07/15/2003
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
July 15, 2003
Present:
Carlen A. Petersen
Ed Hooper
David Gildersleeve
Shirley Moran
Edward Mazur, Jr.
John Doran
Kathy Milam
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Acting Board Member
Absent:
Alex Plisko
Board Member
Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides
Cyndi Tarapani
Lisa Fierce
Gina Clayton
Patricia O. Sullivan
Assistant City Attorney
Planning Director
Assistant Planning Director
Long Range Planning Manager
Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. at City Hall, followed by the
Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance.
.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: June 17, 2003
Member Doran moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 17, 2003,
as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
D. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owner, etc. and will be approved by single vote at the beginning of the
meeting. (Items 1-6) Items D1 and D2 were pulled from the Consent Agenda for individual
discussion and vote.
.
1. Item pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2003-04021 - 200 Palm Island SW. Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Jerry Bednarski (200 Palm Island SW, Clearwater, FL, 33767; Phone:
727.461.0123 Fax: 727.532.3020 Cell: 727.434.2900).
Location: 0.23 acre located on the northwest side of Palm Island SW, approximately 500
feet west of Island Way.
Atlas Page: 258B.
Zoning: IENCOD, Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
Request:
Flexible Development approval to reduce the required rear (northwest) setback from 10 feet to
zero feet for swimming pool and pool deck, as part of an Island Estates Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District Residentiallnfill Project, per Section 2-1602.F.2.
Proposed Use: Addition of a swimming pool and pool deck.
Neighborhood Association: Island Estates Civic Association, PO Box 3154, Clearwater, 33767.
Community Development 2003-07-15
1
.
.
.
Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner.
Planner Bryan Berry reviewed the request. The 0.24-acre site is located on the
northwest side of the terminus of Palm Island SW, approximately 500 feet west of Island Way.
It is located within the Island Estates subdivision. Adjacent lots are all waterfronts and contain
single-family homes.
The request is to reduce the required rear (northwest) setback from 10 feet to zero feet
for a pool deck and swimming pool as part of an accessory use as a Residentiallnfill Project per
Section 2-1602.F.2, of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan. The proposal includes a
swimming pool and deck at-grade or less than one-foot above existing grade. The pool and
deck is consistent with the placement of the pool and deck on the adjacent lot to the south,
although the adjacent pool and deck is elevated. There are other pools to the east on the south
side of Palm Island SW that also are at a zero setback.
Because of existing rear yard dimensions, the applicant has applied for a reduction from
the minimum rear accessory setback in single-family areas of 10 feet to zero feet. In order to
build a swimming pool and pool deck at a zero foot setback, it must be in compliance with the
criteria set forth in the IENCOD. Page 25 of the Island Estates Neiahborhood Plan states, "Any
pool exceeding 1 foot in height above grade shall comply with the required rear setback for the
principal structure." The grade-raised seawall is at an elevation of 1 foot above the neighboring
seawall at 210 Palm Island SW. A building permit was approved and issued for the raising and
strengthening of the seawall. In addition, an existing masonry wall was built 2 feet and 7 inches
on top of the grade-raised seawall. A fence permit never was applied for nor granted to build
this existing masonry wall.
On page 18 of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan, the first objective under the
second goal is to, "Preserve water views by restricting the heights of fences and structures in
the waterfront yard and by maintaining established side building setbacks, rear building
setbacks and site triangles." In the Community Development Code Book under Section 3-
904.B. Sight Visibility Triangles are established, "To enhance views of the water from residential
waterfront property, no structure or landscaping may be installed, other than a fence around a
swimming pool or any non-opaque fences not exceeding 36 inches, in the 45-degree angle
formed by ten feet back from the property line on the water and along the side property line."
On June 13, 2003, a demolition permit was submitted and issued to bring the masonry wall into
compliance with the Waterfront Sight Visibility Triangles. The wall is now even with the grade-
raised sea wall cap at 1 foot in height and extends from the rear (northeast) property line back
20 feet along the side property line. Although the wall is now in compliance with Waterfront
Sight Visibility Triangles, a building permit never was issued for the fence and still needs to be
obtained.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on May 15, 2003. The proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible
Development approval, with the maximum development potential, with the requirements of
Residentiallnfill Projects, and with all applicable standards of the Community Development
Code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the application for Flexible Development
approval to reduce the required rear (northwest) setback from 10 feet to zero feet for a pool and
pool deck, as part of a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-203 at 200
Palm Island SW, with Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Standard
as a Residentiallnfill Project in the Low Medium Density Residential/Island Estates
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Table 2-1602.F.2.; 2) The proposal is in
Community Development 2003-07-15
2
.
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 AND Conditions: 1) That the pool and deck be constructed
less than, or equal to one-foot above existing grade; 2) Need to obtain a variance to allow the
pool and deck to be constructed as proposed (Administrative or Flood Board), prior to issuance
of a building permit (pool and deck); and 3) A permit be obtained for the existing masonry wall.
In response to a question, Owner/Applicant Jerry Bednarski said construction of the
house is nearly complete. Concern was expressed the request is contrary to overlay district
restrictions and that two letters opposed this item. Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said the
overlay district restricts the location of pools exceeding one foot above grade. This pool will not
exceed those limits, which were enacted to prohibit view corridor obstructions. The setback
request references pavement and is similar to the pool area adjacent to the south and at other
nearby properties. In response to a question, Mr. Bednarski said tie-ins for the new sea wall
extend more than two feet into his property. He said the firm that constructed the sea wall also
excavated the yard for a swimming pool.
.
Member Mazur moved to approve Item #D1, a Flexible Development request regarding
Case FLD2003-04021 for 200 Palm Island SW, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 6A, Lot 11, to
reduce the required rear (northwest) setback from 10 feet to zero feet for swimming pool and
pool deck, as part of an Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Residential
Infill Project, per Section 2-1602.F.2. with conditions: 1) That the pool and deck be constructed
less than, or equal to one-foot above existing grade; 2) Need to obtain a variance to allow the
pool and deck to be constructed as proposed (Administrative or Flood Board), prior to issuance
of a building permit (pool and deck); and 3) A permit be obtained for the existing masonry wall.
The motion was duly seconded. Members Hooper, Gildersleeve, Mazur, and Doran, Acting
Member Milam, and Chair Petersen voted "Aye"; Member Moran voted "Nay." Motion carried.
2. Item pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2003-05024 -18855 U.S. Highway 19 North Level Two Application
Owners: Arthur and Mary Bruno
Applicant: Dr. Donna Shannon (1411 Sunset Drive, Clearwater, FL, 33755; work:
727.298.0707, cell: 239.565.1817, fax: 727.298.0707)
Location: 3.87 acres located on the east side of U.S. Highway 19, approximately 250
feet north of Nursery Road.
Atlas Page: 318A.
Zoning: C, Commercial District
Request:
Flexible Development approval to permit a veterinary office to locate adjacent to residentially
zoned property, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-704C.
Proposed Use: Veterinary office for cats only.
Neighborhood Association: Bay Aristocrat Mobile Home Park Association (Ron Barnes, 18675
U.S. 19 North, Clearwater, 33764; 727.531.4906, 727.535.0925; patbar@aol.com).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner.
.
Senior Planner Wayne Wells reviewed the request. The square, 3.87-acre site is
located on the east side of U.S. Highway 19, approximately 250 feet north of Nursery Road.
The site presently is developed as a shopping center with multiple tenant spaces, primarily
retail, but including a restaurant (Hops) on the south end of the site. Paved parking exists both
in front and in the rear of the shopping center. The site's retention pond is located in the rear,
Community Development 2003-07-15
3
.
northeast corner. The frontage along U.S. Highway 19 is primarily zoned and used for
nonresidential uses. There is a mobile home park that abuts to the east.
The applicant is requesting t%cate a veterinary office in one unit of the shopping
center, presently occupied by a retail furniture store. A veterinary office is permitted within the
Commercial District as Flexible Standard Development and Flexible Development uses, but with
a restricting criteria that the use cannot be located adjacent to residentially zoned property. The
request is being processed and reviewed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project due
to the requested deviation to allow the use to locate adjacent to a mobile home park (zoned
MHP, Mobile Home Park District). The commercial building is approximately 180 feet from the
east property line. The rear parking area and a retention pond are located between the
commercial building and the east property line. The purpose of the restricting criteria is based
upon potential negative impacts associated with the care of dogs (barking, etc.). The proposed
veterinary office only deals with cats (felines), which do not have the same impacts as a full-
service veterinary office. The applicant plans to board cats and provide hospitalization when
necessary. Office hours are planned to be 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., seven days per week and 24-hour
emergency service will be provided (cats only).
The applicant is proposing a face change to the existing freestanding signage for the
proposed business. Additionally, the applicant proposes attached signage similar to existing
building signage (channel letters). The cat logo also will need to be constructed in a similar
method as the channel letters. The applicant will need to apply for a Comprehensive Sign
Program for the attached signage proposed.
.
There is very little existing landscaping between the building and the front property line.
The applicant is proposing to improve the landscaping of the property, primarily along the U.S.
Highway 19 frontage. Other areas of the parking lot (landscape islands) shall be upgraded with
additional landscaping where presently deficient. Prior to the issuance of an interior build-out
permit, a landscape plan will be required to be submitted and approved, meeting the
requirements of the Planning Department.
The application and supporting materials were reviewed by the Development Review
Committee on June 12, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development request to allow a veterinary office (for cats), with a deviation to locate adjacent to
residentially zoned property, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the
provisions of Section 2-704.C, for the site at 18855 U.S. Highway 19, with 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 landscaping improvements will
enhance other similar improvement efforts AND Conditions: 1) That the veterinary office exclude
the care and boarding of dogs; 2) That biohazard waste be disposed of in accordance with all
applicable regulations; 3) That a landscape plan, acceptable to the Planning Department, to
include landscape areas on the west side of the building be approved prior to the issuance of
interior remodeling permits for the veterinary office; and 4) That attached signage be submitted
through the Comprehensive Sign Program and be consistent with existing attached signage.
One resident expressed concern the veterinary office not treat dogs.
.
Mr. Wells reviewed recommended conditions of approval, stating dogs could not be
treated at the subject veterinary office without CDB (Community Development Board) consent at
Community Development 2003-07-15
4
.
.
.
a future public hearing, which first would be noticed to residents of the abutting mobile home
park.
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item #02, a Flexible Development request
regarding Case FLD2003-05024 for 18855 U.S. Highway 19 North, Sec. 20-29-16, M&B 32.03,
to permit a veterinary office to locate adjacent to residentially zoned with conditions: 1) That the
veterinary office exclude the care and boarding of dogs; 2) That biohazard waste be disposed of
in accordance with all applicable regulations; 3) That a landscape plan, acceptable to the
Planning Department, to include landscape areas on the west side of the building be approved
prior to the issuance of interior remodeling permits for the veterinary office; and 4) That attached
signage be submitted through the Comprehensive Sign Program and be consistent with existing
attached signage. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. - Case: ANX2003-05011 - 3080 Allen Avenue Level Three Application
Owners/Applicants: Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen.
Representative: Bryan Zarlenga, Tampa Bay Engineering Group, Inc. (email:
bzarlenqala>.tbeqrouP.com, work: 727.531.3505, fax: 727.539.1294; cell:
727.639.5569).
Location: Five parcels together with a portion of the 30-foot right-of-way along Allen
Avenue totaling 1.95-acres located at the northwest corner of the Allen
Avenue/McMullen-Booth Road intersection, approximately 1,000 feet south of State
Road 580.
Atlas Page: 212A.
Request:
Annexation of 1.95-acres to the City of Clearwater to be included as part of a pending land use
and zoning case (LUZ2003-05004);
a) Land Use Plan amendment of 1.57 acres from the R/OG, Residential/Office General (County)
to R/OG, Residential/Office General (City); and
b) Rezoning of 1.57 acres from the P-1, General Professional Office District (County) to the 0,
Office District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Medical offices.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner.
This annexation involves a 1.95-acre property consisting of five parcels, located on the
northwest corner of McMullen-Booth Road and Allen Avenue, together with a portion of the 30-
foot right-of-way along Allen Avenue and the adjacent right-of-way along Charles Avenue. The
property is contiguous with existing City boundaries to the north and south therefore, the
proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation.
The applicant is requesting this annexation to receive sanitary sewer service. The required
impact fees will be paid at the time building permits are issued, as well as the cost to extend
water and sewer service to the property. It is proposed that 1.57 acres of the total site have a
Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential/Office General and a zoning category of Office
District.
A companion application to change the Future Land Use Plan category of the remaining
0.38 acre portion of this site from Preservation (P) to Residential/Office General (R/OG), and to
rezone it from P-1, General Professional Offices (County) to the 0, Office District is being
processed concurrently with this annexation request in LUZ2003-05004 (Item #04). The
proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sewer, solid
waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service
Community Development 2003-07-15
5
.
level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and 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 approval of: 1)
Annexation of 1.95-acres to the City of Clearwater to be included as part of a pending land use
and zoning case (LUZ2003-05004); 2) Land Use Plan amendment of 1.57 acres from the R/OG,
Residential/Office General (County) to RlOG, Residential/Office General (City); and 3) Rezoning
of 1.57 acres from the P-1, General Professional Office District (County) to the 0, Office District
(City of Clearwater).
AND
.
4. - Case: LUZ2003-05004 - 3080 Allen Avenue Level Three Application
Owners/Applicants: Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen.
Representative: Brian Zarlenga, Tampa Bay Engineering Group, Incorporated (email:
bzarlenqa@tbeqrouP.com, work: 727.531.3505, fax: 727.539.1294; cell:
727.639.5569).
Location: Portions of three parcels totaling 0.38-acres located at the northwest corner of
the Allen Avenue/McMullen Booth Road intersection, approximately 1,000 feet south of
State Road 580.
Atlas Page: 212A.
Request:
a) Land Use Plan amendment from the P, Preservation Classification (County) to the R/OG,
Residential/Office General Classification (City) (pending ANX2003-05011); and
b) Rezoning from the P-1, General Professional Office District (County) to the 0, Office District
(City) (pending ANX2003-05011).
Proposed Use: Medical offices.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner.
This FLUP (Future Land Use Plan) amendment and rezoning application involves
portions of three parcels of land, approximately 0.38-acre in area. This site constitutes a portion
of a larger site, 1.95-acres, included in a companion application to annex the overall property
into the City of Clearwater (Case# ANX2003-05011). The site is vacant and has a FLUP
designation of Preservation (P) and a zoning classification of P-1, General Professional Offices
(County). The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designation to the R/OG,
Residential/Office General classification and to rezone it to the 0, Office District to develop the
property in conjunction with the rest of the applicant's surrounding property. If approved, the
overall site will be developed with a medical office building. A portion of the site is overgrown
with invasive plant species and is polluted.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject
to approval by the Pine lias 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 FLUP from Preservation (P) to Residential/Office General (R/OG)
and a rezoning from P-1, General Professional Offices, to the 0, Office District for the subject
site is requested. The subject site (0.38-acre) in combination with the greater site (1.57-acres in
total see case ANX2003-05011) as a whole exceeds the minimum requirements for the
Community Development 2003-07-15
6
.
.
.
proposed use of the property as office space. The neighborhood is surrounded by multi- and
single-family residential dwellings to the south and west, respectively and office to the north.
The proposed land use amendment and rezoning will be compatible with the existing
neighborhood and will consolidate the remainder of the Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen
holding (1.57 acres) into the appropriate land use category and zoning district.
The proposed Residential/Office General (R/OG) Future Land Use classification and 0,
Office zoning district is consistent with both the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans,
is compatible with the surrounding area, does not require nor affect the provision of public
services, is compatible with the natural environment and is consistent with the development
regulations of the City. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends
approval of: 1) Land Use Plan amendment from the P, Preservation Classification (County) to
the R/OG, Residential/Office General Classification (City) (pending ANX2003-05011) and 2)
Rezoning from the P-1, General Professional Office District (County) to the 0, Office District
(City) (pending ANX2003-05011) with Conditions: 1) That site plans indica.ting a wet pond with
at least 35% area of littoral shelf planting be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the
issuance of any permits and 2) That stormwater calculations be submitted to and approved by
Staff prior to the issuance of any permits.
AND
5. - Case: LUZ2003-05003 - 1120 Woodlawn Street Level Three Application
Owners/Applicants: Tampa Bay Community Development Corporation and Largo Area
Housing Development Corporation.
Representative: Nina Bandoni (727.712.1196).
Location: 0.98-acre located on the north side of Woodlawn Street, approximately 250
feet east of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue.
Atlas Page: 314A.
Request:
a) Land Use Plan amendment from the Commercial General, CG Classification to the
Residential Urban, RU Classification; and
b) Rezoning from the C, Commercial District to the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential
District.
Proposed Use: Single Family dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: South Clearwater Citizens for Progressive Action, President, L.
Duke Tieman, 1120 Kingsley Street, Clearwater, FL, 33756, 727.446.3853. Foundation Village,
Norton Apartments, President, L. Duke Tieman, 1120 Kingsley Street, Clearwater, FL, 33756,
727.446.3853.
Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner.
The Future Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning application involves two vacant
parcels of land, approximately 0.98-acre. Both parcels have a Future Land Use Plan
designation of Commercial General (CG) and a zoning classification of C, Commercial. The
applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Plan designation to the Residential Urban
(RU) category and to rezone it to the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District to
develop the property with single-family dwellings for low-income residents. The applicants
currently own two adjacent residentially designated parcels, totaling 0.271-acre in area, to the
north of the site, which will be developed in conjunction with this site, if this Future Land Use
Plan Amendment and rezoning is approved. In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules,
the land use plan amendment is subject to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board
of County Commissioners, acting as the Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the acreage
Community Development 2003-07-15
7
.
.
.
and density involved in this plan amendment, review and approval by the Florida Department of
Community Affairs is not required.
An amendment to the Future Land Use Plan from Commercial General (CG) to
Residential Urban (RU) and a rezoning from the C, Commercial District to the LMDR, Low
Medium Density Residential District for the subject property is requested in order to develop
single-family dwellings for low- and moderate-income residents on the site. The neighborhood
is surrounded by single-family residential dwellings to the south and east, vacant land and a
warehouse to the north, and a warehouse to the west.
The proposed Residential Urban Future Land Use Plan classification and Low Medium
Density Residential zoning district are consistent with both the City and the Countywide
Comprehensive Plans, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not require nor affect the
provision of public services, is compatible with the natural environment and is consistent with
the development regulations of the City.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the request to: 1) Amend the Future
Land Use Plan designation of 1120 Woodlawn Street from the Commercial General (CG)
category to the Residential Urban (RU) category and 2) Amend the zoning district designation of
1120 Woodlawn Street from the C, Commercial District to the LMDR, Low Medium Density
Residential District.
AND
6 - Case: ANX2003-05010 - 1856 East Drive Level Three Application
Owners/Applicants: Louis LjuLjic (727-447-4745).
Location: 0.22-acre located on the west side of East Drive, approximately 900 feet east
of Highland Avenue and 240 feet south of Sunset Point Road.
Atlas Page: 261A.
Request:
a) Annexation of 0.22 acres to the City of Clearwater;
b) Land Use Plan amendment from the RL, Residential Low Category (County) to the RL,
Residential Low Category (City of Clearwater); and
c) Rezoning from the R3, Single Family Residential District (County) to the LMDR, Low Medium
Density Residential District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Existing single-family dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Sunset Lake Estate, President, Gene Britten, 2520 Sunset Point
Road, #86, Clearwater, FL, 33756727.799.1917.
Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner.
The subject property is located at 1856 East Drive, on the west side of the street
approximately 240 feet south of Sunset Point Road. The applicant is requesting this annexation
in order to receive City sewer service. The property is contiguous with the existing City
boundaries to the south; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes
with regard to voluntary annexation. It is proposed that the abutting right-of-way not currently
within the City limits also be annexed. The subject site is approximately 0.22-acre in area and is
occupied by an existing single-family detached dwelling. It is proposed that the property 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 assessment fee of
Community Development 2003-07-15
8
.
$900 and the impact fee of $418.74, and is aware of any additional costs to extend City sewer
service to the property.
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 the goals and policies. The existing and proposed use of this site as a
single-family dwelling 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 approval of: 1) the annexation of the property located at
1856 East Drive; 2) the Residential Low (RL) category pursuant to the City's Comprehensive
Plan; and 3) LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential zoning district pursuant to the City's
Community Development Code.
.
Member Gildersleeve moved to recommend approval of Consent Agenda Item #D3,
Case ANX2003-06011 for 3080 Allen Avenue, Lots 4 through 7, together with Lots 12 through 15,
Block 4, Acker's Subdivision and the west 75 feet of Lots 9, 10, and 11, together with a portion of
the west 75 feet of Lot 8, Block 4, Acker's subdivision, together with the abutting right-of-way along
Charles Avenue, Item #D4, Case LUZ2003-05004, with conditions: 1) That site plans indicating
a wet pond with at least 35% area of littoral shelf planting be submitted to and approved by Staff
prior to the issuance of any permits and 2) That stormwater calculations be submitted to and
approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits, for 3080 Allen Avenue, Lots 4 through 7,
together with Lots 12 through 15, Block 4, Acker's Subdivision and the west 75 feet of Lots 9, 10,
and 11, together with a portion of the west 75 feet of Lot 8, Block 4, Acker's subdivision, together
with the abutting right-of-way along Charles Avenue, Item #D5, Case LUZ2003-05003 for 1120
Woodlawn Street, Lots 1 through 12 inclusive, Block B, Harvey Park Subdivision and Lots 21
through 24, Block A, together with the west one-half of vacated Tioga Avenue lying east of Lots
21 through 24, Block A, Harvey Park Subdivision, and Item #D6, Case ANX2003-05010 for
1856 East Drive, Lot 7, Block B, Clearwater Highlands, Unit A, together with the abutting right-
of-way. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
E NON-CONSENT AGENDA (Items 1 - 4):
1. - Case: Downtown Plan Update (Ordinance No. 7153-03) Level Three Application
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Review and recommendation of an update to the Downtown Plan, which encompasses
land previously governed by the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Downtown
Clearwater Periphery Plan and additional land contained in the newly expanded Downtown
Community Redevelopment Area.
Neighborhood Associations: Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association, Rowland Milam,
1844 Venetian Point Drive, Clearwater, FL 33755n27.443.3227; Gateway Neighbors, Pat
Vaughn, 1326 Pierce St., Apartment Two, 33756n27.461.7599; Pierce 100 Condominium
Association, Terry Turner, 100 Pierce Street #710 Clearwater, Florida 33756.
Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager.
Long Range Planning Manager Gina L. Clayton reviewed the Downtown Plan Update.
History of Downtown Planning
.
Clearwater has been active in its pursuit of downtown revitalization since the 1970s.
The first planning study for Downtown was released in 1977. In 1981, the City established a
Community Development 2003-07-15
9
.
CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) and created the CRA (Community Redevelopment
Area) district that stretched from Clearwater Harbor to east of Missouri Avenue. At this time, the
City also approved the Downtown's first plan, known as the Redevelopment Plan.
In 1995, the City Commission approved a major revision to this plan and created the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, which retained the original boundaries of the CRA
established in 1981 and established five overall goals for Downtown. Because Downtown had a
Future Land Use Plan designation of Central Business District (CBD), the Plan included a land
use plan map, which specified the location of residential, commercial, mixed use, public/
governmental, religious and open space/recreation land uses. It also established subdistricts
that regulated the maximum development potential and height for uses within each area. The
major portion of this Plan, however, was devoted to public and private redevelopment projects.
In 1993, prior to adoption of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the City
Commission approved the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan, which evolved from extensive
revisions being made to the Redevelopment Plan. The Periphery Plan addressed the
development potential on the edges of Downtown identified as important to the success of
overall downtown redevelopment. These four areas were known as the Northwest, Southwest,
Northeast, and Southeast Expansion Areas.
.
At the time the original Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan was approved, the
Commission also adopted ordinances that changed the Future Land Use Map designation of
each expansion area to Central Business District (CBD). The Northeast and Southeast
Expansion Areas were rezoned later that year to a Downtown zoning district in effect at that
time. In 2001, the City approved a major update to the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan
and rezoned the other two areas to the Downtown District. The update better defined the land
use plan and development potential for each expansion area and provided recommendations to
guide redevelopment.
Plan Update Rationale
Plan updates usually are conducted when a plan's timeframe concludes, when
conditions have changed, or when there is a desire to change policy. In the case of Clearwater,
construction of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge was the catalyst for rethinking the form and
function of Downtown. Realignment of the new bridge will re-distribute through traffic from
Cleveland Street to the Court/Chestnut streets one-way pairs. The designation of State Route
60 also will shift from Cleveland Street to Court and Chestnut streets. Cleveland Street will
terminate in the vicinity of Osceola Avenue.
.
The new bridge, which started construction in February 2002, will improve traffic
circulation dramatically. However, there are concerns about potential traffic bypassing
Downtown. Based on these changing traffic patterns, clearly a much greater emphasis will be
placed on the area east of the historical Downtown. The important eastern gateway into
Downtown will be at the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Court Street, and Highland Avenue intersection.
In recognition of the important relationship between this gateway and Downtown, as well as
concerns about the area's decline, the City prepared a Findings and Declaration of Necessity
Analysis in fall 2002, which documents conditions and challenges in the area. Based on this
study, the City concluded slum and blighting conditions exist and approved expansion of the
Downtown CRA. Two of the four Periphery Plan areas are included in the expansion. The
Pinellas County Board of Commissioners agreed with the Findings of Necessity and authorized
the City to create a redevelopment plan for this area. Based on the above, it was concluded
Community Development 2003-07-15
10
.
that the Downtown Plan should be updated and govern land within the original CRA, the newly
expanded CRA, and the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan.
Purpose of Plan
The 2003 Downtown Clearwater Plan has two purposes: 1) a Special Area Plan in
accordance with Countywide Rules of Pinellas County and 2) a Community Redevelopment
Plan for 449 acres in the original and expanded CRA. As a Special Area Plan, it will guide
development through goals, objectives, and policies and will regulate uses and development
potential of six unique character districts. As a Community Redevelopment Plan, it establishes
policies that guide future actions and projects of the City's Community Redevelopment Agency.
The CDB (Community Development Board) is reviewing the Plan in its capacity as the
LPA (Local Planning Agency) and is requested to make a recommendation regarding the new
Plan to the City Commission. The CRA should make a recommendation to the City Commission
regarding this document as the Redevelopment Plan for the existing and expanded CRA. Once
the City Commission approves the Plan, it will be submitted to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval as the Redevelopment Plan for the existing and newly expanded
CRA. The Plan also will be submitted to the Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide
Planning Authority for review and approval as the Special Area Plan governing Downtown.
Plan Contents
The Downtown Clearwater Plan contains four sections: 1) Introduction; 2) Existing
Conditions; 3) Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan; and 4) Plan Implementation.
.
The Introduction Chapter provides a history of planning in Clearwater and in the
Downtown and identifies the purpose of the Plan. The Existing Conditions Chapter provides
information on existing land use, future land use, and zoning within the Downtown area. It also
provides information about historic resources, demographics, infrastructure, public recreation
facilities, existing Downtown redevelopment programs, and investment that has occurred
Downtown in recent years.
The Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan Chapter establishes the goals, objectives and
policies for Downtown. The Plan identifies three overriding goals, which evolved from five goals
in the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan: 1) People Goal - Downtown shall be a
place that attracts people for living, employment and recreation. The City shall encourage
redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to Downtown as a recreation,
entertainment, and shopping destination; 2) Movement Goal - Create an environment where
people and cars can circulate throughout Downtown safely and effectively; and 3) Amenity Goal
- Create Downtown as a memorable place to be enjoyed by residents and visitors that
capitalizes on Clearwater's waterfront location, natural resources, built environment, and history.
In order to attain these goals, objectives and policies are included to guide private and
public actions. For example, when a site plan is submitted, the project will be reviewed for
compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies of this Plan. Also public actions must
comply.
.
As stated, the 1995 Plan controlled development by a land use map that designated
allowable uses on a parcel-by-parcel basis. In order to deviate from the map, a Plan
amendment would be required. In an attempt to provide flexibility needed to support
Community Development 2003-07-15
11
e
redevelopment, the Downtown Clearwater Plan establishes six character districts to govern
development. Determination of these districts was based on existing and desired future
development patterns, concentration of uses, street patterns, number of lanes, and natural and
manmade boundaries. Recently constructed or soon to be constructed capital projects also
were considered.
Each District includes a vision for future development. The vision includes a description
of uses, function, development patterns, prohibited uses, and policies that are specific to
implementing the vision of each District. Design guidelines, which currently are being
developed, also will be included for each District and will be presented to the CDB in
September. Each district specifies the amount of FAR (floor area ratio) or density that can be
built, as well as any height restrictions. The Plan has made some changes in permitted density
and intensity, when compared to the existing CRA plan, to reflect the history of development,
today's market, and the City Commission's vision that the most intensive development should
occur in the core and become less intensive to the north, south, and east.
The Downtown Core District is envisioned to be the most dense and intense district and
should continue to be a center for government and office uses. The Plan permits a FAR ratio of
4.0, or a density of 70 dwelling units per acre, or 95 hotel units per acre. The 1995 Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan allowed a FAR ranging from 2.0 - 5.0 and density from 42 units
per acre to 70 units per acre, depending on location within the plan. No height regulations are
imposed in the Downtown Core, except that along Cleveland Street height should be consistent
with historic building patterns and consistent with design guidelines, which currently are being
prepared. The 1995 Plan allowed heights ranging from 6 stories to 15 stories, depending on
location.
.
A key component of the redevelopment strategy is to attract residential development to
the Downtown Core. The Plan supports redevelopment of the Calvary Baptist Church and City
Hall sites with a mixed project containing residential and retail uses. The Plan also supports
redevelopment in the Harborview Center building footprint with retail/restaurant/hotel and
entertainment uses.
The Old Bav District, which essentially has the same boundaries as the Northwest
Periphery Plan Area, is considered to be a mixed-use neighborhood supporting the Downtown
employment base with residential uses, limited neighborhood commercial uses, and office uses.
The District supports 25 units per acre for development west of Osceola Avenue along the
waterfront. The Plan provides a density bonus of an additional 25 units per acre in the event
more than two acres of land are consolidated, for a total of 50 units per acre. Lower density, in
keeping with the existing character of development, is permitted in the balance of the district,
unless an acre of land is consolidated. In that instance, density can be increased from 7.5 units
per acre to 25 units per acre. The preferred housing styles in this area will be single-family,
detached, and townhouses. Commercial development is limited to a FAR of 0.5.
The allowable development potential is not proposed to change from that currently
allowed in the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan. It should be noted the area between Drew
and Jones streets was regulated by the 1995 Plan and development potential is being reduced
in this area. The Plan does not limit maximum height in this District while the Periphery Plan
deferred to heights permitted in the Downtown zoning district.
e)
The South Gatewav District, formerly known as the Southwest Periphery Plan Expansion
Area, is Downtown's primary gateway from the south. This District anticipates development of
Community Development 2003-07-15
12
.
.
.
new housing and limited retail uses along South Fort Harrison Avenue, while existing offices are
encouraged to remain. The balance of the District's vacant land is envisioned to redevelop with
residential uses at an urban scale. The Plan provides for a FAR of 1.0 for commercial and
office uses. The allowable density is 25 units per acre, 35 units per acre if more than two acres
are consolidated, and 50 units per acre if more than two acres are consolidated and developed
with a mixed-use project including retail and residential uses.
The previous Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan permitted 50 units per acre for
stand-alone residential development on more than two acres of land. The maximum
permissible height proposed for the South Gateway is 50 feet. The Periphery Plan deferred to
the heights permitted in the Downtown zoning district.
The Town Lake Residential District surrounds the newly constructed Town Lake and
extends north to Drew Street. This district encompasses land that was governed by the 1995
Plan, the Northeast, and a portion of the Southeast Periphery Plan Expansion Areas, as well as
areas zoned Medium Density Residential, Commercial, and Office. A small area fronting Drew
Street and another located on the west side of Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue is part of the newly
expanded CRA.
This District primarily is reserved for new residential construction at a maximum of 30
units per acre. Hotel construction is allowed fronting on Cleveland Street at 40 units per acre. It
is anticipated that new residents in the area will enliven Downtown and provide a market for new
retail and restaurant uses. The Plan requires that development within this District be at a lower
scale and density than that allowed in the Downtown Core and limits maximum height to 50 feet.
The District supports the addition of neighborhood commercial uses to serve the new
residences and allows community commercial uses along the major streets within the District at
a maximum FAR of 1.0. The development pattern north of Cleveland Street must be mindful of
existing single-family development along Grove Street and generally heights should be lower
than that south of Cleveland Street. Renovation of the small historic single-family dwellings
along Grove Street is encouraged.
The proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan changes the allowable development potential
permitted in the 1995 Plan and the Periphery Plan. Those plans permitted a FAR of 0.3 along
Drew Street but up to 2.0 and 3.0 in other areas within the District. Density along Drew Street
was limited to 28 units per acre, while in other areas it was as high as 50 - 70 units per acre.
Maximum permitted heights ranged from 30 feet to 8 stories depending on location. Based on
the philosophy that the most intensive development patterns should occur in the core of
Downtown and intensity should be lower away from the Core, and the fact that this density and
intensity has been in place since at least 1995 and no recent development has occurred at
these intensive levels, the Plan supports these changes.
The Town Lake Business Park District is comprised of a portion of the Southeast
Periphery Plan Expansion Area, land within the boundaries of the 1995 Plan, and land within the
newly expanded CRA. It is envisioned to be a place for business park development consisting
of corporate and professional offices and those that conduct research or light assembly not
exceeding a total FAR of 1.0. Accessory commercial uses are encouraged and an incentive is
provided that excludes that floor area in FAR calculations. The character of development in this
District is anticipated to be more typical of suburban development than that envisioned for the
other character districts. Residential development may only occur in Town Lake Business Park
if a minimum of four acres is consolidated and the density does not exceed 30 units per acre.
The maximum allowable height for all development is 50 feet.
Community Development 2003-07-15
13
.
.
.
The 1995 Plan allowed height up to 8 stories and a FAR of 3.0. The Periphery Plan
allowed a FAR of 3.0 and the height was governed by the zoning code. Residential
development was allowed in both areas at 70 units per acre. It should be noted that this density
and intensity has been in place since at least 1995 and no recent development has occurred at
these intensive levels.
The East Gatewav District is primarily comprised of land located within the newly
expanded CRA. It is envisioned to be a stable and diverse neighborhood defined by its unique
Hispanic cultural base. It should continue to be a medium density neighborhood supported with
neighborhood commercial and professional offices. The District will become the primary
entrance from the east into the Downtown Core, therefore, its redevelopment and improved
infrastructure is essential. The existing residential areas should retain their scale and
development patterns and any infill development should maintain the existing low-rise scale. It
is intended that new commercial development will provide employment opportunities for District
residents, and serve the daily commercial and personal service needs of the neighborhood.
The area is governed by nine Future Land Use Plan categories ranging from Residential Urban,
which allows 7.5 units per acre to Commercial General, which allows a FAR of 0.55 and a
density of 24 units per acre. A portion of this District is part of the original CRA and has
historically had a very high allowable FAR of 2.0 and a density of 70 units acres. The
Downtown Clearwater Plan proposes to reduce this potential to be consistent with the
Commercial General designation located in the newly expanded CRA.
Regarding the Housing and Neighborhood Element, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida
Statutes requires a residential use and neighborhood assessment be conducted for any CRA.
The Housing and Neighborhood Element contains a residential use section, which details
existing residential conditions within the Downtown Plan area, as well as by character district. It
also explores homeless issues that face Clearwater and the particular impact they have on
Downtown. The residential use analysis confirms that Downtown does not lack land available
for residential purposes nor does it have a housing shortage. In fact, it is projected that
Downtown could absorb 1,000 new housing units. The analysis indicates, however, that there
are issues impacting Downtown's desirability as a place to live such as high rental occupancies,
absentee landlords, overcrowding in certain areas, older housing stock, deferred housing
maintenance, and a disproportionate number of low-moderate income residents. Policies
related to housing and the homeless are established to support improving the condition of the
existing housing stock, constructing new housing, and improving the situation for the homeless.
The neighborhood impact assessment is required for a redevelopment plan if the CRA
contains low-moderate income housing. At the time the original CRA was approved, this
requirement did not exist, therefore, the analysis was conducted for the expanded CRA. The
statutes require that six elements be evaluated as part of the neighborhood assessment: 1)
Relocation; 2) Traffic Circulation; 3) Environmental Quality; 4) Availability of Community
Facilities and Services; 5) Effect on School Population; and 6) Other matters affecting the
physical and social quality of the neighborhood.
The assessment found that the Plan would not have a detrimental impact on any of the
listed elements. The Plan specifies that in the event low-moderate income residents are
relocated due any project within the CRA, the Redevelopment Agency will comply with the
Tenant Relocation Plan provisions of the Pinellas County Code. Furthermore, in the event
federal funds are used for a project that displaces low-moderate income residents, the project
Community Development 2003-07-15
14
.
.
.
must comply with the federal Uniform Relocation Act of 1970. It should be noted, however, that
the Plan does not contemplate the use of these funds.
Furthermore, the assessment finds Plan implementation will improve traffic circulation
patterns with Downtown and the Master Streetscape Plan will improve the transition between
several streets and will not impact negatively on the expansion area. Potable water,
wastewater, and stormwater management will not be affected in this area and no negative
impacts are anticipated with regard to environmental quality. The Plan recognizes the
importance of community facilities and services to residents and supports the retention of these
facilities within Downtown. The redevelopment plan will not have a detrimental effect on
providing school facilities to the anticipated new students in the area and lastly, proposed
redevelopment activities will have a positive impact on the physical and social quality of the
area.
Regarding Plan Implementation, Chapter 4, Plan Implementation, details the public
strategies or actions that will be undertaken to implement the goals, objectives and policies. It
provides a Capital Improvement Plan that establishes the major improvements needed in
Downtown, ranging from street repaving projects to public uses. This Chapter also lists
redevelopment incentives that currently are available to property owners and the development
community. The final section of this Chapter is the Tax Increment Revenue projections for the
CRA. Projections are included for the existing CRA because the City intends to request the use
of tax increment financing in this newly expanded CRA.
Regarding Downtown Strategies, the Downtown Plan identifies 35 strategies that the
City will pursue to implement the Plan. Some are very specific, while others require study and
analysis. Many City departments will have a role in implementing the Plan, including Planning,
Economic Development, Neighborhood Services, Community Response Team, Development
Services, the Public Works Administration, Parks and Recreation, and Police. A list of selected
strategies includes: 1) Amend Community Development Code, Downtown District to allow
certain uses to be minimum standard development; 2) Amend the Community Development
Code to establish the Public Amenities Incentives Pool; 3) Amend Community Development
Code regarding transfer of development rights to be consistent with the plan; 4) Evaluate the
potential and owner interest for a National Register or local historic district in three areas:
Cleveland Street from Myrtle to Osceola Avenues; Old Bay character district; and Grove Street
in Town Lake Residential character district; 5) Prepare a traffic analysis to evaluate traffic
operations and make intersection improvements subject to that evaluation, after the new bridge
opens; 6) Continue to market redevelopment sites and develop targeted markets or sites within
each character district to encourage their redevelopment; 7) Coordinate with the Salvation Army
to ensure that the future redevelopment of the site located in the Old Bay District is compatible
with surrounding areas and at an appropriate scale; 8) Evaluate the ability to amortize
problematic uses, develop and implement an amortization schedule within the legal framework
in the East Gateway; 9) Provide a more visible community policing presence in the East
Gateway; and 10) Establish partnership with local banks to facilitate conventional loans to
businesses in the East Gateway area.
The Capital Improvement Plan identifies 28 projects in five categories to implement the
Downtown Clearwater Plan. The type of projects includes street repaving/resurfacing, utilities
and infrastructure, streetscape improvementsllandscaping, parks and recreation facilities and
public uses. The cost of these projects range between $144 - 148 million over the next 15 - 20
years. Some projects will be funded by FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation), however,
the majority must be funded by the City.
Community Development 2003-07-15
15
.
.
.
The Capital Improvement Plan includes several key projects, including the Master
Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. Due to cost and construction reasons, this project has been
broken into nine specific projects. Implementation begins as soon as 2004, continuing to 2010.
Overall, the projects include a variety of streetscape improvements, including new street trees,
landscaping, pavers, decorative lighting, and street furniture throughout Downtown. It also
includes an extensive signage plan to provide direction to Downtown and to parking facilities,
parks, government facilities, and the character districts. The Wayfinding component is critical
due to the changing traffic patterns that will occur once the new Memorial Causeway Bridge is
open. Bellomo-Herbert, the landscape architecture firm that prepared the concept plan, has
been hired to develop construction drawings for the signage. It is anticipated the new
directional and informational signs will be in place in early 2004.
Another key project is redevelopment of Coachman Park, which is estimated to cost
$14.5 million and is programmed to start construction in 2005. Due to the complexity of
redeveloping this park, the design allows improvements to be phased. Proposed improvements
to the park include: 1) New amphitheater in a new location at the north end of the park; 2) Great
lawn that can be used for events and as passive recreation space (parking must be removed to
fully develop this area); 3) Interactive play fountain; 4) Water feature; 5) Children's play area; 6)
Restrooms; and 7) Marina.
The other major redevelopment project is the renovation of Station Square Park. This
improvement is scheduled for construction in 2005/2006 at a cost of $1 million. Improvements
to the park will enhance its appearance and versatility making it a more desirable place for
casual and programmed gatherings. Improvements proposed: 1) Elimination of existing water
feature; 2) Construction of elevated stage for entertainment; 3) Creation of a plaza; 4) Terrace
seating; 5) New pavers; 6) Removable chairs; 7) New stand-along and built-in benches; and 8)
Significant plantings.
Regarding Tax Increment Revenue Projects, pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida
Statutes, the County is authorized to approve the use of TIF (Tax Increment Financing) in the
CRA. The original Downtown CRA TIF commenced in 1983. Over the past 20 years, the tax
increment roll has experienced an average annual increase of 3.21%. With regard to the newly
expanded CRA, the County first must approve the Redevelopment Plan and, upon adoption of
this Plan by the City and County, the City will request that the County create a Redevelopment
Trust Fund and authorize the use of TIF in this new CRA.
Eight potential key locations have been identified in the Plan as major redevelopment
opportunities: 1) Calvary Baptist Church site; 2) City Hall; 3) Lee Arnold parcel at Drew
StreetlFt. Harrison and Osceola avenues; 4) AmSouth Block between Osceola and Ft. Harrison
avenues and Cleveland Street; 5) Harborview Center Parcel; 6) Station Square Parking Lot; 7)
Town Lake Residential and Business character districts; and 8) some infill parcels in the East
Gateway District. Tax increment financing projections have been calculated for both the original
and expanded CRA. Based on conservative projections, which assumed City and County
millage rates would remain constant, it is projected that the original CRA could generate
approximately $64 million in tax increment over the next 30 years. The expanded CRA is
projected to generate a cumulative tax increase of over $37.9 million over the next 30 years. If
the expansion is approved the total estimated TIF revenue over the next 30 years is $7 million.
A selected list of goals, objectives and policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
that are furthered by the Downtown Clearwater Plan 2003 Update includes: 1) Goal 2 - The City
Community Development 2003-07-15
16
.
.
.
shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices, and urban design
standards to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted
areas, and encourage infill development; 2) Objective 2.1 - Redevelopment of blighted areas
shall be a high priority and promoted through the implementation of redevelopment plans and
projects and continued emphasis on property maintenance standards; 3) 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 development rights pursuant to approved special area plans and
redevelopment plans; 4) Policy 2.1.6 - Land use decisions in Clearwater shall support the
expansion of economic opportunity, the creation of jobs, and maintenance of existing industries
through the establishment of enterprise zones, activity centers, and redevelopment areas and
by coordination with the Chamber of Commerce and Tourist Development Council; 5) Policy
2.1.7 - Downtown Clearwater shall be designated a regional activity center suitable for
increased threshold intensity for development consistent with the boundaries of the Central
Business District as indicated in the Downtown Redevelopment Plan approved in 1995; 6)
Policy 2.1.8 - The City shall continue to support and implement approved community
redevelopment plans, such as the Downtown Redevelopment Plan adopted in 1995; 7) Policy
2.1.9 - The City shall continue to review the boundaries of the downtown redevelopment district
to determine whether boundary adjustments are needed; 8) Policy 2.1.10 - Clearwater will
continue to support the tax increment financing program and redevelopment efforts of the
downtown area through economic development activities; 9) Objective 2.2 - The City shall
continue to support innovative planned development and mixed land use development
techniques to promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding
environment; 10) Objective 2.3. - The City shall encourage the implementation of historic
overlay districts, the maintenance of existing historic properties, and the preservation of existing
neighborhoods through the use of design guidelines and implementation of the Community
Development Code; 11) Policy 2.3.3 - The City shall continue to implement the Design
Guidelines, adopted in 1995, for all development within the Downtown District; 12) Goal 16 - An
affordable variety of standard housing units in decent and safe neighborhoods to meet the
needs of current and future residents regardless of race, nationality, age, martial status,
handicap, or religion; 13) Objective 16.1 - Objective for Adequate Housing - Assure an
adequate supply of housing in Clearwater by providing for additional new dwelling units in a
variety of types, costs, and locations to meet the needs of the residents of the City; 14)
Objective 16.2 - Objective for Affordable Housing - The City shall continue to provide
assistance and incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to Very Low, Low,
and Moderate Income households, including those with special needs, consistent with the level
of growth in these income categories; 15) Policy 16.2.1 - Continue to utilize CDBG (Community
Development Block Grant) funds for the construction and/or rehabilitation of housing units that
will be affordable to very low and low-income, households consistent with Federal income
guidelines; 16) Objective 16.3 - Objective for Housing Conditions - The City shall encourage
the elimination of substandard housing units through demolition, upgrades, renovation, and
preservation efforts; and 17) Policy 16.3.5 - Encourage ongoing maintenance through programs
that foster pride in ownership and individual efforts.
The Downtown Clearwater Plan is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
as evidenced by the numerous goals, objectives, and policies identified above. The Plan
establishes objectives and policies (and design guidelines that will be added at a later date) that
set standards that will ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and protect
historic resources. The Plan provides a redevelopment strategy for the expanded CRA that
supports elimination of blighting influences in the neighborhood through strategies and capital
projects. It also supports a variety of housing in Downtown, including market rate and
Community Development 2003-07-15
17
.
affordable units. The Plan provides for assisting neighborhoods to organize and educating
property owners about Clearwater's property maintenance standards. Redevelopment
incentives are contained in the Plan and include increased density for lot consolidation, transfer
of development rights and creation of the Public Amenities Incentives Pool.
The proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It
provides goals, objectives and policies to guide redevelopment and City actions. The Plan
establishes six character districts that regulate land use, density and intensity, and design. It
also provides a housing and neighborhood element to meet the requirements of Florida
Community Redevelopment Act. Furthermore, it provides a detailed implementation schedule
that outlines public strategies and investment and TIF projections.
The Planning Department recommends approval of Ordinance No. 7153-03, which
replaces the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Clearwater Periphery
Plan and provides a plan for the newly expanded CRA.
In reference to the in the South Gateway District, it was questioned if 50 units per acre
could be constructed at a maximum height of 50 feet. Ms. Tarapani said those limits would
relate to mixed uses with a substantial number of residences. Data on this proposal was
requested.
.
In response to a question regarding a lack of recommended maximum building heights
in some districts, Ms. Clayton said the City Commission does not want height limits in
Downtown, and feels the FAR and design would restrict building design. While the Plan does
not contain height limits for the Old Clearwater Bay District, the underlying zoning has height
limits. In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said the FAR and density will cap building
heights, depending on a property's size. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani recommended
against permitting adjustments to heights established for Downtown districts.
The proposed plan was complimented for being easier for the development community
to understand and use. In reference to Page 76, Policy 5 regarding landscaping at the
Clearwater Gas System property, it was recommended language read "shall" rather than
"should." Additional recommendations will be submitted.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the mandatory investment of 1 % of
construction costs in cultural arts is in the cultural plan adopted by the City Commission. It was
felt the City should be careful when mandating spending as that could discourage development.
In response to a concern, Ms. Clayton said the report captures recent investment Downtown,
including construction of self-storage units permitted under the previous Code.
In reference to Page 50, Objective 2e, to facilitate grant issues, it was recommended
that language be added to tie light rail to the economic development of Clearwater beach and
Downtown. Consensus was to recommend that addition.
.
Ms. Clayton said the Plan tries to retain the low-rise pedestrian feel of streets in the
Downtown core. Higher buildings will be stepped back from the street to maintain Downtown's
historic character. CRA guidelines remain conceptual. Abutting uses and those across the street
will be used to determine the size of setbacks. The MPO (Municipal Planning Organization) is
considering exempting concurrency requirements for Downtown. The current program does
permit the reduction of impact fees in CRA designated areas.
Community Development 2003-07-15
18
.
In reference to Page 76, Policy 5, concern was expressed motels not be converted to
small apartments for transient uses. Consensus was to change the word "conversion" to
"rehabilitation." In response to a concern, Ms. Tarapani said the County had requested
Clearwater determine what percentage of the TIF would be dedicated to rehabilitation. The Plan
will be presented to the City Commission for conceptual approval. Implementation will require
bonding, unless it is done at a slow pace. The Coachman Park revitalization will require a $15-
million investment.
Ms. Clayton said with completion of the new bridge the City Commission has determined
Wayfinding is a top priority, followed by Downtown core landscaping, and then the area east of the
Downtown center will be addressed. Concern was expressed regarding the rapid decline of the
east gateway. Ms. Clayton said the CRA designation will make it easier to fund improvements
there. In response to a question, she said the Plan will identify the use of TDRs (Transfers of
Development Rights), which will be consistent with Countywide rules, and limit how much the
development potential of a site can be exceeded. It was recommended TDR limits be consistent
for the beach and Downtown. Ms. Clayton recommended related construction be required to
reflect local character.
It was stated beach development incentives have not attracted hotel construction. It was
recommended incentives for Downtown hotel/motel construction be increased.
Discussion ensued regarding the DDB (Downtown Development Board) recommendation
to prohibit adult uses Downtown. Consensus was to support that recommendation.
.
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said borders of the Downtown, classified as a
regional activity center, will be amended to include the periphery plan areas.
In reverence to Policy 11, Page 53, "Use of Termination of Status," Ms. Clayton said that
Code provision allows the City to make a "non-conforming use" "conforming." The City wants to
encourage non-conforming uses to locate away from Downtown where legal.
Discussion ensued regarding height restrictions on Myrtle Avenue and the east gateway.
She recommended establishing consistency in height for the east gateway and felt a 100-foot limit
would be out of character. While office development should be allowed, she said it was
appropriate to step the height to residential areas. Ms. Tarapani said 90% of the Town. Lake
Residential District is limited to 6-stories, or 75-feet, and an area on Cleveland Street is limited to
8-stories. She said density is concentrated in the Downtown core. More flexibility in the east
gateway area was recommended. Concern was expressed development there not inhibit
Downtown core development, as occurred in Tampa with the development of Westshore. Ms.
Clayton said staff envisions high rise condominium development will take advantage of waterfront
views, with other Downtown residential development in lofts and Townhomes.
It was recommended a transition zone be established between character districts to
allow more height in transition areas. Ms. Tarapani said staff had not researched how other
Downtowns handle transition areas. It was recommended a transition between character districts
be established at 75% of the height permitted in the abutting use. Ms. Tarapani said the current
plan limits transition to the edges of the entire district. Support was expressed for imposing
transitions within the overall district. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the transition area.
.
Consensus was for transition areas between character districts to be established whereby
additional height is permitted in areas abutting higher height zoning districts and less height is
Community Development 2003-07-15
19
.
.
.
required in areas abutting lower height zoning districts. Staff will recommend the size of the
transition area. Discussion ensued regarding the importance of inclusion of transition areas in the
pending Plan update. It was suggested the size of the transition area be established in linear feet.
Input from Charlie Siemon was recommended.
Concern was expressed the Plan permits unlimited height in the Old Clearwater Bay
District. Discussion ensued regarding heights permitted along the water front, west of Osceola,
and in the remaining district. Ms. Tarapani said current Code requires public hearings for any
construction higher than 100 feet. Ms. Tarapani said while no transition would exist between
Downtown and Old Clearwater Bay, the transition to the north would be dramatic.
In reference to staff's recommendation of a 35-foot height limit east of Osceola for mixed
use, it was recommended a greater height be permitted as far east as Ft. Harrison. Ms. Tarapani
suggested a greater height could be permitted if consolidation of properties first occurred. It was
suggested property east of Osceola be no more than 50 feet in height. It was suggested two
guidelines could be imposed east of Ft. Harrison.
Consensus was to limit Old Clearwater Bay District heights to 150 feet.
Two residents expressed concern regarding height restrictions in Downtown. One person
stated the homeless issue Downtown will not be solved by removing all social service agencies.
Member Hooper moved to approved the Downtown Plan with recommendations: 1) page
50, objective 2e, include language to tie light rail to economic development of beach and
Downtown: 2) page 76, policy 5, change "should" to "shall" and change "conversion" to
"rehabilitation"; 3) to all Character Districts add adult uses as a prohibited use; 4) page 52,
policy 9, add that abutting Character Districts within the Downtown have two-way transition that
either allows higher height or requires less height with size of transition zones to be determined
in a future Code Amendment; 5) in Old Bay Character District, establish 150-foot height limit for
all property west of Osceola Avenue with staff to determine a height for rest of district,
conceptually much less than 150 feet and maybe two separate heights. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
The Community Development Board recessed from 12:19 to 1:00 p.m.
CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 2 - 4):
2. Case: CU96-46 - 1339, 1341, 1345 Park St./1344 Pierce Street Level 2 Application
Owner: Society of St. Vincent de Paul of Upper Pinellas County, Inc.
Applicant: Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project (CHIP) and City Of Clearwater.
Representative: Sidney Klein, Clearwater Police Chief (work: 727.562.4343).
Location: 1.3 acres located on the south side of Park Street and on the north side of
Pierce Street, approximately 700 feet west of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 287B.
Zoning: C, Commercial District.
Request: Trial period review of a previous Conditional Use application for a residential shelter
and police substation, as required under conditions of approval.
Proposed Use: An existing residential shelter, police substation and parking lot.
Neighborhood Association: Gateway Neighborhood, Pat Vaughn, 1326 Pierce St., Apartment
Two, Clearwater, FL, 33756/727.461.7599.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner.
Community Development 2003-07-15
20
.
A resident expressed concern advertisements for this portion of the meeting had stated
several different times and the item should be continued.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said had anyone shown up early for this
item, the board had begun its meeting at 10:00 a.m. She suggested to cure any defect or
confusion by anyone thinking this portion of the meeting might not begin until 2:00 p.m., she
suggested discussion on this item be delayed until 2:00 p.m.
Member Gildersleeve moved to delay the hearing of Item #E2 until 2:00 p.m. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The CDB recessed from 1 :43 to 2:00 p.m.
.
Mr. Wells reviewed the request. The site is 1.3-acres, located on the south side of Park
Street and on the north side of Pierce Street, approximately 700 feet west of Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard. The Society of St. Vincent DePaul of Upper Pinellas County, Inc, owns the site and
CHIP (Clearwater Homeless Intervention Program) leases the land from them for $1/year. The
Park Street frontage of the site is developed with a soup kitchen, a residential shelter, and a
police substation. The soup kitchen is a permitted use at this location and is not at issue with
this application. The site also includes property on Pierce Street that contains a single-family
dwelling and a 24-space parking lot used by both the soup kitchen and CHIP/police facilities.
Commercial uses are located to the north fronting on Cleveland Street and to the east along
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Residential uses are located generally south of Park Street and west of
Evergreen Avenue.
The Planning and Zoning Board conducted the first review and public hearing on
October 15, 1996. Four major issues were discussed, including zoning intensity, property value
impacts, crime, and comprehensiveness of approach regarding shelter locations. The review of
this case was met with controversy by surrounding property owners. The Board continued the
case to November 5, 1996, where public comments were taken.
.
On November 5, 1996, the former Planning and Zoning Board approved Conditional Use
CU96-46 with conditions (status of conditions in italics): 1) Applicant shall obtain requisite
building permit, certificate of occupancy, and occupational license within nine months from the
date of this public hearing. Construction bids for project came back higher than funding base,
requiring applicant to request additional funds from the City and County CDBG (Community
Development Block Grant). Soil testing, excavation, and filling took longer than anticipated.
These delays affected the ability of the applicant to meet deadlines imposed. Construction was
not complete and the Certificate of Occupancy was not issued until late March 1998. By
memorandum dated October 27, 1997, former Planning Director Scott Shuford determined that
compliance had been achieved, through the applicant's good faith efforts to comply; 2) All site
lighting shall be equipped with a 90 degree cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed
downward and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way, and
additional lighting will be installed to better illuminate the perimeter of the site adjacent to non-
residential areas prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license. Prior to March 20,
1998, prior Planning Director Scott Shuford met the project architect and owner's representative
to determine acceptable solutions to the lighting concerns. A dimmer street lamp was
determined to be installed for the streetlight centered on the southern parking lot to minimize
light projecting onto dwellings on the south side of Pierce Street. Lighting was added to the
north side of the center, illuminating CHIP and the perimeter of the lot abutting commercial
Community Development 2003-07-15
21
.
.
.
properties. Compliance appeared to have been achieved in 1998 in accordance with this
condition. Planning staff is unaware of any complaints regarding lighting since the facility
opened; 3) A sidewalk interconnection to Cleveland Street shall be constructed to reduce
pedestrian traffic in surrounding residential areas. The applicant was unable to provide a
sidewalk interconnection to Cleveland Street along the east side of the northern portion of the
property. The sidewalk would have had to traverse a parcel owned by a third party, requiring an
easement for the sidewalk. Attempts to obtain the easement were unsuccessful. Additionally, a
sidewalk connection across the canal to the west was reviewed; however, it was determined to
be cost prohibitive as a bridge structure would be needed. Alternately, in lieu of the
interconnection directly north to Cleveland Street, a sidewalk was constructed along the west
side of South Evergreen A venue and the south side of Park Street. Signs were posted to direct
pedestrians along the route, and were made available to property owners for posting on
neighborhood fences. Prior Planning Director Scott Shuford deemed this alternative in
compliance with the condition of approval. Some of these signs have disappeared over the
years and should be re-erected to emphasize the pedestrian routes to the CHIP facility.
Additionally, CHIP, at their expense, erected a six-foot high fence and gate (at the driveway)
along the south side of the Dr. Jannelli and Idle Spur properties (north side of Park Street) to
further direct pedestrian traffic to the sidewalk connection on South Evergreen Avenue and Park
Street. The gate is not always closed and locked to reinforce the desired pedestrian traffic flow;
4) The residential shelter is only allowed while the police substation and other referral services
are provided at this location. The residential shelter, police substation, and other referral
services still are located on the property. Compliance is achieved through continued operation
of the substation; 5) Approval shall be for a trial period of three years from the date of this public
hearing (November 5, 1996), after which a new conditional use permit review will be required for
the residential shelter use. Compliance with this condition did not occur in 1999. The new
review will occur on July 15, 2003; 6) Efforts shall be made on the part of the CH I P
organizations to contact specified neighborhood representatives to coordinate and communicate
issues and information on a regular basis. The applicant has submitted a list of contacts,
meetings and articles since June 3, 1997. A NAC (Neighborhood Advisory Council) was
created to give guidance and suggestions on how CHIP could work together with the
neighborhood to benefit those individuals served by CHIP and still keep the neighborhood safe,
clean and comfortable. On August 15, 1997, the NAC asked that meetings be scheduled as
necessary, rather than on a regular basis; 7) Fencing to the maximum height allowed by City
code shall be installed on both sides of the property to control site access prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy. Fences were installed to a height of six feet along the side and rear
property lines and in other locations determined acceptable by prior Planning Director Scott
Shuford to control access. Gates were installed to further limit access from areas adjacent to
the buildings at specific times of the day.
The decision by the Planning and Zoning Board was appealed to the State (DOAH)
Division of Administrative Hearings. A Final Order was issued on February 26, 1997, by the
DOAH denying the appeal and upholding the Board's decision.
The mission of CHIP is to intervene in all issues that surround homelessness in
Clearwater and Upper Pinellas County. CHIP coordinates services among a broad spectrum of
service providers and community resources seeking to develop a continuum of care enabling
those who choose to move from homelessness to self-sufficiency. The program is multi-faceted
and aimed at assisting persons to confront the barriers and reasons that have put them in the
ranks of the homeless. As participants progress in the program, a more in depth plan is
established to help him/her back into the mainstream of society. The CHIP center is a 24-hour,
seven day per week residential emergency shelter. It also operates a daytime outreach
Community Development 2003-07-15
22
.
program from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. daily. During this time period, any homeless person can go
to CHIP for a shower, do laundry, make a phone call, receive mail, get clothing, receive mental
health counseling, have a sandwich, and get help with their problems.
Case management and outside social service provider offices and a community-policing
substation are included at the shelter site. There is a client kitchenette facility with refrigerator
and microwave where shelter clients may prepare their own meals if they work odd hours. A
conference and training room is available for Alcoholics Anonymous, resident meetings, and
employment training. The average shelter stay is 16 days. Each person staying at the shelter
must commit to participation in the Homeless Intervention Program - an intensive case
management model. The case manager conducts an initial intake assessment, wherein the
specific needs and goals of the client are established. These goals determine the length of stay
for the client. If employment has not been secured at entry, the client must pledge to obtain full-
time employment within seven days, or show reasonable efforts in doing so. After the client is
employed, the client establishes a budget, including a personal savings plan. The client's
continued eligibility is based on the client's compliance with his/her established goals.
.
The mission of CHIP is to intervene in all issues that surround homelessness in
Clearwater and Upper Pinellas County. CHIP coordinates services among a broad spectrum of
service providers and community resources seeking develop a continuum of care enabling
those who choose to move from homelessness to self-sufficiency. The program is multi-faceted
and aimed at assisting persons to confront the barriers and reasons that have put them in the
ranks of the homeless. As participants progress in the program, a more in depth plan is
established to help him/her back into the mainstream of society. The CHIP center is a 24-hour,
seven day per week residential emergency shelter. It also operates a daytime outreach
program from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. daily. During this time period, any homeless person can go
to CHIP for a shower, do laundry, make a phone call, receive mail, get clothing, receive mental
health counseling, have a sandwich, and get help with their problems.
Case management and outside social service provider offices and a community-policing
substation are included at the shelter site. There is a client kitchenette facility with refrigerator
and microwave where shelter clients may prepare their own meals if they work odd hours. A
conference and training room is available for Alcoholics Anonymous, resident meetings, and
employment training.
The average shelter stay is 16 days. Each person staying at the shelter must commit to
participation in the Homeless Intervention Program - an intensive case management model.
The case manager conducts an initial intake assessment, wherein the specific needs and goals
of the client are established. These goals determine the length of stay for the client. If
employment has not been secured at entry, the client must pledge to obtain full-time
employment within seven days, or show reasonable efforts in doing so. After the client is
employed, s/he establishes a budget including a personal savings plan. The client's continued
eligibility is based on the client's compliance with his/her own established goals.
.
The Community Development Code was adopted on January 21,1999. Section 1-
106.F, "Previous Approvals With Required Reviews," provides that the Community Development
Board will conduct any reviews required under a condition of approval requiring further review.
Section 1-106.C provides that conditions continue unless a new approval is obtained.
Compliance with Condition #5, where a new conditional use would be reviewed, did not occur in
1999. Condition #5 implies a review of the residential shelter use based on the criteria set forth
in the former Code Section 41.033. The City Attorney's office has determined that, given the
Community Development 2003-07-15
23
.
transitional rules of the Community Development Code and that the Code does not address the
criteria under which the new review would be considered, this new review will be based on the
criteria of the former Code.
Applicable aeneral standards for Conditional Use applications include: 1) use complies
with the land use plan; 2) use complies with all other applicable provisions of this (former)
development code; 3) use complies with the applicable conditional use standards for the
proposed use contained in Division 3 of this (former) article; 4) use shall be consistent with the
community welfare and not detract from the public's convenience at the specific location; 5) use
shall not unduly decrease the value of neighboring property; and 6) use shall be compatible with
the surrounding area and not impose an excessive burden or have a substantial negative
impact on surrounding or adjacent uses or on community facilities or services.
Additional, specific criteria required by the former Code for this type of use include: 1)
Public safety facilities may be allowed upon determination that the use complies with all he
general standards and 2) Residential shelters may be allowed upon determination that the use
complies with all of the general standards.
.
The Downtown Plan has been expanded to include an area, called the East Gateway
District, one of the character districts. The East Gateway area was targeted in 2002 as a
Community Redevelopment "Expansion" Area, and the City Commission and Board of County
Commissioners approved the CRA expansion in late 2002. This area has been experiencing
rapid deterioration and decline. An underlying commercial constraint is the inappropriate day
labor offices, which contribute to attracting homeless individuals to the neighborhood. The East
Gateway District is envisioned to continue to be developed as a low and medium density
residential neighborhood supported with neighborhood commercial and professional offices.
Commercial and office uses should be concentrated along the Cleveland Street, Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard, Court Street, and Missouri Avenue corridors. A key component of the development
strategy for the East Gateway District is the consolidation of the existing CHIP facilities into a
"campus." This consolidation will address the emergency needs of the downtown homeless,
and negate any future intrusion of scattered homeless facilities throughout the neighborhood.
The existing CHIP facility is consistent with the Downtown Plan Update.
The Pinellas County Coalition for the Homeless began in 1984 in an effort to support
community agencies and organizations that serve the homeless in Pinellas County. A point-in-
time survey, conducted in January 2003, found 2,301 persons homeless, including 697 in
Clearwater. The Coalition embraces the concept of a proposed North Pinellas County
Centralized Facility to provide services to the homeless. A location has not been determined
yet. This future North Pinellas Facility would provide a range of services, including shelter
(emergency, transitional and permanent), food, personal hygiene, counseling, banking facilities,
social services, employment center, educational classes, child care, inebriate care, mental
health care, domestic violence care, spiritual care, identification documentation center, clothing
store, dental and medical clinic, and a transportation center. This future North Pinellas Facility
would allow the County and communities to combine resources to address homeless issues and
to pool financing. As part of this future concept, a Downtown homeless strategy, supported by
the City's Economic Development Department, is to address the long-term relocation of St.
Vincent DePaul soup kitchen and thrift store to this Facility and support for the CHIP "campus."
.
The original 1996 request was for a residential shelter in conjunction with a police
substation to be developed at the western terminus of the site on Park Street. The shelter and
police substation were constructed and opened on April 20, 1998. The shelter is a structured
Community Development 2003-07-15
24
.
.
.
facility (one with rules) versus the soup kitchen (no rules). The soup kitchen (not part of this
request or re-review) feeds approximately 200 individuals daily (some not homeless). From
June 1, 2002 to May 31,2003, the CHIP Emergency Shelter (overnight accommodations)
served more than 1,500 unduplicated clients (1,101 adult males, 336 adult females and 63
children). These individuals also have participated in CHIP program elements of counseling,
goal planning, obtaining employment, budgeting, and accepting responsibility to change their
lives. Because CHIP is an emergency shelter that focuses on single individuals, the 52 families
who had temporary emergency shelter at CHIP this past year were moved quickly into family
shelters, transitional housing programs, Section 8, or Supportive Housing, or reunited with
family and/or relocated to other parts of the country. For single individuals completing the
shelter programs, there is a 93% success rate (i.e., obtaining housing and not returning to CHIP
for 12 months). The CHIP Day Center is open everyday and has an average of 75 individuals
utilizing services daily throughout the year, with peaks of more than 100 individuals daily during
certain seasonal periods. From June 1, 2002 to May 31,2003,3,256 individuals (2,579 adult
males, 654 adult females and 23 children) have utilized the services provided through the CHIP
Day Center, which aim to make sure the homeless in Clearwater's community know where they
can meet with counselors, take care of immediate physical needs, and start making life changes
that lead to getting off the streets. Many homeless individuals come into the Day Center more
than once; in fact, it may take several sessions for a homeless individual to start making the
choices and changes that lead to self-sufficiency. During the current fiscal year, 892 new (i.e.,
not previously seen) homeless adult individuals came through the CHIP Day Center doors. The
police substation has been manned by an average of eight officers, mostly on bicycle patrol of
the neighborhood. Officers respond to calls for service as well as initiating activities by
patrolling the neighborhood.
The surrounding area can be characterized as a mixed-use area. Commercial uses are
mostly located along Cleveland Street and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Residential uses generally
are located to areas south of this property. The residential shelter and police substation were
located purposefully adjacent to the soup kitchen, which is a permitted use, as being compatible
uses. While there are nearby businesses that sell alcoholic beverages, and many homeless
individuals are abusers of alcohol, there are probably no locations within the City of Clearwater
for a homeless shelter where alcoholic beverages could not be conveniently purchased.
Exceptions would be within residential areas where it would be relatively inconvenient to
purchase alcoholic beverages, but a homeless shelter would not be permitted there. Noise has
not appeared to be a factor in the neighborhood. Minimal traffic is attributable to the residential
shelter. Pedestrian traffic has been directed to sidewalks constructed along Evergreen and
Park Street, augmented by signage, to reduce pedestrian traffic in the adjacent residential
areas. Site lighting restrictions and methods to control lighting found acceptable in 1998 remain
valid. The location of the police substation, along with social services being provided, was a
requirement of the original approval. The police substation still exists on the property. As such,
the residential shelter was found to be a compatible use in 1996 and there is no evidence that
the use is not compatible today.
The analysis of the trial period includes a review of the residential shelter and police
substation, based on criteria set forth in the former Code Section 41.033 and the conditions of
approval imposed by the Planning and Zoning Board at its November 5, 1996, meeting,
including a review of surrounding property values and crime statistics, as detailed below. Based
on this analysis, the overall impact of the CHIP residential shelter and the police substation on
the surrounding mixed-use area appears not to be non-detrimental. As noted in the Final Order
from the State Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) issued February 26, 1997, most of
the complaints of adverse impact are from the operation of the soup kitchen, which is not being
Community Development 2003-07-15
25
.
debated here. Based on updated crime statistics and property values, the existence of the
CHIP shelter and police substation (over the years they have been open) did not have a positive
or negative impact on the surrounding area.
As part of the staff report in 1996 to the Planning and Zoning Board for this request,
information from the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's office was provided showing property
valuation history for properties within 1,000 feet of the subject property over a five-year time
period. The study showed no specific trend analysis. Of 287 properties studied, 35 properties'
valuations stayed the same, 141 properties' valuations increased, and 111 properties'
valuations decreased. The staff report also noted that a sampling of the largest declines
indicated that only 14 properties accounted for 82% of the decreases in property values of the
group of 111, including City-owned property, the GTE site, and the former Morrison's Cafeteria
site.
As part of this re-review, Pinellas County Property Appraiser's office information again
was surveyed for all properties within 1,000 feet for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and
2002. The just value of commercial properties, totaling 107 properties, showed 11 properties'
valuations stayed the same, 52 properties' valuations increased, and 44 properties' valuations
decreased. Of the 44 properties that decreased in value, 18 properties were commercial or
professional condominiums, and 16 were condominium conversions. Only 10 properties were
non-condominiums. Overall, the just value of commercial properties increased from
$21,863,000 to $23,889,50, or a 9.27% increase in valuation. The just value of residential
properties, totaling 263 properties, showed that five properties' valuations stayed the same, 242
properties' valuations increased, and 16 properties' valuations decreased. The just value of
residential properties increased from $18,589,800 to $24,371,400, or a 31.1 % increase.
.
The Final Order from DOAH in February 1997, found alleged adverse impacts were
attributable to the operation of the soup kitchen, which has caused properties closest to the
soup kitchen to decline in value. The Final Order noted that the evidence showed, on the
average within 1,000 feet of the subject property, there to be no trend of decreasing property
value as a result of the soup kitchen at that time. The Final Order also noted that the presence
of the soup kitchen, and those who use it, would not impact adversely the potential to increase
property values. A similar determination could be assumed in 2003.
Crime statistics were reviewed within the neighborhood surrounding the CHIP shelter
and for Clearwater on a Citywide basis. The surrounding neighborhood reviewed is bounded by
Cleveland Street on the north, Franklin Street on the south, South Hillcrest Avenue on the east,
and South Frederica and Waverly Way on the west. Crime statistics included Part I offences,
Part II offences, a combined total of Part I and Part II offences and Other Events. These
statistics are compiled for 1997 through 2002. The CHIP center and police substation opened
in April of 1998.
Part I offenses, as defined by the FBI, include aggravated assault, aggravated stalking,
arson, burglary/breaking & entering, forcible sex offenses, homicide, kidnap/abduction,
larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, robbery and simple assault. The CHIP area comprises a small
percentage of the overall Part I offenses within the City. In 1997, the CHIP area represented
just 1.03% of all Part I offenses in the City. Part I offenses in the CHIP area increased a small
amount to an average of 1.07% of the City's total for 1998 to 2002.
.
Part II offenses include bribery, counterfeit/forgery, destruction/vandalism, DUI (Driving
Under the Influence), drugs/narcotics offenses, embezzlement, extortion/blackmail, fraud,
Community Development 2003-07-15
26
.
.
.
gambling, intimidation, liquor law violations, non-forcible sex offenses, prostitution, simple
stalking, stolen property and weapons violations. The CHIP area also comprises a small
percentage of the overall Part II offenses within the City. In 1997, the CHIP area represented
2.31 % of all Part II offenses in the City. The Part II offenses in the CHIP area decreased to an
average of just 1.7% of the City's total for 1998 to 2002.
A combined total of all Part I and Part II crimes within the CHIP area shows a small
percentage of the total crimes within the City. In 1997, the CHIP area represented a total
percentage of only 1.42% of all crimes committed in the City. The Part I and Part II crimes
committed in the CHIP area, decreased to an average of 1.3% of the City's total crimes for 1998
to 2002.
The Police Department also keeps statistics on "Other Events," which generally are calls
for service, not crimes, which include: 911 hang up, abandoned vehicle, assist citizen, assist
other agency, Baker Act, civil matter, disturbance, domestic - verbal, false calls to 911, field
contact report, harassing phone calls, injured person, juvenile complaint, Marchman Act,
medical assist/transport, missing adult, natural/unattended death, neighbor problem, property -
disposal/destruction, found property, lost property, public accident, runaway/recovered runaway,
suspicious incident/person, traffic incident, trespass warning, and welfare check. Often times,
subsequent to dispatch and investigation of reported crimes by police officers, "reported" crimes
turn out not to be crimes and fall into the category of "Other Events." Some of these "events"
are officer-initiated calls for service. All contacts or activities are reported.
From its inception on April 20, 1998, the CHIP Shelter also has incorporated a fully
staffed community policing substation consisting, on average, of a staffing level with one
sergeant and eight officers. These officers patrol predominantly on bicycles, with a mandate for
proactive contact with residents, citizens, suspects, and suspicious behavior within the defined
geographical area. Proactive patrol of this nature generates a significant increase in officer-
initiated activities, calls for police service, and the investigation of crime and arrests. For Other
Events, the CHIP area represented a very small percentage of all calls within the City. In 1997,
the CHIP area represented just 0.68% of calls within the City. The "Other" calls within the CHIP
area increased a small amount to an average of 0.81 % of the City's total for 1998 to 2002.
There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site being handled by
the Planning, Building, or CRT (Community Response Team) departments. A complaint about
transients hanging around on private property was filed with CRT on May 7,2003, and referred
to the Police Department.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Conditional Use application for a
residential shelter and police substation, as part of the trial period review, required under
conditions of approval adopted on November 5, 1996, for the site at 1339, 1341 and 1345 Park
Street and 1344 Pierce Street, with Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the
former Code Section 41.033; 2) The proposal complies with the former Code General Standards
of Section 41.052 and the supplementary standards for the Public Safety Facilities and
Residential Shelters contained in Section 41.053; and 3) The proposal is in compliance with the
pending Downtown Plan Update AND Conditions: (* indicates prior condition of approval
adopted November 5, 1996 that is carried forward) 1) That the residential shelter only be
permitted while the police substation and other referral services are provided at this location;* 2)
That other expansions to the CHIP campus be reviewed by the Community Development Board;
3) That all site lighting continue to be equipped with a 90-degree cut-off mechanism, with the
light being directed downward and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights-
Community Development 2003-07-15
27
.
.
.
of-way, and additional lighting continue to illuminate the perimeter of the site adjacent to non-
residential areas;* 4) That efforts continue to be made on the part of the CHIP organizations
to contact specified neighborhood representatives to coordinate and communicate issues and
information on a regular basis or as requested;* 5) That the existing six-foot high fencing be
maintained on both sides (north and south) of the property to control site access;* 6) That wheel
stops for the three parking spaces east of the eastern driveway on Park Street be relocated to
the approved locations of 90-degree design parking to comply with the original approved site
plan, within 30 days; and 7) That signs be re-erected along the sidewalk from CHIP along the
south side of Park Street and the west side of Evergreen Avenue, directing pedestrians to utilize
that route, within 60 days.
It was recommended the third basis of approval, referencing the Downtown Plan Update,
be a commentary only as the current redevelopment plan for Clearwater does not include this
site.
Concern was expressed Planning & Zoning Board conditions had not been met as
stated by that board. It was stated as this use had not occurred previously, the board had
required a second approval to deal with unanticipated issues.
Jerry Figurski, attorney representing CHIP and St. Vincent de Paul, said the project had
met the conditions, as approved by the former department director, Scott Shuford. In reference
to Condition 1, he said unexpected funding needs resulted in delays, making it impossible to
obtain the occupational license within 9 months. Mr. Shuford had indicated the project's good
faith efforts met that condition. Mr. Figurski reviewed Mr. Shuford's memorandum related to the
sidewalk's location, which indicated the necessary property was not available and approved an
alternate pathway related to Condition 7. The property had been donated to a mosque.
Concern was expressed related signage requires replacement. In reference to Condition 3, he
said Mr. Shuford had approved the property lighting as installed. In reference to Condition 5, he
said on August 15, 1997, the neighborhood had requested meetings not be held regularly, but
only as needed.
Mr. Figurski presented the resumes of several presenters and requested they be
approved as expert witnesses.
Member Hooper moved to accept as expert witnesses: 1) Police Chief Sid Klein as an
expert on law enforcement; 2) Nina Bandoni as an expert on housing and community
development; 3) Steven J. Vinci, AlA, as an expert in the field of architecture; and 4) Nicholas A.
Clarizio, MAl, SRA, as an expert in the field of real estate appraisal. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Police Chief Sid Klein reviewed the history of CHIP and current statistics. He said the
program has made progress in dealing with homeless issues. He said CHIP has not had a
positive or negative impact on crime or calls for service during the past seven years. He
recommended the City not be forced to regress to 1993, but to move forward with creative and
responsible solutions. In response to a question, Police Chief Klein said the Police Substation
is staffed 16 hours per day. Officers are in the area 24 hours per day. The Substation is a
condition of approval and cannot be relocated away from the shelter. CHIP residents are locked
in at night.
Nina Bandoni, of Turnstone Properties, reviewed the suitability of the area for a
transitional housing site. She said the site is located on a cui de sac, buffered by commercial
Community Development 2003-07-15
28
.
.
.
property in front. She said a nearby housing development constructed in 1998 and 1999 had no
problems finding homebuyers. She said the slow decline of the east gateway area has occurred
over a 20-year period. She said a full survey of the community had been done. She said City
staff is trying to amortize out of the area check-cashing and day-labor businesses, improve the
area, and attract new businesses. She said CHIP met all Codes when constructed in 1997 and
1998, and remains a good site for the shelter. In response to a question, she said businesses
similarly have pulled out of areas on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and on Cleveland Street.
Nicholas Clarizio, Certified Real Estate appraiser, reviewed properties within a 1,000-
foot radius. In comparing property values from 1996 to 2002, he said 52 commercial properties
increased in value, 11 remained the same, and 44 decreased in value. Overall, subject
commercial properties increased in value by 9.27% during that time frame. He said of 263
residential properties, 242 increased in value, 5 remained the same, and 16 decreased in value.
He said overall, residential properties increased in value by 31 % in that time frame. In response
to a question, Mr. Clarizio said he works in many counties and did not analyze a comparison of
these properties with the rest of Clearwater.
In response to a question, Mr. Figurski said since the 1970s, several restaurants in the
nearby area had closed.
Seven people spoke in favor of the request and nine people spoke in opposition.
In response to comments, Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce said day labor is a
prohibited use in the pending Downtown Plan update for the East Gateway. She said the 1,000-
foot measurement used to consider property values was based on the measurement used in the
original request. Residential shelters are allowed in the City. Staff relies on the former
director's word that he was satisfied the shelter is in compliance with conditions established by
the Planning & Zoning Board. She said Code Enforcement has not been apprised of any
complaints related to the shelter's fencing or lighting.
In response to a comment, Mr. Figurski said there has been no recorded rape in the
area. Shelter residents cannot sneak in undetected as the rear of the building provides no
access. He noted Scott Shuford's comments had indicated he had met with the architect and
approved the lighting, covering the parking lot but projecting dimmer light on the new housing
development, as acceptable. Mr. Figurski said CHIP staff was willing to meet with the
community and discuss any issue. He said the Judge who heard the related Administrative
Hearing had determined the area was a mixed-use land area, not a residential neighborhood.
He said CHIP fits in within the framework of the East Gateway area. He said the City must
identify the location of emergency beds for the homeless and where care can be given. He said
the shelter is necessary to revitalize Downtown. He said vacancies are the problem for the
area, not the shelter.
Concern was expressed neighborhood meetings had not been scheduled as required.
Mr. Figurski said CHIP will take responsibility for scheduling meetings with the neighborhood. In
response to a question regarding photographs distributed to the board, Mr. Figurski said there is
no way to know if any transients shown are CHIP clients. There are many problems Downtown
related to homeless individuals who are not CHIP clients. The chronic homeless have difficulty
complying with the requirements of the CHIP program. The CHIP program has no authority
over those not in the program but only can encourage them to participate. There are insufficient
beds for all homeless individuals. CHIP offers 17 group meetings per week, as well as
substance abuse and mental health counseling. CHIP does not have the ability to solve all
Community Development 2003-07-15
29
.
.
.
homeless related problems. Concern was expressed improvements to the shelter will
encourage more homeless individuals to relocate to Downtown Clearwater. It was stated there
never will be enough money for Clearwater to solve this problem. In response to a question, Mr.
Figurski said St. Vincent de Paul located its soup kitchen there to be close to its consumers,
near bars and motels that accept transients, the blood bank, the park, bus station, and church
outreach programs.
Member Hooper noted paperwork referencing his membership on the CHIP Advisory
Board is incorrect. He previously resigned that position.
Discussion ensued regarding homeless related problems, City efforts to address them,
and the ongoing decline of the East Gateway area. Police Chief Klein was complimented for his
efforts. It was felt CHIP's level of accountability should be enhanced. It was felt CHIP is one of
the few entities in the area that can make a difference in the neighborhood. It was
recommended meetings with the neighborhood be held quarterly or monthly and minutes be
taken. Some type of documentation that efforts are made to hold meetings was requested.
It was recommended another one- or two-year trial period be required to determine
results and see if additional conditions should be imposed. Discussion ensued. It was
recommended specific measurable goals be established to help residents achieve
improvements in the neighborhood. It was recommended the CDB revisit this item in one year
to review feedback from neighbors, the City, and businesses and CHIP's accountability.
It was stated a temporary residential shelter will take 10 families off the street, an
important achievement. Ms. Dougall-Sides recommended a condition requiring meetings not be
a burden placed on the City. It was agreed CHIP should be responsible for having meetings.
Ms. Dougall-Sides recommended the City's role be limited. Proof was requested related to'
compliance with the Conditions of Approval. Ms. Fierce suggested all conditions, except for
Condition 1, are of a continuing nature. It was suggested staff report to the CDB about CHIP
adhering to the conditions of approval.
Discussion ensued regarding a motion for approval to include a review in 12 to 18
months and the ability to add conditions at that time. Concern was expressed CHIP is being
asked to meet a higher standard than other applicants, which receive outright approval or denial
of their requests. Police Chief Klein expressed concern continuing this item may impede CHIP's
ability to qualify for some grants. He said CHIP would accept the obligation and challenge to
hold quarterly neighborhood meetings. He said neighborhood and CHIP goals are the same.
He noted the CDB is not an enforcement agency. He said he will look to expand the Homeless
Task Force, but indicated that CHIP cannot address all of the problems in the neighborhood.
Mr. Figurski reported the review process is expensive. The motion was withdrawn.
Member Hooper moved to recommend approval of the Conditional Use application for a
residential shelter and police substation, as part of the trial period review, required under
conditions of approval adopted on November 5, 1996, for the site at 1339, 1341 and 1345 Park
Street, with Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the former Code Section 41.033
and 2) The proposal complies with the former Code General Standards of Section 41.052 and
the supplementary standards for the Public Safety Facilities and Residential Shelters contained
in Section 41.053 AND Conditions: (* indicates prior condition of approval adopted November 5,
1996 that is carried forward) 1) That the residential shelter only be permitted while the police
substation and other referral services are provided at this location;* 2) That other expansions to
the CHIP campus be reviewed by the Community Development Board; 3) That all site lighting
Community Development 2003-07-15
30
.
.
.
continue to be equipped with a 90-degree cut-off mechanism, with the light being directed
downward and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way, and
additional lighting continue to illuminate the perimeter of the site adjacent to non-residential
areas;* 4) That CHIP organizations meet with neighborhood representatives to coordinate and
communicate issues and information on a regular basis, not less than quarterly;* 5) That the
existing six-foot high fencing be maintained on both sides (north and south) of the property to
control site access;* 6) That wheel stops for the three parking spaces east of the eastern
driveway on Park Street be relocated to the approved locations of 90-degree design parking to
comply with the original approved site plan, within 30 days; and 7) That signs be re-erected
along the sidewalk from CHIP along the south side of Park Street and the west side of
Evergreen Avenue, directing pedestrians to utilize that route, within 60 days for at 1339, 1341 &
1345 Park St. and 1344 Pierce St., Brookwood Terrace, Blk 6, part of Lots 1,2,9-13 & N %
vacated St.; Tagerelli Sub, Blk 2, Lots 2-4; and Overbook Sub, Blk 6, Lots 7-10. The motion
was duly seconded.
Periodic updates on the shelter were requested. Police Chief Klein said notice of
meetings will be sent to all neighbors.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
The COB recessed from 5:42 to 5:52 p.m.
3. Case: FLD2003-02010 - 1353 - 1357 Park Street Level 2 Application
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project, Inc.
Representative: Nina Bandoni (Turnstone Properties) (work: 727.712.1196/fax:
727.723.9221/email: nina@turnstoneproperties.com ).
Location: 0.29 acre located on the south side of Park Street, approximately 500 feet
west of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 287B.
Zoning: C, Commercial District.
Request: Flexible Development approval for a residential shelter for 10 residents in eight
dwelling units with a reduction of the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 21 feet (to building), a
reduction of the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), reductions of the
rear (south) setback from 20 feet to five feet (to building) and from 20 feet to zero feet (to
pavement) and a reduction of required parking from five spaces to four spaces, as part of a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and a
Comprehensive Landscape Program, with reductions of landscape buffer widths along the west
property line from 10 feet to five feet and along the south property line from 10 feet to zero feet,
under the provisions of Section 3-1202. G.
Proposed Use: An eight dwelling unit (10 residents) transitional housing project.
Neighborhood Association: Gateway Neighborhood, Pat Vaughn, 1326 Pierce St., Apartment
Two, Clearwater, FL, 33756/727.461.7599.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner.
Mr. Wells reviewed the request. The rectangular site is 0.29-acre, located on the south
side of Park Street, approximately 500 feet west of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The site is presently
developed with two single-family dwellings. The site is located in a mixed-use area.
Commercial uses are located to the north fronting on Cleveland Street and to the east along
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Residential uses are generally south of Park Street and west of
Evergreen Avenue.
Community Development 2003-07-15
31
.
.
.
The site is adjacent to property owned by the Society of St. Vincent DePaul of Upper
Pinellas County, Inc., developed with a soup kitchen, a residential shelter for emergency shelter
(generally 16 days) run by the chip (Clearwater Homeless Intervention Program) and a police
substation. The soup kitchen is a permitted use, established in 1991. The CHIP residential
shelter and the police substation were approved on November 5, 1996, under Conditional Use
CU 96-46.
The Community Development Code defines a "residential shelter" as "a building or
buildings or portions thereof, the use of which is for a nonprofit service providing a place of
temporary residence or sustenance to homeless or needy persons or families." The purpose of
this facility is to provide transitional housing for persons that were homeless for a period of time,
up to two years. The location adjacent to the existing CHIPs center and St. Vincent DePaul
soup kitchen will allow clients to continue to receive program services, while gaining
independence. Individuals in this facility are required to have a job. The concept is to create a
campus-like setting and to provide a wide range of services to improve the quality of life for this
population.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single-family residences and
redevelop the site, constructing a residential shelter consisting of eight dwelling units for 10
residents. Two residential buildings situated around a courtyard will be constructed, with six
one-bedroom units and two, two-bedroom units. A laundry and storage building is proposed to
be located at the rear of the property, a parking area of four parking spaces is proposed at the
rear (south side) of the property, and a dumpster enclosure is proposed in the southwest corner
of the property. The building walls will be stucco finished of cream and terra cotta color and the
roof of anodized aluminum.
The site is located within the Commercial District, where residential shelters are not
listed as a permitted use. This request is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project as the only method the use can be requested within the Commercial
District. This request is similar to a residential shelter of eight units approved for the Homeless
Emergency Project at 1215 N. Betty Lane, which was also processed as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project in the Commercial District. Deviations are requested for setbacks,
landscape buffers, and parking.
The proposal includes reducing the front (north) setback along Park Street from 25 feet
to 21 feet to the proposed residential buildings. A reduction of the side (west) setback is
requested from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), as well as a reduction of the rear (south)
setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to five feet (to the
laundry/storage building). Like reductions to landscape buffer widths from 10 feet to five feet
(west) and to zero feet (south) are included as part of the request. Proposed units are of
minimal size and have been designed in two-story buildings to conserve land area. An oak tree
close to the west property line restricts development of the site. The proposed reductions on
this site are consistent with or exceed existing developed conditions of the surrounding area.
This site will provide landscaping in excess of that on surrounding properties.
The applicant is requesting a reduction of required parking from five to four parking
spaces (based on one space for each two residents). A handicap parking space is included.
Adequate off-street parking will be available for residents. The requested parking reduction is
justified as most residents of this temporary housing for the homeless will not own a vehicle.
Should parking become an issue, the adjacent parking lot to the south (for the soup kitchen) is
unused most of the time and may be available for a shared parking agreement.
Community Development 2003-07-15
32
. A trash enclosure is being provided in the southwest portion of the site for a rollout
dumpster. The trash enclosure must be consistent in materials and color as the principal
building (painted stucco). A staging area must be provided near Park Street, outside of the
drive aisle/ driveway, where the dumpster will be moved to by the property owner and then
removed by 7 p.m. on pickup days.
.
.
The Downtown Plan has been expanded to include an area, called the East Gateway
District, one of the character districts. The East Gateway area was targeted in 2002 as a
Community Redevelopment "Expansion" Area, and the City Commission and Board of County
Commissioners approved the CRA expansion in late 2002. This area is included in the
Downtown Plan and has been experiencing rapid deterioration and decline. An underlying
commercial constraint is the inappropriate day labor offices, which contribute to attracting
homeless individuals to the neighborhood. The East Gateway District is envisioned to continue
to be developed as a low and medium density residential neighborhood supported with
neighborhood commercial and professional offices. Commercial and office uses should be
concentrated along the Cleveland Street, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Court Street and Missouri
Avenue corridors. A key component of the development strategy for the East Gateway District
is the consolidation of the existing CHIP facilities into a "campus." This consolidation will
address the emergency needs of the downtown homeless, and negate any future intrusion of
scattered homeless facilities throughout the neighborhood. The proposed residential shelter is
consistent with the Downtown Plan Update.
The application and supporting materials were reviewed by the Development Review
Committee on March 13, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development approval for a residential shelter for 10 residents in eight dwelling units with a
reduction of the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 21 feet (to building), a reduction of the side
(west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), reductions of the rear (south) setback
from 20 feet to five feet (to building) and from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and a reduction
of required parking from five spaces to four spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and a Comprehensive
Landscape Program, with reductions of landscape buffer widths along the west property line
from 10 feet to five feet and along the south property line from 10 feet to zero feet, under the
provisions of Section 3-1202. G., for the site at 1353 - 1357 Park Street, with 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 similar
improvement efforts; and 4) The proposal furthers the goals/objectives within the pending
Downtown Plan Update regarding a campus setting for CHIPs AND Conditions: 1) That, should
on-site parking become insufficient, the property owner shall obtain necessary parking through a
shared parking agreement with an adjacent property; 2) That the laundry/storage building and
the trash enclosure be consistent in materials and color as the principal building (painted
stucco), acceptable to Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit; 3) That a trash
container staging area be provided near Park Street, outside of the drive aisle/driveway, where
the property owner will move the trash container to and then remove the trash container by 7
p.m. on pickup days. The site plan must be revised to show the staging area, acceptable to the
Solid Waste Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit; 4) That all Fire Department
requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; and 5) That evidence of a SWFWMD
permit be submitted to Planning staff prior to the issuance of any permits.
Community Development 2003-07-15
33
.
.
.
It was recommended the fourth basis for approval be deleted. Consensus was to delete
it.
Mr. Figurski requested documents presented for Case CU96-46 be accepted also for
this Case FLD2003-02010. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted several speakers in support of Case
CU96-46 had requested their testimony apply also to this case.
Member Hooper moved to adopt all documents submitted for Case CU96-46 be applied
to this Case FLD2003-02010 and to accept as expert witnesses: 1) Police Chief Sid Klein as an
expert on law enforcement; 2) Nina Bandoni as an expert on housing and community
development; 3) Steven J. Vinci, AlA, as an expert in the field of architecture; and 4) Nicholas A.
Clarizio, MAl, SRA, as an expert in the field of real estate appraisal. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Figurski presented a shared parking agreement for one space with the St. Vincent
DePaul property adjacent.
Steve Vinci reviewed the development, stating the project was designed to encourage
interaction between residents. Police Chief Klein said residents will be able to remain in this
program up to two years. Guidelines will mirror those of another transitional program run by the
Salvation Army. The apartments will be monitored weekly for cleanliness. Residents must
meet daily with a case manager. Care of the landscaping will continue as it is.
Ms. Bandoni stated the City's Consolidated Plan indicates there is a severe shortage of
affordable housing, which makes it difficult for CHIP clients to transition into the community.
Transitional housing has been identified as a specific need in the homeless arena. Residents
will continue to receive services necessary to move to the next phase of rehabilitation. Mr.
Clarizio reported the project will have no adverse effect on the value of adjoining properties.
Three people spoke in favor of the project. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated some speakers
had indicated they wished their comments to also reference this case.
Member Gildersleeve moved to accept related comments in support of Case CU96-46
as testimony for this Case FLD2003-02010. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Four people spoke in opposition to the project. It was stated some speakers had wished
their comments to also reference this case.
Member Hooper moved to accept related comments in opposition to Case CU96-46 as
testimony for this Case FLD2003-02010. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
It was recommended CHIP develop a master plan for its campus, similar to one
established by Morton Plant Hospital.
Mr. Figurski requested that all comments in support of Case CU96-46 be accepted as
testimony for this Case FLD2003-02010.
Member Mazur moved to accept all comments in support of Case CU96-46 as testimony
for this Case FLD2003-0201 O. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2003-07-15
34
.
.
.
In response to a question, Mr. Figurski said not all residents will own vehicles.
Residents will pay rent, purchase groceries, cook meals, and participate in a mandatory savings
program. Case management, observation, counseling services, and group meetings will be on-
site. Residents will not be permitted to have overnight guests. It is hoped residents will form
their own mentoring group. Individualized goal plans will determine the lengths of stay.
Concern was expressed about approving this expansion of CHIP before a master plan is
developed. It was felt the campus will provide a great benefit to residents.
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve the Flexible Development for a residential
shelter for 10 residents in eight dwelling units with a reduction of the front (north) setback from
25 feet to 21 feet (to building), a reduction of the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to
pavement), reductions of the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to five feet (to building) and from
20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and a reduction of required parking from five spaces to four
spaces, as part of a Comprehensive lnfill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-704.C, and a Comprehensive Landscape Program, with reductions of landscape
buffer widths along the west property line from 10 feet to five feet and along the south property
line from 10 feet to zero feet, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G., for the site at 1353-
1357 Park Street, with 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 similar improvement efforts AND Conditions: 1) That,
should on-site parking become insufficient, the property owner shall obtain necessary parking
through a shared parking agreement with an adjacent property (the applicant submitted a
shared parking agreement at the meeting to fulfill this requirement); 2) That the laundry/storage
building and the trash enclosure be consistent in materials and color as the principal building
(painted stucco), acceptable to Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit; 3) That a
trash container staging area be provided near Park Street, outside of the drive aisle/ driveway,
where the property owner will move the trash container to and then remove the trash container
by 7 p.m. on pickup days. The site plan must be revised to show the staging area, acceptable
to the Solid Waste Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit; 4) That all Fire
Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; and 5) That evidence of a
SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District) permit be submitted to Planning
staff prior to the issuance of any permits at 1353 & 1357 Park St., Overbrook Sub., Blk 6, Lots
3-6. The motion was duly seconded. and carried unanimously. Members Hooper,
Gildersleeve, Moran, Mazur, and Doran, and Chair Petersen voted "Aye"; Acting Member Milam
voted "Nay." Motion carried.
4. Case: T A2003-01002 - Code Amendments Level 3 Application
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code as relating to Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Projects, prohibited signs, residential, adopt-a-park and portable storage unit
signage, changes to the length of time for Level One (Flexible Standard Development) and
Level Two (Flexible Development) reviews, various clarifications with regard to Level One and
Level Two reviews, clarification of the effect of a Level One (Flexible Standard Development)
and Level Two (Flexible Development) approvals, minor amendment provisions regarding
changes to Level Two development approvals, increasing the number of times and under what
circumstances Level One (Flexible Standard Development) and Level Two (Flexible
Development) approvals can be extended and adding a definition for adopt-a-park signs.
Community Development 2003-07-15
35
.
.
.
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner.
Ms. Dougall-Sides reported advertising for this item had not been proper and requested
the item be continued.
Member Gildersleeve moved to continue Item #E4, Case: TA2003-01002 - Code
Amendments, be continued to August 19, 2003. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS:
Time Extension Request - 301 South Gulfview Blvd. - Marriott Seashell Resort - FLD 02-04-12.
Ms. Fierce reviewed the time extension request. In August 2002, the COB had approved
the original request to construct an interim parking lot within one year. Due to litigation, the
applicant has requested a 9-month, 6-day extension.
Richard Gehring, representative, reviewed the request. He said the project intends to
construct the parking lot to tie in with City plans for Beach Walk.
Member Moran moved to extend the deadline for Case FLD 02-04-12 by 9 months and 6
days. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Documentation
It was stated significant paperwork is being distributed to board members at the
beginning of meetings. Concern was expressed members and staff do not have adequate time
to review the documents. Discussion ensued. Ms. Dougall-Sides said if an emergency occurs,
a continuance can be requested.
Consensus was to reinstate deadlines for documentation submittal, but not citizen
comment.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m.
~ Qr~~
Chair
Community Development Board
&
1/ . I{{/{; )71 ()JJIJ
oar eporter
Community Development 2003-07-15
36
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAS NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAM NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSiON,
. ' ~ ~
..\ILlNG ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUT
WHICH I SERVE is A UNIT OF:
"B'"tITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
N~F POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
MY POSITION IS:
o ELECTIVE
~POINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
, '
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on afi appointe'd or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee, It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
.Ire which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
, parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community rede~lopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or I'
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity. I
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
'.YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
fAKEN:
· You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes, (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF, 1/2000
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
· A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
, . .
.,' Th~:fon'~.lTlust'b~ read;publioly. at1he next.f!1'!3$ing after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:,
'.
, .
· You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
.. . ......
· You must complete the form and file it fi,ithin.1 B dais after the vote occurs with the 'person responsible for recordih9 the mfntltes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form' must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, ~~\\.\ ~. ~\>f:k.
, hereby disclose that on
--.l~\~ \~
\
,20~:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
,...........
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of
whom I am retained; or
'.
, by
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
,which
~
> ~(\S:'~ ~~~ ~)u~
~~ ~~~ ~\5~u:..~ ~~
.
~~~ ~'\ ~\W~~tl.. \ 1>t~(:.\~~~ ~~ t\\\e.\{L
~~... ~~~~\':.\) ~~~e.\~~~~~.
~\ vA, ~
Date Filed'
::fJQ~~
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHME~
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, O;~,
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. i
CE FORM 86 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: Julv 15.2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
1339, 1341, 1345 Park Street
/ 1344 Pierce Street
CU96-46
Clearwater Homeless Intervention
Project, Inc. (CHIP) and
City of Clearwater
Lyes
no
1353 - 1357 Park Street
FLD2003-02010
Clearwater Homeless Intervention
Project, Inc.
V yes
no
200 Palm Island S.W.
FLD2003-04021
Mr. Jerry Bednarski
~es
no
18855 U.S. Highway 19 North
FLD2003-05024
Dr. Donna Shannon
Y yes
no
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Meeting Date July 15, 2003
3080 Allen Avenue
ANX2003-050ll
V yes
no
3080 Allen Avenue
LUZ2003-05004
\I yes
no
1120 Woodlawn Street
LUZ2003-05003
k yes
no
1856 East Drive
ANX2003-050 1 0
y
no
yes
Signature:
Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen
Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen
Tampa Bay Community Development
Corporation & Largo Area Housing
Development Corporation
Louis LjuLjic
Date:
1 (l (0)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: Julv 15.2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
1339, 1341, 1345 Park Street
/ 1344 Pierce Street
yes
1353 - 1357 Park Street
yes
200 Palm Island S.W.
yes
18855 U.S. Highway 19 North
yes
j
CU96-46
Clearwater Homeless Intervention
Project, Inc. (CHIP) and
City of Clearwater
no
FLD2003-02010
Clearwater Homeless Intervention
Project, Inc.
-Lno
J
FLD2003-04021
Mr. Jerry Bednarski
no
FLD2003-05024
jno
Dr. Donna Shannon
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Meeting Date July 15, 2003
3080 Allen Avenue
yes
3080 Allen Avenue
yes
1120 Woodlawn Street
yes
1856 East Drive
yes
ANX2003-05011
I no
LUZ2003-05004
Ino
LUZ2003-05003
I
no
ANX2003-05010
/
no
Signature:
f~
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D SICDS, P operty investigation check list. doc
Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen
Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen
Tampa Bay Community Development
Corporation & Largo Area Housing
Development Corporation
Louis LjuLjic
Date:
/0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: Julv 15,2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
1339, 1341, 1345 Park Street
/1344 Pierce Street
~yes
1353 - 1357 Park Street
-------yes
200 Palm Island S.W.
~yes
18855 U.S. Highway 19 North
----
yes
CU96-46
no
FLD2003-020 1 0
no
FLD2003-04021
no
FLD2003-05024
no
Clearwater Homeless Intervention
Project, Inc. (CHIP) and
City of Clearwater
Clearwater Homeless Intervention
Project, Inc.
Mr. Jerry Bednarski
Dr. Donna Shannon
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Meeting Date July 15, 2003
3080 Allen Avenue
ANX2003-050 11
~yes
no
3080 Allen Avenue
LUZ2003-05004
-------. yes
no
1120 Woodlawn Street
LUZ2003-05003
~yes
no
1856 East Drive
ANX2003-050 1 0
~yes
no
Si~atur~~
S:IPlanning Departmel1llC D SICDS. property investigation check list. doc
Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen
Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen
Tampa Bay Community Development
Corporation & Largo Area Housing
Development Corporation
Louis LjuLjic
\\ \S\~e:
\
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: Julv 15. 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
1339, 1341, 1345 Park Street
/1344 Pierce Street
-vfe~
1353 - 1357 parle,
200 Palm Island S.W.
yes
18855 U.S. Highway 19 North
~s
CU96-46
no
FLD2003-020 1 0
no
FLD2003-04021
\_/no
FLD2003-05024
no
Clearwater Homeless Intervention
Project, Inc. (CHIP) and
City of Clearwater
Clearwater Homeless Intervention
Project, Inc.
Mr. Jerry Bednarski
Dr. Donna Shannon
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Meeting Date July 15,2003
3080 Allen Avenue
ANX2003-05011
Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen
V;:~
no
3080 Allen Avenue
LUZ2003-05004
Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen
/
,/ yes
no
1120 Woodlawn Street
LUZ2003-05003
Tampa Bay Community Development
Corporation & Largo Area Housing
Development Corporation
yes
~' no
1856 East Drive
ANX2003-05010
Louis LjuLjic
yes
/
\/ no
Date: '11 \S ) D3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: Julv 15.2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
1339, 1341, 1345 Park Street
/1344 Pierce Street
CU96-46
Clearwater Homeless Intervention
Project, Inc. (CHIP) and
City of Clearwater
yes
-l-no
1353 - 1357 Park Street
FLD2003-020 1 0
Clearwater Homeless Intervention
Project, Inc.
yes +no
200 Palm Island S.W.
FLD2003-04021
Mr. Jerry Bednarski
yes +00
18855 U.S. Highway 19 North
FLD2003-05024
Dr. Donna Shannon
~no
yes
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Meeting Date July 15,2003
3080 Allen Avenue
ANX2003-05011
Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen
4-00
yes
3080 Allen Avenue
LUZ2003-05004
Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen
yes
-foo
1120 Woodlawn Street
LUZ2003-05003
Tampa Bay Community Development
Corporation & Largo Area Housing
Development Corporation
yes
-400
1856 East Drive
ANX2003-05010
Louis LjuLjic
->So
yes
Signature:
? ~)~ }
! I '0 Date: