Loading...
02/19/2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER February 19, 2002 Present: Gerald Figurski Chair Carlen A. Petersen Vice Chair David Gildersleeve Board Member – arrived 2:02 p.m./departed 2:44 p.m. Edward Mazur, Jr. Board Member Shirley Moran Board Member Alex Plisko Board Member Ed Hooper Board Member Frank Hibbard Alternate Board Member (non-voting) Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Cynthia Tarapani Planning Director Lisa L. Fierce Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton Long Range Planning 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. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: January 22, 2002 B. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: (Items 1-6). The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. 1. Case: ANX01-12-30 – 1328 Woodbine Street – Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: Liberian A. Miles Location: 0.18 acres on the north side of Woodbine Street, approximately 460 feet east of Betty Lane and 65 feet west of Rolen Road Atlas Page: 269B Request: (a) Annexation of 0.18 acres to the City of Clearwater; (b) Land Use Plan amendment from RL, Residential Low (County) to RL, Residential Low Classification (Clearwater); and (c) Rezoning from R-3, Residential, Single Family District (County) to LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District (Clearwater) Proposed Use: Existing single-family dwelling Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner The property owner requests to annex the property into the City and approve the appropriate City land use plan category and zoning district. The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The applicant has not paid the sewer impact fee but is aware that payment of this fee must be paid prior to City Commission approval. The proposed mcd0202 1 2/19/02 annexation and existing use are consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Plan both with regard to the Future Land Use Map as well as goals and policies. The existing and future use of this site as a single family home is consistent with the LMDR zoning district. Finally, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Law regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency with existing City boundaries and is compact in concentration. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request: 1) Approval of the annexation of the property located at 1328 Woodbine Road; 2) approval of the Residential Low plan category pursuant to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and 3) approval of the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning district pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. 2. Case: ANX01-12-31 – 2119 Pleasant Parkway – Level Three Application Owners/Applicants: John L. Blechschmidt and Linda W. Blechschmidt Location: 0.48 acres on the west side of Pleasant Parkway, approximately 400 feet north of Lakeview Road Atlas Page: 308B Request: (a) Annexation of 0.48 acres to the City of Clearwater; (b) Land Use Plan amendment from RL/P, Residential Low and Preservation (County) to RL/P, Residential Low and Preservation Classifications (Clearwater; and (c) Rezoning from R-1, Residential, Single Family District (County) to LMDR, Low Medium Density residential District & P, Preservation District (Clearwater) Proposed Use: New single family dwelling Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner The property owners are requesting to annex the property into the City and approve the appropriate City land use plan category and zoning district. The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The applicants have paid the applicable sewer impact fee of $900.00 and also are aware of the additional cost to connect the property to the City sewer system. The proposed annexation and existing use are consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Plan both with regard to the Future Land Use Map as well as goals and policies. The existing and future use of this site as a single family home is consistent with the LMDR zoning district. The proposed annexation is consistent with Florida law regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency with existing City boundaries and is compact in concentration. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request: 1) Approval of the annexation of the property located at 2119 Pleasant Parkway with the condition that all new construction meet the requirements of the Clearwater Community Development Code; 2) approval of the Residential Low and Preservation plan categories pursuant to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and 3) approval of the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and the Preservation (P) zoning districts pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. 3. Case: ANX01-12-32 – 1725 W. Manor Avenue - Level Three Application mcd0202 2 2/19/02 Owners/Applicants: Robert Van Scoyoc & Marilynne Van Scoyoc Location: 0.15 acres on the east side of west Manor Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of South Lagoon Circle and 100 feet west of Ragland Avenue Atlas Page: 263A Request: (a) Annexation of 0.15 acres to the City of Clearwater; (b) Land Use Plan amendment from RU, Residential Urban (County) to RU, Residential Urban Classification (Clearwater); and (c) Rezoning from R-3, Residential, Single Family District (County) to LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District (Clearwater) Proposed use: Existing single-family dwelling Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner The property owners are requesting to annex the property into the City of Clearwater and approve the appropriate City land use plan category and zoning district. The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The applicants have paid the applicable sewer impact fee of $900.00 and also are aware of the additional cost to connect the property to the City sewer system. The proposed annexation and existing use are consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Plan both with regard to the Future Land Use Map as well as goals and policies. The existing and future use of this site as a single family home is consistent with the LMDR zoning district. The proposed annexation is consistent with Florida law regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency with existing City boundaries and is compact in concentration. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request: 1) Approval of the annexation of the property at 1725 West Manor Avenue; 2) approval of the Residential Urban plan category pursuant to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and 3) approval of the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning district pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. 4. Case: LUZ01-12-09 – 565 Sky Harbor Drive – Level Three Application Owner: New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. Applicant: Clearwater Mall, LLC, c/o The Sembler Company Representative: E. D. Armstrong III, Esquire Location: 1.27 acres on the southern terminus of Sky Harbor Drive, approximately 450 feet south of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, adjacent to the Clearwater Mall Atlas Page: 300A Request: (a) Land Use Plan Amendment from R/OG, Residential/Office General to I, Institutional Category; and (b) Rezoning from O, Office District to I, Institutional District Present Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Fire station Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner The property owners are requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map from Residential/OfficeGeneral (R/OG) to Institutional (I), and to rezone from Office (O) District to Institutional (I) District. mcd0202 3 2/19/02 An amendment of the Future Land Use Plan from Residential/Office General (R/OG) to Institutional (I) and a rezoning from Office (O) to the Institutional (I) zoning district for the subject site is necessary to allow the construction of a new fire station on the subject site and to facilitate the exchange of land between the applicant and the City of Clearwater. The neighborhood is surrounded by commercial and medium density residential uses. The proposed institutional use will blend into the existing neighborhood and serve as a transition between more intensive commercial uses to the west and medium density residential uses to the east and south. The Fire Department has indicated that the proposed new location is adequate for the construction of the new fire station and will not affect response times or level of service. This exchange will enhance the proposed mall redevelopment and will provide the City with an alternative fire station site in the immediate vicinity. The proposed Institutional Future Land Use classification and Institutional zoning district are consistent with both the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, are compatible with the surrounding area, do not require nor affect the provision of public services, are compatible with the natural environment and are consistent with the development regulations of the City. The Planning Department recommends approval of the following actions on this application: 1) Amend the Future Land Use Plan designation of 565 Sky Harbor Drive from Residential/Office General (R/OG) to Institutional (I), and 2) amend the Zoning District designation of 565 Sky Harbor Drive from Office (O) to Institutional (I). 5. Case: LUZ01-12-10 – 520 Sky Harbor Drive – Level Three Application Owner: City of Clearwater Applicant: Clearwater Mall, LLC, c/o The Sembler Company Representative: E. D. Armstrong III, Esquire Location: 3.688-acre parcel on the southwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Sky Harbor Drive, adjoining Clearwater Mall Atlas Page: 300A Request: (a) Land Use Plan Amendment from I, Institutional to CG, Commercial General Category, and (b) Rezoning from I, Institutional District to C, Commercial District Present Use: Fire station Proposed Use: Commercial use as part of the Clearwater Mall redevelopment Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner The property owners are requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map from Institutional (I) to Commercial General (CG), and to rezone from the Institutional (I) District to the Commercial (C) District. An amendment of the Future Land Use Plan from Institutional (I) to Commercial General (CG) and a rezoning from the Institutional (I) to the Commercial (C) zoning district for the subject site is necessary to allow the use of the existing fire station site for commercial purposes and to facilitate the exchange of land between the applicant and the City of Clearwater. The neighborhood is surrounded by a variety of development including commercial, offices, restaurants, and medium density residential uses. The proposed commercial use will be an extension to the existing Clearwater Mall and will blend into the existing commercial uses in the area. mcd0202 4 2/19/02 The Fire Department indicates that operations at the existing station will not be affected by the proposed land exchange and likewise the proposed new location is adequate for the construction of the new fire station and will not affect response times or levels of service. This exchange will enhance the proposed mall redevelopment and will provide the City with an alternative fire station. The redevelopment of Clearwater Mall will result in additional traffic on the surrounding roadway system but would generate less traffic than if the existing mall were fully occupied. Various access and signal timing improvements are recommended at the signalized intersections and driveways along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and on the US 19 northbound frontage road. The proposed Commercial Future Land Use classification and Commercial (C) zoning district are consistent with both the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, are compatible with the surrounding area, do not require nor affect the provision of public services, are compatible with the natural environment, and are consistent with the development regulations of the City. The Planning Department recommends approval of the following actions on this application: 1) Amend the Future Land Use Plan designation of 520 Sky Harbor Drive from Institutional (I) to Commercial General (CG); and 2) amend the Zoning District designation of 520 Sky Harbor Drive from Institutional (I) to Commercial (C). 6. Case: FL01-11-34 – 23490 – 23498 US19 North – Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Mr. Mark Howard, Cypress Plaza, Ltd. Representative: Mr. Jan Norsoph, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. Location: 2.09-acre site on the west side of US Highway 19 North approximately 200 feet north of Stag Run Boulevard Atlas Page: 263B Zoning: C, Commercial District Request: Flexible Development approval to permit vehicle service use within the Commercial District with an existing 10-foot (south) side setback, a zero-foot side (north) setback to pavement, a three-foot rear (west) setback to pavement, and with a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (115 spaces) to 4.20 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (96 spaces), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-704, with a Comprehensive Landscape Program Proposed Use: An 8,000 square foot vehicle service establishment in concert with existing retail and office uses Conditions: 1) There be no overnight parking of vehicles in the parking lot and no storage of new/used tires or other products outdoors; 2) the landscape plan be amended to reflect the use of Dahoon Holly trees, oleanders around the dumpster enclosure, additional low growing plantings at the entrance and south property line, replacement of crepe myrtles in front of building, and use of ground cover/shrub in lieu of sod in all interior landscape; 3) site improvements be made within two phases: Phase 1 includes landscape improvements along US 19 and include all parking lot improvements including required handicapped spaces, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, and that Phase 2 includes the implementation of the remaining landscape improvements and installing Code- compliant dumpster enclosures (painted to match the buildings), within six months of CDB approval (August 19, 2002); and 4) all new signage and/or any mcd0202 5 2/19/02 amendments to existing signage be designed according to a common, architecturally-integrated and coordinated theme, in accordance with Code. Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner The owners are proposing a vehicle service establishment in association with existing retail sales and service/office uses. The application and supporting materials were reviewed by the Development Review Committee on January 17, 2002. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit a vehicle service use within the Commercial District with an existing 10-foot (south) side setback, a zero-foot side (north) setback to pavement, a three-foot rear (west) setback to pavement, and with a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (115 spaces) to 4.20 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (94 spaces), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-704, with a Comprehensive Landscape Program, for the site at 23490 U.S. Highway 19 North, with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.B; 2) the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G; 3) the proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 4) the development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; 5) the proposal will provide for economic use of the vacant building, as it was originally designed, with a reasonable timeframe for completion of phased site improvements. Conditions: 1) There be no overnight parking of vehicles in the parking lot and no storage of new/used tires or other products outdoors; 2) the landscape plan be amended to reflect the use of Dahoon Holly trees, oleanders around the dumpster enclosure, additional low growing plantings at the entrance and south property line, replacement of crepe myrtles in front of building, and use of ground cover/shrub in lieu of sod in all interior landscape; 3) site improvements be made within two phases: Phase 1 includes landscape improvements along US 19 and include all parking lot improvements including required handicapped spaces, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, and that Phase 2 includes the implementation of the remaining landscape improvements and installing Code-compliant dumpster enclosures (painted to match the buildings), within six months of CDB approval (August 19, 2002); and 4) all new signage and/or any amendments to existing signage be designed according to a common, architecturally- integrated and coordinated theme, in accordance with Code. Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Consent Agenda Items B1, B2, B3, and B6. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said the address for Item #6 was incorrectly typed on the agenda provided to the Board. (It was later confirmed that the correct address above was properly advertised.) Member Petersen moved to approve Consent Agenda Items B4 and B5. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Chair Figurski and Members mcd0202 6 2/19/02 Petersen, Gildersleeve, Moran, Plisko, Hooper, and Hibbard voted “aye”. Member Mazur abstained. Motion carried. C. NON-CONSENT AGENDA (Item 7) 1. Case TA 02-01-01 – Community Development Code Amendments – Level Three Application Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department Request: Comprehensive amendments to the Community Development Code, as a result of the annual review, including amendments to the General Provisions, Zoning Districts, Development Standards, Development Review and other Procedures, Nonconformity Provisions, Enforcement Proceedings and Penalties and Definitions and Rules of Construction Presenter: Richard Kephart, Senior Planner Senior Planner Richard Kephart presented the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code. He distributed additional revisions not listed in the Staff report. He stated that should the Community Development Board have any concerns or recommendations, staff would present them to the City Commission at their next meeting. Since the passage of the new Community Development Code in 1999, the Planning Department has been charged with reviewing the Code on an annual basis to determine if any additions, deletions, or revisions are needed to improve the administration of the Code or regulations imposed. Over the past year, the Planning Department has been compiling a list of issues associated with the Code. Suggested amendments have been collected from various departments including Planning, Development Services and Parks and Recreation, as well as the City Commission, Community Development Board and citizens. During this code update process, staff has met with numerous groups to solicit input on the update including the Clearwater Coalition of Homeowners Association, the Government Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, the Main Street Design and Economic Committees, the Environmental Advisory Board, the Pinellas Suncoast Association of Realtors, the Clearwater Beach Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Development Board and the Marine Advisory Board. Additionally, the Planning Department held a public workshop at the Harborview Center to seek comments and suggestions and answer questions. The Planning Department is recommending a number of amendments to the Community Development Code. Of those, approximately twenty (20) can be considered a change in current policy or a new policy issue. The remaining amendments are editorial in nature, provide additional flexibility criteria, or are refinements to existing provisions. Below is a summary of the most noteworthy proposed amendments organized by Article. A comprehensive listing of all proposed amendments was provided to the Board. Amendments in the list are organized by number, by Code section number and include a brief summary of the amendment. Ordinance No. 6928-02 which includes all of the specific amendments also was provided to the Board. The section number of each amendment in the ordinance corresponds to the number in the comprehensive list. Text that is underlined indicates proposed language and text containing strikethroughs indicate deletions. mcd0202 7 2/19/02 Article 2 – Zoning Districts Accessory Structures (Pages 5, 6, and 7 of Ordinance) ?? The Planning Department is proposing to revise the diagrams illustrating setback requirements in all residential zoning districts by renaming accessory uses to accessory structures and eliminating reduced setbacks specifically for accessory structures in the front setback. The amendment also replaces references to accessory swimming pools with accessory structures. Social and Community Center (Pages 8, 9, 11, 17, 19, 21-22, 26, and 28 of ?? Ordinance) The Planning Department is proposing to expand the locations in which social and community centers are permitted. At present, these centers are only allowed in the Institutional District; however, many existing centers are located in other zoning district. The proposed amendment would allow these uses as minimum standard and flexible standard development in the Downtown, Tourist and Commercial Districts. This proposed amendment will bring many of theses facilities into conformity with the Code. Marina and Marina Facilities (Pages 7-10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 25-27, and ?? 29–30 of Ordinance) Recent revisions to the dock provisions (Ordinance 6795-01) require all commercial docks to be approved by the Community Development Board. Marinas and marina facilities are commercial docks, however, they are permitted as minimum standard and flexible standard uses in the Commercial, Tourist, Downtown and Institutional Districts. To be consistent with recently approved dock provisions, the Planning Department is proposing amendments that would permit marinas and marina facilities only through a flexible development approval process (Community Development Board approval.) The amendment further requires marina/marina facilities to comply with the commercial dock standards, as well a general marina standards established in Article 3, Development Standards. Article 3 – Development Standards Location of Watercrafts (Page 34 of Ordinance) ?? Davits are exempt from dock setback requirements and concern has been raised that boats could possibly extend legally into adjacent properties. Trends indicate that the size of boat used for personal purposes is increasing in size. The Planning Department is proposing a provision that specifies that all watercraft must be contained with the property lines as extended into the water. Deviations for Multi-Use Docks (Page 34 of Ordinance) ?? Deviation provisions are proposed for multi-use docks 500 square feet in size or smaller consistent with the deviation procedures established for docks for single and two family dwellings. These procedures would allow deviations to be granted if the adjacent property owners agree to the deviation. If they do not agree, the property owner may petition for the deviation through a flexible standard review process. This mcd0202 8 2/19/02 is consistent with the deviation procedures established for docks serving single family and two family dwellings. Chain Link Fences (Pages 35-36 of Ordinance) ?? The Planning Department is proposing to prohibit chain link fences in the Downtown District to be consistent with the design theme and character established in the Downtown Design Guidelines. Vending Machines (Page 37 of Ordinance) ?? Due to the aesthetic concerns associated with vending machines, the Planning Department is proposing to limit the number of vending machines that can be placed outside of a building to two. The proposed amendment also prohibits signage on the sides of vending machines and limits signage on the front of each machine to 35% of the front area of the machine. These limitations are very similar to provisions regulating newsracks. Tree Replacement Requirements (Pages 38-39 of Ordinance) ?? The Planning Department originally proposed a 25% tree replacement credit for developed multi-family and commercial properties. After further research, the Planning Department determined that a revision was made to the Code in 1999 that allowed trees within required landscaped areas to be used as credit against tree replacement requirements; however, this change was never codified. In light of this allowable credit, the Planning Department is recommending an amendment giving the Community Development Coordinator authority to waive tree replacement requirements for exotics, other undesirable trees and those trees in declining health instead of the 25% replacement credit. This proposed provision, along with the credit for required landscaping negates the problem of having sufficient space for required tree replacements. Parking Demand Study (Page 40 of Ordinance) ?? The Planning Department is proposing a provision that requires a parking demand study to be conducted if deviations from the parking requirements are proposed. The amendment requires the methodology of such study to be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles and approved by the Community Development Coordinator. It also clarifies that the results of the study will determine whether or not the reduction in parking can be approved. Maintenance of Rights-of-Way (Page 43 of Ordinance) ?? At the request of the Community Response Team, the property maintenance standards are proposed to be expanded to prohibit the growth of shrubs and vegetation, in addition to weeds or trash, within the right-of-way. This amendment requires the abutting property owner to maintain all landscaping so that it does not protrude in to the right-of-way and create safety hazards. Seawalls (Page 42-43 of Ordinance) ?? mcd0202 9 2/19/02 During the Island Estates neighborhood planning process, the issue of seawall maintenance was discussed. Upon a review of the Community Development Code and the Building Code, it was concluded there are no specific maintenance standards for seawalls. Due to the importance of seawall maintenance, the Planning Department is proposing a property maintenance standard for seawalls and a provision declaring unsafe/un-maintained seawalls a nuisance. Abandoned Signs (Page 43 of Ordinance) ?? Abandoned signs that are determined to be nonconforming with the sign ordinance are required to be removed after notice is given. This section of the code, however, also permits in the alternative, the ability to use neutral sign panels to replace the sign panels of an abandoned signs. The Planning Department is proposing to eliminate this provision so that abandoned nonconforming signs must be removed. Sign Design Requirements (Page 45 of Ordinance) ?? The Planning Department is proposing a provision that requires all signs to be architecturally integrated into the building and/or site by using similar and coordinated design and style features, materials and colors. Freestanding Signs at Elevated Intersections (Pages 45-46 of Ordinance) ?? The Planning Department is proposing to add a provision that permits freestanding signs to project 14 feet in height above the crown of the road for properties fronting on elevated intersections. This amendment is proposed to address identification needs for properties with frontage along elevated overpasses along US 19 and McMullen Booth Road. This issue has surfaced due to new elevated intersections being planned for US 19. The old code had a similar provision permitting additional sign height in these locations. Minimum Permitted Signage (Page 46 of Ordinance) ?? Recognizing that the current provision for attached and freestanding signage is very limiting, the Planning Department is proposing to increase the absolute minimum permitted sign area from ten (10) square feet to twenty (20) square feet in area. Comprehensive Sign Program (Pages 47-48 of Ordinance) ?? The Planning Department is proposing revisions to the Comprehensive Sign Program, which will allow deviations from the minimum sign standards in terms of numbers of signs and sign area. These amendments will permit an increase in the amount of attached signage from 1% of up to a maximum of 5% of the building façade to which the sign is attached. Freestanding signs will continue to be limited to two times the total permitted sign area. The amendments also propose guidelines to be used when determining the number and location of additional signage. Proposed criterion focuses on site size, amount of frontage, access, traffic circulation, etc. Portable Storage Units (Page 49 of Ordinance) ?? mcd0202 10 2/19/02 The Planning Department is proposing to give the Community Development Coordinator authority to approve the use of portable storage units in emergency situation for duration of emergency repairs instead of only for four (4) days. Article 4 – Development Review and Other Procedures Submittal Requirements (Page 49 of Ordinance) ?? The current code permits either a plat of record or a survey to be submitted with an application of development approval. Because a plat of record does not include the location of any buildings or structures and a survey does, the Planning Department is proposing to delete the plat of record option. Appeals Presented to Hearing Officer (Page 51 of Ordinance) ?? Typically, appeals made to hearing officers are decided on the information that was presented when the original decision was made. The current code does not specify this; therefore, the City has been in positions where cases are being tried at the hearing officer level. The Legal Department is proposing that the code be revised to not allow discovery or depositions at the appeal, however, new witnesses may be presented. Final Plat (Page 52 of Ordinance) ?? The Planning Department is proposing an amendment that specifies that no building permits may be issued until evidence of final plat recordation has been submitted. The Code currently requires this only upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy, which occurs when building construction is completed. Transfer of Development Rights (Pages 53–54 of Ordinance) ?? To gain consistency with the Countywide Rules, the Planning Department is proposing to add language to the transfer of development rights (TDRs) provisions that specify that TDRs may only be used within approved Community Redevelopment Areas or to protect architecturally significant structures, historic structures or environmentally sensitive areas. Amendments also require the sending site to meet all property maintenance standards prior to transferring development rights and to require consent of the mortgage holders prior to approving any transfer. An amendment also requires that there be a reasonable relationship between the number of units transferred and any increases in building height. Article 7 Enforcement Proceedings and Penalties Correction of Violation Prior to Hearing (Page 54 of Ordinance) ?? The Planning Department is proposing to delete the provision which allows violations, if corrected prior to the hearing and not repeated within six months, to be considered withdrawn. This amendment would ensure that repeat violators are enforced upon according to stricter standards and greater fines. CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS: mcd0202 11 2/19/02 Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. Any code amendment must comply with the following. 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below is a selected list of goals, policies, objectives from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code: ?? Goal 2 – The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development. ?? Policy 2.1.1 - Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate, by providing development incentives such as density bonuses for significant lot consolidation and/or catalytic projects, as well as the use of transfer of developments rights pursuant to approved special area plans and redevelopment plan. ?? Policy 2.1.2 - Renewal of the beach tourist district shall be encouraged through the establishment of distinct districts within Clearwater Beach, the establishment of a limited density pool of additional hotel rooms to be used in specified geographic areas of Clearwater Beach, enhancement of public rights-of- way, the vacation of public rights-of-way when appropriate, transportation improvements, inter-beach and intra-beach transit, transfer of development rights and the use of design guidelines, pursuant to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines. ?? Policy 2.1.3 - The area governed by Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines shall be recognized on the Countywide Future Land Use map as a Community Redevelopment District. This area is bounded on the north by the line dividing the block between Acacia Street and Somerset Street, the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east and the Sand Key Bridge on the south, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive. Beachfront and public property located adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico and the Intracoastal Waterway with a Future Land Use designation of Recreation/Open Space shall be excluded from the Community Redevelopment District. ?? Policy 2.3.3 – The City of Clearwater shall continue to implement the Design Guidelines, adopted in 1995, for all development within the Downtown District. ?? Policy 3.2.1 – Land Uses on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map shall generally be interpreted as indicated in the following table. The intensity standards listed in the table (FAR – floor area ratio; ISR – impervious surface ratio) are the maximum allowed for each plan category, except where otherwise permitted by special area plans or redevelopment plan approved by the City Commission. Consequently, individual zoning district, as established in the City’s Community Development Code, mcd0202 12 2/19/02 may have more stringent intensity standards than those listed in the table but will not exceed the maximum allowable intensity of the plan category, unless otherwise permitted by approved special area plans or redevelopment. ?? Objective 4.1 – All signage with the City of Clearwater shall be consistent with the Clearwater sign code, as found in the Community Development Code, and all proposed signs shall be evaluated to determine their effectiveness in reducing visual clutter and in enhancing safety and attractiveness of the streetscape. ?? Policy 4.1.1 – Commercial signs in Clearwater shall be restricted to discourage the proliferation of visual clutter, promote community aesthetics, provide for highway safety and to allow the identification of business locations. ?? Objective 4.2 – All development and redevelopment initiatives within the City of Clearwater shall meet the minimum landscaping/tree protection standards of the Community Development Code in order to promote the preservation of existing tree canopies, the expansion of that canopy, and the overall quality of development within the City. ?? Policy 22.2.7 – Transfer of development rights should be implemented to provide alternatives to development and degradation of wetlands and other natural resources. 2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed text amendments include a broad range of regulations ranging from permitted uses, numerical standards, flexibility criteria, procedures, enforcement and definitions. The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of Section 1-103 that lists the purposes of the Code. The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code. They also further the original redevelopment goals that established the Code. The amendments permit certain uses in a wider range of zoning district. They also provide more appropriate development standards regarding marinas, signage and tree replacement requirements. They also strive to improve community aesthetics through the additional regulation of sign design and the limitation of the number of vending machines allowed outside of a building. In many instances the proposed amendments promote more site-specific solutions. These solutions ultimately promote economic development and maintain high standards for development, which are essential in a community undergoing redevelopment. Planning Department Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 6928-02 which makes revisions to the Community Development Code. Concern was expressed regarding proposed amendments for Marina and Marina Facilities with respect to the need to clarify hairline cracks on seawalls versus structural cracks. Mr. Kephart said staff has met with the Marine Advisory Board regarding those mcd0202 13 2/19/02 concerns. Staff feels they have been addressed in the proposed provision declaring un- maintained seawalls a nuisance in Section 100 of the Ordinance regarding seawall maintenance. Concern was expressed regarding Section 142. Article 4. Division 7. Subdivision/Plats. Staff is proposing to amend Section 4-702 – Required Approvals to require that “If a plat approval is required, preliminary plat approval must be obtained before a building permit may be issued.” It was felt that this proposal would pose a hardship to developers. There is no schedule for review of a final plat and it could become delayed due to the process. It was suggested that staff research other cities’ processes regarding this section. Ms. Tarapani said staff would have difficulty issuing a building permit without prior knowledge of the locations of the easements and final property lines. It was felt that Section 143, Article 4. Division 7. Subdivision/Plats. Section 4- 708.C. Recording of final plat should not be changed. It was suggested staff further review Section 145, Article 4. Division 13. Land Clearing Removal Permit. Section 4-1301. It was suggested that staff incorporate a dimenuous number or percentage regarding deviations from the parking requirements in the Code, Section 87, Article 3. Division 14. Parking and Loading, Section 3-1401. Mr. Kephart said that section was addressed due to the numerous types of studies. The City is attempting to set the ground work from the beginning to clarify how studies will be done. In response to a question regarding the significance of a flat roof indicating in Section 57, Article 2. Division 12. Institutional District. Section 2-1203, Mr. Kephart said that section was developed to address issues related to flat roofs with rocks and gravel materials during storms. Ms. Tarapani said at this morning’s City Commission Work Session, Commissioners requested a comparison between the sign code changes in the former and new Codes. Discussion ensued regarding Section 74, Article 3. Division 9. General Applicability Standards. Section 3-908. Permitted encroachments into setbacks and over street rights-of-way. That section indicates that roof overhangs shall be not be permitted to extend into required structural setbacks more than 30 inches. Ms. Tarapani said the Code currently is silent on roof overhangs. On balconies, etc., the Code restricts overhangs to 30 inches, therefore staff felt this proposal was consistent with those parameters. It was remarked that roof overhangs, especially for new housing, larger homes, and varying building heights are not standard, and this 30-inch requirement was too restrictive. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said gutters are included in the 30-inch requirement. Staff considered setback requirements, attempted to make overhang sizes uniform, and attempted to address the impact on neighbors when this section was developed. It was remarked that the potential for 2 overhangs occurring in the same plain would be remote. Staff will check the former code regarding overhangs as a percentage of the building’s density. mcd0202 14 2/19/02 Concern was expressed that pavement on the back of a building requires a CDB level review and is a separate issue from required setbacks. Ms. Tarapani said multifamily projects require a staff level review for rear of buildings. She said the review is necessary to comply with setback regulations. It was remarked that landscaping can include various features such as pavement. It was suggested staff consider exempting pavers and other landscaping materials from the setback requirement. Ms. Tarapani said the pavement issue was developed as a result of instances where property owners wish to pave the entire yard and totally eliminate green space. She felt staff’s proposal is consistent with other cities’ requirements regarding density and ISR (Impervious Surface Ratio). In response to a question, Long Range Planning Manager Gina Clayton said the Island Estates residents through their NCOD (Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District) process, is considering an open space requirement in front yards in addition to ISR. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said she is unaware of any other municipality that defines what can be placed in a setback. It was felt that pavers, etc. should be considered as an open space issue rather than a setback issue. Ms. Tarapani said brick walks, paver blocks, etc. are just as permanent as other types of landscaping. It was remarked that the former Code had a green space requirement to cover these concerns. Consensus was to further discuss this issue at the next meeting. Concern was expressed that Section 148. Article 4. Division 14. Transfer of Development Rights. Section 4-1403.C. Use of transferred development rights does not contain language to clarify what is a reasonable relationship between a transfer in height. Ms. Tarapani said the CDB is responsible to make that determination. She said the CDB would review each case on an individual basis along with compatibility and other related issues. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the City Commission has not made a final decision regarding a mathematical relationship or other means of determining a “reasonable relationship”. It was suggested that a sliding scale between the number of units transferred and height may be one solution to the issue. Concern was expressed that the language in this section is open to interpretation and would result in a high number of appeals. Concern was expressed that the proposed language permitting new witnesses to be presented at Appeal Hearings should not be permitted. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the Appeal Officer would not disregard the information and facts heard at the CDB meetings, nor the recommendations made by the CDB regarding a case. It was remarked that new witnesses could present new information. One citizen felt it is fundamentally unfair to allow new witnesses to attend a hearing officer hearing. Should they be permitted to speak, their testimony should be limited to the facts and information presented at the CDB meeting. Consensus was to recommend to the City Commission that no new witnesses be allowed at Appeal Hearings. D. DIRECTOR’S ITEMS 1. Request for time extension – Marriott Seashell Resort – FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01 at 301 South Gulfview Boulevard mcd0202 15 2/19/02 Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce said the Marriott Seashell Resort is requesting a time extension for approval of the project at 301 South Gulfview Boulevard from February 20, 2002, to February 20, 2003. Member Hooper moved to approve the extension of the project at 301 South motion Gulfview Boulevard from February 20, 2002, to February 20, 2003. The was carried duly seconded and unanimously. Member Gildersleeve was absent. 2. Request for time extension – Elias Anastasopoulos – FL 00-11-49 at 731 Bayway Boulevard Ms. Fierce said Mr. Anastasopoulos is requesting a time extension for approval of the project at 731 Bayway Boulevard from February 20, 2002, to February 20, 2003. Member Petersen moved to approve the time extension of the project at 731 motion Bayway Boulevard from February 20, 2002, to February 20, 2003. The was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Chair Figurski and Members Mazur, Petersen, Moran, Plisko, and Hibbard voted “aye”. Member Hooper abstained. Member carried Gildersleeve was absent. Motion . Other A luncheon to honor Chair Figurski’s service on the CDB is scheduled for March 19, 2002. Ms. Tarapani said an appeal regarding a denial of an occupational license is scheduled for the March 19, 2002, meeting. Chair Figurski urged everyone to vote at the March 12, 2002, election. E. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:34 p.m. mcd0202 16 2/19/02 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: February 19~ 2002 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Mr. Mark Howard, Cypress Plaza, Ltd., FL 01-12-3723490-23498 US Highway 19 North yes Y no New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc./Clearwater Mall, LLC, c/o The Sembler Company, LUZ 01-12-09 565 Sky Harbor Drive. yes ~no City of Clearwater/Clearwater Mall, LLC, c/o The Sembler Company, LUZ 01-12-10 520 Sky Harbor Drive yes -Ano Liberian A. Miles, ANX 01-12-30, 1328 Woodbine Street yes 'f.. no I John L. Blechschmidt and Linda W. Blechschmidt, ANX 01-12-31, 2119 Pleasant Parkway yes ~no Robert Van Scoyoc & Marilynne Van Scoyoc, ANX 01-12-32,1725 W. Manor Avenue yes Date: c:1 J I () 2--.. Signature: o/(~ S IPI,,,i,, lXpLc D BICDB, propcr~ m,~""tio, oh~k I<".doo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: February 19~ 2002 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Mr. Mark Howard, Cypress Plaza, Ltd., FL 01-12-3723490-23498 US Highway 19 North ~ yes no New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc./Clearwater Mall, LLC, c/o The Sembler Company, LUZ 01-12-09 565 Sky Harbor Drive. L--/--- yes no City of Clearwater/Clearwater Mall, LLC, c/o The Sembler Company, LUZ 01-12-10 520 Sky Harbor Drive ~-- yes no Liberian A. Miles, ANX 01-12-30, 1328 Woodbine Street ~ yes no John L. Blechschmidt and Linda W. Blechschmidt, ANX 01-12-31,2119 Pleasant Parkway ...--- yes no Robert Van Scoyoc & Marilynne Van Scoyoc, ANX 01-12-32,1725 W. Manor Avenue L.....-- yes no ------........... Signature~ Date: ~\ \'\~'2- S:\Planning Department\C 0 B\CDB. property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: Februarv 19" 2002 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Mr. Mark Howard, Cypress Plaza, Ltd., FL 01-12-3723490-23498 US Highway 19 North +yes no New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc./Clearwater Mall, LLC, c/o The Sembler Company, LUZ 01-12-09 565 Sky Harbor Drive. yes K no City of Clearwater/Clearwater Mall, LLC, c/o The Sembler Company, LUZ 01-12-10 520 Sky Harbor Drive '{--, yes no Liberian A. Miles, ANX 01-12-30, 1328 Woodbine Street yes "-. no John L. Blechschmidt and Linda W. Blechschmidt, ANX 01-12-31,2119 Pleasant Parkway yes K. no Robert Van Scoyoc & Marilynne Van Scoyoc, ANX 01-12-32,1725 W. Manor Avenue yes )( l no Signature: Date: Z -11-- tJ 1-- S:\Planning Department\C 0 B\CDB, property investigation~heck list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: February 19, 2002 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Mr. Mark Howard, Cypress Plaza, Ltd., FL 01-12-3723490-23498 US Highway 19 North / no yes New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc./Clearwater Mall, LLC, c/o The Sembler Company, LUZ 01-12-09 565 Sky Harbor Drive. I no yes City of Clearwater/Clearwater Mall, / c/o The Sembler Company, LUZ 01-12-10 520 Sky Harbor Drive yes no Liberian A. Miles, ANX 01-12-30, 1328 Woodbine Street / no yes John L. Blechschmidt and Linda W. BjhSChmidt, ANX 01-12-31, 2119 Pleasant Parkway yes no Robert Van Scoyoc & Marilynne Van JOYOC, ANX 01-12-32,1725 W. Manor Avenue yes no Date: ).(t1( 6 1--- S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: February 19, 2002 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Mr. Mark Howard, Cypress Plaza, Ltd., FL 01-12-3723490-23498 US Highway 19 North /' yes no New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc./Clearwater Mall, LLC, c/o The Sembler Company, LUZ 01-12-09 565 Sky Harbor Drive. ./ yes no City of Clearwater/Clearwater Mall, LLC, c/o The Sembler Company, LUZ 01-12-10 520 Sky Harbor Drive /' yes no Liberian A. Miles, ANX 01-12-30, 1328 Woodbine Street /no yes John L. Blechschmidt and Linda W. Blechschmidt, ANX 01-12-31, 2119 Pleasant Parkway ./ yes no Robert Van Scoyoc & Marilynne Van Scoyoc, ANX 01-12-32,1725 W. Manor Avenue yes ",/ no Signature:j~ !/ ;tJ#vc/ Date: '~9/o2 S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: February 19, 2002 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Mr. Mark Howard, Cypress Plaza, Ltd., FL 01-12-3723490-23498 US Highway 19 North ~no yes New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc./Clearwater Mall, LLC, c/o The Sembler Company, LUZ 01-12-09 565 Sky Harbor Drive. ~es no City of Clearwater/Clearwater Mall, LLC, c/o The Sembler Company, LUZ 01-12-10 520 Sky Harbor Drive ~es no Liberian A. Miles, ANX 01-12-30, ~28 Woodbine Street yes no John L. Blechschmidt and Linda W. ~hschmidt, ANX 01-12-31, 2119 Pleasant Parkway yes no Robert Van Scoyoc & Marilynne vax:yoc, ANX 01-12-32,1725 W. Manor Avenue yes no Date: '&fti!p L S:\Planning Department\C D B\C