Loading...
07/20/1999COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER July 20, 1999 Present: Gerald Figurski Chair Edward Mazur, Jr. Vice Chair (arrived 1:44 p.m.) David Gildersleeve Board Member William Johnson Board Member Shirley Moran Board Member Carlen A. Petersen Board Member Alex Plisko Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Ralph Stone Planning Director Cynthia Hardin Assistant Planning Director Antonia Gerli Senior Planner Gary Jones Senior Planner Teresa Mancini Planner Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, and a review of meeting procedures and the appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Item 1 – Requests for Continuance – None. Item 2 – Level 2 Applications A. McDonald’s Corporation is requesting flexible development approval of a commercial infill project consisting of a fast-food restaurant with front yard setbacks of 10 feet and 5.1 feet at 539 South Missouri Avenue. For almost 30 years, McDonald’s has occupied this non-conforming site that abuts 3 streets, each requiring a 25-foot setback. When properties are adjacent to 3 streets, the Planning Department treats the 3rd side as a side yard. McDonald’s requests a 25-foot setback on Missouri Avenue, a 10-foot setback on Rogers Street, and a 5-foot setback on Turner Street. The applicant wishes to use flexible standards for two setbacks. The project’s principal street frontage is on Missouri Avenue. Commercial uses dominate the area. Nearby redevelopment will change the area’s character to a mixed-use of residential and commercial properties. McDonald’s proposes to replace the building with one 200 feet smaller, reduce the number of parking spaces from 77 to 51, reduce the impermeable surface ratio from 91% to 73%, and increase open space. The applicant’s landscape plan is attractive. The Code does not allow a reduction of parking spaces at fast food restaurants. Off-street parking will be eliminated. McDonald’s also requests approval of the landscaping plan. Staff recommends approval of the proposed in-fill redevelopment project and comprehensive landscape. P.J. Shah, representative, thanked staff for guiding the applicant through the new Code. The project will be well landscaped, and improve internal and external traffic flow, trash pick-up, and drainage. The project will not adversely affect adjacent property owners. He said McDonald’s prefers to construct new buildings rather than fix old ones. In response to a question, Mr. Shah said the restaurant will remain open while the new building is constructed. Upon completion, the old building will be razed and the parking area and landscaping modified. In response to a question, James Dunkle, McDonald’s Construction Manager, said the applicant will work with staff and submit a plan regarding site lighting. In response to a comment, Planning Director Ralph Stone said Code encourages lighting used to enhance landscaping to be extinguished when businesses close. Member Johnson moved that based on the findings and conclusions stated in the staff reported prepared by the Clearwater Planning Department, the information submitted by the applicant, and by the testimony heard today, the application submitted by McDonald’s Corporation is in compliance with the Community Develop Plan, therefore, he moved that the Community Development Board approve the request for flexible development approval filed by McDonald’s Corporation at 539 South Missouri Avenue be granted. The motion was duly seconded and carried 6:0. Member Mazur was not present for the vote. B. William and Hope Georgilas (American Infoage, LLC, agent) are requesting flexible development approval of a communication tower at 505 Virginia Lane. American Infoage, which provides towers to collocate communication industry antennae, requests flexible development approval to construct a 160-foot tower capable of supporting at least 3 users. No user contracts have been finalized. Use of the on-site office building will not change. The Code sets no standards in the Commercial District for communication towers. The tower would be 100 feet south of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The applicant has reported the tower at Clearwater High School cannot support additional weight or antennae but did not submit evidence supporting those conclusions. Staff provided a letter from the Pinellas County School Board indicating they had reached no conclusion regarding use of the tower at Clearwater High School. The applicant has indicated that the prposed tower must be located in this geographical area in order to cover a specific range of broadcasting. If approved, staff recommends limiting the tower’s height to 100 feet until proof of signed contracts by 3 users are presented. The tower will be nonreflective. A color sample will be submitted prior to building permit approval. The site plan does not include a required 10-foot landscaping buffer. The tower could be moved 5 feet east from its proposed location. The applicant also will provide the buffer required along Virginia Street. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the Telecommunications Act of 1996, provides for local zoning authorities to regulate the placement of towers with restrictions. The board may not discriminate when making its determination nor take action, which may prohibit the provision of area service. Miller Cooper, representative, said the building will shelter the tower from the nearby neighborhood. The applicant is acquiring 3 acres to enlarge property buffers to the south and east. He said the School Board’s tower cannot handle additional users. He said while the tower's impact on surrounding areas will be minimal, available services for telecommunication and data processing will be significantly enhanced. He reviewed landscaping plans, noting trees buffer the property. He said a locked gate and fence will protect the communication tower which will be unlit, unmanned, and will not impact City water, traffic, or sewer services. The tower will provide service for new carriers. In response to a question, he said no houses will be razed for this project. It was stated the City had denied 2 previous requests for towers at this location. One member personally experienced cellular telephone problems in an area between Keene Road and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. It was felt input from the Pinellas County School Board regarding that tower is necessary before the issue can be determined. It was questioned if the proposed location is best. In response to a question, Mr. Cooper said staff recommended conditions indicate no reasonable use exists on the School Board's tower. He said the 160-foot height is requested to limit the need for more towers. Reg Alford, former AT&T employee, Robert Hardee, GTE Wireless representative, and Darren Newsum, PrimeCo representative, said each company has petitioned the School Board to use the Clearwater High tower but it cannot accommodate additional communication needs. The company representatives reported a need for additional telecommunication antennae. One resident spoke in opposition to the proposed tower. Seven letters of support were submitted. Senior Planner Antonia Gerli said the proposed tower is surrounded by commercial uses. Once fenced and landscaped, it will not be highly visible from Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard traffic or nearby residential areas. Ms. Dougall-Sides said letters had been sent to the School Board requesting plans for the Clearwater High School tower. The School Board has never indicated plans to add antennae. Concern was expressed this information could be hearsay as no School Board member was present. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said denial of the request must be based on substantial competent evidence. It was requested the applicant prove the Clearwater High School tower can not handle this proposed use and that staff present a definitive response from the School Board regarding this issue. Member Moran moved to continue Item #2B to September 21, 1999. The motion was duly seconded and carried 7:0. C. Larry and Marcella Wing are requesting flexible development approval of a residential infill project to create Wing Subdivision with Lot 2 having 19,052 square feet and with Lot 4 having a width of 43.42 feet and a side setback of 7 feet. The project is located off Union Street in the Southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 28 South, Range 16 East. The owners request flexible development approval for a 6-lot residential in-fill subdivision. Flexible standards refer to: 1) Lot 2 is 19,052 square feet; 2) Lot 4 has a shed and 7-foot side setback; and 3) Lot 4 will be 73-feet wide at the setback line. The owners have petitioned for City annexation. The 3-acre parcel has one single family residence, a garage, and shed. The proposed project complies with density requirements. On June 17, 1999, the DRC (Development Review Committee) recommended the City Commission approve the plat. The project was submitted as residential in-fill because it does not comply with the criteria for detached dwellings. While the lot width, lot area, and setback standards comply with the flexible standard criteria for detached dwellings, Level 1 flexible approval may be granted only for corner or existing lots. Existing structures comply with setback requirements. As 4 lots are not developed, setback, height, etc., will be reviewed after applications for building permits are submitted. These lots will meet Level 1 standard criteria. Based on the application, staff feels the proposal complies with Code and recommends approval. In response to a question, Ms. Gerli said Lot 4 is 27 feet short of the required 100-foot width and has a shed in the side setback. It was stated as Lot 4 is on a cul-de-sac, the lot should be of sufficient size for a house. In response to a question, Assistant Planning Director Cindy Hardin said the deed should illustrate the retention pond. Engineering has allowed retention areas to be counted toward lot area even though they are not buildable. Vincent Corbitt, representative, thanked staff for their efforts. He said the tractor shed will be removed from Lot 4. He stated Mr. Wing has owned the property for 20 years, and wants to maintain the trees. Reduction of Lot 2 will keep it from blocking the front of his house. The pond must remain in its designated location to maintain the view on Union Street. Mr. Wing has paved a driveway and made other improvements in anticipation of this design. Larry Wing, applicant, said the retention pond is part of an easement. The owner of Lot 1 will be required to grant an easement for the pond, which will be maintained by the Homeowner’s Association. Member Johnson moved that based on the findings and conclusions stated in the staff report prepared by the Clearwater Planning Department, by the information submitted by the applicant, and by the testimony heard today, the application submitted by Larry and Marcella Wing is in compliance with the Community Development Code. Therefore, he moved that the Community Development Board approve the request for flexible development approval filed by Larry and Marcella Wing at 2890 and 2892 Union Street be granted, to be effective upon annexation by the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried 7:0. Item 3 – Level 3 Applications - None. ANNEXATIONS A. Larry and Marcella Wing are petitioning to annex 2892 Union Street and the surrounding land into the City of Clearwater with a zoning district of Low Density Residential and a land use category of Residential Suburban. The property owners have requested annexation of the 3.5-acre property to receive water and sewer service. The property will have a land use plan designation of Residential Suburban and be zoned Low Density Residential (LDR). The site has one single family residence, a garage, and carport. The owners propose to subdivide the property into six residential lots to be sold. Annexation does change the zoning. The proposed use is consistent with this plan category, the City’s Comprehensive Plan in the Future Land Use Map and goals and policies of the Plan. Annexation will not create a new enclave. The applicants are responsible for sewer impact fees and the cost to extend sewer service. Lot owners will pay appropriate impact fees when building permits are issued. The lots can be sold with approval of flexible standards. Lots will meet minimum size requirements for the zoning district. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Member Johnson moved that based on the findings and conclusions stated in the staff report prepared by the Clearwater Planning Department and by the information submitted by the applicant, the application for annexation submitted by Larry and Marcella Wing is consistent with the standards for approval enumerated in Section 4-604 F. of the Community Development Code. Therefore, he moved that the Community Development Board recommend to the City Commission that the annexation requested by Larry and Marcella Wing at 2890 Union Street and 2892 Union Street be granted. The motion was duly seconded and carried 7:0. B. Russell and Sydney Jacobs are petitioning to annex 2854 Saint John Drive with a land use category of Residential Urban and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential. The owners request annexation to receive water and sewer service. The vacant property will retain its land use plan designation of Residential Urban and is proposed to be zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The owners plan to build a single-family residence and paid the sewer impact fee on May 22, 1999. The applicants will be responsible for extending sewer service, the tap fee, and utility deposit. The annexation will not adversely effect public facilities and service levels. A review of the site plan indicates proposed construction can meet LMDR district requirements as a standard development. No Countywide Plan policies affect this application, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Countywide Plan, goals, policies, and Florida law. Staff recommends approval. Member Johnson moved that based on the findings and conclusions stated in the staff report prepared by the Clearwater Planning Department and by the information submitted by the applicants, the application for annexation submitted by Russell and Sydney Jacobs is consistent with the standards for approval enumerated in Section 4-604 F. of the Community Development Code. Therefore, he moved that the Community Development Board recommend to the City Commission that the annexation requested by Russell and Sydney Jacobs at 2854 Saint John Drive be granted. The motion was duly seconded and carried 7:0. Member Johnson moved that based on the findings and conclusions stated in the staff reported prepared by the Clearwater Planning Department and by the information submitted by the applicant, the adoption of a future land use map designation of Residential Urban and a zoning designation of Low Medium Density Residential is consistent with the standards for approval enumerated in Section 4-602 F. and Section 4-603 F. of the Community Development Code. Therefore, he moved that the Community Development Board recommend to the City Commission that the comprehensive plan amendment and the zoning atlas amendment requested by Russell and Sydney Jacobs at 2854 Saint John Drive be granted. The motion was duly seconded and carried 7:0. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS C. EAR based Comprehensive Plan Amendments: An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, amending the Comprehensive Plan of the City as adopted on November 16, 1989, including amendments to the future land use, traffic circulation, coastal zone management, conservation, intergovernmental coordination and capital improvements elements; providing an effective date. These amendments are proposed pursuant to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Regulations. Ms. Hardin said this is the board's second public hearing related to EAR. In June, all elements were presented except for Intergovernmental Coordination and Capital Improvement. Planner Teresa Mancini reviewed changes to the draft. She said the ICE (Intergovernmental Coordination Element) changes clarify and reflect new or changed conditions in the City. Senior Planner Gary Jones reported a policy conflict regarding the proposal in Policy 19.3.3. of the Coastal Management Element. While the policy indicates the City will provide trolley service between the mainland and Clearwater beach, the proposed City budget eliminates that service. Mr. Stone suggested amending the language. In response to a question, Ms. Hardin said consistency is necessary. The Commission can make the change. Ms. Hardin reviewed changes to the Capital Improvement Element: 1) Policy 28.1.8 - Penny for Pinellas LGIS (Local Government Infrastructure Surtax) approved; 2) Policy 28.2.1 - rewritten with same effect; 3) Policy 28.3.7 - deleted pages 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14; 4) Policies 28.3.8, 28.3.9, and 28.3.10 - deleted as impact fee was adopted; 5) Policy 28.5 and 28.5.1 - revised; and 6) Policy 6.1.1 - condensed Capital Improvement Program for FY (fiscal year) 2000-05. Staff requested the board recommend the Commission adopt the capital improvement budget. In response to a question, Ms. Hardin said the element must be amended annually. The Front Porch Initiative is not included. After analyzing that issue, staff will bring back recommendations. These EAR based amendments comply with State requirements. One person spoke in favor of protecting the City's history and residential character. Member Gildersleeve moved to recommend approval of the EAR-based amendments as requested, changing the language in Policy 19.3.3 of the Coastal Management Element from “shall continue” to “encourages” regarding trolley service between the mainland and beach, as suggested by staff. The motion was duly seconded and carried 7:0. D. Amendment to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan: Resolution No. 99-35 A resolution of the Clearwater City Commission amending the Community Redevelopment Plan for the downtown area of the City of Clearwater to change the Medium/high Density Residential classification of two parcels located north of Park Street between Myrtle Avenue and Greenwood Avenue to the commercial/office/residential Classification; to change the Open Space/Recreation classification of parcels located from Myrtle Avenue east to Ewing Street and from Park Street south to Court Street to the commercial/Office/Residential classification; and to change the Medium/High Density residential classification of properties located on the north side of South Greenwood Avenue from Park Street south to Chestnut Avenue and properties located south of Court Street north of Chestnut Street from Myrtle Avenue to South Prospect Avenue to the Commercial/Office/Residential classification. Ms. Mancini said the City Commission had adopted the Community Redevelopment Plan in August 1995 and amended it last October. The Plan divides downtown into 5 districts with land use designations, permitted uses, and maximum densities. Since its adoption, downtown conditions have changed. Staff proposes changes: 1) amend land use of 2 parcels north of Park Street from Medium High Density Residential to Commercial Office Residential; 2) amend land use designation of the proposed pond location from Open Space Recreation to Commercial Office Residential; and 3) amend land use designation of parcels between South Greenwood Avenue and Myrtle Avenue and the block northeast of the Myrtle Street/Chestnut Avenue intersection from Medium High Density Residential to Commercial Office Residential. The proposals will encourage mixed-use development and allow the City to respond to future development initiatives. The pond is a central amenity within the redevelopment area. Modifications will allow developers to reconfigure the pond consistent with the development pattern. Currently, the subject properties have commercial and residential uses. In response to a question, Ms. Mancini said the pond is not reflected in the plan. The City intends for development to reconfigure the pond's design to maximize benefits. Mr. Stone said staff had contacted surrounding property owners regarding the proposed zoning change and had received no objections. Development interests have indicated a need for flexibility in this area. In response to a question, he said boundaries can extend beyond the redevelopment plan. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides indicated no conflict of interest exists for Member Mazur. Member Gildersleeve moved approval to amend the Downtown Redevelopment Plan as follows: 1) amend land use of 2 parcels north of Park Street from Medium High Density Residential to Commercial Office Residential; 2) amend land use designation of the proposed pond location Open Space Recreation to Commercial Office Residential; and 3) amend land use designation of parcels between South Greenwood Avenue and Myrtle Avenue and the block northeast of the Myrtle Street/Chestnut Avenue intersection from Medium High Density Residential to Commercial Office Residential. The motion was duly seconded and carried 7:0. Item 4 – Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings – June 15, 1999 Member Johnson moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of June 15, 1999, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried 7:0. Item 5 – Chairman’s Items – None. Item 6 – Board’s Items Staff was complimented for efforts regarding the new code. Member Plisko questioned permit fees charged one of his clients. Staff will research the matter and respond. Item 7 – Director’s Items Mr. Stone tendered staff names for approval as expert witnesses: 1) Michael Holmes, Housing Manager - expert witness in housing; 2) Nina Badoni, Assistant Housing Director - expert witness in housing; 3) Tom Mudano, Neighborhood Service Manager - expert witness in neighborhood services; and 4) Etim Udoh, Senior Planner - expert witness in annexation, land use rezoning and demographics. Member Mazur moved to accept Michael Holmes, Nina Badoni, Tom Mudano, and Etim Udoh as expert witnesses in their fields. The motion was duly seconded and carried 7:0. A list of all board approved expert witnesses and their fields of expertise was requested. Mr. Stone said the board will receive suggested options to simplify motions. Member Johnson moved to direct staff to report on Pinellas County School Board intentions regarding the Clearwater High School tower. The motion was duly seconded and carried 7:0. Item 8 – Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:41 p.m.