Loading...
06/19/2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER June 19, 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 Ralph Stone Planning Director – arrived 4:05 p.m. 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 – REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE/RECONSIDERATION – None. ITEM B – RECONSIDERED ITEMS – None. ITEM C – LEVEL 3 APPLICATIONS CONSENT AGENDA – Accepted as submitted. 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. 1634 Gentry Street Item #C1 – : Kathleen Farinella – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.17 acres to the City, and Land Use Plan Amendment to RL, Residential Low Classification, and rezoning to LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District, ANX 01-04-09 consisting of Lot 3, Block 21, Highland Pines Subdivision, Fourth Addition. The property owner has requested to annex this 0.17-acre single family residential home in order to receive sanitary sewer service from the City. The property will have a land use plan designation of Residential Low and it is proposed to be zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The applicant paid the sewer impact fee on April 3, 2001. The applicant is aware of the additional cost to extend sewer service to the property and the required payment for the utility deposit. Staff recommends approval. AND mcd0601 1 06/19/01 3035 Virginia Avenue Item #C2- : Taylor G. Bingham III – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.15 acres to the City together with 0.19 acres of the abutting right-of-way of Bay Street and abutting the alley to the south, and Land Use Plan amendment to RU, Residential Urban Classification; and rezoning to LMDR, Low Medium Density ANX 01-04- Residential District, consisting of Lot 5, Block 2, Bay View City Subdivision. 10 The property owner has requested to annex this 0.15-acre single family residential home in order to receive sanitary sewer and water services from the City. The property will have a land use plan designation of Residential Urban and it is proposed to be zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The applicant paid the sewer impact fee on May 31, 2001. The applicant is aware of the additional cost to extend sewer service to the property and the required payment for the utility deposit. Staff recommends approval. AND 2454 Raymont Drive Item #C3 – : Kenneth Barker – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.22 acres to the City and Land Use Plan amendment to RL, Residential Low Classification; and rezoning to LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District, ANX 01-04-11 consisting of Lot 95, Skyline Groves. The property owner has requested to annex this 0.22-acre single family residential home in order to receive sanitary sewer and garbage collection services from the City. The property will have a land use plan designation of Residential Low and it is proposed to be zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The applicant paid the sewer impact fee on April 17, 2001. The applicant is aware of the additional cost to extend sewer service to the property and the required payment for the utility deposit. Staff recommends approval. AND 1802 N. Belcher Road Item #D1 – : Fountains Bayway, Inc. – Owner/Applicant. Request Flexible Development approval to reduce the minimum lot width from 200 feet to 103 feet, reduce the north side setback from 15 to three feet, reduce the south side setback from 15 to five feet, and to permit general office use in the IRT District, as part of a Comprehensive FL 01-04-17 Infill Redevelopment Project. The 0.65-acre site is located on the west side of Belcher Road, approximately 150 feet south of Sunnydale Boulevard. Belcher Road serves as a major north-south arterial and is lined with office and industrial development. Drainage ditches line the roadway for stormwater management. The immediate area includes a bank to the north and an office development to the east, across Belcher Road. The bank property includes a large detention area located to the rear of the site, screened from view from Belcher Road. To the west, warehouses and other industrial buildings are clustered in the well-maintained Clearwater Industrial Park. There is a narrow, vacant parcel to the south that is heavily wooded with a drainage ditch. An office and warehouse building is located farther to the south. The subject site is undeveloped with a few small trees. The proposal includes the development of a 5,000 square-foot office building with the lease potential of five mcd0601 2 06/19/01 separate business units. The one-story building will include a brick and stucco exterior to match the materials of the adjoining bank to the north. The elevations are similar in design to the office development to the east including false dormers and pitched roof. The site design includes ingress/egress along Belcher Road and incorporates cross access with the bank property near the rear (west end) of the parcel. A formal reciprocal easement and maintenance agreement has been secured with the bank property to ensure perpetual cross access legally continues. A detention basin is planned to the rear of the site. The stormwater design needs to be revised to address drainage requirements, prior to building permit submittal. This includes revising the drainage calculations. A three-foot sidewalk will be located along the south side of the building to provide convenient access for employees. The landscaping plan is in excess of Code and includes a large planting area along Belcher Road and hedging with accent plants along the site’s perimeter. A five-foot sidewalk is required along Belcher Road although an existing drainage ditch may prevent its installation in the right-of-way. There are preliminary plans for the City to install sidewalks along the roadway and may include improvements of the drainage ditch. In recognition of these conditions and potential future improvement plans, the applicant has requested that a payment in lieu for the sidewalks be allowed if construction of the sidewalks in the right-of-way is not possible with the existing ditch. This will be determined as part of an application for a building permit. The request is to permit general office in the IRT District, to reduce the north side setback from 15 to three feet and to reduce the south side setback from 15 to five feet for the location of the parking lot. The request also includes a reduction of the minimum lot width from 200 to 103 feet. The narrow lot limits options for design. The request is appropriate given the property is an existing vacant lot and the office use is less intensive than most other permitted uses in the IRT District. The building is in excess of 40 feet from the north property line and approximately eight feet from the south property line. The landscaped area along the north property line will be integrated with the bank property. The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and four supporting materials on May 10, 2001. Staff recommends approval with conditions: 1) Stormwater management requirements be met to the satisfaction of Engineering Staff, prior to the issuance of a building permit and revised plans be submitted to Planning Staff; 2) a five-foot sidewalk be provided in the right-of-way along Belcher or the sidewalk be installed on the subject property and the property owner grant an easement to the City; 3) all signage meet Code; and 4) the building be designed consistent with the elevation plans submitted to staff (dated April 20, 2001) or as modified by the Community Development Board. Member Petersen moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. The motioncarried was duly seconded and unanimously. ITEM A – REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE/RECONSIDERATION – None. ITEM B – RECONSIDERED ITEMS – None. ITEM C – LEVEL 3 APPLICATIONS mcd0601 3 06/19/01 1634 Gentry Street Item #C1 - - See page 1. 3035 Virginia Avenue Item #C2- - See page 2. 2454 Raymont Drive Item #C3 --See page 2. ITEM D – LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS 1802 N. Belcher Road Item #D1 - - See pages 2, 3, and 4. 1430 and 1432 Rogers Street and 1433 Court Street Item #D2 – : McDowell Holdings, Inc. – Owner/Applicant. Request Flexible Development approval to permit a non- residential, off-street, parking facility in the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential FL 01-02-09 District. Planner Mark Parry presented the request. The nearby uses include residential and commercial properties. The site consists of four lots within two zoning districts, Low Medium Density Residential (Lots 18 and 19) along Rogers Street and Office (Lots 2 and 3) Districts along Court Street. The 1,787 square foot, single-family dwelling at 1430 Rogers Street and the 1,166 square foot, single-family dwelling at 1432 Rogers Street are occupied by residents. The applicant is proposing to combine the parcels under unity of title should the application be approved. The site along Court Street is used as a dental office by the applicant in association with a separate pediatric dentist office. The site contains a 2,615 square foot, one-story, masonry-block building. The commercial site has access via one right- in/right-out point of access along Court Street. There are 11 parking spaces along the west property line. Hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and on some Fridays. A maximum of 10 employees and between 32 - 90 patients total are on site during the day. The south side of Court Street consists mostly of small to mid-sized, well- maintained office buildings. Some of the structures appear to be converted single-family dwellings. There are 15 businesses within nine buildings located along Court Street adjacent to the neighborhood. As the dental businesses have grown, the parking lot has not been large enough to handle the parking demand. The applicant attempted to resolve parking demand by parking vehicles on the residential lots on Rogers Street and by removing required landscaping along the southern portion of the business and parking vehicles within the LMDR District (at the northern end of 1430 and 1432 Rogers Street). Those actions resulted in two Code citations within the last year (COD2000-00159 issued on January 4, 2000). This case was resolved on March 2, 2001, when all required landscaping was restored and illegally parked cars were removed. A second Code violation (COD2000- 04380) was issued on August 11, 2000, for declining landscaping and illegal parking on property within the LMDR District. The applicant was using the front (south yard of 1432 Rogers Street) as a temporary parking lot. That case was resolved on February 17, 2001. mcd0601 4 06/19/01 The applicant wishes to establish an 11-space non-residential, off-street parking facility within the LMDR District at 1430 and 1432 Rogers Street to serve the dental office. The design includes the use of the northern one-third of the residential lots. The single-family dwellings located on both lots will remain. Access to the parking facility will be exclusively from Court Street. The proposal includes re-striping the parking lot along Court Street while relocating the drive aisle to the west property line and moving the parking spaces to the east side of the reconfigured lot. This will involve the modification of the driveway along Court Street and will require State and City approval. A five-foot landscape buffer will be located along the north and west property lines of Lot 18 and the east property line of Lot 19 to screen the sides of the proposed parking lot. The landscape buffer also will wrap around the south side of the parking lot, three feet from the house at 1430 Rogers Street. A new retention basin is proposed along the south side of the proposed parking lot directly north of the dwelling at 1432 Rogers Street. A retaining wall five feet from the dwelling will enclose the retention basin. A six-foot wooden fence will be relocated and will separate the proposed parking spaces from the rest of the residentially zoned lots. Additional fencing will be installed along the side property lines to buffer the proposed parking spaces. The proposal shows landscaping along the internal side of the fencing along the south side of the proposed parking lot. The proposal will eliminate the back yards of the residential lots at 1430/1432 Rogers Street. It will reduce the residentially zoned properties from 5,000 to approximately 4,300 square feet each, effectively rendering the lots nonconforming with respect to lot area. Stormwater requirements have not been met. These include providing at least one soil boring from the center of the proposed detention basin, elevations for the bottom of the detention pond and the top of bank, seasonal and design high water levels, and the attenuation for 100-year storm. Additionally, the design for the basin may have a maximum of two vertical sides. Public Works Administration also requires details be provided demonstrating that the proposed parking lot grades will directly run off into the pond, that runoff will pass under the proposed fence, and that all retention wall details be provided. Required drainage calculations have not been submitted as required. Should this proposal be approved, it may encourage other businesses along Court Street to purchase and attempt to convert residentially used lots into non- residential, off-street parking facilities and undermine the character of an established, stable neighborhood. As the businesses along Court Street become more successful, alternative parking solutions will become necessary or these businesses will need to relocate. The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and supporting materials on March 15, 2001. The proposal is not in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval, with the maximum development potential, and with all applicable standards of the Community Development Code. mcd0601 5 06/19/01 Staff recommends denial: 1) The proposal in inconsistent with the character of adjacent properties. The surrounding neighborhood is exclusively residential in nature with the exception of the properties along Court Street. These properties are exclusively non-residential in nature and primarily offices and medical clinics; 2) the parking facility will be located in the middle of a residential block and may lead to the eradication of the northern edge and the destabilization of the neighborhood; 3) the proposed development may hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The proposed development will fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood and may discourage appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings; and 4) the proposal effectively creates nonconforming residential lots, which are unusable for existing and future residents and will become unattractive for future owners. In response to a question, Mr. Parry said the two residential homes on the property will remain as residential uses. Todd Pressman, representative, said abutting property owners are not opposed to this request; one indicated he is neutral. He felt his client has met the standards in the Code. He said he does not feel this proposal would adversely impact the site. The two homes on the property will remain residential uses. Parking would be added to the rear of the home that the applicant’s mother lives in. Mr. Pressman reviewed the site plan and stated the original plan has been changed. Two neighborhood meetings have been held regarding the site plan, including the new one. Mr. Pressman said the landscaping on the site plan is not accurate but would meet the Code requirements. A six-foot fence will be placed along the entire parking area to buffer it from residents. He said parking already exists in this neighborhood and his client only seeks to move the parking 20 feet. He referred to an aerial photograph of the area. He felt his client has responded to neighbors’ concerns and does not feel the parking would pose a major intrusion into the neighborhood. Office hours would be during the day. Ernest McDowell, applicant, said he is open to any suggestions that could make this proposal better. He said he has changed his original proposal to accommodate residents and added more landscaping. He does not wish to depreciate property values in the neighborhood. In response to a question, Mr. McDowell said the property owner whom he stated was neutral just moved into the neighborhood a month ago. He said the property owner of the nearby office complex to the west would allow him to use one or two parking spaces occasionally, but would not guarantee it on an ongoing basis. Mr. Pressman said the applicant has a contract for purchase for 2 empty lots on the corner of Highland Avenue and Court Street to provide satellite parking for his office. Those properties have a Court Street address. He has been renting parking nearby primarily for his employees and also is looking at other parking options. Kevin Mineer, professional planner representing the applicant, said the neighborhood has both residential and office uses. He felt as all the surrounding homes already have office parking behind them, residential property values would not be adversely affected by this proposal. He said two homes on the property will remain residential although their back yards would be used for parking for the applicant’s business. He felt the nonconformity issue should not be a concern, as the view of homes and front yards along Roger Streets remain the same. mcd0601 6 06/19/01 Five persons spoke in opposition of the application. In response to a question, Mr. Parry said his analysis and recommendation for denial was based on the applicant’s current proposal. Mr. Pressman said he understands the neighbors’ concerns, however, his client meets the condition of Unity of Title and the criteria in the Code. Assistant Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said staff considered two major elements of the site plan: 1) if it meets the technical standards of the Code, and 2) if it is the right use in the right place. She said absent the stormwater issue, staff does not feel this is the right use in the right place. Member Petersen moved to deny the Flexible Development request to permit a non-residential, off-street, parking facility in the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential motioncarried District. The was duly seconded and unanimously. ITEM E – APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS : May 15, 2001 Member Hooper moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 15, 2001, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motioncarried was duly seconded and unanimously. ITEM F – DIRECTOR’S ITEMS: Discussion of Code amendment regarding boats docks and newsracks Ms. Tarapani said as it was not addressed in the Code, staff drafted an ordinance regarding commercial docks. The Marine Advisory Board and the Environmental Advisory Board reviewed the ordinance. She said if the Commission approves the ordinance this Thursday, it would be implemented in mid-July. She said currently, there are no commercial dock applications under review. Update on Frenchy’s Appeal Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said an Administrative Law Judge ordered a reversal of the Community Development Board’s decision to deny Frenchy’s application. The applicant is in the process of obtaining permits to proceed with the project. She said the Commission has not directed staff to appeal the ruling. Ms. Dougall-Sides said there had been some testimony alleging that an ex-board member had ex-party communications regarding the application. The Code provides that no member of the board shall engage in ex-party communications on quasi-judicial matters that are to be considered by the board. The board member in question did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Dougall-Sides said in her proposed final order she had suggested that the testimony was hearsay and therefore could not or should not form the basis of any finding by the Administrative Law Judge. On that basis, the Administrative Law Judge did not proceed further. Ms. Dougall-Sides suggested the CDB (Community Development Board) hold a separate meeting to review their responsibilities, policies and procedures. Consensus was for staff to schedule a September meeting. mcd0601 7 06/19/01 The meeting recessed from 3:13 to 3:20 p.m. Discussion of correspondence from Board Member Mazur Member Mazur had requested discussion regarding a comment about the CDB made by Commissioner Hart at the June 7, 2001, Commission meeting. The Mayor had asked if the Commissioner was inferring that developers control the CDB, or that the Commission is allowing it to be controlled by developers. It was requested Commissioner Hart address Mr. Mazur’s concerns and answer the Mayor’s question posed at that meeting. CDB members agreed this issue is important to each of them, their families, and the entire community. Concern was expressed: 1) the media does not always adequately reflect the remarks made by elected officials; 2) a letter written by a citizen to a CDB member alleged one of their members has no respect for citizens’ rights, and that the member was aligned with a firm that promotes development; 3) the press is a major contributor to the miscommunication and public perception that the City is divided; 4) if people state things often enough, whether they are true or not, eventually the general public believes it; 5) commentary without foundation hurts individuals and the public good; 6) the Code has already been changed once while Commissioner Hart has been in office and he had every opportunity to discuss his concerns regarding the CDB and the Code; 7) when applicants’ requests are denied, their subsequent action is to tell the Commission the CDB is anti-neighborhood; and 8) the lack of Commission support could create a public perception that changes need to be made. It was remarked: 1) partnerships between government and developers is essential in a successful community; 2) citizens who volunteer to join an advisory board or run for office do so to serve their community and give something back to it; 3) CDB members always have recused themselves to eliminate any question of their integrity; 4) the CDB follows the guidelines set by the Commission and the Code and always considers substantial competent evidence; 5) individual Commissioners should reaffirm to complainants the CDB’s position according to Code; 6) if CDB members disagree with staff, they always voice their opinions; 7) citizen emotion should not be a part of the equation; and 8) the CDB does not defend staff’s position, but values their position because they are more knowledgeable about the Code. Commissioner Hart said he felt it important to clarify some misunderstandings regarding his remarks about the CDB. He thanked the CDB for their service and said he did not seek to impugn anyone’s integrity at the Commission meeting. He said to try to defend himself against something he had not said make no sense, therefore he remained silent. But by remaining silent, he said he contributed to an unintended inference. He said he and the Mayor do not always see things the same way about the openness and accountability of government. In response to a question, Commissioner Hart said his answer to Mayor Aungst’s question regarding the CDB at the June 7, 2001, Commission meeting is “no”. Commissioner Hart said he had requested a meeting with the CDB to address public perceptions. He said until this unfortunate incident, he was told that a meeting with the CDB was not possible. He believed that statements regarding the CDB were taken out of context during an interview over a cellular phone with a reporter, as they were disconnected 4 times. He stated he does not believe anyone on the CDB has mcd0601 8 06/19/01 done anything wrong or unethical. He suggested public perception could be addressed by making some minor changes to the rules. He said citizen concerns include: 1) the Code is too liberal and allows too many concessions, especially with regard to Infill options; 2) confusion regarding TDRs (Transfer Development Rights) and their ability to be retained after a site is fully developed; 3) height variances allowing over three times regularly permitted height in some instances; 4) public perception that the changes in the Code and the powers of the CDB have radically changed the way that Clearwater engages development issues; 5) public perception is that CDB members are likely to look after one another in approving projects; and 6) a perception that the Commission has abdicated its responsibility by permitting decisions that were once required to be decided by an appointed board. He felt five specific areas of concern presented to him by citizens need to be addressed: 1) CDB attendance; 2) CDB recusals; 3) term and make-up of the CDB; 4) roles of the CDB with regard to staff and its presentations; and 5) role of the Commission in affirming actions of the CDB. He felt the Commission should not abdicate their total responsibility to an appointed board. He said many other cities place actions of their planning or zoning boards on a consent agenda to allow the Commission to affirm those actions or request further review. He suggested that type of Commission review would eliminate many of the criticisms of the CDB and the Code. He said the elected officials are ultimately held accountable for the decisions of the CDB and should be required to voice their positions on each issue. Commissioner Hart said he feels it necessary for the CDB and Commission to schedule a meeting regarding roles and responsibilities. He would like the Commission to provide an affirmation of the CDB’s actions. He said the CDB’s role is to interpret Code, not to set policy. Planning Director Ralph Stone said the majority of single family applications are granted. He said the development community feels staff is too stringent. He regularly receives criticism of the Code from the development community, not from residents. Staff and the CDB are guided by the quasi-judicial process, which requires that decisions be made based on competent substantial evidence. In many cases, applications are reviewed by several staff members prior to making recommendations to the CDB. The Code was taken to neighborhoods, community groups, and discussed throughout the community and at public hearings. He said neither staff nor the CDB are developer-friendly. ITEM G – ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:27 p.m. mcd0601 9 06/19/01