03/18/2003
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
March 18, 2003
Present: Carlen A. Petersen
Ed Hooper
David Gildersleeve
Edward Mazur, Jr.
Shirley Moran
John Doran
Alex Plisko
Kathy Milam
Chair
Vice-Chair
Board Member
Board Member - arrived 2:02 p.m./departed 3:30 p.m.
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Board Member - non-voting/voting
Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides
Cyndi Tarapani
Lisa Fierce
Gina Clayton
Brenda Moses
Assistant City Attorney
Planning Director
Assistant Planning Director
Long Range Planning Manager
Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 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.
.
A.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: February 18, 2003
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February
18, 2003, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Milam did not vote.
B. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2002-12045 - 657 Court Street Level 2 Application
Owners: The CEPCOT Corporation and Clearwater Train Station, Inc.
Applicant: The CEPCOT Corporation.
Representative: Mr. Randy Wedding; Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc.
Location: The 0.95-acre site is located on the west side of East Avenue between Court
Street and Chestnut Street.
Atlas Page: 286B.
Zoning: D, Downtown District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit an automobile service station in the
Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-903.C.
Proposed Use: The proposal is for the construction of a 3,200 square-foot convenience
store with gas pumps.
Neighborhood Association(s): Pierce 100 Condominium Association (Terry Turner, 100
Pierce Street, #710, Clearwater, FL, 33756).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner
.
Community Development 2003-0318
1
3/18/03
.
Ed Armstrong, applicant's representative, said the applicant is requesting a continuance to
a date uncertain in order to address some of the staff issues, which he believes can be remedied.
Member Doran moved to continue Item #B 1, Case FLD2002-12045 for 657 Court Street to
a date uncertain. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member
Milam did not vote.
c. 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 1-7):
Item #C7 was pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
1.
Case: ANX2003-01001 - 1779 Audrey Drive Level 3 Application
Owner/Applicant: Todd Ermscher (727-399-0975).
Location: 0.20-acres located on the east side of Audrey Drive, approximately 870 feet
east of US 19 and 1,015 feet north of State Route 590.
Atlas Page: 264A.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.20 acres to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Land Use Plan amendment from RL, Residential Low (County) to RL, Residential
Low Classification (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single Family Residential District (County) to LMDR, Low
Medium Density Residential District (Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single-family dwelling.
Neighborhood Association(s): No affected association.
Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner.
.
The subject property is on the east side of Audrey Drive at 1779 Audrey Drive,
approximately 870 feet east of US 19 and 1,015 feet north of State Route 590. The applicant is
requesting this annexation to receive City sewer service. The property is contiguous with the
City boundaries to the north and west; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with
Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. It is proposed that the abutting right-of-
way also be annexed. The site is approximately 0.20 acres in area and is occupied by a single-
family detached dwelling. If approved, the property will have a Future Land Use Plan
designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of LMDR, Low Medium Density
Residential.
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The applicant has paid the required sanitary sewer impact fee and
assessment fee and is aware of the additional cost to connect the property to the City sewer
system.
.
The proposed annexation and existing use are consistent with both the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Plan both with regard to the Future Land Use Map as
well as goals and policies. The existing and future use of this site as a single-family home is
consistent with the LMDR zoning district. Finally, the proposed annexation is consistent with
Florida law regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency with existing City boundaries
and is compact in concentration.
Community Development 2003-0318
2
3/18/03
.
.
.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following
actions on the request: 1) approval of the annexation of the property located at 1779 Audrey
Drive; 2) approval of the Residential Low (RL) category pursuant to the City's Comprehensive
Plan; and 3) approval of the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential zoning district pursuant to
the City's Community Development Code.
AND
2. Case: ANX2003-01002 -1740 Nursery Road Level 3 Application
Owners: Susan Gilbert and Christina Anderson.
Applicant: Susan Gilbert (727-298-8859).
Location: 0.24-acres located on the north side of Nursery Road, approximately 525 feet
west of Keene Road.
Atlas Page: 315B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.24 acres to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Land Use Plan amendment from RL, Residential Low (County) to RL, Residential
Low Classification (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single Family Residential District (County) to LMDR, Low
Medium Density Residential District (Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single-family dwelling.
Neighborhood Association(s): No affected association.
Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner.
The subject property is on the north side of Nursery Road at 1740 Nursery Road,
approximately 525 feet west of Keene Road. The applicant is requesting this annexation to
receive City sewer service. The property is contiguous with the City boundaries to the north;
therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary
annexation. The subject site is approximately 0.24 acres in area and is occupied by a single-
family detached dwelling. It is proposed that the properties have a Future Land Use Plan
designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of LMDR, Low Medium Density
Residential.
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The applicant has paid the required sanitary sewer impact fee and
assessment fee and is also aware of the additional cost to connect the property to the City
sewer system.
The proposed annexation and existing use are consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan and the Pinellas Planning Council's Countywide Plan Rules with regard to both the Future
Land Use Map as well as goals and policies. The existing and future use of this site as a single-
family home is consistent with the LMDR zoning district. Finally, the proposed annexation is
consistent with Florida law regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency with existing
City boundaries and is compact in concentration.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following
actions on the request: 1) approval of the annexation of the property located at 1740 Nursery
Road; 2) approval of the Residential Low (RL) category pursuant to the City's Comprehensive
Plan; and 3) approval of the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential zoning district pursuant to
the City's Community Development Code.
Community Development 2003-0318
3
3/18/03
.
.
.
AND
3.
Case: ANX2003-01003 -1714 Jade Avenue Level 3 Application
Owner/Applicant: Bobby Burch (727-461-1603).
Location: 0.15-acres located on the west side of Jade Avenue, approximately 380 feet
west of Betty Lane and 185 feet north of Overbrook Avenue.
Atlas Page: 260B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.15 acres to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Land Use Plan amendment from RU, Residential Urban (County) to RU, Residential
Urban Classification (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-4, One, Two and Three Family Residential District (County) to
LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District (Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single-family dwelling.
Neighborhood Association(s): Old Clearwater Bay Homeowners Association (Rowland
Milam, 1844 Venetian Point Drive, 443-3227, cmt@tamoabav.rr.com) and Drew and
Plaza Park Homeowners Association (Brian and Michelle King, 911 Plaza Street,
Clearwater, 33755)
Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner.
The sUbject property is on the west side of Jade Avenue at 1714 Jade Avenue,
approximately 380 feet west of Betty Lane and 185 feet north of Overbrook Avenue. The
applicant is requesting this annexation to receive City sewer service. The property is
contiguous with the City boundaries to the north and east; therefore, the proposed annexation is
consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The subject site is
approximately 0.15 acres in area and is occupied by an existing single-family detached dwelling.
It is proposed that the properties have a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Urban
(RU) and a zoning category of LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential.
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The applicant has paid the required sanitary sewer impact fee and
assessment fee and is also aware of the additional cost to connect the property to the City
sewer system.
The proposed annexation and existing use are consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan and the Countywide Plan with regard to both the Future Land Use Map as well as goals
and policies. The existing and future use of this site as a single-family home is consistent with
the LMDR zoning district. Finally, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida law
regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency with existing City boundaries and is
compact in concentration.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following
actions on the request: 1) Approval of the annexation of the property located at 1714 Jade
Avenue; 2) approval of the Residential Urban (RU) category pursuant to the City's
Comprehensive Plan; and 3) approval of the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential zoning
district pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
AND
Community Development 2003-0318
4
3/18/03
.
.
.
4.
Case: LUZ2003-01001 - 3035 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Level 3 Application
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater.
Representative: Art Kader, Assistant Director, Parks and Recreation Department (727-
562-4800)
Location: 4.4-acres located at the southwest corner of the Gulf to Bay-McMullen Booth
intersection.
Atlas Page: 301A.
Request:
(a) Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low Medium, RLM and Residential
Urban, RU to the Recreation/Open Space, RlOS Classification; and
(b) Rezoning from the R-4, One, Two and Three Family Residential (County) and MHP,
Mobile Home Park Districts to the OS/R, Open Space/Recreation District.
Proposed Use: Park.
Neighborhood Association(s): Historic Bayview Association (Jack Alvord, 606 Bayview
Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33759,727-797-4210 iackalvord@prodigv.net).
Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner.
This Future Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning application involves three (3)
vacant parcels of land, approximately 4.4 acres in area. The subject site has Future Land Use
Plan designations of Residential Low Medium (RLM) (County) and Residential Urban (RU) and
zoning classifications of R-4, One, Two and Three Family Residential (County) and MHP,
Mobile Home Park (City). In 1999, The Laura Nail Connolly Trust submitted an application,
which involved the properties associated with this current case, for annexation (ANX 99-14) and
future land use plan and zoning amendment (LUZ 99-001) to change the future land use to
Residential/Office General (RlOG) and the zoning to the 0, Office District. The annexation
portion of the request was approved, while the future land use plan and zoning amendment
request was denied. As a result of this denial, the land was annexed into City jurisdiction, but
the future land use plan category and zoning districts remained unchanged.
The Laura Nail Connolly Trust filed a lawsuit against the City of Clearwater as a result of
the denied future land use plan and zoning amendment request. The proposed future land use
plan and zoning amendment are part of the stipulation invoked by the June 21, 2002 Circuit
Court decision involving this case. The City of Clearwater purchased the property as part of an
agreement with the Florida Community Trust, Pinellas County and the Trust for Public Land to
preserve the site as a city park. The city is submitting this application to amend the future land
use plan categories to Recreation/Open Space (RlOS) and the zoning districts to OSR, Open
Space/Recreation.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject
to the approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as
the Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the size of the plan amendment request, review
and approval by Florida Department of Community Affairs is not required.
An amendment of the Future Land Use Plan from Residential Urban (RU) and
Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Residential/Open Space (RlOS) and a rezoning from MHP,
Mobile Home Park (City) and R4, One, Two and Three Family Residential (County), to the OSR,
Open Space/Recreation District for the subject site is requested to enable the City to develop
the site as a park. There are no minimum requirements for the proposed use of the property as
a park and recreation facility. Single-family residential dwellings surround the neighborhood to
the south and west, a vehicle service station to the west, overnight accommodations to the
north, a retention pond to the south and east and the Bayside Bridge to the east. The proposed
Community Development 2003-0318
5
3/18/03
.
.
.
future land use plan amendment and rezoning will be compatible with the immediate
neighborhood, as it is primarily residential.
The proposed Recreation/Open Space (RlOS) Future Land Use classification and OSR,
Open Space/Recreation zoning district are consistent with both the City and the Countywide
Comprehensive Plans, are compatible with the surrounding area, do not require nor affect the
provision of public services, are compatible with the natural environment and are consistent with
the development regulations of the City.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the following actions on this
application: 1) Amend the Future Land Use Plan designation of 3035 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
from Residential Urban (RU) and Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Recreation/Open Space
(RlOS), and 2) amend the Zoning District designation of 3035 Gulf to Bay Boulevard from MHP,
Mobile Home Park (City) and R4, One, Two, Three Family Residential (County) to the OSR,
Open Space/Recreation District.
AND
5.
Case: FLD2003-01005 -1720 Overbrook Avenue Level 2 Application
Owner/Applicant: The City of Clearwater.
Representative: Mr. Brian Zarlenga; TBE Group.
Location: The 1.59-acre site is located at the southwest corner of Overbrook Avenue,
Betty Lane and Fairmont Street.
Atlas Page: 260B.
Zoning: C, Commercial District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the number of required parking
spaces for a governmental use (fire station) from 49 spaces (four spaces per 1,000
square feet of gross floor area) to 20 spaces (1.65 spaces per 1,000) and to increase the
height of a solid PVC fence from six feet to eight feet in height, as part of a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-704.C.
Proposed Use: The proposal includes the demolition of all four existing, metal structures
and constructing a 12,280 square foot fire and rescue station (Northwest Fire and
Rescue Station No. 51).
Neighborhood Association(s): None.
Conditions of Approval: 1) All Stormwater requirements be met prior to the issuance of
any permits; 2) a Tree Preservation Plan, prepared by a Certified Arborist, which
indicates how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical
root zones (drip lines) and how those impacts will be mitigated, tree barricade limits and
details be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) the
final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations
submitted or as modified by the CDB; 4) all signage meet the requirements of Code and
be designed according to a common theme including similar style. color, material and
other characteristics to provide a sense of uniformity; and 5) evidence of a County right-
of-way permit for all work within right-of-way of Overbrook Avenue be submitted to Staff
prior to the issuance of any permits.
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner.
The 1.59-acre site at the southwest corner of Overbrook Avenue, Betty Lane and
Fairmont Street is the subject of a recent annexation application and review (ANX2002-11 019).
The City Commission is expected to approve the annexation of the site into the City with a
Commercial District designation and a Commercial General land use classification on March 6,
Community Development 2003-0318
6
3/18/03
.
2003 at the final reading. The site is along a highly developed area with a mix of single- and
multi-family residential and a variety of non-residential uses including minor and major vehicle
service, warehouse and automotive scrap yards. The subject property includes four vacant one-
story metal buildings, is generally paved and has undergone substantial deterioration. The site
has five, existing driveways along the front (north) property line (Overbrook Avenue).
The request is to reduce the number of required parking spaces for a governmental use
(fire station) from 49 spaces (four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area) to 20
spaces (1.65 spaces per 1,000) and to increase the height of a solid PVC fence from six feet to
eight feet in height, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the
provisions of Section 2-704.C.
The proposal includes the demolition of all four metal structures and constructing a fire
and rescue station (Northwest Fire and Rescue Station No. 51) that will be approximately
12,280 square feet in size and 23 feet in height. The building area dedicated to equipment and
vehicle storage and living area will be evenly split between the two. The building will house four
fire trucks and nine firefighters. The proposal includes 20 parking spaces and two driveways
along Overbrook Avenue. The smallest building feasible has been designed for the site. The
reductions in setbacks are to pavement only and are required to provide adequate turning radii
for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles necessary to effectively operate the fire station.
The site will generally be staffed with nine employees at any given time and the provided
number of parking spaces will more than adequately serve the proposed use.
.
The building will include a brick and earth-tone stucco fayade, scoring and other
architectural features. The roofline will be articulated to provide additional aesthetic interest.
The landscape plan exceeds the requirements of Code utilizing a variety of colorful
groundcovers (including liriope and dune sunflower), shrubs (including Indian hawthorn,
silverthorn and viburnum), shade and ornamental trees (including live oak, magnolia and crape
myrtle and Sabal palms).
A PVC fence, eight feet in height will be located along the rear, south property line
between the subject site and the adjacent residential use properties to the south for additional
buffering.
A monument-style, freestanding sign, 37.5 square feet in area and 5.5 feet in height, is
proposed with this development. The Minimum Development Standards of the Code permit a
freestanding sign 20 square feet in area. The sign, as submitted, will require a review by Staff
as part of a Comprehensive Sign Program. Solid waste will be removed via a screened
dumpster. All stormwater requirements have been met.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on February 13, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to reduce the number of required parking spaces for a governmental
use (fire station) from 49 spaces (four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area) to 20
spaces (1.65 spaces per 1,000) and to increase the height of a solid PVC fence from six feet to
eight feet in height, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the
provisions of Section 2-704.C for the site at 1720 Overbrook Avenue, with the following bases
and conditions.
.
Community Development 2003-0318
7
3/18/03
.
.
.
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.C; 2) the proposal is in
compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per
Section 3-913; and 3) the development is compatible with the surrounding area and will
enhance other redevelopment efforts.
Conditions of Approval: 1) All Stormwater requirements be met prior to the issuance of
any permits; 2) a Tree Preservation Plan, prepared by a Certified Arborist, which indicates how
the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines)
and how those impacts will be mitigated, tree barricade limits and details be submitted to and
approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) the final design and color of the
building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the CDB; 4) all
signage meet the requirements of Code and be designed according to a common theme
including similar style, color, material and other characteristics to provide a sense of uniformity;
and 5) evidence of a County right-of-way permit for all work within right-of-way of Overbrook
Avenue be submitted to Staff prior to the issuance of any permits.
AND
6.
Case: FLD2003-01001 -1555 Sunshine Drive Level 2 Application
Owner/Applicant: George R. and Theresa C. Nowak
Representative: Mr. Harry S. Cline; MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen
Location: The 1.29-acre site is located on the east side at the terminus of Sunshine
Drive, approximately 450 south of Logan Street.
Atlas Page: 271 B.
Zoning: IRT, Industrial Research Technology District.
Request: Termination of the status of nonconforming setbacks to structures, the number
of required parking spaces and lot width within the Industrial Research Technology
District under the provisions of Section 6-109.C. to permit a (1) front (west) setback
along Sunshine Drive of three feet to pavement where 20 feet is required, side (north)
setback of two feet to pavement and seven feet to building where 15 feet is required,
side (south) setback of zero feet to pavement where 15 feet is required, a rear (east)
setback of four feet to pavement where 15 feet is required and three feet to building
where 15 feet is required, (2) 16 parking spaces where 38 spaces are required and (3) a
lot width of 58 feet where 200 feet is required, , and a Comprehensive Landscape
Program to reduce required front buffer from 10 feet to three feet under the provisions of
Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: The proposal includes the reconstruction of the one-story 10,633 square
foot masonry block building 30 feet in height on the existing, foundation. The site and
proposed, replacement building will house two existing uses historically conducted on
the site; manufacturing and light assembly.
Neighborhood Association(s): None.
Conditions of Approval: 1) the final design and color of the building be consistent with
the conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the CDB; 2) all Fire Code
requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) if the proposed floor area
increases 50% or more of previous structure Open Space Impact Fees will be payable
prior to the issuance of a building permit or final plat, whichever occurs first; and 4) all
signage meet the requirements of Code and be designed according to a common theme
including similar style, color, material and other characteristics to provide a sense of
uniformity.
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner.
Community Development 2003-0318
8
3/18/03
.
.
.
The 1.29-acre site on the east side of the terminus of Sunshine Drive, approximately 450
south of Logan Street, is within a highly developed area with a mix of manufacturing, light
assembly, warehouse, industrial and office uses. The site had been developed with three, one-
story masonry block buildings and is mostly paved with no landscaping. A 10,678 square foot
masonry block building located on the site, burned down during the summer of 2002. The
remaining two buildings were not seriously damaged. The use of the site will not change with
this proposal. The site has a single, undefined curb cut along the front (west) property line
(Sunshine Drive) with a single driveway providing access to the rear of the site along the side
(south) property line. Seven parking spaces are located along the front (west) side of the site
partially within and backing out into the public right-of-way.
The request is for the termination of the status of nonconforming setbacks to structu~es,
the number of required parking spaces and lot width within the Industrial Research Technology
District under the provisions of Section 6-109.C. and a Comprehensive Landscape Program
under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
The proposal includes the construction of a one-story 10,633 square foot masonry block
building 25 feet in height on the existing foundation. The proposed replacement building will
house two uses historically conducted on the site; manufacturing and light assembly. The
proposed building will be located seven feet from the rear (east) property line, eight feet from
the side (north) property line, and 82 feet from the side (south) property line. An existing 10,716
square foot masonry block building exists on the west portion of the site between the proposed
building and the front (west) property line. The proposal includes modifying the site by providing
additional landscaping along all property lines, decreasing the impervious surface ratio,
modifying and improving truck access within the site and providing 16 paved parking spaces
including two, Code-compliant handicap spaces. The proposed building will be located directly
on the existing concrete foundation, which is elevated four feet above grade. The reductions in
setbacks are consistent with the setbacks to the existing, elevated foundation.
The site will generally be staffed with between nine and 12 employees during normal
hours of operation and the provided number of parking spaces will more than adequately serve
the existing use. The hours of operation will be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday. Deliveries will generally be those hours by a variety of trucks the largest of
which will not exceed 48 feet in length.
The building will include a cement plaster finish and a metal, standing seam roof.
The site is almost completely paved and has minimal landscaping. The landscape plan
addresses all existing open spaces available with which to locate landscaping and will result in
the removal of approximately 2,200 square feet of paving. The landscape plan meets the intent
of Code utilizing a variety of colorful ground covers, shrubs, shade and ornamental trees.
The seven existing parking spaces located on the west side of the site will be replaced
with four, Code compliant spaces which will not back out into the right-of-way and will be located
completely on the subject site. An area currently used for non-Code compliant parking along the
southwest portion of the western building will be replaced with landscaping. In addition, new
driveway surface will be provided along the south property line affording adequate maneuvering
room for delivery trucks.
Community Development 2003-0318
9
3/18/03
.
No existing signs are located on the site. One sign, 20 square feet in area will be
located on the existing awning on the front (west) fa<;ade of the existing building and meets
Minimum Standard Development requirements. Solid waste will continue to be removed via a
single dumpster. All stormwater requirements have been met.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on February 13, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application for the Termination of the status of nonconforming setbacks to
structures, the number of required parking spaces and lot width within the Industrial Research
Technology District under the provisions of Section 6-109.C. to permit a (1) front (west) setback
along Sunshine Drive of three feet to pavement where 20 feet is required, side (north) setback
of two feet to pavement and seven feet to building where 15 feet is required, side (south)
setback of zero feet to pavement where 15 feet is required, a rear (east) setback of four feet to
pavement where 15 feet is required and three feet to building where 15 feet is required, (2) 16
parking spaces where 38 spaces are required and (3) a lot width of 58 feet where 200 feet is
required, , and a Comprehensive Landscape Program to reduce required front buffer from 10
feet to three feet under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. for the site at 1555 Sunshine Drive,
with the following bases and conditions.
.
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria for
a Termination of Nonconformity per Section 6-109.C; 2) the proposal is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria per Section 3-1202.G; 3) the proposal is in
compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per
Section 3-913; 4) the development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance
other redevelopment efforts.
Conditions of Approval: 11 The final design and color of the building be consistent with
the conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the CDB; 2) all Fire Code requirements
be met prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) if the proposed floor area increases 50% or more
of previous structure Open Space Impact Fees will be payable prior to the issuance of a building
permit or final plat, whichever occurs first; and 4) all signage meet the requirements of Code
and be designed according to a common theme including similar style, color, material and other
characteristics to provide a sense of uniformity.
Member Moran moved to approve Consent Agenda Item #C1 - Case ANX2003-01 001,
Item #C2 - Case ANX2003-01002, Item #C3 - Case ANX2003-01003, Item #C4 - LUZ2003-
01001, Item #C5 - Case FLD2003-01005 with conditions as listed, and Item #C6 - Case
FLD2003-01001 with conditions as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Member Milam did not vote.
7.
Case: FLD2003-01003 -1310 Cleveland Street Level 2 Application
Owner/Applicant: Manal Oil, Inc. (Nick Kheireddine).
Representative: Mr. Joe Russell, R & W Signs.
Location: 0.247 -acres located at the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and Fredrica
Avenue.
Atlas Page: 287B.
Zoning: C, Commercial District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the addition of a gas canopy over
existing gas pumps and signage for an existing automobile service station with a
reduction in the front (south) setback from 25 feet to five feet (to canopy) and a reduction
.
Community Development 2003-0318
10
3/18/03
.
in the front (south) setback from five feet to zero feet (to sign), as part of a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C.
Proposed Use: The proposal is for the addition of a 24 feet by 36 feet freestanding
canopy over existing gas pumps at a five-foot setback from Cleveland Street (to leading
edge of canopy) and an 18 square-foot, six feet high sign on Cleveland Street at a zero
setback.
Neighborhood Association: Gateway Neighborhood (Ms. Pat Vaughn, 1326 Pierce
Street, Apt. #2, Clearwater, FL 33756,727-461-7599)
Conditions of Approval: 1) The color of the canopy match the color of other site
improvements, as approved by Planning Staff; 2) the color of the freestanding
monument sign be approved by Planning staff prior to issuance of the sign permit, be a
maximum of six feet in height and include the site address; 3) attached signage meet
Code provisions; 4) lighting under the canopy be contained on-site through positioning of
the lights or through cut-off fixtures to avoid off-site impacts on the adjoining motel; and
5) the A-frame sign be removed and the applicant obtain a permit for the attached
signage within 30 days of CDB approval.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner.
.
The rectangular site is 0.248 acres at the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and
Frederica Avenue. The site has been developed as an automobile service station in the past,
vacant for two to three years and reopened in August 2002. The site includes a 312 square foot
structure and a fueling island with two pumps. Access is presently provided from two driveways
off of Cleveland Street and one driveway from Frederica Avenue. There are two large oak trees
within the right-of-way of Frederica Avenue and other trees on the adjacent parcel to the north
that have drip lines overhanging the subject parcel.
Adjacent land uses fronting on Cleveland Street are a motel to the east, offices to the
west and a manufacturing business on the south side of Cleveland Street. Both the motel and
office are set back less than five feet from the Cleveland Street right-of-way. An automobile
service station exists further west on Cleveland. The property directly north is developed with a
parking lot for the Verizon office. Properties further north on the east side of Frederica Avenue
are zoned for and developed with residential uses.
The applicant reopened the automobile service station after receiving Flexible Standard
Development approval May 7,2002 (FLS 02-01-02) and constructing site improvements. The
applicant now seeks to further improve the property with a canopy over the fueling island and a
freestanding monument sign. Code provisions allow for canopies over gas islands, where the
support posts meet the required 25 feet front setback and the leading edge of the canopy may
be setback 10 feet from the front property line. The fueling island is located 15 feet from the
Cleveland Street property line. The proposal includes reducing the setback for the leading edge
of the canopy from the required 10 feet to five feet, so that the canopy can extend over the
vehicles closest to Cleveland Street. The color of the canopy is required to match the color of
the other site improvements, as approved by Planning staff. Lighting under the canopy will
need to be contained on-site through positioning of the lights or through cut-off fixtures to avoid
off-site impacts on the adjoining motel.
.
Code provisions require a five-foot setback from property lines for signs. The proposal
includes reducing the setback from Cleveland Street to zero feet to allow the sign to be
positioned perpendicular to the street for readability. The motel directly to the east is located at
zero setbacks from Cleveland Street and the common side property line, restricting signage
sight lines by westbound motorists for this gas station. Attached signage will need to meet
Community Development 2003-0318
11
3/18/03
.
Code provisions. All signs need to be architecturally integrated into the design and color of site
and building improvements, as approved by Planning staff. The freestanding monument sign
must not exceed six feet in height and will need to include the site address. The request for the
proposed improvements is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
due to necessary deviations from the setback standards.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on February 13, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development approval to permit the addition of a gas canopy over existing gas pumps and
signage for an existing automobile service station with a reduction in the front (south) setback
from 25 feet to five feet (to canopy) and a reduction in the front (south) setback from five feet to
zero feet (to sign), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-704.C, for the site at 1310 Cleveland Street, with the following bases
and conditions:
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.C; 2) the proposal is in
compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per
Section 3-913; 3) the development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance
other redevelopment efforts.
.
Conditions of Approval: 1) The color of the canopy match the color of other site
improvements, as approved by Planning Staff; 2) the color of the freestanding monument sign
be approved by Planning staff prior to issuance of the sign permit, be a maximum of six feet in
height and include the site address; 3) attached signage meet Code provisions; 4) lighting under
the canopy be contained on-site through positioning of the lights or through cut-off fixtures to
avoid off-site impacts on the adjoining motel; and 5) the A-frame sign be removed and the
applicant obtain a permit for the attached signage within 30 days of CDB approval.
In response to a question, Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce suggested the
applicant respond to why there were two conflicting statements on his application with respect to
whether or not the canopy and sign were overlooked in the site plan or if they were included.
In response to a remark, Senior Planner Wayne Wells said this property is not in the
downtown area. Long Range Planning Manager Gina Clayton said the property is in the
expanded CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) area, which currently is not part of the
downtown plan area.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said the applicant is requesting zero setbacks to
ensure his signs are visible. Ms. Clayton said this property would be included in the next
downtown plan update.
It was remarked that applicants should be aware of the importance of correctly
completing these types of applications. One member said he was confused about the
responses to Questions #3, #5, and #7 of this application. The applicant's answers to Question
#3 and #5 conflict.
.
Mr. Nick Kheireddine, applicant, said the request for the canopy was originally included
in the site plan, but was taken out of the request in order to expedite the remainder of
applicant's request. He submitted this application for the canopy and signage.
Community Development 2003-0318
12
3/18/03
.
.
.
Member Hooper moved to approve Consent Agenda Item #C7 with conditions as listed.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Milam did not vote.
D. NON-CONSENT AGENDA - LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS: (Item 1)
1.
Case: FLD2002-09030 - 650 Bay Esplanade
Owners: Virginia B. Franks, Charles F. Raubeson, Emma R. Alison, and Jean and
Walter Koegler.
Applicant: Radcliffe Development Company, LLC.
Representative: Robert Flynt.
Location: The 0.95-acre site is located on the northeast corner of Bay Esplanade and
Poinsettia Avenue.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning: T, Tourist District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to clarify/correct the requested height of a
building previously approved by the Community Development Board. The original
Flexible Development request was to reduce the required side (north) setback from 10
feet to five feet (to pavement), reduce the front (west) setback along Poinsettia Avenue
from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), reduce the front (east) setback along Bay
Esplanade from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), reduce the front (south) setback along
Bay Esplanade from 15 feet to three feet (to pavement) and increase the height from 50
feet to 65 feet (as measured from base flood elevation), under the provisions of Section
2-803. The portion of the request regarding the height of the building was predicated on
an incorrect base flood elevation of 14 feet. The correct base flood elevation is 11 feet.
Therefore, the height of the building as measured from base flood elevation is 69.5 feet.
The overall height of the building of 74 feet remains the same as originally presented to
the Community Development Board on November 19, 2002 the only other change to the
site plan includes the reduction in the front (south) setback along Bay Esplanade for a
wall 1 0.5 feet in height from 25 feet to zero feet. The application is now a request for
Flexible Development approval to reduce the required side (north) setback from 10 feet
to five feet (to pavement), reduce the front (west) setback along Poinsettia Avenue from
15 feet to zero feet (to building), reduce the front (east) setback along Bay Esplanade
from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), reduce the front (south) setback along Bay
Esplanade from 15 feet to three feet (to pavement), reduce the front (south) setback
along Bay Esplanade for a wall 1 0.5 feet in height from 25 feet to zero feet and increase
the height from 50 feet to 69.5 feet (as measured from base flood elevation), under the
provisions of Section 2-803.
Proposed Use: A 28-unit condominium development within a single, seven-story, 65
feet in height (as measured from base flood elevation).
Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Beach Association (David MacNamee, 827
Mandalay Ave Clearwater, FL 33767
Conditions: (All conditions are consistent with those as originally applied to this
application and approved by the Community Development Board): 1 )The density of the
site be limited to 28 dwellings units (30 dwelling units per acre); 2) the final design of the
building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the
CDB; 3) the height of the building be limited to 69.5 feet as measured from base flood
elevation; 4) should addressing stormwater issues result in a site plan which is
significantly different from the one approved by the Community Development Board, the
site plan must be resubmitted to the Board for review; 5) all Fire Department
requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; and 6) all signage comply with
Code.
Community Development 2003-0318
13
3/18/03
J
.
.
.
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner.
The Community Development unanimously approved the application on November 19,
2002. The original request was to reduce the required side (north) setback from 10 feet to five
feet (to pavement), reduce the front (west) setback along Poinsettia Avenue from 15 feet to zero
feet (to building), reduce the front (east) setback along Bay Esplanade from 15 feet to zero feet
(to building), reduce the front (south) setback along Bay Esplanade from 15 feet to three feet (to
pavement) and increase the height from 50 feet to 65 feet (as measured from base flood
elevation), under the provisions of Section 2-803. The portion of the request with regards to the
height of the building was predicated on an incorrect base flood elevation of 14 feet. The
correct base flood elevation is 11 feet. Therefore, the height of the building as measured from
base flood elevation is 69.5 feet. This correction does not increase the overall height of the
building as measured from grade. The original application indicated that the overall height of
the building, as measured from grade, would be 74 feet. The overall height of the building of 74
feet and the appearance of the building remains the same as originally presented to, and
approved, by the Community Development Board on November 19, 2002. The only other
change proposed for the site plan includes the reduction in the front (south) setback along Bay
Esplanade for a wall 1 0.5 feet in height from 25 feet to zero feet.
Section 4-406 (Changes to level two development approvals) provides that the
Community Development Coordinator is authorized to allow minor revisions to an approved
level two approval after receipt of comments from the Development Review Committee,
provided that the change does not, among other things, increase the height of the building. The
only option available to the applicant is to have the minor correction in the height of the building
reviewed and approved by the Community Development as part of a Level Two, Flexible
Development application.
The 0.95-acre site is located on the northeast corner of Bay Esplanade and Poinsettia
Avenue. The site, generally developed in the early 1950s, is located within an older, residential
portion of Clearwater Beach and bounded by Bay Esplanade on the south and east and
Poinsettia Avenue on the west. The site consists of five lots, each with one building. There are
a total of 23 residential units and four sheds, ranging in size from 60 to 480 square feet on the
site. Two, single-story buildings each are located on the west and east sides of the site, and a
two-story building is centrally located on the site. The five buildings comprise a total of 15,350
square feet of gross floor area. One and two-story, multi- and single-family dwellings
characterize the neighborhood.
The site is within a special area redevelopment plan, the "Old Florida" District, of Beach
by Design. This area has been designated for multi-family townhomes and condominiums of low
to mid rise. The immediate vicinity is almost entirely composed of attached dwellings and small
motels. Building styles generally resemble architecture from the 1950's and appear to have
been progressively expanded. Bay Esplanade, in this general vicinity, is a local street with no
sidewalks where many sites rely on the public right-of-way to accommodate perpendicular,
back- out parking. Generally, the streets cape is in need of redevelopment to improve parking,
pedestrian access, and its aesthetic appearance. Beach by Design recognizes site constraints
of parcels in the neighborhood and difficulties of redevelopment.
The proposal includes the consolidation and complete redevelopment of five lots. A 28-
unit condominium development is proposed within a single, 84,000 square foot building. The
seven-story structure will have six stories of living space above parking. The proposed building
will be located approximately 31 feet from the side (north) property line, between 16 and 24 feet
Community Development 2003-0318
14
3/18/03
.
from the front (south) property line along Bay Esplanade, zero feet from the front (east) property
line along Bay Esplanade and two feet from the front (west) property line along Poinsettia
Avenue. The building will be at least 40 feet from any surrounding structure.
The applicant seeks to increase the permitted height of a building from 50 feet to 69.5
feet (as measured from base flood elevation) and reduce the front (east, west and south)
setbacks to between zero and three feet, reduce the front (south) setback along Bay Esplanade
for a wall 1 0.5 feet in height from 25 feet to zero feet and reduce the side (north) setback to five
feet. Attached dwellings under the Flexible Development provisions of the Tourist District are
permitted to be up to 100 feet in height with front and side setbacks reduced to zero feet. This
site is located within a flood zone (zone AE) with an elevation of 11 feet. By Code, height is
measured from base flood elevation.
The historic Florida mission-style architecture of the proposed building is designed with
authentic materials including clay tile roofing, neutral-color stucco, cast stone trim and wrought
iron railings. Additionally, multiple rooflines will serve to break massing. Rooftop garden areas
and significant balconies and windows are provided on all elevations. The building compliments
the vision of the "Old Florida District." A masonry block wall six feet in height finished to match
the appearance and color of the building will be located along the north property line. A
matching wall will enclose the swimming pool. Staff is supportive of the height increase due to
overall design of the building and site. The proposal complies with the provisions of the
intended character of the "Old Florida District" and Beach by Design. The development will
create a visually interesting and attractive building, while reducing massing and scale.
.
The under-structure parking will include 50 spaces that exceed Code requirements of 42
spaces. Access to the site is proposed along the east and west sides of the site from Bay
Esplanade and Poinsettia Avenue, respectively. A third access point will be located along the
south side of the site from Bay Esplanade. A driveway also is provided along Poinsettia Avenue
provided access for solid waste service and to access two of the unit's garages. All proposed
driveways will provide for two-way circulation.
Currently, pedestrian activity is limited due to narrow sidewalks and a lack of landscape
buffering.
The landscape plan exceeds the requirements of Code. This includes a mixture of
various trees, shrubs, palms and annuals. A four-foot sidewalk will be provided along all streets
to enhance pedestrian access in the area. Amenities include a swimming pool located at the
southwest corner of the site.
Preliminary stormwater design has been addressed. Should final design of the
stormwater system results in a site plan, which is significantly different from the one approved
by the Community Development Board, the site plan must be resubmitted to the Board for
review.
Fire Department requirements, including gates with an approved emergency entry
system and a Knox key box on the building for emergency egress, will be required to be
provided. Solid Waste Department requirements have been met. Trash will be collected within
the building and moved to a staging area by the complex staff on pick up days.
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on July 11 and August 15, 2002. The Planning Department recommends approval of the
Community Development 2003-0318
15
3/18/03
.
.
.
Flexible Development approval to clarify/correct the requested height of a building previously
approved by the Community Development Board. The original Flexible Development request
was to reduce the required side (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), reduce
the front (west) setback along Poinsettia Avenue from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), reduce
the front (east) setback along Bay Esplanade from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), reduce the
front (south) setback along Bay Esplanade from 15 feet to three feet (to pavement) and increase
the height from 50 feet to 65 feet (as measured from base flood elevation), under the provisions
of Section 2-803. The portion of the request regarding the height of the building was predicated
on an incorrect base flood elevation of 14 feet. The correct base flood elevation is 11 feet.
Therefore, the height of the building as measured from base flood elevation is 69.5 feet. The
overall height of the building of 74 feet remains the same as originally presented to the
Community Development Board on November 19, 2002 the only other change to the site plan
includes the reduction in the front (south) setback along Bay Esplanade for a wall 1 0.5 feet in
height from 25 feet to zero feet. The application is now a request for Flexible Development
approval to reduce the required side (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement),
reduce the front (west) setback along Poinsettia Avenue from 15 feet to zero feet (to building),
reduce the front (east) setback along Bay Esplanade from 15 feet to zero feet (to building),
reduce the front (south) setback along Bay Esplanade from 15 feet to three feet (to pavement),
reduce the front (south) setback along Bay Esplanade for a wall 10.5 feet in height from 25 feet
to zero feet and increase the height from 50 feet to 69.5 feet (as measured from base flood
elevation), under the provisions of Section 2-803 for the site at 650 Bay Esplanade, with the
following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria per
Section 2-803.B; 2) the proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the
general applicability criteria per Section 3-913; 3) the application is consistent with the "Old
Florida District" in Beach by Design; and 4) the development is compatible with the surrounding
area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts.
Conditions: (All conditions are consistent with those as originally applied to this
application and approved by the Community Development Board): 1) The density of the site be
limited to 28 dwellings units (30 dwelling units per acre); 2) the final design of the building be
consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the CDB; 3) the height of
the building be limited to 69.5 feet as measured from base flood elevation; 4) should addressing
stormwater issues result in a site plan which is significantly different from the one approved by
the Community Development Board, the site plan must be resubmitted to the Board for review;
5) all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; and 6) all
signage comply with Code.
Planner Mark Parry said one letter of objection to the application was received. He said
the objector thoughts the zero setback meant that the building would extend to the curb,
however, it would be 15 feet from the roadway and would not affect site distance and visibility.
In response to a question, Mr. Parry said the applicant is constructing the four-foot
sidewalk.
Assistant Director of Engineering Glenn Bahnick said Engineering Director Mike Quillen
and Traffic Operations Manager Paul Bertels reviewed the site plan. He said the citizen
objecting to this application is concerned that the wall at the intersection of Poinsettia and Bay
Esplanade is at a zero setback and concerned that there would be no room for a sidewalk. He
is also concerned with sight distance triangles. Staff has reviewed the site plan and has found
Community Development 2003-0318
16
3/18/03
.
that the building would be 15 feet from the curb line, allowing room for a four-foot sidewalk,
which the developer will construct at the time of the project. Engineering staff has no objections
with the project.
Mr. Armstrong said he felt staff has adequately summarized the project. In response to
a question, he said the applicant intends to begin construction very soon.
One person spoke in favor of the application.
Member Gildersleeve moved to recommend to the City Commission approval of Item
#01, Case FLD2002-09030 for 650 Bay Esplanade, with conditions as listed. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Milam did not vote.
E. NON-CONSENT AGENDA: LEVEL 3 APPLICATIONS (Items 1-3)
1. Case: TA2002.11001 - Community Development Code Amendment
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Economic Development Department.
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code regarding outdoor cafes
on public and private property within the Commercial, Tourist and Downtown Districts,
including: definitions, permits/fees, applications, standards and criteria for review, and
providing for conditions of permits, liability and insurance, and revocation.
Presenter: Geraldine Campos, Assistant Director of Community Redevelopment.
.
As the City of Clearwater experiences renewed interest from restaurant owners to locate
eating establishments on Clearwater Beach and Downtown due to significant public capital
improvements, the City recognizes the need to address outdoor seating on private property and
the public right-of-way (i.e. sidewalk cafes) in a comprehensive way.
Sidewalk cafes provide a unique environment for relaxation and food consumption that
encourages additional pedestrian traffic and promotes more downtown and beach activity and
redevelopment. These goals and objectives are consistent with Beach by Design as well as
the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Because there exists a high intensity of development in
the Downtown and Tourist zoning districts, the lack of adequate vacant land, and the need to
encourage the redevelopment of existing structures, the City needs to provide an opportunity for
outdoor seating to be located on sidewalks in the public right-of-way to further its redevelopment
goals.
In developing a sidewalk cafe ordinance for the City, Staff researched sidewalk cafe
ordinances from neighboring cities including St. Petersburg, Tampa, Ft. Lauderdale, and Winter
Park. Research included interviews with these cities to determine which components have
worked well. The proposed sidewalk cafe ordinance outlines standards and criteria that were
developed in conjunction with comments and discussion from various departments including
Planning, Development Services, Legal, Risk Management, Economic Development and
Housing, and Engineering.
This text amendment also includes a provision for reviewing minor changes to approved
Comprehensive Sign Programs. Application fees for these requests are $300. This ordinance
creates a $75 minor amendment fee to applicant requesting simple changes.
.
The sidewalk cafe ordinance provides standards and criteria for developing sidewalk
cafes on private property and in the public right-of-way. The ordinance strives to improve
Community Development 2003-0318
17
3/18/03
.
community aesthetics through the regulation of sidewalk cafes through a pre-application
meeting and design review. In addition, maintenance, safety, and liability standards are
stipulated to maintain high standards for development, which are essential in a community
undergoing redevelopment. The ordinance also details application requirements, the review
process, and terms and conditions for the revocation of a permit.
A sidewalk cafe can be established as an accessory use to an adjacent business and is
located outside of the boundaries of the building; food and beverage service or other activities
related to the principal use may be allowed as part of the sidewalk cafe. Sidewalk cafes on
private property are permitted in the Commercial, Downtown, and Tourist zoning districts of the
City. Sidewalk cafes located on the public right-of-way will only be allowed in the Downtown
and Tourist Districts on Clearwater Beach due to the high intensity of development and the lack
of vacant land.
The sidewalk cafe ordinance proposes to eliminate the parking requirement for any
outdoor seating. When calculating the parking requirement, only the indoor seats of the
business will be used to determine the appropriate number of parking spaces. This proposal is
based on the City's desire to encourage a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere in downtown and on
the beach, the availability of parking (existing and/or planned), the negligible increase in actual
parking demand for an expanded outdoor seating area and the impractical nature of adding on-
site parking in the downtown and tourist urban areas.
.
Within the downtown area, there is sufficient parking both public and private to
accommodate the expected sidewalk cafes. The availability of parking within downtown is
documented by the recent parking study prepared by Urbitran and the downtown grid land use
pattern that provides for on-street parking. It is based on these issues that the Planning
Department supports the elimination of parking requirements for outdoor seating at sidewalk
cafes in the downtown.
Within the Tourist District, parking availability varies widely based on peak or non-peak
arrival and also varies based on the specific location. Many efforts are underway to make
pedestrian movements easy and interesting on the beach. Expectations by citizens about an
acceptable length of walk from one's car to the desired destination are also being revised and
should continue to do so over time and as other attractions locate on the beach. A regional
parking solution is underway and is likely to be resolved within the near future (within one to two
years). Until the regional parking solution is completed, there may be times of parking
congestion and/or longer walks to the desired destination during the peak times. This potential
congestion should be balanced with the long-term benefits of a "walkable" pedestrian-friendly
beach area. Therefore, based on the pending parking solution and the importance of a
pedestrian tourist area, the Planning Department supports the elimination of parking
requirements for outdoor seating at sidewalk cafes in the Tourist District.
.
Sidewalk cafes on the public right-of-way will require a permit to operate. For existing
restaurants desiring to establish a sidewalk cafe in the right-of-way, the completed application
will be reviewed as an accessory use/minimum standard development within three working
days. If all conditions are met, a permit will be granted with a fee of $120. The permit will be in
force from October 1 through September 30 of the following year and can be renewed annually.
Sidewalk cafes on private property will be reviewed as part of a Flexible Standard
Development or Flexible Development application with no additional fee. A pre-application
meeting is required to discuss the proposed sidewalk cafe on private property and/or on the
Community Development 2003-0318
18
3/18/03
.
.
.
public right-of-way, application requirements, and conditions of the permit. The applications will
be submitted to the Community Development Coordinator.
The main components of the ordinance are summarized as follows:
. Safety - Sidewalk cafes should promote efficient and direct pedestrian pathways. The sight
visibility triangles must be maintained at all times. In addition, no food preparation is
allowed on the sidewalk.
. Desian - To enhance the visual quality of the urban environment, the cafe will comply with
the Design Guidelines of the district. Specifically, furniture and fixtures shall be of good
design and made of quality materials and workmanship. The edge of the sidewalk cafe area
in the right-of-way shall be delineated using nonpermanent fixtures such as railings, potted
plants, decorative chains, or other approved fixtures.
. Maintenance - The sidewalk cafe area, the area from the sidewalk cafe to the curb, and five
feet beyond either end, will be maintained in a neat and orderly appearance at all times and
shall be cleared of all debris on a daily basis. Tables, chairs, umbrellas, etc. shall be
maintained in a clean and attractive manner and in good repair at all times.
. Alcoholic Beveraaes - With a valid alcohol license from the State of Florida, alcoholic
beverages are permitted for consumption in connection with a restaurant use. However,
alcoholic beverages must remain in the designated sidewalk cafe area. An amendment to
the Code permitting open containers in the sidewalk cafe area will be required as a separate
ordinance.
. Music - No amplified music is allowed on sidewalk cafes in the public right-of-way. Amplified
music on private property shall be reviewed for impact to surrounding properties.
Additional requirements for sidewalk cafes on public rights-of-way:
. Safety - The City may require the temporary removal of sidewalk cafes when street,
sidewalk, or utility repairs necessitate such action, during any emergency situation, or in the
interest of public safety. A minimum of four feet will be maintained at all times to provide
unobstructed pedestrian pathways along the sidewalk. In congested pedestrian areas, this
minimum width may be increased.
. Liabilitv - A written agreement with the City is required where the permit holder agrees to
indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the City from all claims, liability, lawsuits,
damages and causes of action which may arise out of the use of the public sidewalk.
· Insurance - Comprehensive General Liability insurance on an "occurrence" basis in the
amount of $500,000 is required. The City is to be specifically included as an additional
insured on the policy.
Two additional ordinances will be needed in conjunction with the adoption of the
sidewalk cafe ordinance to (1) allow alcohol on the public right-of-way in the sidewalk cafe area
and (2) repeal old provisions related to sidewalk cafes in the Code. These ordinances will be
presented by the Legal Department.
Community Development 2003-0318
19
3/18/03
.
.
.
CRITERIA FOR AMENDMENT:
Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing amendments.
Any code amendment must comply with the following.
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals,
policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
The following is a selected list of goals and policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan that are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code:
. Goal 2 - The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering
practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure
neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development.
. Policy 2.1.1 - Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate, by providing
development incentives such as density bonuses for significant lot consolidation and/or
catalytic projects, as well as the use of transfer of developments rights pursuant to approved
special area plans and redevelopment plan.
. Policy 2.1.2 - Renewal of the beach Tourist District shall be encouraged through the
establishment of distinct districts within Clearwater Beach, the establishment of a limited
density pool of additional hotel rooms to be used in specified geographic areas of
Clearwater Beach, enhancement of public rights-of-way, the vacation of public rights-of-way
when appropriate, transportation improvements, inter-beach and intra-beach transit, transfer
of development rights and the use of design guidelines, pursuant to Beach by Design.
2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code
and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
The proposed text amendments creating a sidewalk cafe use in the Tourist and
Downtown zoning districts are consistent with the following purposes of the Code:
. Section 1-1 03.A - It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the
Comprehensive Plan of the City; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and
quality of life in the City; to guide the orderly growth and development of the city; to
establish rules of procedures for land development approvals; to enhance the character
of the City and the preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all
residents and property owners of the City;
. Section 1-103. E.2 - Protect the character and the social and economic stability of all
parts of the City through the establishment of reasonable standards which encourage
the orderly and beneficial development of land within the City; and
. Section 1-103.E.3 - Protect and conserve the value of land throughout the City and the
value of buildings and improvements upon the land, and minimize the conflicts among
the uses of land and buildings.
Community Development 2003-0318
20
3/18/03
.
.
.
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code.
They also further the original redevelopment goals that established the Code. This text
amendment serves to clarify and provide standards and criteria for developing sidewalk cafes in
the public right-of-way as well as on private property. The text amendment also strives to
improve community aesthetics through the regulation of sidewalk cafes. The standards and
criteria for developing sidewalk cafes ultimately promote economic development and maintain
high standards for development, which are essential in a community undergoing redevelopment.
The text amendment also provides a fee for minor revisions to approved Comprehensive Sign
Programs.
The Planning Department Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 7063-03, which
makes revisions to the Community Development Code regarding sidewalk cafes and fees for
the Comprehensive Sign Program.
In response to a question, Assistant Director of Community Redevelopment Geraldine
Campos said comprehensive general liability insurance is only required on the public rights-of-
way. Maintenance of sidewalk cafes is addressed through code enforcement measures. It was
remarked that it appears that the City's $500,000 insurance policy might be insufficient
coverage. Ms. Campos said after researching ordinances from other parts of Florida and
comparable cities, the Risk Management department determined that a $500,000
comprehensive general liability insurance coverage is sufficient. Staff offered to bring the
concern regarding the insurance coverage to the Risk Management department staff and to the
City Commission at the Thursday City Commission meeting. In response to a question, Ms.
Clayton said cafe canopies, lighting and other design elements of a sidewalk cafe would be
addressed under the design guidelines in the City Code and is not part of this ordinance.
In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said sandwich board signs are permitted in the
downtown, but not on the beach, however it is being considered. This application would not
involve additional signage. Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said if the application wished to
exceed the standards for signage, the applicant would submit the request, which would require
a staff level and CDB review. This ordinance does not amend the sign regulations in the Code.
Ms. Tarapani said design guidelines are being evaluated to achieve continuity. The Code
allows a four square foot attached sign at the entrance to a restaurant. Some establishments'
employees cover the interior and exterior seating areas.
One person spoke regarding the application citing she had no objection to outdoor cafes,
but was concerned that parking in the area is being diminished and four-foot wide sidewalks
may not be adequate.
Member Hooper moved to recommend to the City Commission approval of Item #E1,
Case TA2002-11 001, amendments to the Community Development Code as submitted. The
motion was duly seconded.
It was suggested that the motion be amended to include the CDB's concerns regarding
the City's comprehensive general liability insurance.
Member Hooper agreed to amend the motion to include the CDB's concerns regarding
the amount of the City's comprehensive general liability insurance. The seconder agreed.
Upon the vote being taken, Members Hooper, Gildersleeve, Mazur, Moran, Plisko, Doran, and
Chair Petersen voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Alternate Member Milam did not vote.
Community Development 2003-0318
21
3/18/03
.
2.
Case: T A2003-01 001 - Community Development Code Amendment
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Legal Department.
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code relating to noise including
prohibitions, declared public nuisances, persons responsible, and exceptions.
Presenter: Rob Surette, Assistant City Attorney.
When the Community Development Code was adopted on January 21, 1999, the noise
ordinance, which was contained in Chapter 20 of the City Code, was recodified in Section 3-
1508. When the noise ordinance was recodified, it was amended to impose a requirement that
before the City could issue a citation to a person for operating an excessively loud radio,
amplifier, phonograph, or sound truck, the wind conditions had to be less than 15 miles per
hour. The wind requirement has proven to be unworkable, especially on Clearwater Beach.
The amendments also would clarify that only "loud and raucous" noises are prohibited by
the ordinance and that a Police Officer must hear the "loud and raucous" noise at a distance of
at least 100 feet from the source of the noise. The amendments would further clarify the
circumstances under which a person becomes liable for ensuring that noise sources do not
violate the noise ordinance and the circumstances when religious worship activities are exempt
form the noise ordinance.
.
Sections 3-1508 A-B have been amended to clarify that an officer must hear the "loud and
raucous" noise at a distance of at least 100 feet from the source of the noise before the officer can
issue a citation. The 100 foot limitation is consistent with that contained in Section 316.3045
Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful to operate a motor vehicle radio so that the sound is
plainly audible at a distance of 100 feet or more from the motor vehicle. Section 3-1508 C. has
been amended to delete the wind requirement and clarify that only "loud and raucous" noise is
prohibited. The wind requirement has made it difficult for officers to enforce the noise ordinance
because officers do not carry wind-measuring devices and because wind gusts on Clearwater
Beach are frequent.
Section 3-1508 D has been amended to clarify that a person becomes liable for ensuring
that noise sources do not violate the noise ordinance only when the person has some ability to
control the noise. The amendment will ensure that the ordinance is applied constitutionally so that
third persons who did not actually produce the noise are not cited unless they were also culpable.
Section 3-1508 E has been amended to limit the exception for religious worship activities to those
activities occurring on or in religious facilities. The amendment will ensure that persons do not
unreasonable disturb the public by producing a "loud and raucous" noise while located in a public
place only to then claim that they were exercising their religious freedoms.
Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text
amendments.
Any code amendment must comply with the following:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals,
policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
.
2. The proposed amendments are not inconsistent with goals, policies, or objectives
from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
Community Development 2003-0318
22
3/18/03
.
.
.
3. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development
Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
4. The proposed text amendments clarify conditions under which a person violates the
noise ordinance. These proposed amendments further the following purposes of the Code:
Section 1-1 03.A - It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the
Comprehensive Plan of the City; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life
in the city; to guide the orderly growth and development of the City; to establish rules of
procedure for land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the
preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and property
owners of the City.
Section 1-103.E.3 - Preserve the natural resources and aesthetic character of the
community for both the resident and tourist population consistent with the City's economic
underpinnings.
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code.
They more specifically clarify the criteria for issuing a citation to a person for violating the noise
ordinance.
The Planning Department recommends approval of Ordinance No. 7099-032.
In response to a question, Assistant City Attorney Rob Surette said a citizen can
exercise his/her first amendment rights, but cannot be loud and raucous.
Member Gildersleeve moved to recommend to the City Commission approval of Item
#E2, Case TA2003-01001, as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Board Member Milam did not vote.
3. Case: T A2003-02002 - Community Development Code Amendment
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code clarifying Definitions of
Dwelling Unit, Overnight Accommodations, and Residential Use.
Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager.
The issue of short-term rentals of residential properties surfaced due to a citizen
questioning the Community Response Team (CRT) about the zoning regulations for this use.
The CRT requested input from the Planning Department on this issue and the Department
determined that short-term rentals are not a permitted use in the residential zoning district. The
Community Response Team sent education letters to three property owners, who are renting
North Beach properties on a short-term basis, advising them that this type of use of a
residentially zoned property is not permitted.
At the September 16, 2002 City Commission Work Session, the Planning Department
made a presentation on City regulations and those from the Rules Concerning the
Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan (Countywide Rules) addressing the
issue renting of residential property on short-term basis. There was general agreement by the
Community Development 2003-0318
23
3/18/03
.
.
.
Commission that some code amendments should be considered to further clarify that this is not
a residential use allowed in the residential zoning districts.
The City Commission held a public input meeting on this issue on November 17, 2002 at
the Clearwater Beach Recreation Center with approximately 200 people in attendance.
Opinions were expressed on both sides of this issue. At the January 21, 2003 City Commission
Work Session, the Planning Department requested clarification from the City Commission
regarding the rental period that constitutes a short-term rental. The majority of the City
Commission supported a time period of thirty days.
The intent and purpose of the Clearwater residential zoning districts is "to protect and
preserve the integrity and value of existing, stable residential neighborhoods while at the same
time, allow a careful and deliberate redevelopment and revitalization of such neighborhoods in
the need of revitalization or neighborhoods with unique amenities which create unique
opportunities to increase property values and the overall attractiveness of the City." These
districts primarily allow detached and attached dwellings, which are dwelling units that are either
separated from any other principal building or share common walls with a least one other
dwelling unit. A dwelling unit is defined "as a building or portion of a building providing
independent living facilities for one family including provision for living, sleeping and complete
kitchen facilities." A family is defined as "one or more persons occupying a dwelling unit and
living as a single housekeeping unit." This implies a long-term or permanent relationship as
opposed to one that is short-term and transient. Based on the above definitions and purpose,
the short-term rental of detached and attached dwellings in residential districts is not permitted.
Overnight accommodations are defined as "a building or portion thereof designed and
used primarily to provide sleeping accommodations for transient guests for a daily or weekly
rental charge and including interval ownership and such office, meeting, restaurant facilities as
are integral to its primary function." Overnight accommodations as a primary use are permitted
in several of the nonresidential districts. In all but one residential district, overnight
accommodations may be permitted if the use is accessory to the principal building as a private
residence. It should be noted that in order for this use to be determined consistent with the
Countywide Rules, the City had to clarify its accessory nature. In the multi-family districts,
(MDR, MHDR, and HDR) a small portion of the total units of a multi-family project may be
allowed for use as overnight accommodations because it is accessory to the primary use of the
property. This provision does require review and approval by either the Community
Development Coordinator or Community Development Board. Below please find a table
indicating the districts in which overnight accommodations are permitted.
Countywide Rules
The Countywide Rules went into effect in 1989. At that time, transient accommodation
uses were allowed in the commercial and resort future land use categories but the term was not
defined. In 1992, comprehensive amendments were made to the Countywide Rules and
transient accommodations was defined as "a facility offering transient lodging accommodations
for tourists; such as hotels, motels, inns, resorts and recreational vehicle parks." The Rules did
not contemplate the use of residential properties for transient accommodations. In 1998 this
definition was further refined as follows: a facility offering transient lodging accommodations;
such as hotels, motels, inns, resorts and recreational vehicle parks where such temporary
lodging accommodation is offered at intervals of 30 days or less. This amendment attempted to
provide some certainty as to what duration of time would distinguish a transient accommodation
use from a residential use.
Community Development 2003-0318
24
3/18/03
I
.
.
.
Based on the fact that several communities were reviewing their definitions and policies
related to transient accommodations, including the City of Clearwater, the PPC reviewed the
Countywide Rules with regard to this use. In 2001, the PPC revised its definition to focus on
the nature and characteristics of the temporary occupancy of the subject property and not on
property ownership form, property ownership interest, form of the occupancy agreement, or
form of payment. The approved amended definition in effect is as follows: a facility containing
one or more transient accommodation units, the occupancy of which occurs, or is offered or
advertised as being available, for a term of less than one (1) month, more than three (3) times in
any consecutive twelve (12) month period.
Pursuant to the Countywide Rules transient accommodation uses are not allowed in any
residential plan classification, unless accessory to the primary residential use of a property,
such as a bed and breakfast. They are allowed in four out of six mixed-use categories and most
commercial classifications. They are also allowed in one industrial classification, Community
Redevelopment Districts and Central Business District categories.
North Clearwater Beach
At present, the majority of North Clearwater Beach is zoned Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) and has a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) category of Residential Urban.
The very most northern portion, which is gated and has a private road, is zoned Low Density
Residential (LDR) and has a FLUM of Residential Low. As stated above, the Community
Development Code only permits accessory overnight accommodations in the LDR District, if
approved after a public hearing, and does not permit them at all in the LMDR District.
Based on Internet advertisements, comments from citizens, and input received at the
November 17, 2002 public meeting, it is certain that properties are being rented on a short-term
basis.of less than 31 days. In an attempt to better understand the dynamics on North Beach,
the Planning Department compiled data on ownership patterns, sales and homestead
exemption status from the Pinellas County Property Appraiser.
There are 712 residential properties on North Clearwater Beach, excluding 880
Mandalay Avenue. Of those parcels, 51 % (367 parcels) have homestead exemption status and
48% (345 parcels) do not (see attached Homestead Exemption Status Map.) Of the 345
parcels without homestead exemption status, 203 owners live no more than an hour's drive from
Clearwater Beach (see attached Non-Homesteaded Parcels Only Owner Location Chart.)
Seventy-three percent (73%) actually have a Clearwater address and the remaining live in
Tampa or other Pinellas County cities. While the presence of a significant number of properties
with non-homestead exemption status does not prove that properties are used for rental
purposes, it is a strong indicator that certain properties are more than likely rented in some
manner, whether it be for transient or long-term tenancies.
Twelve percent (12%) of the total number of residential parcels (89 parcels) is owned by
persons/trusts/estates/companies possessing more than one property in the neighborhood (see
Major Property Owners Map). Twenty-eight percent (28%) of those parcels receive the
homestead exemption while 72% do not. It appears that property owners that live in the
neighborhood also rent out property within the neighborhood; however, it is not certain how
many are rented as an overnight accommodation.
Community Development 2003-0318
25
3/18/03
I
.
To determine whether any trends in sales data exist, the Planning Department
researched sales of properties with non-homestead exemption status. Of the total 712 parcels
on North Clearwater Beach, sales data was not available for 96 parcels. Therefore, the total
number of parcels analyzed is 617. The sales data begin in 1953 with the data ending in 2002
(see attached Sales Analysis Chart).) Generally the rate of sale for non-homesteaded property
was fairly stable during the 1950s - 1970s. It doubled in the 1980s over the 1970 rate and in
the 1990s doubled over the 1980 rate. For the 3 years available since 2000, the sales rate of
non-homesteaded properties tripled when compared to the rate of the 1990s. It should be noted
that the 2000 data represents three years of history and data mayor may not be a predictor for
this decade's trends.
The increase in numbers of non-homesteaded property is a fairly recent phenomenon of
the 1990s and is consistent with the national trends reported in the March 2002 edition of
Zoning News by the American Planning Association. The sales data also reflects national
economic and demographic trends such as recessions, changes in interest rates, increasing
mobility, migration into Florida, increase in the purchase of investment property in vacation
destinations, etc.
ProDosed Amendments
Proposed Ordinance No. 7105-03 includes amendments to existing definitions in Article 8 of
the Community Development Code and one new provision to Article 3, General Applicability. A
description of each amendment follows.
.
1. Amendment to Definition of Residential Use. Section 8-102 (Page 3 of the proposed
ordinance.)
The proposed ordinance amends the definition of residential use found in Code Section 8-
102. The current definition indicates that this use means a permanent place of residence
for a family. The proposed amendment further clarifies that a residential use located in a
residential zoning district does not include uses that are rented for periods of less than 31
days or one calendar month, whichever is less.
2. Amendment to Definition of Dwelling Unit. Section 8-102 (Page 2 of the proposed
ordinance.)
The definition of dwelling unit is "a building or portion of a building providing independent
living facilities for one family including provision for living, sleeping, and complete kitchen
facilities." The proposed amendment expands that definition to specify that a dwelling unit
located in any residential zoning district shall be used only for a residential use, unless
otherwise specified. This proposal further clarifies that any dwelling unit (detached or
attached) in a residential zoning district is a residential use, while not prohibiting the
accessory use of residences for overnight accommodations.
3. Amendment to Definition of Overniaht Accommodations. Section 8-102 (Pages 2-3 of the
proposed ordinance.)
.
An overnight accommodation is defined as "a building or portion thereof designed and
used primarily to provide sleeping accommodations for transient guests for a daily or weekly
rental charge and including interval ownership and such office, meeting, restaurant facilities
as are integral to its primary function." The defining characteristic of this use is the
Community Development 2003-0318
26
3/18/03
.
temporary tenancy of property. In an attempt to better clarify this, the provision is proposed
to be amended as follows: any use that provides transient lodging accommodations to the
public, including interval ownership. Allowable accessory uses shall be integral to the
principal use and may include, but shall not be limited to, offices, restaurants and retail
provide such uses are integral to the primary use.
4. Addition of New Section reaarding Prima Facie Evidence. General Aoolicabilitv. Section 3-918
(Page 2 of the proposed ordinance.)
A new section is proposed to be added to the General Applicability Standards of Division
3, Development Standards that identifies prima facie evidence of a use located in a residential
zoning district that rents for periods of less than 31 days or one calendar month, whichever is
less (short term rentals). This provision identifies a minimum of four ways to determine that
such use exists: registration by the state as a short-term or transient rental use; advertising,
reservations and/or booking arrangements or use of an agent or third party to make
reservations. The purpose of this amendment is to provide guidance to code enforcement as
well as the public on what types of information is indicative of a short-term rental in a residential
zoning district.
Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text
amendments.
Any code amendment must comply with the following.
2.
The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals,
policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
.
Below is a selected list of objectives and policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan that are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code:
. Objective 3.2 - Future Land Use in the City of Clearwater shall be guided by the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and implemented through the city's Community
Development Code.
Residential uses are the primary permitted uses in the residential land use categories.
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code further clarify that the short-
term renting of dwellings within the residentially zoned areas is not a residential use of property.
These proposed provisions further implement the City's land use plan through the provisions of
the Community Development Code.
. Policy 3.2.3 - Commercial land uses shall be located at the intersection of arterial or
collector streets and should be sited in such a way as to minimize the intrusion of off-site
impacts into residential neighborhoods. New plats and site plans shall discourage the
creation of "strip commercial" zones by insuring that adequate lot depths are maintained
and by zoning for commercial development at major intersections.
.
The transient use of residentially zoned properties creates a commercial intrusion into
residential neighborhoods. The proposed amendments make clear that the renting of
residential property for 31 days or one calendar month, as the primary use of the property, is not
considered to be a residential use.
Community Development 2003-0318
27
3/18/03
.
. Policy 16.1.1 - Maintain sufficient residentially zoned acreage, of varying densities and
locations, to accommodate the existing and future housing needs of the City of
Clearwater.
As Clearwater reaches build-out, it is important to maintain sufficient amounts of
residential property with varying densities, housing types and locational characteristics
throughout the City. The proposed ordinance elucidates that short-term rentals are not a
residential use of property and will protect residentially zoned areas from the intrusion of
commercial/tourist-oriented uses, which should maintain existing residential acreage in this
unique location of the City.
2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code
and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
The proposed text amendments are consistent with the following purposes of the Code.
. Section 1-103(A) - It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the
Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and
quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly growth and development of the city; to
establish rules of procedures for land development approvals; to enhance the character
of the city and the preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all
residents and property owners of the city;
.
By clarifying that the renting of property in a certain manner does not constitute a residential
use, neighborhoods can be better protected from the intrusion of short-term rentals which can have
negative impacts on a neighborhood such as excessive noise, noise at late hours, litter
accumulations, illegal parking and/or excessive number of cars.
. Section 1-103(E)(2) - Protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts
of the city through the establishment of reasonable standards which encourage the orderly
and beneficial development of land within the city; and
By providing more specific provisions prohibiting the short-term rental of residentially
zoned properties, the residential character of a neighborhood can be better maintained.
Furthermore, not permitting transients in residential areas strengthens social ties in
neighborhoods and helps maintain neighborhood stability. According to the March 2002 issue
of Zoning News, a publication of the American Planning Association, short-term rentals can
artificially drive up the cost of housing, which does not protect the economic stability of a
neighborhood.
.
. Section 1-108 - Applications for development approval shall be consistent with the
provisions of this Community Development Code and the Countywide Future Land use
Plan as required by state law. Development potential is based on the applicable zoning
district and as permitted by the Countywide Future Land Use Plan designation. In cases
where there is a difference between the density permitted in the zoning district and that
which is permitted by the land use classification, the more restrictive shall prevail. In
addition, uses of land shall be consistent with uses permitted in the assigned zoning
district as well as the uses permitted by the countywide Future Land Use Plan
Designation.
Community Development 2003-0318
28
3/18/03
.
Pursuant to Section 3.4 of the Countywide Rules, the proposed ordinance was submitted
to the Pinellas Planning Council for consistency review. The Council staff found that the
proposed amendments are consistent with the Countywide Rules.
The Planning Department presented the proposed ordinance to the Clearwater Coalition
of Homeowners Association on March 4, 2003, and the Coalition voted to support limiting short-
term rentals in the Low Density Residential and the Low Medium Density Residential zoning
districts.
ALTERNATIVE POLICY OPTIONS
In the event the City Commission desires to change the current policy of prohibiting
short-term rentals as a primary use in residentially zoned areas, it may be useful to consider
alternative policy options. Please find two options for consideration.
1. Engage the Pinellas Planning Council, its member cities and the Countywide Planning
Authority in a discussion about amending the Countywide Rules to no longer regulate
this issue or modify the current provisions which specify that a rental may not occur for
less than thirty days or one calendar month, whichever is less.
.
2. Amend the City's Comprehensive Plan to allow the use of an additional future land use
category available in the Countywide Rules known as the Resort Facilities Overlay
(RFO). This is an overlay classification used in addition to any underlying residential
plan category that permits transient accommodations and residential uses. The
purpose of this category is "to depict those areas of the County that are now developed
or appropriate to be developed, in residential and transient accommodation uses and to
recognize such areas as well-suited for the combination of residential and transient
accommodation use. The category is appropriate to locations where it would identify
existing low to moderately intensive mixed residential and small scale transient
accommodation uses in and adjacent to the resort areas of the County and in areas
where unique recreational assets warrant the combination of permanent and temporary
accommodations in close proximity to and served by the arterial and major thoroughfare
network. "
According to the PPC staff, the RFO land use category is used in Pinellas County, St.
Petersburg Beach, Tarpon Springs, Safety Harbor, Dunedin and Largo. Based on
discussions with PPC staff, it appears this category has mainly been placed over
properties that include a mix of mobile homes and travel trailers. In St. Petersburg
Beach it is used in two small older areas of the city that include a variety of uses
including single-family dwellings, duplexes, apartments and tourist lodgings. In Safety
Harbor, it is used in two areas to accommodate hotels that are located within residential
land use categories. It appears that no community has used the category to permit the
short-term rentals of single-family dwellings, however, it is a viable use of this future land
use category.
.
If the above option were chosen, there are two ways in which to implement it. One
would be to prepare a text amendment to the Community Development Code that
creates a new zoning district that allows residential uses and overnight accommodations
as primary uses. The Commission would determine where this new district should be
used and would then need to initiate a land use plan amendment to impose the RFO in a
specific area and then rezone the area to the new zoning district.
Community Development 2003-0318
29
3/18/03
.
Another way to approach implementation would be to allow property owners of any
neighborhood to pursue the initiation of a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
(NCOD). This approach assumes that a neighborhood could get 60% of the property
owners to agree to initiate the NCOD planning process. Through this process, a
neighborhood could determine whether or not short-term rentals are an appropriate
primary use in their neighborhood. This option still would require the steps outlined
above regarding the implementation of an RFO, including amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan.
The above alternatives can be more fully explored if the Commission wishes to pursue a
change in policy. It should be noted however, that each of these options would require a
significant amount of time and staff hours to accomplish, as the Department would engage in
significant policy discussions with property owners.
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code for the reasons cited above.
They provide property owners with further clarification about the prohibition of short-term rentals
as a primary use in residential neighborhoods and provide specific direction on what type of
information can be used as evidence of a residential property renting for periods of thirty-one
days, or one calendar month, whichever is less.
The Planning Department Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 7105-03 that
revises the Community Development Code.
.
In response to a question, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said she agrees
with the Planning Department staff, as the Code prohibits short-term rentals and has done so for
a number of years. The amendments being proposed constitute a clarification of current Code
provisions.
In response to a question, Development Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl said he
could enforce the current ordinance.
Concern was expressed about health and safety issues when a use not intended to be a
hotel or motel type operation begins operating as one. Ms. Clayton said those types of
operations may be regulated by the Building Code. She said overnight accommodations are
permitted in multi-family districts and that a certain small number of units may be used for
transient use based on each district's regulations regarding overnight accommodations. She
said should a condominium change their use to a hotel/motel use, they must adhere to State
regulations, permitting, etc. It was suggested that staff is looking at this amendment from a
noise and nuisance aspect but not from a health, safety and welfare standpoint.
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said when staff presented the proposed
ordinance to the Clearwater Coalition of Homeowners Association on March 4, 2003, alternative
policy options were not presented and that time, as they were not developed to the extent they
are now. There was some discussion regarding countywide rules, but not about the use of
resort facilities overlay.
.
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said if staff is directed to make a change in policy
or consider any of the alternative options proposed by citizens regarding these amendments,
the process would need to start from the beginning. Ms. Dougall-Sides said renting properties
Community Development 2003-0318
30
3/18/03
.
for uses such as wedding halls, etc. is considered a commercial use if a monetary transaction
occurred.
Thirteen (13) persons spoke in opposition to the amendment, one of which submitted an
alternative proposal. Fourteen (14) persons spoke in favor of the amendment, and one person
was unsure if he was in opposition or support, but requested that the City prohibit
grandfathering in of either scenario in an effort to ensure continuity.
Ms. Clayton said the countywide rules require that Clearwater's Land Development
Code be consistent with their rules. Clearwater's Code also reinforces the countywide rules.
This amendment was an attempt to provide certainty to distinguish transient and residential
uses. When the Commission discussed this information over the past few months, specifically
at the last Work Session, some Commissioners had indicated their willingness to explore
options other than a 30-day rental period. Staff advised the Commission that in order to pursue
a change in policy, staff would need to engage the PPC, the Countywide Planning Authority
regarding changing the countywide rules. At that time, staff did not know about the resort
facilities overlay and that it might be a viable option if the Commission wants to change current
policy.
.
Ms. Clayton said the countywide rules states that bed and breakfasts are considered an
residential use. Clearwater's Code also permits them in residential areas because they are
accessory to the primary use of a property and are not a standalone property that is rented out
with an absentee owner. She referred to a PPC staff reported dated February 21, 2001,
regarding an amendment to transient accommodations, stating that this amendment was an
attempt to provide some certainty as to what duration of time would distinguish a
accommodation use from a residential use.
Mr. Kronschnabl said the remarks from one citizen regarding an alternative option to the
proposed amendment was not an accurate representation of the City's processes or
procedures. He said property owners are responsible for adhering to the codes that apply to
their property, whether it is rented or not. The party requesting it must pay for enforcement for
specific raised levels of services. The City does not have adequate personnel for second and
third shifts when most Code violations occur. From a Code Enforcement stance, staff is
prepared to enforce the current Code as written. Should it be changed, staff would be prepared
to enforce it as directed. He said his department would need the necessary manpower and
tools to enforce any changes in the Code. In response to a question, Mr. Kronschnabl said staff
currently is addressing code enforcement issues at the north end of the beach. He said citizens
first are educated about the applicable codes, asked to comply, and asked what staff can do to
help them reach compliance. He said his staff is concerned about the legitimacy of the
information received regarding violations and the effect of a seven-day work week on his staff.
He requested that code amendments pertaining to enforcement issues be meaningful in manner
so that they may be adequately enforced and that clarification of some of the language is
needed. He felt that a 30-day rental period would be easier to enforce and questioned the
practicality of a seven-day rental period. It would be extremely difficult if not impossible to
determine when the seven-day rental period began, how to determine the number of occupants
in a rental property, etc.
Discussion ensued and it was felt that the City has a responsibility to protect and
preserve single family residential neighborhoods and ensure their safety. It was felt that
. although people have a right to use their property as they chose, seven-day rentals in a
Community Development 2003-0318
31
3/18/03
.
.
.
residential area might be considered a business. It was felt that 30-day rentals would be a good
compromise.
It was remarked that there does not appear to be a huge problem with short-term rentals
throughout the City. Homes are increasing in value whether or not they are rented. It was
suggested that a resort facility overlay district be considered. It was remarked that seven-day
rentals have been common on Clearwater beach for years. It was remarked that this
amendment affects all areas in the City. It was remarked that multi-family neighborhoods are
not impacted in the same manner as single family neighborhoods. It was remarked that 30-day
rentals at the beach are not feasible. Vacationers do not visit the beach for months at a time
anymore.
It was felt that single family neighborhoods should be preserved regardless of whether
the City decides to support a resort facility overlay district.
Member Plisko moved to recommend to the City Commission approval of Item #E3,
Case TA2003-02002 as proposed. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gildersleeve,
Moran, Plisko, Doran, Chair Petersen, and Alternate Member Milam voted "aye"; Member
Hooper voted "nay". Member Mazur was absent. Motion carried.
F. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
Planning staff will ensure that COB members receive new parking passes.
G.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:18 p.m.
~cP&-v-~
Chair
Community Development Board
Attest:
I~"lf~
Board Reporter
Community Development 2003-0318
32
3/18/03
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: March 18.. 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
1779 Audrey Drive
ANX2003-01001
Todd Ermscher
4-00
yes
1740 Nursery Road ANX2003-0 1 002 Susan Gilbert and Christina Anderson
yes 4-00
1714 Jade Avenue ANX2003-0 1 003 Bobby Burch
yes +00
3035 Gulf to Bay Boulevard UZ2003-01001 City of Clearwater
yes
no
Signature:
Date:
S:\Planning Department\C D
DB, property investigation check list.doc
Page 2 of2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: March 18'1 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
657 Court Street
FLD2002-12045
-Loo
yes
1720 Overbrook Avenue
FLD2003-0 1 005
+00
yes
1555 Sunshine Drive
FLD2003-0 1 00 1
yes
no
1310 Cleveland Street
FLD2003-0 1003
yes
no
650 Bay Esplanade
FLD2002-09030
yes ~
Page 10f2
CEPCOT Corp. & Clearwater
Train Station, Inc.
City of Clearwater
George R. and Theresa C. Nowak
Manal Oil, Inc. (Nick Kheireddine)
Virginia B. Franks, Charles F. Raubeson,
Emma R. Alison, Jean and Walter Koegler
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: March 18" 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
657 Court Street
FLD2002-12045
CEPCOT Corp. & Clearwater
Train Station, Inc.
-Los
no
1720 Overbrook 7
yes
FLD2003-01005
City of Clearwater
no
1555 Sunshine Drive
FLD2003-01001
George R. and Theresa C. Nowak
-Les
no
1310 Cleveland Street
/
FLD2003-0 1003
Manal Oil, Inc. (Nick Kheireddine)
yes
no
650 Bay Esplanade
/
FLD2002-09030
Virginia B. Franks, Charles F. Raubeson,
Emma R. Alison, Jean and Walter Koegler
yes
no
Page 1 of2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: March 18, 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
1779 Audrey Drive
ANX2003-01001
Todd Ermscher
c/
yes
no
1740NurseryR/'
yes
ANX2003-01002
Susan Gilbert and Christina Anderson
no
1714 Jade Avenue
~es
ANX2003-0 1 003
Bobby Burch
no
3035 Gulfto Bay ~d
LUZ2003-01001
City of Clearwater
no
Signature: Date: 3 (g( 0)
S:\Planning Dep\Lent\C D BlCDB, property investigation check list.doc
L ..
Page 2 0[2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: March 18., 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
yes
FLD2002-12045
/0
CEPCOT Corp. & Clearwater
Train Station, Inc.
657 Court Street
1720 Overbrook Avenue
FLD2003-0 1 005
City of Clearwater
yes
/no
1555 Sunshine Drive
FLD2003-01001
George R. and Theresa C. Nowak
yes
/:0
1310 Cleveland Street
FLD2003-0 1003
Manal Oil, Inc. (Nick Kheireddine)
yes
/no
650 Bay Esplanade
FLD2002-09030
Virginia B. Franks, Charles F. Raubeson,
Emma R. Alison, Jean and Walter Koegler
yes
/
no
Page 1 of2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: March 18'12003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
1779 Audrey Drive
yes
1740 Nursery Road
yes
1714 Jade Avenue
yes
3035 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
yes
7003-01001
no
Todd Ermscher
Susan Gilbert and Christina Anderson
~3-01002
, no
~03-01003
no
Bobby Burch
~003-01001
no
City of Clearwater
Signature:
S:\Planning Department C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
Page 2 of2
Dat~/~:3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: March 18" 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
657 Court Street
FLD2002-12045
CEPCOT Corp. & Clearwater
Train Station, Inc.
....--- yes
no
1720 Overbrook Avenue
FLD2003-0 1 005
City of Clearwater
L---"'"
yes
no
1555 Sunshine Drive
FLD2003-01001
George R. and Theresa C. Nowak
~
yes
no
1310 Cleveland Street
FLD2003-0 1003
Manal Oil, Inc. (Nick Kheireddine)
~
yes
no
650 Bay Esplanade
FLD2002-09030
Virginia B. F~anks, Charles F. Raubeson,
Emma R. Alison; Jean and Walter Koegler
...---yes
no
Page 1 of2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: March 18, 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
1779 Audrey Drive
ANX2003-01001
Todd Ermscher
~
yes
no
1740 Nursery Road
ANX2003-01002
Susan Gilbert and Christina Anderson
~-yes
no
1714 Jade Avenue
ANX2003-0 1 003
Bobby Burch
......--- yes
no
3035 Gulfto Bay Boulevard
LUZ2003-01001
City of Clearwater
~yes
no
Signature~~
Date: s\ \~\~
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
Page 2 0[2