguous to residentially zoned property, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and reductions to perimeter buffers along US Highway 19 (east) from 15 feet to zero feet, along the north property line from five feet to zero feet (to existing pavement), along the south property line from five feet to 3.9 feet (to existing shed) and from five feet to four feet (to existing dumpster enclosure) and along the west property line from 10 feet to eight feet (to existing shed) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing concrete pad), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Conversion and expansion of a drive-thru restaurant to a car wash, in addition to existing offices and retail sales and services. Neighborhood Associations: Bay Aristocrat Village (Ron Barnes, 18675 US Highway 19 N, Clearwater, FL 33764); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. Senior Planner Wayne Walls reported the applicant had withdrawn this item. Community Development 2006-10-17 2 E. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Item 1): 1. Case: FLD2006-07044 – 1721 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application (Request for Continuance to November 21, 2006) Owner: PBP of Clearwater, LLC. Applicant: Pilot Construction Technology, Inc. Representative: Abdi R. Boozar-Jomehri (685 Main Street, Suite A, Safety Harbor, FL 34695; phone: 727-725-2550; fax: 727-725-2317; e-mail: pcti@pilotconstruction.com). Location: 2.49 acres on the south side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard between Duncan and Plumosa Avenues. Atlas Page: 297B. Zoning District: Commercial (C) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a 20,050 square-foot office building in addition to existing retail sales and services with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 7.29 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 5.53 feet (to existing pavement), reductions to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 22.91 feet (to existing building) and from 25 feet to 10.82 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 5.33 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 6.48 feet (to existing pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to proposed building) and from 10 feet to seven feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 4.77 feet (to existing pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 50 feet (to roof deck) and a reduction to required parking from 193 spaces to 104 spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from 15 feet to 7.29 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Duncan Avenue from 10 feet to 5.53 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along the west from five feet to 4.77 feet (to existing pavement), and a reduction to the required foundation landscape area along the north side of the West Marine building from five feet to three feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Addition of a 20,050 square-foot office building (existing 22, 209 square-foot retail sales and services – West Marine). Neighborhood Associations: Skycrest Neighbors (Joanna Siskin, President, 121 N. Crest Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. Mr. Wells reported the applicant requested a continuance to November 21, 2006. Member Johnson moved to continue CaseFLD2006-07044 to November 21, 2006. The motioncarried was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote. F. CONSENT AGENDA: The following case is 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 2006-10-17 3 1. Pulled from Consent Agenda Level Two Application Cases: FLD2006-06034/PLT2006-00006 – 622 Lembo Circle Owner/Applicant: Canterbury, LLC. Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e- mail: renee@northsideengineering.com). Location: 0.39 acre on the west side of Lembo Circle, approximately 180 feet west of Lincoln Avenue. Atlas Page: 296B. Zoning District: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District. Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit ten attached dwellings (townhomes) in the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District with a reduction to the minimum lot width from 150 to 140 feet, a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 to zero feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (north and south) setback from 10 to five feet (to building), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 15 to six feet (to dumpster enclosure), as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-404.F, and reduction to the side (north & south) landscape buffers from 10 to five feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G; (2) Preliminary Plat approval for a 10 lot subdivision. Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (10 townhomes). Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner II. Member Johnson moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of landscape ordinance, tree ordinance, and code enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Planner Scott Kurleman presented the case. The 0.39-acre site is on the west side of Lembo Circle, approximately 180 feet west of Lincoln Avenue. Lembo Circle is a residential street that forms a semi-circle west of Lincoln Avenue with predominately attached dwelling uses. The existing building is a vacant childcare facility. It is noted that the existing building is in need of extensive repair and maintenance. The proposal includes two town-home style buildings with a total of ten dwelling units. The site, with a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) classification of Residential High (RH), is permitted up to 11 dwelling units (30 dwelling units per acre). Building “A,” located on the south side of the site, will have five dwelling units. Building “A” will be located five feet from the side (south) property line, 29.3 feet from the front (east) property line and 15 feet from the rear (west) property line. Building “B” is located on the north side of the site and will contain five dwelling units. Building “B” will be located 29.1 feet from the front (east) property line, five feet from the side (north) property lines and 15.2 feet from the rear (west) property line. The buildings will be 25 feet four inches in height (two-stories) and each dwelling unit will have 895 square-feet of living space. Parking will be provided within a one-car garage allotted to each dwelling unit and one parking spot in front of the garage providing 20 spaces (two spaces per unit). The units will be accessed from a driveway off of Lembo Circle. A new sidewalk is proposed along the Lembo Circle street frontage. The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. The buildings will incorporate Spanish style tile roofs, stucco exteriors and will be painted with neutral earth tone colors. Community Development 2006-10-17 4 The proposal includes deviations from the Code including, a reduction to the minimum lot width from 150 to 140 feet, a front (east) setback reduction from 25 feet to zero feet to the trash staging area, a reduction to the side (north and south) setback from 10 feet to five feet to building, and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 15 to six feet to the dumpster enclosure. Staff believes the reduced lot width requirement is justified by the benefits of an attractive, affordable housing project to the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The reduced front setback is only for the trash staging area; otherwise, the proposed structures are setback greater than the required 25 feet. Existing structures along the same side of the street have been constructed with irregular front setbacks and the proposed reduction in the front setback will not be out of character with the neighborhood. The side and rear setback reductions meet the flexibility criteria for Attached Dwelling under Section 2-404.A.1. In addition, the applicant is requesting a reduction to the side landscape buffers. The adjacent property to the north is a vacant lot, the parcels to the south and east are developed with attached dwellings. The parking for many of these attached dwellings is located in front of each building and generally located up to and in some cases beyond their respective front property lines resulting in zero foot front setbacks. The adjacent commercial property to the west is currently used as a title company. The proposal will likely enhance the area through the provision of an attractive affordable multi-family town-home development with extensive landscaping buffers along the front and rear of the development and within the interior of the site. Solid waste will be provided through a dumpster located on the west side of the subject site. The dumpster will be rolled out to the trash staging area on appropriate days. Note that City of Clearwater Solid Waste sanitation vehicle will not drive into the site to empty the refuse container; thus the reason for the trash staging area. All stormwater requirements have been met with this proposal. Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community Development Code requires a ten-foot wide landscape buffer consisting of one tree every 35 feet and 100% shrub coverage along the northern and southern perimeter of the parcel. The applicant has requested a reduction to this buffer width along with a modification of the required plant material. The reductions in the side landscape buffers are instigated by site constraints, which have dictated the location of the site’s stormwater drainage swales, which prohibit the planting of trees in the swales. As a result, the proposed buffer will consist of a six-feet vinyl PVC fence with Confederate Jasmine vines. The fence and vines will provide an immediate buffer. To mitigate the loss of buffer width the applicant has applied for the Comprehensive Landscape Program. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code allows the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program has been found to be consistent with all applicable criteria. Specifically, the proposed landscaping includes 14 large shade trees (5- inch caliper) where 2 ½-inch caliper is required, the installation of 16 Crape Myrtles, and 475 shrubs and ground cover. This palette of plant material will provide immediate visual rewards to the immediate vicinity and community.There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site. Community Development 2006-10-17 5 Findings of Fact: 1) That the subject 0.39-acre property is on the west side of Lembo Circle, approximately 180 feet west of Lincoln Avenue; 2) That the subject property is within the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District and the Residential High (RH) Future Land Use Plan Category; 3) Currently the site is vacant; 4) Applicant seeks relief from required landscape buffer under Code provisions of Section 3-1202.G.; 5) That the proposed reductions in the landscape buffers and setbacks will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use; 6) The proposed structure heights are 25 feet four inches to the midpoint of the roof; 7) That there are no pending Code Enforcement issues with this site; and 8) Adjacent uses are zoned Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) and Commercial (C). Conclusions of Law: 1)Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible Development, Residential Infill Redevelopment Project criterion, per Section 4-404.F; 2) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criterion, per Section 3-1202.G.; 3) Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; 4) The development is compatible with the surrounding area; 5) The proposed use will enhance other redevelopment efforts in the community; and 6) Based on the above findings and proposed conditions, staff recommends approval of this application. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 3, 2006. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development to permit a reduction to the minimum lot width from 150 to 140 feet, a reduction to the front (east) setback along Lembo Circle from 25 feet to zero feet to trash staging area, a reduction to the side (north and south) setback from 10 feet to five feet to building, and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 15 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure), as a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project per section 2-404.F., and a reduction to the landscape buffer on the north and south side from 10 feet to five feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3- 1202.G., for the site at 622 Lembo Circle, with the following Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 2) That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum of four feet in height and designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 3) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground. Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right(s)-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 4) That all proposed landscaping be installed prior to final inspection by the Planning staff; and 5) That prior to building permit, the four foot wide brick paver pedestrian pathway shall be relocated to the south, outside of the limits of the driveway apron and throat. Concern was expressed that setbacks are insufficient and the site is too crowded. Mr. Kurleman said internal driveways must meet Code. The project provides sufficient parking. Housh Ghovaee, representative, said this attainable housing project, located in a low- income area and needed by the community, has 10 townhomes where 11 units are permitted. He said the size of the project cannot be reduced. The first floor has only 525 square-feet, including the garage, and second floor living space had to be cantilevered over parking to make Community Development 2006-10-17 6 the project viable. He said increased setbacks would have been possible on a larger property. The developer was complimented on the project. Member Coates moved to approve Cases FLD2006-06034/PLT2006-00006 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report, and testimony and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the motion Staff Report with conditions of approval as listed. The was duly seconded. It was remarked that while the design is not ideal, it can be supported because the project provides needed work force housing. Upon the vote being taken, Members Milam, Johnson, Coates, Tallman, Behar, and carried Chair Gildersleeve voted “Aye.” Member Fritsch voted “Nay.” Motion . Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote. 2. Level Three Application Case: TA2006-08006, Amendments to the Community Development Code Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department/Public Works Administration Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code concurrency management provisions to adopt a Proportionate Fair-Share Ordinance for mitigation of the transportation impacts of development pursuant to the requirements of Florida Statutes Section 163.3180(16) Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758) Presenter: Catherine Porter, AICP, Planner III. The Planning Department is recommending two amendments to the Community Development Code. These are amendments to the concurrency management provisions to adopt a Proportionate Fair-Share Ordinance for mitigation of the transportation impacts of development pursuant to the requirements of Florida Statutes Section 163.3180(16). These amendments are the result of Senate Bill 360, which Governor Bush signed into law on June 24, 2005. This bill introduced a number of significant reforms to Florida’s growth management law. Among these changes was a new requirement that local governments adopt a “Proportionate Fair-Share Program” within their concurrency management system, by December 1, 2006. Proportionate Fair-Share is an option that provides applicants for development with an opportunity to proceed, under certain conditions, by contributing their share of the cost of improving the impacted transportation facility. The proposed amendments enumerate the conditions and methodology for using the Proportionate Fair-Share option. Proportionate Fair-Share contributions should not be confused with impact fees. Proportionate Fair-Share contributions address specific concurrency issues such as a specific road segment that is operating below an adopted level of service, while impact fees are imposed on each new development to pay for that development’s impact on the entire transportation system. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), earlier this year, circulated a “Model Proportionate Fair-Share Ordinance” for use by the local governments. The Planning Department has, for the past three (3) months, been engaged in a collaborative effort with staff from the City of Clearwater Traffic Operations Division, in an effort to craft our implementation of the model. Staff and the Planning Department division have also been working with the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to assure that the provisions of the City’s Ordinance (with regard to proportionate fair-share) will be coordinated with and consistent with the County’s implementation. Staff in the City Attorney’s Community Development 2006-10-17 7 office has been working with Planning as well, and has reviewed and had significant input into the ordinance before the Community Development Board. Some of the more significant provisions within the ordinance are: Article 4, Development Review and Other Procedures, Section 4-903, Standards for Certificate of Concurrency/Capacity; A.6. and C. 4. each add a reference to the fair-share contribution requirement, as required by Florida Statutes Section 163.3180(16). Article 4, Development Review and Other Procedures, to add a new Section 4-904, Proportionate Fair-Share Program; This new section adds the process necessary to assess and obtain the proportionate fair-share contributions from the developer and to incorporate such projects into the Capital Improvements Element. Criteria for Text Amendments Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. Any Code amendment must comply with the following: The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below is a list of goals, policies, objectives from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code: Goal – The traffic circulation system shall provide for the safe, convenient, and efficient delivery of people and goods by a multimodal transportation system. 7.3 - Objective - The City will continue to monitor traffic counts, accidents, and road improvements, to provide timely status evaluation of Level of Service conditions for issuance of development approvals. Policies 7.3.2. The Traffic Concurrency Management System will continue to monitor roadways’ level-of-service and set forth specific procedures and requirements for the submittal of a traffic impact study. This ordinance supports this goal and policy by providing the legal framework to enable Clearwater’s Concurrency Management System to meet the requirements of State Statutes as well as the City’s commitment to multimodal transportation. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of Section 1-103 that lists the purposes of the Code. Specifically, this ordinance supports Paragraph A. by guiding the Community Development 2006-10-17 8 orderly growth and development of the City; and establishing rules of procedure for land development approvals. The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code. The amendments will ensure compliance with Florida Statutes. The Planning Department staff recommends approval of Ordinance 7718-06, which makes revisions to the Community Development Code. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of Case TA2006-08006, Amendments motion carried to the Community Development Code. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote. G. LEVEL TWO APPLICATION (Item 1): 1. Case: FLD2006-05029 – 100 and 101 Park Place Boulevard Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Park Isle Condominium Development, LLC. Representative: Timothy A. Johnson, Esq., Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757-1368; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462- 0365; e-mail: timj@jpfirm.com). Location: 26.99 acres on both sides of Park Place Boulevard (100 and 101 South Park Place Boulevard), south of Drew Street and north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Atlas Page: 291A. Zoning Districts: Commercial (C), Office (O) and Preservation (P) Districts. Request: Flexible Development approval for the Termination of Status of Nonconformity (1) to permit the continuation of 390 attached dwelling units in the Commercial, Office and Preservation Districts, (2) to permit a parking ratio of 1.77 parking spaces per dwelling unit (total of 693 spaces), where two spaces per dwelling unit are required (780 spaces), (3) to permit two multi-family development signs to remain at a height of 11 feet (where a maximum of six feet high is permitted) and with an area of 45 square-feet (where a maximum of 24 square-feet is permitted) and (4) to permit a prohibited sign to remain within the Park Place Boulevard right-of- way at Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard with a height of six feet and an area of 45 square-feet, under the provisions of Section 6-109.C. Existing Use: 390 attached dwellings. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. Member Tallman moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of motion zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. Senior Planner Wayne Wells presented the request. The 26.99 acres is on both sides of Park Place Boulevard, south of Drew Street and north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The majority of the property on the west side of Park Place Boulevard (100 Park Place Boulevard) is zoned Office (O) District, with only a small portion on the south side zoned Commercial (C) District. The majority of the property on the east side of Park Place Boulevard (101 Park Place Boulevard) is zoned Commercial (C) District, with the northern portion zoned Office (O) District and the wetland/pond zoned Preservation (P) District. The property is part of the Park Place DRI and was permitted to be developed with a maximum of 394 dwelling units under a land use Community Development 2006-10-17 9 conversion provision under the DRI. The property was developed in 1998 with a total of 390 attached dwelling units. Properties to the north are zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District (across Drew Street) and Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District and developed respectively with attached dwellings and manufacturing (Bausch & Lomb). The properties to the south, also within the Park Place DRI, are zoned Commercial (C) District and are developed with office uses. The properties to the east are zoned Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT), Office (O) and Mobile Home Park (MHP) Districts and are respectively developed with manufacturing (Bausch & Lomb), offices and a mobile home park. Properties to the west are zoned Commercial (C), Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) and Institutional (I) Districts and are respectively developed with retail sales and services (shopping center), offices, attached dwellings and a water pumping station. Termination of Status of Nonconformity: The development proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity (1) to permit the continuation of 390 attached dwelling units in the Commercial, Office and Preservation Districts, (2) to permit a parking ratio of 1.77 parking spaces per dwelling unit (total of 693 spaces), where two spaces per dwelling unit are required (780 spaces), (3) to permit two multi-family development signs to remain at a height of 11 feet (where a maximum of six feet high is permitted) and with an area of 45 square- feet (where a maximum of 24 square-feet is permitted) and (4) to permit a prohibited sign to remain within the Park Place Boulevard right-of-way at Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard with a height of six feet and an area of 45 square-feet. The criteria for termination of status of nonconformity, as per Section 6-109 of the Community Development Code and outlined in the table below, including compliance with perimeter buffer requirements, the provision of required landscaping for off-street parking lots and bringing nonconforming signs, lighting and accessory uses/structures into compliance with the Code will be met with this development proposal. The Commercial and Office Districts do not allow attached dwellings as a permitted use, therefore, the existing attached dwellings are a nonconforming use. The applicant has converted the apartments to condominiums and desires the attached dwellings to be a conforming use (rather than nonconforming use). The applicant discussed with the Planning Department the option of amending the land use category to the Residential Medium (RM) classification, but it was determined that such an amendment would not produce the same or greater number of dwelling units based on maximum density as what exists on the property today. The Planning Department was not willing to commit to the Residential High (RH) classification due to much higher permitted density, traffic impacts and issues with the DRI. Since there is no desire to construct additional dwelling units, but to simply have a Code conforming use, it was determined that the Termination of Status of Nonconformity was the most viable option to the applicant. The Park Isle complex is well designed, landscaped and maintained. Staff does not object to the Termination of the attached dwelling use status. Approval of the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for use will allow the reconstruction of dwellings in the event of a loss or damage of 50% or more of the value of the buildings. During the review of this request, it was determined that the complex did not meet the current requirements to have an accessible handicap path to the sidewalks within the Park Place Boulevard right-of-way and within the complex to access this accessible path and common facilities (pools, clubhouse, etc.). The applicant has presented plans to install sidewalks to accomplish such handicap accessibility, which will need to be included as a condition of approval. Such sidewalk installation will need to be installed in a manner to ensure limited tree impacts. Community Development 2006-10-17 10 The second part to this Termination request is to permit a parking ratio of 1.77 parking spaces per dwelling unit (total of 693 spaces), where two spaces per dwelling unit are required (780 spaces). This project was approved and constructed when parking ratios were less than the current requirement of two parking spaces per unit. While it is indicated that the currently provided parking ratio is 1.77 parking spaces per unit, reality is that there is additional parking on-site, but not as what is considered legal parking by Code provisions. There are detached parking garages, providing enclosed parking for 24 vehicles, located throughout the residential complex (both sides of the Park Place Boulevard) that is in front of surface, open parking. Since stacked parking is not permitted by our current Code, these “two” parking spaces only count as one space. Such a parking arrangement is close to that at a detached dwelling with a one-car garage and one space in the driveway. Parking in the surface space in front of the garage space is limited to the same tenant. Also, while not indicated nor counted as parking spaces on the site plan, outside of garage parking within each residential building there is sufficient area outside the garages to accommodate additional parking. There does not appear to be any known issues of inadequate parking for this development. Staff does not object to this portion of the Termination request. The third part to this Termination request is to permit two multi-family development signs to remain at a height of 11 feet (where a maximum of six feet high is permitted) and with an area of 45 square-feet (where a maximum of 24 square-feet is permitted). These signs are at the east and west development entrances on Park Place Boulevard. These signs are attractively designed as part of a decorative entrance feature between entrance and exit gates and were constructed pursuant to approved permits and Code provisions applicable at that time. The signs are attached to walls that are 11 feet high at their highest point and as such are treated as monument signs. Current Code provisions only permit the monument signs (wall) to be a maximum of six feet high. These monument signs (walls) are not located close to the front property line, whereas the western wall/sign is over 80 feet and the eastern wall/sign is over 70 feet from the front property lines of Park Place Boulevard. While these signs are almost double the permitted sign area by current Code, the signs are consistent with the scale of the entrance features they are attached to and their sign area is in context to their location over 70 feet each from the front property lines. Staff does not object to this portion of the Termination request. The last part of this Termination request is to permit a prohibited sign to remain within the Park Place Boulevard right-of-way at Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard with a height of six feet and an area of 45 square-feet. The City Commission approved the existing sign on August 21, 1997, as a variance to allow a second freestanding sign within the Park Place Boulevard right-of-way (Case #SV 97-10). City Commission policy in effect at that time prohibited subdivision monuments within public right-of-way. At that time in 1997, it was City staff’s preference to have the existing multi-tenant sign modified to include signage for the apartment complex, but the applicant could not obtain agreement from the party controlling the sign to modify that sign. Current Code Section 3-1803.L lists this existing sign as a prohibited sign. Staff supports the reduction of sign clutter, especially those listed as prohibited signs, in accordance with a purpose of the Sign Section (Section 3-1802.C), which states “Lessen hazardous situations, confusion and visual clutter caused by proliferation, improper placement, illumination, animation and excessive height, area and bulk of signs which compete for the attention of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.” Staff does not support this portion of the Termination request and recommends removal of such sign within 30 days of CDB action, with an appropriate demolition permit. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Community Development 2006-10-17 11 The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 29, 2006, 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) That the 26.99 acre subject property is located on both sides of Park Place Boulevard, south of Drew Street and north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard; 2) That the majority of the property on the west side of Park Place Boulevard (100 Park Place Boulevard) is zoned Office (O) District, with only a small portion on the south side zoned Commercial (C) District; 3) That the majority of the property on the east side of Park Place Boulevard (101 Park Place Boulevard) is zoned Commercial (C) District, with the northern portion zoned Office (O) District and the wetland/pond zoned Preservation (P) District; 4) That the property was developed in 1998 with a total of 390 attached dwelling units; 5) That the Commercial and Office Districts do not allow attached dwellings as a permitted use, therefore, the existing attached dwellings are a nonconforming use; 6) That approval of the request will allow the reconstruction of dwellings in the event of a loss or damage of 50 percent or more of the value of the buildings; 7) That there is no desire to construct additional dwelling units, but to simply have a Code conforming use; 8) That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area; 9) That currently a parking ratio of 1.77 parking spaces per dwelling unit (total of 693 spaces) exists, where two spaces per dwelling unit are required (780 spaces). There does not appear to be any known issues of inadequate parking for this development; 10) That two multi-family development signs, considered monument signs, exist (one at each entrance) at a height of 11 feet (where a maximum of six feet high is permitted) and with an area of 45 square-feet (where a maximum of 24 square-feet is permitted); 11) That these on-site monument signs are consistent with the scale of the entrance features they are attached to and their sign area is in context to their location over 70 feet each from the front property lines; 12) That a sign exists within the Park Place Boulevard right-of-way at Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard at a height of six feet and an area of 45 square-feet, which was permitted by a variance in 1997 to be constructed; 13) That the sign within the right-of-way of Park Place Boulevard near Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard is listed as a prohibited sign under Section 3-1806.L; 14) That the prohibited sign within the right-of-way of Park Place Boulevard near Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard does not comply with a purpose of the Sign Section 3-1802.C, which states “Lessen hazardous situations, confusion and visual clutter caused by proliferation, improper placement, illumination, animation and excessive height, area and bulk of signs which compete for the attention of pedestrian and vehicular traffic”; and 15) 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 Standards and Criteria as per Section 6-109 of the Community Development Code, except as it relates to the Termination of the prohibited sign within the Park Place Boulevard right-of-way; and 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application for the Termination of Status of Nonconformity (1) to permit the continuation of 390 attached dwelling units in the Commercial, Office and Preservation Districts, (2) to permit a parking ratio of 1.77 parking spaces per dwelling unit (total of 693 spaces), where two spaces per dwelling unit are required (780 spaces) and (3) to permit two multi-family development signs to remain at a height of 11 feet (where a maximum of six feet high is permitted) and with an area of 45 square-feet (where a maximum of 24 square-feet is permitted), under the provisions of Section 6-109.C, with the conditions listed below. Community Development 2006-10-17 12 Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends denial of that portion of the Flexible Development application for the Termination of Status of Nonconformity to permit a prohibited sign to remain within the Park Place Boulevard right-of-way at Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard with a height of six feet and an area of 45 square-feet, under the provisions of Section 6-109.C. Conditions of Approval: 1) That, within 90 days of CDB approval, an application be submitted for building permits to construct handicap sidewalk access between building, common facilities and the public sidewalk within the Park Place Boulevard right-of-way, in a location and manner acceptable to the Engineering and Planning departments, including the submission of a tree survey to minimize tree impacts; and 2) That, within 30 days of CDB approval, the existing prohibited sign within the Park Place Boulevard right-of-way (close to Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) be removed with an appropriate demolition permit. Steve Williamson, representative, said the request is for a termination of status of nonconformity for the entire property. He said following Commission approval in 1997, the subject sign was constructed to Code in 1998 to provide direction to the apartment complex from Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. He said the sign would not be an issue had the property owner increased density as permitted. He presented photographs of nearby signs, saying the subject sign is consistent with other signs on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. In response to a question, Mr. Williamson said the DRI plan did not include this sign, although it did contemplate signs in the rights-of-way. He said the intent of nonconformity provisions was to eliminate hazardous signs. Discussion ensued with comments that information regarding the apartment building could be added to the bottom of the larger sign. Concern was expressed that the subject sign blocks drivers’ sight lines across the public right-of-way. It was felt the sign is attractive and provides direction to the apartments. Member Fritsch moved to approve portions of the request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity Case related to Case FLD2006-05029: 1) Permit the continuation of 390 attached dwelling units in the Commercial, Office and Preservation Districts, 2) Permit a parking ratio of 1.77 parking spaces per dwelling unit (total of 693 spaces), where two spaces per dwelling unit are required (780 spaces), and 3) Permit two multi-family development signs to remain at a height of 11 feet (where a maximum of six feet high is permitted) and with an area of 45 square-feet (where a maximum of 24 square-feet is permitted) 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 motion approval as listed. The was duly seconded. To retain sufficient parking, it was recommended that the board require all uncounted parking spaces to remain in place. Member Fritsch moved to approve the portions of the request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity Case related to Case FLD2006-05029 for 100 and 101 Park Place Boulevard: 1) Permit the continuation of 390 attached dwelling units in the Commercial, Office and Preservation Districts, 2) Permit a parking ratio of 1.77 parking spaces per dwelling unit (total of 693 spaces), where two spaces per dwelling unit are required (780 spaces), and 3) Permit two multi-family development signs to remain at a height of 11 feet (where a maximum of six feet high is permitted) and with an area of 45 square-feet (where a maximum of 24 square-feet is permitted) 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, with an added condition that requires Community Development 2006-10-17 13 . . . sufficient parking to be retained by having all uncounted parking spaces remain in place. The seconder agreed. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote. Discussion ensued with comments that the sign, approved by the Commission, does not impede on the site triangle. In response to a question, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall- Sides reviewed Code restrictions on rebuilding damaged signs. Mr. Wells said other signs in the development are directional. The main entrance sign is taller than currently allowed and is, along with the subject sign, located on public right-of-way. Member Johnson moved to approve the portion of the request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity Case related to Case FLD2006-05029: Permit a prohibited sign to remain within the Park Place Boulevard right-of-way at Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard with a height of six feet and an area of 45 square-feet, under the provisions of Section 6-1 09.C. based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report, and at today's hearing, and hereby make the following Findings of Fact based on said evidence that the sign is attractive and its nonconformity should not be considered at this late date and hereby issue the Conclusions of Law that the application complies with the City Code Section 6-109.D. and request that staff develop a list of Conditions of Approval. The motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson, Coates, Tallman, and Behar voted "Aye." Members Fritsch and Milam and Chair Gildersleeve voted "Nay." Motion carried. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote. OTHER ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Mr. Delk reviewed PPC (Pinellas Planning Council) efforts to increase density for overnight accommodations on the beach. The City supports PPC efforts. Discussion ensued regarding density and the Fair Share program. Ms. Dougall-Sides said most municipalities are closely following model language developed by the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) for the Fair Share program. Mr. Delk reported the CDB Holiday Luncheon is scheduled for 11 :00 a.m. on December 19, 2006, at Outback restaurant on Mandalay Avenue. Gifts for Community Pride will be collected. The CDB meeting that day will begin at 1 :30 p.m. H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:03 p.m. Community Development 2006-10-17 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: October 17, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Level Two Applications Items (1-4) 1. Cases: FLD2006-06034/PLT2006-00006 - 622 Lembo Circle j)'-'~~~::,LL:>~~:t;'L( 1/ Yes no 2. Case: !L;:;006-05029n~ 100 and 101 Park Place Boulevard 3. Case: FLD2006-07044 -1721 Gulf to Bay Boulevard \,/ Yes no e ~ .'\) ~ J.. L/" I ,~_:-: ~'~ 4. Case: FLD2006-07043 -18740 and 18746 US Hwy 19 N WITHDRA WN Signature: ~ Date: ~-/1.o6 S:\Planning Departrnent\C CDB, property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: October 17, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Level Two Applications Items (1-4) 1. Cases:~2006-06034/PLT2006-00006 - 622 Lembo Circle Yes no 2. Case: FtJ]2006-05029 -100 and 101 Park Place Boulevard -----L-- Yes no 3. Case: FijJ2006-07044 -1721 Gulf to Bay Boulevard --L--Yes no 4. Case: FLD2006-07043 -18740 and 18746 US Hwy 19 N WITHDRA WN ate: /7>//:::;-/"06 epa ent\ D B\CDB, property investigation check list.docl COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: October 17, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Level Two Applications Items (1-4) 1. Cases{LD2006-06034IPLT2006-00006 - 622 Lembo Circle Yes no 2. CaSe{LD 2006-05029 - 100 and 101 Park Place Boulevard Yes no 3. Case: ftD2006-07044 - 1721 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes no 4. Case: FLD2006-07043 -18740 and 18746 US Hwy 19 N WITHDRA WN Signature: Date: \0 ' \ l.o(, S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, prope y investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: October 17, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Level Two Applications Items (1-4) 1. Cases: FLp-2006-06034/PLT2006-00006 - 622 Lembo Circle V Yes no 2. Case:~2006-05029 -100 and 101 Park Place Boulevard Yes no 3. Case: ~006-07044 -1721 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes no 4. Case: FLD2006-07043 -18740 and 18746 US Hwy 19 N WITHDRA WN Signature: S:\Pla Date: /~-/~4 ent\C D B\CDB, property investigation check \(st.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: October 17, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Level Two Applications Items (1-4) 1. Cases: FkD2006-06034/PLT2006-00006 - 622 Lembo Circle V Yes no 2. Case: ILD2006-05029 - 100 and 101 Park Place Boulevard v" Yes no 3. Case: FLDZ006-07044 -1721 Gulf to Bay Boulevard V Yes no 4. Case: FLD2006-07043 -18740 and 18746 US Hwy 19 N WITHDRA WN Signature: S:\Planning Depa Date: 10/", /p ~ \CDB, property investigation check list.doc I '