Loading...
07/17/2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER July 17, 2001 Present: Gerald Figurski Chair Carlen A. Petersen Vice Chair David Gildersleeve Board Member Edward Mazur, Jr. Board Member Shirley Moran Board Member Alex Plisko Board Member Ed Hooper Board Member Frank Hibbard Alternate Board Member/voting Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Cynthia Tarapani Assistant Planning Director Lisa L. Fierce Development Review Manager Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM A – APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING : June 19, 2001 Member Petersen moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 19, 2001, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion carried was duly seconded andunanimously. ITEM B – REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES/RECONSIDERATION - None. ITEM C – RECONSIDERED ITEMS – None. ITEM D – LEVEL 3 APPLICATIONS CONSENT AGENDA – Accepted as submitted, less Items #E1, #E2, and #E4. Consent Agenda items require no formal public hearing and are subject to approval by a single motion. Any Community Development Board Member or the City Planner may remove an item from the Consent Agenda for individual discussion and vote. 2855 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Item #D1 – : Morton Plant Mease Life Services, Inc. – Owner/Applicant. Request rezoning of 2.71 acres approximately 650 feet south of Gulf- to-Bay Boulevard, and 500 feet east of Sky Harbor Drive, from MDR, Medium Density Residential District, to MHDR, Medium High Density Residential District, consisting of a Z portion of Section 17, Township 29 South, Range 16 East (Bayside Nursing Pavilion). 01-05-01 The property owner isrequesting a zoning of 2.71 acres from Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) zoning mcd0701 1 07/17/01 district in order to allow the nursing home to be a conforming use. While the non- conformity does not affect the current use of the property, it could create a problem if there were damages to the property to the extent that it had to be rebuilt. The site has sufficient density through its Residential Medium plan category and the proposed MHDR zoning is consistent with the current plan category. On April 5, 1994, the former Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing for a Zoning Atlas Amendment (Case Number Z94-02) to Multiple-Family Residential “Sixteen” (RM-16), after which they unanimously endorsed the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment to the Commission. On April 21, 1994, the Commission approved the rezoning request of this property to increase allowable density to permit the construction of a 120-bed nursing facility at this site. On January 5, 1996, the final site plan for Bayside Nursing Pavilion was approved which reflected the amended zoning district. Since then this facility has been functioning and operating with the approved density. However, following the adoption of the new Community Development Code in January 21, 1999, the RM-16 zoning district was reclassified as Medium Density Residential (MDR). The MDR zoning district under the current Code does not permit the nursing home in this district. As a result, the facility (Bayview Nursing Pavilion) is a legally non- conforming use in this district. The owner intends to sell the property separately from the adjacent apartments. An access easement through other properties to a public road and a drainage agreement (to accept water and maintenance requirements) are required prior to the Commission first reading on August 16, 2001. No replat of the property is required. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not conflict with the needs and character of the neighborhood and City, does not require nor affect the provision of the public services, and the boundaries are appropriately drawn. Staff recommends approval. AND 2780 Drew Street Item #D2- : City of Clearwater, c/o Art Kader, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation – Owner/Applicant. Request: 1) Land use plan amendment from RM, Residential Medium Classification to R/OS, Recreation/Open Space Classification, and 2) rezoning from MDR, Medium Density Residential District to O/SR, Open Space/Recreation District, consisting of a portion of Section 8, Township 29 South, LUZ 01-04-05 Range 16 East, M&B 34.04. The property owner has requested this plan amendment and rezoning application for a City park with two softball fields. The property recently was transferred to City ownership from Calvary Baptist Church as part of a land swap for Chesapeake Park. It is zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) with a corresponding Residential Medium future land use plan classification. The site is vacant and involves 217,800 square feet or 5.0 acres of land. The two proposed softball fields will be a part of the Eddie C. Moore Softball Complex, which is located east of the subject property. The proposed amendment will result in a less intensive use of the subject site. The current Residential Medium Plan classification will allow the proposed development of a park at this site under flexible development criteria. However, the Park’s Department is requesting these amendments to insure that this facility will be protected by ordinance for future generations and to comply with the protections mcd0701 2 07/17/01 afforded parklands zoned Open Space/Recreation in accordance with Article II, Section 2.01 (5)(V) City Code of Ordinances. This Section of the Ordinance states that “No municipally owned real property identified as recreation/open space on the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan map on November 16, 1989 (or as may be amended thereafter), may be sold, donated, leased for a new use, or otherwise transferred without prior approval at referendum, except when the Commission determines it appropriate to dedicate right-of-way from such property. Such recreation/open space property may be leased for an existing use, without referendum, unless such lease is otherwise prohibited by charter or ordinance.” The Pinellas Planning Council will review this request as a Level 1-Type E sub-threshold amendment since the plan category requested is for the Recreation/Open Space. As a sub-threshold, the review process is substantially streamlined to recognize the low potential impact of this type of plan amendment. Several improvements are planned for the site. The applicant plans to develop joint access and cross-parking agreements with the Pinellas County School Board to enhance the service level of the proposed facility. Through these agreements, park users will be allowed to use the school parking lot during non-school hours. A shade structure will be built containing rest rooms, vending machines and a storage room. The fields will include dugouts and other amenities such as scoreboards. The City intends to provide an access drive to the signalized intersection at Drew Street and Hampton Road. This improvement will help vehicles enter and exit the school property and also will allow the new park to have less impermeable areas dedicated to parking. The lighting system will be designed with the necessary shields and alignment to minimize any glare or spillover into the neighboring properties. The proposal 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 the public services, is compatible with the natural environment and is consistent with the development regulations of the City. Staff recommends approval. AND 1698 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Item #E3 – : Gulf Florida Doughnuts, Inc. c/o Robert McCoy – Owner/Applicant. Request Flexible Development approval to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA), (68 spaces) to 11 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA), (50 spaces), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project with Comprehensive Landscape Program and Comprehensive Sign Program, Sec. 14-29-15, FL 01-05-21 M&B 13.05. The applicant is requesting Flexible Development approval to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA), (68 spaces) to 11 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA), (50 spaces) for this 1.125-acre site on the northwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Duncan Avenue. The general vicinity includes other commercial uses along Gulf-to- Bay Boulevard. Code requires 15 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for restaurant use and does not provide for a parking reduction for fast food-style restaurants. The proposed use meets the definition of fast food restaurant by having a drive-through window, however, the doughnut shop will not have the same impact as traditional, full-menu fast food establishments. The applicant is permitted to request a parking reduction by way of this Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application. mcd0701 3 07/17/01 The site cannot physically accommodate additional parking while maintaining an efficient site layout and an aesthetically appealing design. As part of the original submittal, the application has provided a parking study based on the parking generation of a similar store on Kennedy Boulevard in Tampa. The study was conducted on a random weekday from 5:00 a.m. till 8:00 p.m. The count was taken at 15-minute intervals for the quantity of vehicles parked in the lot and stacked in the drive-through. The study revealed that a maximum of 20 cars were on site at 7:30 a.m.; 13 of these automobiles were stacked in the drive-through lane. The maximum number of parked customer cars was 14 cars at 8:30 a.m. The study excludes employee parking which is estimated at seven spaces for the Tampa store. The study also compared the square footage and number of parking spaces for three other stores. This comparison revealed an average of six parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area is an appropriate ratio for the doughnut shops. By applying this parking ratio, the 4,500 square-foot store should provide a minimum of 27 spaces. The applicant has estimated that a maximum of 15 employees would be on-site at peak times. Based on a site and use-specific parking study, the proposed site is expected to exceed the parking needs for this use. The applicant wishes to change the site’s use from vehicle sales and display to a restaurant. The site includes a 4,500-square foot, brick building oriented towards Gulf- to-Bay Boulevard. Parking is situated behind the building and along Duncan Avenue. The parcel is accessible from a curb cut along Duncan Avenue and two driveways along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The site is well landscaped with a variety of plant materials. The proposed tenant is a Krispy Kreme doughnut shop to be housed in the existing building. The restaurant will include a drive-through window along the west elevation and a minor parking lot reconfiguration to eliminate angled parking. The reconfiguration will also provide a center parking bay. The building exterior will be greatly improved with a light beige, stucco façade. A green awning will be placed atop the continuous windows and entrance. White moldings are to be constructed atop the façade walls accented by a red building stripe. The proposed façade enhancements will greatly improve the corner at Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Duncan Avenue. A concrete slab with bicycle racks is proposed one foot from the front property line along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Staff recommends the concrete slab and bicycle racks be located directly in front of the building and buffered behind landscaping. The original proposal included a Comprehensive Sign Program for one, 32 square-foot, six-foot tall, freestanding sign and two 16.25 square-foot attached signs (one on each street frontage). Development Review Manager Lisa Fierce said a change has been made to the third condition the size of the signage. The revised condition is reflected below and is permitted under current Code. Two window signs (one on each street frontage) are also proposed. The proposal complies with Code and the provisions of a Comprehensive Sign Program application. Staff recommends approval with conditions:1) If a different restaurant is proposed, the parking needs shall be reevaluated and may require approval by the Community Development Board; 2) the concrete slab with the bicycle rack be relocated adjacent building and screened with landscape material; and 3) signage be limited to one 32 square-foot freestanding sign, one 26.52 square-foot attached sign along Duncan Avenue, one 32 square foot attached sign along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, and two, eight square-foot window signs as submitted as part of the Comprehensive Sign Program application. mcd0701 4 07/17/01 It was noted that Items #E1, #E2, and #E4 were pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Member Gildersleeve moved to approve the Consent Agenda Items #D1, #D2, motion and #E3 as submitted, including corresponding conditions. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan Item #D3 – : Coachman Ridge Neighborhood and City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request approval of Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan pursuant to Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District provisions, for property in the northeast quadrant of State Road 590 and Old Coachman Road, west of the Florida Power right-of-way and south of Campbell Road. When the City of Clearwater adopted its new Community Development Code in 1999, a new planning tool known as the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) was established. The purpose of the NCOD is to ensure that redevelopment activities and infill in existing stable neighborhoods are consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. The NCOD has a list of nine criteria that neighborhoods must meet in order to be eligible for the designation. Once it has been determined that a neighborhood complies with the criteria, including that owners of sixty percent (60%) of the real property within the neighborhood agree to pursue the NCOD, the process begins. The neighborhood, in conjunction with City staff, must prepare a special area plan that includes goals and objectives, as well as development standards that are appropriate to protect the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. Once the City Commission approves the plan, the NCOD is to be applied to the zoning atlas and the development standards of the NCOD added to the Community Development Code. Coachman Ridge is a 159 acre deed-restricted community on the northeast side of the intersection of Old Coachman Road and N.E. Coachman Road that was platted in three phases between 1983 and 1984. There are a total of 255 lots with single-family homes within this subdivision. Thirteen properties are zoned Low Density Residential (LDR); the other 242 properties are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The neighborhood has a variety of lot sizes and architectural styles, mature landscaping and well-maintained properties. Coachman Ridge is a stable neighborhood that has a very small number of properties with city code violations. Coachman Ridge is the first neighborhood to use the NCOD. The Homeowners Association became interested in the NCOD because its members want to maintain the existing character and established standards of the Coachman Ridge neighborhood. There is concern that lack of compliance with subdivision deed restrictions would change the character of the neighborhood and could ultimately lead to a decline in property values and neighborhood stability. This voluntary homeowners association believes that the implementation of the NCOD will achieve its objective to keep Coachman Ridge a strong and viable neighborhood. In August 2000, the Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association distributed a letter to all properties within the neighborhood explaining the NCOD, the process and criteria for NCOD designation, as well as a petition asking residents if they supported initiating the process to establish Coachman Ridge as a NCOD. A total of 190 homeowners voted “yes” to pursue the designation. This represents seventy-four mcd0701 5 07/17/01 percent (74%) of the neighborhood whereas the Code only requires approval by sixty percent (60%). Only ten (10) homeowners voted “no”. Fifty-five (55) did not vote. In October 2000, the Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association submitted an application and the required petition for NCOD designation to the City. At the January 16, 2001, meeting, the Commission approved the initiation of the NCOD planning process. Between February 2001, and May 2001, five public meetings with the neighborhood were held. Notice was given to all Coachman Ridge properties through a letter describing the NCOD process and inviting all property owners to attend the four meetings. The dates and times of each meeting were included in the notice. Public notice for the fifth meeting was provided through a letter distributed to all properties within the neighborhood. The draft plan also was attached to the notice. Signs were erected at neighborhood entrances to remind residents of four of the meetings. At those meetings, neighborhood residents identified strengths and weaknesses, developed neighborhood goals and objectives, and identified development standards to be included in the Coachman Ridge NCOD. At the last meeting held on May 21, 2001, a presentation of the plan was made. Neighborhood participants voted to accept the plan with minor changes and to proceed with the process to gain a recommendation from the Community Development Board (CDB) and approval by the Commission. The Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan is evidence of the neighborhood’s desire to maintain existing neighborhood standards and quality of life. It provides a framework for neighborhood enhancement and changes and will serve as an official document of the neighborhood and the City. This special area plan will be used to coordinate public and private initiatives, as well as provide the basis for the implementation of the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan also is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 01-23 that adopts the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan. AND Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan Item #D4 – : Coachman Ridge Neighborhood and City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request rezoning and applying the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Conservation District as an overlay District in addition to the Existing Low Density Residential and Low Medium Density Residential Zoning districts, for property at the northeast quadrant of State Road 590 and Old Coachman Z 01-06-02 Road, west of the Florida Power right-of-way and south of Campbell Road. Pursuant to Section 4-608 of the Community Development Code, the Coachman Ridge neighborhood submitted an application and the required petition to initiate the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) planning process in October 2000. At the January 16, 2001 meeting the City Commission approved the application. Between February 2001 and May 2001 the neighborhood, in conjunction with Planning Department staff, held a total of five public meetings with the neighborhood to develop the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan. The Plan focuses on neighborhood strengths and weaknesses and includes goals and objectives to address those issues. The Coachman Ridge neighborhood has two different zoning designations. Thirteen properties located in the northwest part of the subdivision and platted as Coachman Ridge Tract A-III are zoned Low Density Residential (LDR). These properties are located on Lee Road, Casey Jones Court and Wetherington Road. The mcd0701 6 07/17/01 remaining 242 properties, platted as Coachman Ridge Tract A-1 and Tract A-II, are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Conservation Overlay (CRNCOD) would apply to the entire subdivision and fulfills the intent of the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan. Staff recommends approval. AND Text Amendments Item #D5 – : Amendments to the Community Development Code regarding the provisions of the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Conservation Overlay TA 01-06-02 District. Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-608, the Coachman Ridge neighborhood received approval from the Commission in January 2001 to proceed with the planning process required for implementation of a neighborhood conservation overlay zone. Between February 2001 and May 2001 neighborhood residents, in conjunction with Planning Department staff, developed the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan. The Plan details actions required by neighborhood residents and the development standards to be applied in the CRNCOD. Proposed Ordinance No. 6825-01 creates Division 16 of Article 2 of the Community Development Code entitled Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. This division will contain the provisions for all neighborhood conservation overlay districts. Additionally, this ordinance creates the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (CRNCOD), which contains amendments that are specific to the Coachman Ridge neighborhood. The ordinance addresses: 1) Purpose, jurisdictional boundaries and relationship to underlying districts; 2) permitted uses and dimensional standards; 3) driveway materials; 4) parking on landscaped areas; 5) parking of certain types of vehicles; 6) fences; and 7) screening requirements for trash containers, oil tanks, gas tanks, soft water tanks and other similar equipment. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 6825-01 that revises the Community Development Code and establishes the first Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Ms. Clayton briefly reviewed Items #D3, #D4, and #D5, including: 1) Existing conditions; 2) neighborhood strengths and weaknesses; 3) goals and objectives; 4) implementation; 5) neighborhood location; 6) neighborhood character; 7) neighborhood infrastructure; 8) neighborhood security/safety; and 9) property values. Ms. Clayton said neighborhood residents who participated in the publicly held meetings identified the following as Coachman Ridge strengths: 1) Location; 2) neighborhood character; 3) neighborhood infrastructure; 4) neighborhood security/safety; and 5) property values. The following weaknesses were identified: 1) Possible impacts of new community sports complex; 2) neighborhood perimeter; 3) traffic and parking; 4) property maintenance; 5) voluntary homeowners association; and 6) lack of reclaimed water. In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said the Coachman Ridge neighborhood has permission from the City to maintain the entryway into the neighborhood, which is funded through the Homeowners Association. The Association is discussing expanding the entryway landscaping and obtaining easements from property owners. A code enforcement process has been identified for the neighborhood. Violators would receive mcd0701 7 07/17/01 a notice from the neighborhood code enforcement contact that they are in violation of the code. If the violator does not comply within 10 days, upon reinspection and confirmation of noncompliance, a violation letter would be issued. In the event compliance is still not gained, the neighborhood enforcement contact would report the violation to the City’s Community Response Team. The City would begin the normal process for code violation enforcement. Ms. Clayton said staff feels this plan would give credence to projects that may impact the Coachman Ridge neighborhood. In response to a question, she said the neighborhood had extensive discussion regarding an architectural review body and it was decided they do not wish to dictate colors of homes. In the event the City recognizes sustained, extraordinary actions in the neighborhood that result in increased costs for City staff, the program would be reevaluated and possible fees could be assessed. No specific fees have been discussed. Assistant Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said staff does not believe there will be a higher than normal level of enforcement in this neighborhood. She said most of the issues in the overlay district are already addressed in the neighborhood’s deed restrictions. It was remarked that this process takes some of the burden off the City’s permitting staff. City permits have been issued that may have violated a neighborhood’s deed restrictions. Concern was expressed by a board member that when the process began, there was a requirement that 60% of residents must agree to pursue the NCOD, however there is no requirement to have 60% of residents to agree to implement the process. Ms. Clayton said one resident petitioned the neighborhood. She said she was informed that approximately 130 petitions were received in support of implementing the process. The City Clerk Department received 20 letters from persons opposing the implementation of NCOD. She said a vote was taken at the fifth public neighborhood meeting by those in attendance, however no vote was taken upon completion of the process. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the Commission has directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would call for a straw vote by residents within any overlay district prior to the preparation of a final plan. The results of that final vote would be presented to the CDB and Commission when the neighborhood plan and proposed overlays are reviewed. In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said items such as chain link fences that were permitted prior to the implementation of the NCOD would be grandfathered. Staff could research County and City records if any questions arose. Robert Losi, applicant representing the Coachman Ridge neighborhood, reviewed the history and status of the Coachman Ridge neighborhood and association. He said the neighborhood has experienced minimal infractions. In 1999, when the Homeowners Association learned of the NCOD, they felt it would bolster deed restriction enforcement. The Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association submitted an application in October 2000, and the required petition for NCOD designation to the City. He felt the NCOD would not water down deed restrictions and would maintain the high standards in the neighborhood. He said when the Homeowners Association petitioned residents to apply for NCOD status, 190 out of 255 residents voted in favor of starting the NCOD process. The process began with the appointment of a Study Committee. Four public meetings were scheduled and an additional meeting was held to allow residents to comment on the final plan. In addition to the public meetings, the Study Committee and mcd0701 8 07/17/01 City staff attended 6 planning meetings to discuss the process of formulating the NCOD plan. Attendance at neighborhood meetings averaged 30 – 40 people per meeting. Those in attendance at the last meeting were overwhelmingly in favor of the plan. All residents received copies of the NCOD plan. He said residents had every opportunity to participate in the plan process as they received notification in the mail and via signs at entrances to the neighborhood. He said some people distributed handouts opposing the plan, which included inaccurate and misleading information. Approximately 2 –3 people who attended the final public meeting objected to the plan citing concerns regarding: 1) fences not being permitted in front yards (which was later amended to permit them in the LDR zoned area); 2) prohibition of parking of boats or commercial vehicles on lots unless in a garage; 3) the plan allowed community residential homes; and 4) the plan allowed for the possibility of a service fee. Mr. Losi said Florida Statutes and City code allows community residential homes to be viewed as single family residences. Some residents said they did not mind paying a fee for services but the majority was opposed. Mr. Losi said residents were informed that if they determined that the NCOD plan was not working, a vote would be taken which would require a 60% affirmative vote of residents in favor of opting out of the NCOD. He commended the City for being flexible during the process. Three persons spoke in support of the plan. Seven persons spoke in opposition of the plan. One person was neither for or against the plan but was only concerned about protecting the quality of neighborhoods. Discussion ensued regarding residents in Tract AIII that have larger lots than homeowners in Tracts AI and AII asking to opt out of the NCOD. It was remarked that the entire neighborhood should have the opportunity to adopt or reject the final plan. Ms. Tarapani said City Code does not change deed restrictions. In response to a question she said only personal vehicles can be parked in a driveway. Certain types of vehicles such as commercial and recreational vehicles must be parked inside the garage. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the provision in the Code regarding community residential homes being recognized as single family residences is not new and has been in existence since approximately 1980. In response to a question, she said the Commission has directed staff to consider amending the Code to allow for a final vote by residents on the development standards proposed to govern the overlay district. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the Island Estates neighborhood needs to be aware that pending legislation regarding the NCOD may affect them. The Commission has directed staff to continue with the process and report back to the Commission on its progress. Mr. Losi said the Coachman Ridge neighborhood is taking advantage of a law that was initiated by the City because there are some mutual benefits to be gained. He said one vote per household was counted when the petition to begin the process was initiated. He said none of the provisions in the NCOD conflict with the existing deed restrictions. He said deed restrictions for Tracts A1, A2, and A3 within the neighborhood are the same. He said residents that expressed concern regarding the NCOD have mcd0701 9 07/17/01 enjoyed the benefits of a homeowners association and will continue to do so. Mr. Losi said he is not opposed to a final vote on the plan. Concern was expressed that the City may be applying additional restrictions on homeowners. It was remarked that when Charlie Siemon of Siemon and Larsen originally proposed the NCOD, his intent was that the NCOD would protect neighborhoods with unique characteristics. It was remarked that the 13 homes in Tract AIII are different than in Tracts AI and II. Ms. Tarapani said the rules were outlined, public meetings were held, and all residents of the neighborhood had the opportunity to participate by attending meetings or contacting the City, the Homeowners Association, and members of the Study Committee. It was suggested that the neighborhood hold a final vote on the plan before it goes to the Commission in September and that voting guidelines be established. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the ordinance regarding the NCOD would be presented to the Commission at the second Commission meeting in September for possible adoption in November. Member Moran moved that regarding Items #D3, #D4, and #D5, to recommend to the Commission adoption of the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan, approve the rezoning of Coachman Ridge Subdivision from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Low Density Residential/Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (LDR/CRNCOD) and Low Medium Density Residential/Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (LMDR/CRNCOD), and approve Ordinance #6825-01 that revises the Community Development Code and establishes the first Neighborhood motion Conservation Overlay District, subject to a final vote of the neighborhood. The was duly seconded. It was remarked that costs or fees associated with the NCOD should be addressed. carried Upon the vote being taken, the motion unanimously. The meeting recessed from 4:22 to 4:33 p.m. ITEM E – LEVEL 2 APPLICATIONS 1100 South Missouri Avenue Item #E1 – : The Clearwater Group, Ltd. – Owner/Applicant. Request an amendment to a previously approved Certified Site Plan (Sunshine Mall) that authorizes a change of use for undeveloped parcels (from commercial to multi-family) totaling 156 units and 15,602 square feet of existing commercial use, and an additional access point on Missouri Avenue for Parcel 1 (restaurant), for 3.6 acres on the southwest corner of Druid Road and south Missouri Avenue and 3.55 acres on the west side of south Missouri Avenue, approximately 1,150 feet south of Druid Road, Sec. 15-29-15, M&B 34.01 & 34.011 and Sec. 22-29-15, FL 01-01-05 M&B's 21.11, 21.12 & 21.13; Zoning: C, Commercial District. The applicant is requesting an amendment to a previously approved Certified Site Plan (Sunshine Mall) that authorizes a change of use for undeveloped parcels (from commercial to multi-family) totaling 156 units and 15,602 square feet of existing commercial use, and an additional access point on Missouri Avenue for Parcel 1 mcd0701 10 07/17/01 (restaurant), for 3.6 acres on the southwest corner of Druid Road and south Missouri Avenue and 3.55 acres on the west side of south Missouri Avenue, approximately 1,150 feet south of Druid Road. This case was approved by the CDB at its March 20, 2001 meeting. Code requires that all property owners within 200 feet of the subject site be notified of Level Two requests. Because there was an error in notification of surrounding property owners, this case was scheduled for another public hearing. The applicant has included an additional driveway along South Missouri Avenue for Parcel 1 (The Stadium Restaurant) as part of this proposal. There are no other changes to the site. There have been minimal changes to the staff report. The rectangular site is 7.155 acres total including 3.6 acres on the southwest corner of Druid Road and South Missouri Avenue and 3.55 acres on the west side of South Missouri Avenue, approximately 1,150 feet south of Druid Road. It has a total of 1,345 feet of frontage on Missouri Avenue (east) and 240 feet of frontage on Druid Road (north). The site is comprised of seven parcels: 1, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5 and 5A. These parcels are part of a larger development known as Renaissance Square (formally the Sunshine Mall) approved as part of a certified site plan on March 12, 1998. There are three additional parcels (6, 7 and 8) part of the overall site that have been developed by others with attached dwellings. Parcels 7 and 8 extend east to Missouri Avenue and separate Parcels 4A and 5. Parcel 6 also extends east to Missouri Avenue separating Parcels 3 and 4. The Certified Site Plan specified the permitted uses for each parcel. Parcels 1 through 5A (subject property) permitted non-residential uses including retail sales and service, restaurant and office. Parcel 1 is the current site of a 5,602 square foot, one- story restaurant (The Stadium) for which an additional driveway along Missouri Avenue is proposed that is necessary to provide reasonable access. Parcels 5A and 2 are the sites of a 10,000 square foot, one-story retail sales and service establishment (VisionWorks). It is anticipated this structure will be demolished and replaced with up to two buildings totaling no more than 10,000 square feet. The Parcels 5A and 2 comprise a corner lot with two front setbacks – north (Druid Road) and east (South Missouri Avenue). Parking lots and associated asphalt exist at or near zero feet from all property lines on all parcels. The original shopping center (Sunshine Mall) was demolished in 1999. Parcels 6, 7 and 8 (compromising more than half the site) have been developed with three apartment complexes including 17, three-story buildings with approximately 650 dwelling units. The applicant wishes to amend the approved Certified Site Plan by expanding the permitted uses on Parcels 3, 4, 4A and 5 to include attached dwellings. The proposal includes 156 attached dwellings within two, four-story buildings on Parcels 4, 4A and 5 in the center of the overall site. The proposed building on Parcels 4 and 4A will include 131,542 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) and 108 dwelling units. The building proposed for Parcel 5 will encompass 52,236 square feet of GFA and will include 48 dwelling units. A 2,500 square foot, 35-foot tall clubhouse is proposed on Parcel 3. The proposed buildings will be built to the setbacks and other standards required by the approved Certified Site Plan including 32.25-foot front and 10-foot side and rear setbacks for buildings. The applicable Code regulations in force at the time that the Certified Site Plan was approved did not include parking or other types of pavement in the definition of a structure. The setbacks to parking/pavement uses were dictated by mcd0701 11 07/17/01 landscape buffer requirements or 15 feet along major arterials, 10 feet along local streets, and five feet along side and rear property lines. The proposal meets all setbacks and landscape buffers that were required by the Certified Site Plan. The developer proposes relatively low intensity on the two commercial parcels (Parcels 1, 2 and 5A). It is further proposed that the development potential unused for these commercial parcels be added to the potential for the residential parcels. To compute the density for this mixed-use application, development potential was determined for the developed commercial parcels (1, 2 and 5A). Those parcels comprise 3.885 acres of the site. It was determined that the land area necessary to support the existing buildings (15,602 square feet) on those parcels is 0.65 acres. If that is subtracted from the total acreage, there is a net land area of 3.235 acres available. The maximum density permitted under the Commercial General Classification is 24 dwelling units per acre. This results in the development potential of 77.64 dwelling units on Parcels 1, 2 and 5A. Parcels 3, 4, 4A and 5 (3.27 acres) have a development potential of 78.48 units (3.27 acres x 24 dwelling units per acre = 78.48 dwelling units). The total residential development potential remaining for the site is 156 dwelling units. Future development and/or redevelopment for Parcel 1 and Parcels 2 and 5A will be limited to the existing square footage (5,602 square feet and 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, respectively). Site restraints including setbacks, impervious surface ratio and parking will be dictated by the requirements of the approved Certified Site Plan. A new driveway/curb cut is proposed for Parcel 1 (existing restaurant) along Missouri Avenue. The proposed buildings will be finished in a style similar to the recently built apartments on Parcels 6 through 8 including tile roofs, a stucco finish, window details and contrasting color bands. The proposal also includes extensive landscaping along South Missouri Avenue and will match existing landscaping on part of Parcels 6 through 8. Interior landscaping will also exceed the intent of the current Code. All proposed signage will meet current Code requirements. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on December 14, 2000. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Any further additions or changes to the site plan (not included with this request) be reviewed by the CDB; 2) the final design of the buildings be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the CDB; 3) the density of the site be limited to 156 dwellings units and 15,602 square feet of non-residential uses; and 4) all signage comply with Code. In response to questions from Ed Armstrong, applicant’s representative, Development Review Manager Lisa Fierce said this application meets the criteria for a certified site plan in terms of setbacks and general applicability requirements of the Code. She said the setbacks are the same as the previously approved site plan. Robert Pergolizzi, applicant’s consultant, said he felt the criteria for approval of this application have been met. He said he reviewed the intensity of the proposed amendment versus the initial intensity proposed in 1998, and felt the bulks, height, and setbacks are consistent with the certified site plan in every respect. He also analyzed transportation impacts and determined that applying standard traffic generation rates that under retail development these parcels could generate over 7,000 daily trips, yet under the proposal, it would only generate approximately 1,680 trips, roughly 25% of the mcd0701 12 07/17/01 impact. He said overall impacts are less than or equal to what was approved in the initial site plan. Scott Steady, representing Renaissance Square Apartments, Ltd., said his client abuts the subject property, which is shown as Parcel 6 in the certified site plan. His client also owns the access road that would provide access to Parcels 1, 3, and 4. The applicant has an easement to the road. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the CDB (Community Development Board) could recognize Mr. Steady if they find his client is a substantially affected party. Member Moran moved to recognize Renaissance Square Apartments, Ltd. as an motion carried affected party. The was duly seconded andunanimously. Mr. Armstrong said this application is almost the same application that came before the CDB in March 2001. He said the case was postponed because of an advertising error. He said this 36-acre site was intended to be developed with commercial and apartment uses. When the objector purchased his property, it was obvious the certified site plan reflected those outparcels along Missouri Avenue were slated for development. Mr. Armstrong said what is being proposed is of lesser intensity than what was originally proposed. Mr. Steady said the CDB must make findings of fact and determinations of law related to the criteria. He said the criteria are confusing to him. As this is a Level Two Approval only, his client does not feel this proposal has been accurately brought before the CDB. He said transitional provisions in the Code state that regardless of whether a plan is approved, the development can still be followed. However, the Code does not address how that plan can be amended. He said he has no question regarding the commercial category. He agreed that under the Comprehensive Plan designation, the permitted number of units is 24. He said the question is the process required for approval to amend the site plan to obtain the residential units on the front portion of the property. Mr. Steady said as the property is currently zoned commercial, he does not believe the Level Two Approval standards are sufficient or that it is the only criteria the applicant must follow to legally amend the Code for approval of this application. He said in addition to the standards of a Level Two Approval, the only way under the Code to obtain approval is to look to the Comprehensive Infill redevelopment provisions which are not in the staff report. That section is comprised of 9 criteria. The applicant must meet those criteria by providing substantial competent evidence. Hugh Caraway, representing Renaissance Square Apartments, Ltd., said when he purchased Parcel 6 to construct a 200-unit apartment complex, he was aware of the applicant’s approved site plan and thought it was a good one. He felt it was a great opportunity to develop the area and that the site plan accomplished the best use of that site. At that time, the site plan proposed residential toward the rear of the property and commercial in the front portion. He relied on the designation that was in effect at that time which included language referring to the site plan for the outparcels as “permitted uses”, not “apartments”. It also states that those designations shall be in effect for 5 years. He said he did not believe that 4-story apartments on top of a parking garage would be built on his front door. He said the applicant’s traffic study was not done during peak hours. He said there are 3 separate parcels and believes the site plan is faulty. His driveway splits Parcels 4 and 4a. Residents will be crossing the street between parcels and there will be frequent residential traffic. Mr. Caraway said the applicant’s mcd0701 13 07/17/01 proposal would adversely affect his 2 and 3 story buildings and is concerned that he will have no visibility. He said the project also would decrease the value of his property. In response to questions from Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Caraway said he has no professional credentials in the field of land use planning or traffic engineering, but has been an apartment developer for 20 years. Mr. Caraway said his apartment complex’s occupancy rate currently is 93%. He said he was aware of the existing grade change and assumed when he purchased his property that retail would be on the front parcel. He disagreed that the site plan has indicated that since 1998, development could be constructed up to 50 feet. He thought that development had to be commercial. Ms. Fierce said the certified site plan that was adopted in 1999 provided for commercial development of a maximum height of 50 feet. Ms. Tarapani said the staff report is part of the record and the criteria staff used to evaluate this case also is available to the public. She said the reason this application was treated as an amendment was because the Code is silent on what happens if a certified site plan is changed. Staff was of the opinion that since the application was a major change of a use, it should be heard at a public hearing. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the City Attorney’s office concurred that the flexible development Level Two approval process was the most analogous and appropriate for the amendment to a certified site plan, which had been certified under the former Code. Mr. Armstrong said he did not want to belabor discussion of the criteria used by staff. He said those criteria are discussed in detail in staff’s report. He felt the expectations of Mr. Caraway are not being defeated by approval of this application. He felt apartments are compatible with other types of developments. He felt the criteria have been met. In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said there is an easement over the property owned by Mr. Steady’s client. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said she is comfortable with staff’s analysis and the expert testimony by the City’s planners that the applicant meets the criteria for approval according to Code. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said if this project is approved, it would complete the density allowed on this site. She said the remaining commercial projects could not be converted to residential uses. In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said a wide assortment of commercial uses is permitted to be constructed up to a maximum of 50 feet high on this site. Those uses include indoor retail sales, medical clinics, businesses, professional offices, restaurants, laboratories, business services, personal services, indoor commercial recreation entertainment, nonprofit social and community services, trade schools, gas stations, hotels, motels, accessory dwellings, art galleries, studios, etc. Member Hooper moved to approve the Flexible Development request to amend a previously approved certified site plan (Sunshine Mall) that authorizes a change of use for undeveloped parcels (from commercial to multi-family) totaling 156 units and 15,602 square feet of existing commercial use and an additional driveway along South Missouri mcd0701 14 07/17/01 Avenue on Parcel 1 (The Stadium Restaurant), with conditions: 1) Any further additions or changes to the site plan (not included with this request) be reviewed by the CDB; 2) the final design of the buildings be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the CDB; 3) the density of the site be limited to 156 dwellings units and 15,602 square feet of non-residential uses; and 4) all signage comply with Code. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Petersen, Gildersleeve, Plisko, Hooper, and Hibbard and Chair Figurski voted “aye”; Member carried Moran voted “nay”. Motion . 13 Cambria Street Item #E2 – : Linda and Angel Delgado – Owner/Applicants. Request a flexible development approval to reduce the minimum lot width from 150 to 50 feet, reduce the side (east) setback from 10 to 5 feet and to permit a parking lot design other than what is required by Code, as part of a Residential Infill Project, for 0.09 acres on the south side of Cambria Street, approximately 100 feet west of Mandalay Boulevard; Zoning: MHDR, Medium High Density Residential District, Clearwater Beach Rev, Blk 3, FL 01-05-18 Lot 4. The applicant is requesting to reduce the minimum lot width from 150 to 50 feet and reduce the minimum lot area from 10,000 to 4,350 square feet. The parcel is an existing nonconforming lot in the Medium High Density Residential District that otherwise permits higher densities and a mix of housing types. Given the lot dimensions, any substantial improvements would require approval by the Community Development Board as part of a Residential Infill Project. The proposal also includes a request to reduce the side (east) setback from 10 to five feet. The existing structure is nonconforming with the respect to setbacks as are the majority of other structures along Cambria Street. The reduction in the side setbacks is in keeping with the neighborhood character. The RH, Residential High Plan Category, permits two dwelling units based on the property size. The request includes permission for a parking layout other than what is required by Code. With the exception of single-family dwellings, Code prohibits back out parking onto a road right-of-way. The proposal provides adequate parking on site for the two units; two in the garage for the owner-occupied unit and one space in the driveway for the second unit. Neither parking space blocks access to the other and will not include parking in the right-of-way. The proposal meets Code in terms of required number of parking spaces. This one-story Caribbean-style house with a one-car carport and a large front deck on a 0.09-acre site on the south side of Cambria Street is approximately 250 feet west of Mandalay Avenue. The parcel is nonconforming with respect to lot area, lot width, and all setbacks. The site is comparable to many neighboring sites in terms of lot coverage and limited setbacks. The style resembles other “Old Florida” style structures typical of the beach environment. Overall, the site is in good condition and well landscaped. The immediate vicinity includes a mix of detached and attached dwellings. The majority of the structures are in fair to good condition and are located on relatively small lots. The neighborhood is identified in the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as the “Old Florida” District. The Plan identifies this area as a primarily residential neighborhood with limited retail uses that serve local needs. It recommends the redevelopment of the area with single-family dwellings and townhouses. Beach by Design acknowledges that a lack of parking in this area may hinder revitalization of existing improvements. mcd0701 15 07/17/01 The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 14, 2001. Staff recommends approval with conditions: 1) any future redevelopment initiatives include a parking design that complies with Code or is approved by the Community Development Board; 2) the final building design is generally consistent with the elevations submitted to staff April 24, 2001, or as modified by the Community Development Board; and 3) should the existing/proposed units be rented, the terms shall comply with the Countywide Rules (no less than 30 days). Concern was expressed that Condition #3 of the staff report reflects language in the Countywide Rules which references a 30-day minimum requirement for existing/proposed units to be rented. Ms. Tarapani agreed that the City has not adopted the 30-day requirement. Concern also was expressed regarding the land use. Calculations for the site plan and the green space do not appear to meet the intent of the Code unless open decks are being considered as open space. Planner Mark Parry said the City Engineering Department treats wood decks as impervious surfaces. It was remarked that Cambria Street is made up of small cottages on the north and south. The character has remained over the years with the exception of the waterfront lots. It was felt that a rental unit in the limited space required for residential parking is inappropriate and would create circulation problems. In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said a driveway could be placed on the property line through this process. She said the existing conditions of these lots were considered. Concern was expressed that if one cottage were granted this approval, the others also would apply for the same use, which would adversely affect the streetscape. Ms. Fierce said Beach by Design recommends this area be developed with single-family uses and townhouses. Ms. Fierce referred to drawings of the elevation of the street and the east elevation of the building. In response to a question, she said staff has received no objections from the abutting property owners. It was remarked that Beach by Design intends to keep old style architecture in this area and does not encourage the assemblage of modern style properties. Tom Drunasky, applicant’s representative, said the garage door would be moved over a few feet. He said the property is unique and the applicant wishes to compliment the existing landscaping. Angel Delgado, owner/applicant, said the adjoining property to the east has a roof style that sticks out over the street which creates the illusion that building is higher. He said a veranda could be added on the second floor for aesthetic purposes. Mr. Drunasky said in order to provide the adjoining neighbor some privacy, the building does not include windows on the second floor of the east side. Member Plisko moved to approve the flexible development request to reduce the minimum lot width from 150 to 50 feet, reduce the side (east) setback from 10 to 5 feet and to permit a parking lot design other than what is required by Code, as part of a Residential Infill Project, for 0.09 acres on the south side of Cambria Street, approximately 100 feet west of Mandalay Boulevard, with conditions: 1) Any future mcd0701 16 07/17/01 redevelopment initiatives include a parking design that complies with Code or is approved by the Community Development Board; 2) the final building design is generally consistent with the elevations submitted to staff April 24, 2001, or as modified by the Community Development Board; and 3) some type of railing system that gives the illusion of a balcony be added to the second floor of the north side of the building. The motion carried was duly seconded and unanimously. 1698 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Item #E3 – – See Pages 3, 4, and 5. 1521 E. Druid Road Item #E4 – : Salvation Army – Owner/Applicant. Request Flexible Development approval to permit social/public service use for 6.92 acres on the southeast corner of Druid Road and Highland Avenue, adjacent to residentially-zoned property, a residential shelter and a medical clinic in the Institutional District, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, Sec. 14-29-15, M&B 34.01 and Druid Groves Sub, Blk A, Lots 1-12. Zoning: I, Institutional District and LMDR, Low Medium FL 01-05-19 Density Residential District. Planner Mark Parry presented the request. The applicant proposes to establish a social/public service agency adjacent to residentially designated property with associated uses including a residential shelter (34 units), and a medical clinic within the Institutional District. There are no significant site or exterior building changes associated with this proposal beyond repainting and other necessary restorative repairs. The parking spaces will be required to be re-striped in accordance with Code requirements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. This will include bringing all handicapped spaces into Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. The hours of operation will be primarily between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A maximum of 75 employees would be on the site at any given time. Deliveries would be made via a 14-foot, panel truck two times per day. Deliveries would occur at the existing loading dock located on the east side of the building. The residential shelter will be in continuous operation. The residential shelter would provide housing for one- and two-parent families. The proposed medical clinic is exclusively for the “Mother and Child Care of Clearwater, Inc.” and includes full laboratory and birthing room facilities providing pre- and post-natal and pediatric medical care to mothers and their children who do not have insurance or other means to provide medical care for themselves. The site will treat asymptomatic (no symptoms present) AIDS-inflicted residents. No medical treatments are provided. The Salvation Army has operated these programs at its current site for the last 14 years. The proposal also includes restoring the declining/dead landscaping plus adding shrubs, shade trees and ground cover to the existing landscape islands in the parking lot at the northeast corner of Druid Road and South Crest Avenue. The Salvation Army is considered a social/public service agency that would otherwise require a Level Two, Flexible Development review. Social/public service agencies, however, are not permitted adjacent to properties designated as residential in the zoning atlas. Properties designated as LMDR District are located immediately to the east of the subject site along the entire length of the east property line. There are several other uses associated with the application that would require a Level One, Flexible Standard development review and include residential shelter, medical clinic and religious service facilities. The religious service use includes a day care component that is typical with most worship-oriented facilities. The best option available to the applicant mcd0701 17 07/17/01 is to apply as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project to incorporate all of the proposed uses and allow the review of the social service agency adjacent to residentially-zoned property. No expansions or additions or other site modifications are proposed with this application and only interior renovations are proposed. The “T”-shaped site contains 6.92 acres on the southeast corner of Druid Road and South Highland Avenue. The site contains a 92,413 square foot masonry-block building that was the previous home to the Clearwater Community Hospital. The building is located between 40 and 230 feet from any property line and stands between 14 and 28 feet in height. The site consists of two zoning districts: Low Medium Density Residential and Institutional Districts. The majority of the site (5.42 acres) is zoned Institutional District and includes the building and most of the parking. The remainder of the site, 1.5 acres at the southwest corner of Druid Road and South Crest Avenue, is within the LMDR District. The City’s Planning and Zoning Board approved a conditional use application (CU 94-40) on June 14, 1994, for a non-residential parking facility within a residentially- zoned district for that site. There are 55 parking spaces located within the northern-third of the LMDR District portion of the site. Additional spaces were approved for the mid- section of the site, but they were never constructed. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 14, 2001. Staff recommends approval, subject to conditions. In response to a question, Mr. Parry said the medical clinic would treat only mothers and children, not AIDS patients. He said approximately 34 units or up to 111 residents would be accommodated in the residential shelter. In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said she was unsure if the use of helicopters or heliports run with the land or with the use. Ms. Tarapani said the CDB’s approval today would supercede any previous approvals. This application does not include a request for the use of helicopters or heliports. The staff report includes a condition regarding expansion of parking requires review and approval by the CDB. In response to a question, Mr. Parry said there would be birthing rooms. Ms. Tarapani said staff’s understanding of the birthing rooms would be for those patrons who could not go to a hospital. Concern was expressed as to whether this facility could handle neonatal emergencies and birthing with proper equipment. Mr. Parry said the applicant is limited to their specific services. He said he did not feel this facility would adversely affect the surrounding properties. Roy Johnson, representative for the applicant, said the Salvation Army has been a good neighbor for 75 years and is sensitive to its neighbors’ concerns. He said there would be no childbirth at the center. It will serve as a post-natal care center. He said other facilities have an AIDS center that allows for 4 residential units and another center with 9 units. He hopes to expand existing facilities for transitional housing and an emergency family shelter. The CHIP (Clearwater Housing Initiative Program) assists with transients. Gregg Rose, Salvation Army, said the Salvation Army is in the business of improving people, neighborhoods, and communities. It is sensitive to the safety, health, and security of employees, residents, clients, and the community. He said the Salvation mcd0701 18 07/17/01 Army touched over 60,000 individuals last year alone. In response to a question, he said the Salvation Army currently has 9 transitional housing units for homeless families coming off the street or from emergency shelters. Eight persons spoke in opposition of the application. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the Code uses the term “flexible development” as a process for review. The process includes a public hearing to allow the applicant to submit a specific application. “Flexible” refers to the ability of the CDB to evaluate a project and have some degree of flexibility regarding setbacks, height, and any other pertinent criteria that are pertinent to the application. It does not mean the applicant can be flexible with the project once it is approved. The applicant must abide by the approval according to Code, including any applicable conditions. In response to a question, Mr. Rose said the 6 apartments being planned for transitional living are slated for graduates of the CHIP program. The CHIP Program is a separate program. All the residential programs are long term and none are emergency uses except for those 6 units slated for single or dual parents and/or families. He said presently, there are no units available in Clearwater or in upper Pinellas County for emergency family shelters, which is a big concern to the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army only supervises misdemeanor probation cases for the State and 98% of them are traffic violators. No felons or addicts are seen. The Salvation Army has an adult rehabilitation center in upper Pinellas County that serves that population. This facility would serve stabilized people. The facility would have a full professional staff 24 hours a day. Mr. Johnson said he felt the Salvation Army is not introducing problems in the community as there are problems that already exist. He said when the Salvation Army tried to renovate the property on Ft. Harrison, it could not be done in a fashion that would comply with Code and meet the needs of the facility. In response to a question, Mr. Johnson said the Salvation Army’s intention is not to bring a large homeless population into the area. He said although he does not feel a police presence is necessary, one of the ways the Salvation Army is responding to community concerns is consideration of a police substation. He said administration has responded to letters and concerns received. He said there is always a concern that no one wants this type of facility in his or her back yard, but it is needed and has to be placed somewhere. He said this facility would allow the Salvation Army to use it with a minimum of expenditure and minimal upset to the neighborhood. In response to a question, Mr. Johnson said Salvation Army facilities are in different types of areas but mostly in urban settings. He did not feel this facility would increase traffic in the area any more than the hospital had. He said this 94,000 square foot facility would be a state of the art facility compared to the typical building. He said the application includes preliminary projections regarding the operation of the building. This facility would allow the Salvation Army to operate a Christmas Joy Program in-house rather than searching for an outside facility. In response to a question, Mr. Rose said very few clients would walk into the facility. Most of them would have their own transportation. In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said staff is unaware of any major Code complaints regarding the Salvation Army facility on Ft. Harrison. Staff believes the mcd0701 19 07/17/01 Salvation Army has been a good neighbor in the Old Clearwater Bay neighborhood and will continue that practice. It was remarked that some residents that had expressed concern regarding the CHIP shelter have changed their minds regarding that facility. It was remarked that the Salvation Army is a reputable organization that performs its job well. It was felt that large vacant abandoned buildings typically encourage the type of activity that requires police activity. It was remarked that vagrancy is no longer a violation of law and those empty buildings contribute to those adverse conditions. It was remarked that this application will improve the services to the community and will not adversely affect the surrounding homeowners’ property values. Member Hooper moved to approve the flexible development request to permit a social/public service use for 6.92 acres on the southeast corner of Druid Road and Highland Avenue, adjacent to residentially-zoned property, a residential shelter and a medical clinic in the Institutional District, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, with conditions: 1) All dead or dying landscape material be replaced by October 1, 2001, or prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first; 2) all Brazilian pepper trees and hazardous trees be removed, through City permits; 3) all signage comply with Code; 4) all handicapped parking spaces be upgraded to meet City standards and that a sidewalk be provided along Highland Avenue, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy; and 5) no expansion of the parking lot within the LMDR District portion of the site be permitted without additional motion review and approval by the Community Development Board. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. ITEM F – DIRECTOR’S ITEMS A special CDB meeting was scheduledon September 14, 2001, at 12:30 p.m. at the Municipal Services Building, Planning Department Conference Room to discuss CDB procedures and standards and criteria used in making board decisions/ recommendations. It was requested that staff provide the CDB with information regarding the former AMSCOT case. Concern was expressed that company indicated check cashing would not be a major part of their business. It was requested that the Chair request everyone turn off their cell phones and beepers at the beginning of meetings. In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said the Community Response Team is addressing issues regarding the former Icehouse building. Staff was complimented for their efforts on the Neighborhood Overlay District project. ITEM G - ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. mcd0701 20 07/17/01 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: July 17., 2001 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Morton Plan Mease Life Services ~ ZX05-Ol - 2855 Gulf to Bay Blvd. yes no City of Clearwater/Art Kader, P&R - \Yz 01-04-05 - 2780 Drew Street yes \no The Clearwater Group, Ltd. - FL 01'1- -05 - 1100 South Missouri Avenue yes ~no Angel & Linda Delgado - FL 01-05-~)- 13 Cambria Street yes ~no Gulf Florida Doughnuts, Inc. - FL 0 ~2l - 1698 Gulfto Bay Boulevard yes no Salvation Army - FL 01-05-19 - 1~ )3:.\Druid Road yes ~o ~7 /t7/ , D~te . ' S:\Planning Department\C 0 B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: July 17., 2001 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Morton Plan Mease Life Services ~ Z 01-05-01 - 2855 Gulf to Bay Blvd. '- yes no City of Clearwater/Art Kader, P&R - LUZ 01-04-05 - 2780 Drew Street ~ yes no The Clearwater Group, Ltd. - FL 01-01-05 - 1100 South Missouri Avenue i. yes no Angel & Linda Delgado - FL 01-05-18 - 13 Cambria Street ~ yes no Gulf Florida Doughnuts, Inc. - FL 01-05-21 - 1698 Gulfto Bay Boulevard ~ yes no Salvation Army - FL 01-05-19 - 1521 E. Druid Road '~ yes no 1 ;-- J 7- tJ/ Date S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: Julv 17'1 2001 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Morton Plan Mease Life Services ~ Z 01-05-01 - 2855 Gulf to Bay Blvd. ../' yes no City of Clearwater/Art Kader, P&R - LUZ 01-04-05 - 2780 Drew Street ~ yes no The Clearwater Group, Ltd. - FL 01-01-05 - 1100 South Missouri Avenue ~ yes no Angel & Linda Delgado - FL 01-05-18 - 13 Cambria Street /' yes no Gulf Florida Doughnuts, Inc. - FL 01-05-21 - 1698 Gulf to Bay Boulevard ~ yes no SalvationArmy-FL01-05-19-1521 E. Druid Road yes / no 7/;cl/O I I I Date S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: Julv 17'1 2001 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Morton Plan Mease Life Services ~ ZJ05-01 - 2855 Gulf to Bay Blvd. yes no City of Clearwater/Art Kader, P&R -jZ 01-04-05 - 2780 Drew Street yes no The Clearwater Group, Ltd. - FL 01-01-05 - 1100 South Missouri Avenue yes ./ no Angel & Linda Delgado - FL 01-05-18,/13 Cambria Street yes no Gulf Florida Doughnuts, Inc. - FL 01-0~1 - 1698 Gulf to Bay Boulevard yes no Salvation Army - FL 01-05-19 - 1521 E ~ruid Road yes Jf L no S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: Julv 17"1 2001 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Morton Plan Mease Life Services ~ Z 01-05-01 - 2855 Gulf to Bay Blvd. ~ yes no City of Clearwater/Art ,Kader, P&R - LUZ 01-04-05 - 2780 Drew Street ~ yes no The Clearwater Group, Ltd. - FL 01-01-05 - 1100 South Missouri Avenue ~.. yes no Angel & Linda Delgado - FL 01-05-18 - 13 Cambria Street ~. yes no Gulf Florida Doughnuts, Inc. - FL 01-05-21 - 1698 Gulf to Bay Boulevard ~ yes no Salvation Army - FL 01-05-19 - 1521 E. Druid Road ~. yes no '\\~\ lJ\ at~ S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list doc l COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: Julv 17~ 2001 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Morton Plan Mease Life Services ~ ~~-Ol - 2855 Gulf to Bay Blvd. yes no City of Clearwater/Art Kader, P&R - LT/~1-04-05 - 2780 Drew Street yes \:I'~ ~o The Clearwater Group, Ltd. - FL 01-01-,,95 - 1100 South Missouri Avenue yes V no Angel & Linda Delgado - FL 01-05-1Y13 Cambria Street yes no Gulf Florida Doughnuts, Inc. - FL 0l-Oy2l - 1698 Gulf to Bay Boulevard yes ~ no Salvation Army- FL 01-05-19 -152~ E/Druid Road yes \/' no S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc