04/16/2002
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
April 16, 2002
Present: Ed Hooper Acting Chair/Board Member
Edward Mazur, Jr. Board Member
Shirley Moran Board Member
Alex Plisko Board Member
John Doran Board Member
Kathy Milam Alternate Board Member
Absent: Carlen A. Petersen Vice-Chair
David Gildersleeve Board Member
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
Planning Director Cynthia Tarapani called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at
City Hall.
Member Moran nominated Member Hooper as Acting Chair for this meeting. The
motioncarried
was duly seconded and unanimously. The Acting Chair offered the
Invocation, followed by the 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:
March 19 and April 3,
2002
Member Moran moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March
19, 2002, and the special meeting of April 3, 2002, as submitted in written summation to
motioncarried
each board member. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
B. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
(Items 1 - 3). 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: ANX 02-02-02 – 7 South Hampton Road –
Level Three Application
Owners/Applicant: Robert G. Gabriel & Margaret A. Gabriel, William C.
Caruthers & Mary K. Caruthers, Limited Properties, Inc.,/James F. burns; Joseph
J. Sorota, Jr., Trustee of Florida Land Trust #172916/Brandon Realty Venture,
Inc.
Location: 3.91 acres on the east side of Hampton Road, approximately 270 feet
north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
Atlas Page: 291B
Request: Annexation of 3.91 acres to the City (Land Use Plan amendment and
Rezoning pending Case #LUZ 02-02-02)
mcd04b02 1 4/16/02
Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner
The property owners have requested this annexation in order to receive City
sewer service. The proposed annexation can be served by all City services, including
water, sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any
adverse effect on the service level. The applicants are aware of the required impact
fees and other additional costs associated with the extension of sewer lines to the site.
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 action on the request: Approval of the annexation of 7 Hampton Road and
Metes and Bounds parcel 13/05 together with three vacant parcels consisting of Metes
and Bounds 13/03; 13/04 & 13/041 in Section 17, Township 29 South, Range 16 East.
AND
2. Case: LUZ 02-02-02 – 7 South Hampton Road –
Level Three Application
Owners/Applicant: Robert G. Gabriel & Margaret A. Gabriel; William C.
Caruthers & Mary K. Caruthers; Limited Properties, Inc./James F. Burns; Joseph
J. Sorota, Jr. Trustee of Florida Land Trust #172916 and Carol D. Allen, Trustee
of Carol D. Allen/Brandon Realty Venture, Inc.
Location: 4.22 acres on the east side of Hampton road, approximately 270 feet
north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
Atlas Page: 291B
Request: (a) Land Use Plan amendment from RU, Residential Urban
Classification to R/OL, Residential/Office Limited (pending case #ANX 02-02-02),
and (b) Rezoning from R-R, Rural Residential & A-E, Agricultural Estate
Residential Districts (County) and LMDR, Low Density residential District (City) to
O, Office (pending case #ANX 02-02-02)
Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner
This land use plan amendment and rezoning involves five property owners and
six parcels of land. All six parcels have a Future Land Use Plan designation of
Residential Urban. The five properties located in the County are zoned Rural
Residential (R-R) and Agricultural Estate Residential (A-E) and the one in the City is
zoned Low Medium Density Residential. The applicant is requesting to amend the
Future Land Use Plan to designate these properties Residential/Office Limited and to
rezone them to the Office (O) District to accommodate office development on this site.
The applicant intends to construct two 20,000 square foot office buildings on this site.
The proposed Residential/Office Limited land use plan classification and the
Office zoning district are well suited for limited mixed uses consistent with the
surrounding uses. The neighborhood is surrounded by commercial and medium density
residential uses. The proposed office use will blend into the existing neighborhood and
serve as a transition/buffer between more intensive commercial uses to the south and
low medium density residential uses to the east and north. The proposed
Residential/Office Limited Future Land Use classification and Office 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
mcd04b02 2 4/16/02
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 Metes and Bounds
parcels 13/02, 13/05 and 13/01 together with three vacant parcels consisting of Metes
and Bounds 13/03, 13/04 & 13/041 from Residential Urban (RU) to Residential/Office
Limited (R/OL)(pending case # ANX 02-02-02) and 2) amend the Zoning District
designation of Metes and Bounds parcels 13/02, 13/05 and 13/01 together with three
vacant parcels consisting of Metes & Bounds 13/03, 13/04 & 13/041 from Residential-
Single-Family District (R-3)/County to Office (O) zoning district (pending case # ANX 02-
02-02).
Member Mazur moved to approve Items B1 and B2, Cases ANX 02-02-02 and
motioncarried
LUZ 02-02-02. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
3. Case: FL 02-02-06 – 1100 South Missouri Avenue –
Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: The Clearwater Group, Ltd.
Location: 7.155 acres total including 3.59 acres on the southwest corner of Druid
Road and South Missouri Avenue (proposed Parcel 5) and 3.56 acres on the
west side of South Missouri Avenue, approximately 1,100 feet south of Druid
Road (proposed parcels 1, 3 and 4)
Atlas Pages: 296A ad 306A
Zoning: C, Commercial District
Request: Amendment to a previously approved Flexible Development
application (FL 01-01-05) to decrease the number of residential units from 156 to
116 units on Parcel 4, increase the gross floor area of non-residential use from
15,602 to 54,684 square feet (parcel one to be limited to 5,602 square feet and
parcel 5 to be limited to 49,082 square feet), replace a 2,500 square foot
clubhouse/42-space parking lot with 49 parking spaces on Parcel 3, replace a
52,236 square foot, 48-unit building with a 6,300 square foot commercial building
and a portion of a 4,050 square foot commercial building on parcel 5, combine
Parcels 2, 5 and 5A into a unified parcel 5 (consisting of Lots 7,8, 9 and 10), and
combine parcels 4 and 4A into unified Parcel 4
Proposed Use: A 116-unit apartment complex with 5 commercial buildings
totaling 49,674 square feet, in the Commercial District
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner
motion
Member Moran moved to approve Item B3, Case FL 02-02-06. The was
seconded
duly . Upon the vote being taken, Members Moran, Plisko, Doran, and Milam,
carried
and Acting Chair Hooper voted “aye”; Member Mazur abstained. Motion .
C. REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES:
The following cases are requested to be
continued to the May 21, 2002, CDB meeting (Items 1 – 4):
1. Case: ANX 02-02-03 – 25633 US19 North –
Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III
Agent: Harry S. Cline, Esquire
Location: 1.04 acres on the east side of US19 North and west of lake
Chautauqua and north of First Avenue North
Atlas page: 233A
mcd04b02 3 4/16/02
Request: (a) Annexation of 1.04 acres to the City; (b) Land Use Plan
amendment from R/O/R, Residential/Office/Retail (County) to R/O/R,
Residential/Office/Retail (City; and (c) Rezoning from CP-I, Commercial Parkway
District (County) to C, Commercial District (Clearwater)
Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner
2. Case: ANX 02-02-04 – 2301 Chautauqua Avenue (Proposed) –
Level Three
Application
Owner/Applicant: Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III & Larry H. Dimmitt, Jr.
Agent: Harry S. Cline, Esquire
Location: 23 acres on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue and west of Lake
Chautauqua, approximately 700 feet east of US19 North
Atlas Pages: 233A & 244A
Request: Annexation of 23 acres to the City of Clearwater (land Use Plan
Amendment and Rezoning pending #LUZ 02-02-02)
Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner
3. Case LUZ 02-02-03 – 2301 Chautauqua Avenue (Proposed) –
Level Three
Application
Owner/Applicant: Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III & Larry H. Dimmitt, Jr.
Agent: Harry S. Cline, Esquire
Location: 23 acres on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue and west of Lake
Chautauqua, approximately 700 feet east of US19 North
Atlas Pages: 233A & 244A
Request: (a) Land Use Plan amendment from RS, Residential Suburban & P,
Preservation (County), to RU, Residential Urban and P, Preservation (City)
(pending Case ANX 02-02-04)
Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner
4. Case FL 02-02-03 – 18 Glendale Street –
Level Two Application
Applicant: Scott Ogilvie
Location: 0.10 acres on the north side of Glendale Street, approximately 150
feet west of Mandalay Avenue
Atlas Page: 258A
Zoning MHDR, Medium High Density Residential District
Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the required front (south)
setback from 25 to 1.6 feet (to deck) along Glendale Street and to reduce the
side (west) setback from 10 to 1.9 feet (to deck), as a Residential Infill Project
under the provisions of Section 2-404
Proposed Use: A 264-square foot wood deck as accessory to an existing
dwelling
Presenter: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner
Member Doran moved to continue Items 1 – 4, Cases ANX 02-02-03, ANX 02-
motioncarried
02-04, LUZ 02-02-03, and FL 02-02-03. The was duly seconded and
unanimously.
D. NON-CONSENT AGENDA:
(Item 1)
1. Case FL 02-02-04 – 3006 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard –
Level Two Application
Applicant/Owner: Thanh Phuoc Nguyen
mcd04b02 4 4/16/02
Representative: Patrick T. Maguire, Esquire
Location: 0.28 acres on the north side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, approximately
100 feet east of Bayview Avenue
Atlas Page: 292A
Zoning: C, Commercial District
Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the required number of
parking spaces from 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (32
spaces) to 8.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (18 spaces),
reduce the front (south) setback along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from 25 to 3.6 feet
to building and 12 feet to pavement, reduce the side (west) setback from 10 to 3
feet to pavement, reduce the side (east) setback from 10 to zero feet to a
dumpster enclosure and 5 feet to pavement, reduce the rear (north) setback from
20 to 1.5 feet to pavement and to permit direct access to a major arterial road
(Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under
the provisions of Section 2-704 with Comprehensive Landscape Program under
the provisions of Section 3-1202
Proposed Use: A restaurant within an existing one-story 2,132 square foot
masonry block building, with access on to Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
Presenter: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner
Senior Planner Wayne Wells presented the case. The property owner is
proposing to establish a restaurant at this location.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting
materials on March 14, 2002. The Planning Department recommends approval of the
Flexible Development application to reduce the required number of parking spaces from
15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (32 spaces) to 8.44 spaces per
1,000 square feet of gross floor area (18 spaces), reduce the front (south) setback from
25 feet to 3.6 feet to building (existing) and 12 feet to pavement (existing), reduce the
side (west) setback from 10 feet to three feet to pavement (existing), reduce the side
(east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet to a dumpster enclosure (existing) and five feet
to pavement (existing), reduce the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to 1.5 feet to
pavement (existing) and to permit direct access to a major arterial road (Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of
Section 2-704, with a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
Section 3-1202, for the site at 3006 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, with the following bases and
conditions:
Conditions: 1) A business plan outlining the operation of the proposed restaurant
user with the maximum number of employees on the largest shift, the hours of operation,
delivery hours, parking demand, etc. be submitted to the Planning Department and be
approved, prior to issuance of any permits or licenses; 2) any change in the type of
restaurant be evaluated for complimentary operational characteristic and parking
demand, and may require approval by the Community Development Board; 3) the
building appearance be improved with the use of windows, paint and awnings,
acceptable to the Planning Department; 4) any upgrade to a dumpster larger than two
yards will require a new pad and enclosure; and any upgrade to the dumpster is to be
done without removing any parking spaces. and 5) all site and exterior building
improvements be made to the satisfaction of staff, prior to the issuance of any licenses
or Certificate of Occupancy.
mcd04b02 5 4/16/02
Mr. Wells said one letter of objection was received from the property owners
directly north of the subject property. In response to a question, Mr. Wells said this
property owner was previously denied an application for a nightclub. The property
owner plans to establish a small mom ‘n pop restaurant use that would generate a lower
traffic flow.
Patrick Maguire, representative for the applicant, said his client has had difficulty
utilizing this property. Plans are to adhere to staff’s recommendation to preserve trees
and limit parking spaces on the site. He said if the owner ever decides to expand the
business, he would do so on the east portion of the property. The hours of operation for
the proposed use would be determined at the time such a user was interested in the
property.
Mr. Wells referred to an aerial view of the subject property. He said there are 5
homes to the north of the property. He was unsure of the number of homes on the
south, east and west of it. In response to a question, Mr. Wells said surrounding
property owners were notified of today’s hearing and only one responded.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said although no restaurateur has been
determined for this site, staff recommends the CDB approve this request, as the user
must adhere to the Code regulations relating to the number of allowable parking spaces,
etc. If approved, this site could only be utilized for a restaurant use unless the applicant
submits a new application for a different use.
Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said staff normally does not know the exact
user of a site. If the CDB approves this application for a restaurant use, staff will ensure
the parking and other requirements are met. Concern was expressed that there would
be inadequate parking for customers and employees. Mr. Wells said he does not
anticipate all 5 employees would park on site. It was suggested that as the Code
requires 2 parking spaces be removed for a dumpster, Condition #4 be amended to
include that any upgrade to the dumpster is to be done without removing any parking
spaces.
Mr. Maguire said his client has no objection to staff’s proposed conditions or to
the proposed amendment to Condition #4, He said more parking spaces would result in
more business. Business owners try to limit the number of parking spaces employees
use on a site.
Member Mazur moved to approve Item 1, Case FL 02-02-04, amending condition
#4 to read “any upgrade to a dumpster larger than two yards will require a new pad and
enclosure; and any upgrade to the dumpster is to be done without removing any parking
motioncarried
spaces.” The was duly seconded and unanimously.
E. CONTINUED ITEMS: (Item 1)
1. Case TA 02-02-01 – Community Development Code Amendments
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
mcd04b02 6 4/16/02
other Procedures, Nonconformity Provisions, Enforcement Proceedings and
Penalties and Definitions and Rules of Construction
Presenter: Richard Kephart, Senior Planner
Ms. Tarapani gave introductory comments and Senior Planner Rich Kephart
reviewed staff’s proposed changes to the Code and input obtained from previous CDB
meetings. At the April 3, 2002 CDB (Community Development Board) Work Session,
the following issues were identified regarding the proposed amendments to the
Community Development Code:
ROOF OVERHANG
The Planning Department recommended that roof overhangs be limited to project
40% into required setbacks. Discussion identified that balconies, decks, bay windows
and similar features were allowed to extend 30 inches into the required setback. In areas
that have a 5-foot setback, the 30 inches would extend past the 40% roof overhang that
is proposed.
The CDB reached consensus that the permitted 30-inch extension into the
required setback for roof overhangs be changed to 24 inches. This change will keep
roof overhangs, balconies, decks, bay windows and similar features consistent within the
code and provide for uniform enforcement throughout the City.
HEARING OFFICER APPEAL PROCESS
The CDB was provided the recommended changes from the City Legal
Department on the Hearing Officer Appeal process. The CDB asked for clarification on
why persons may comment as members of the public at the appeal hearing. The CDB
also requested further clarification as to the difference between testimony that is not
allowed and comment that is allowed by the public.
Planning staff will contact the City’s Legal staff for further clarification on these
issues.
OTHER ISSUES REQUIRING FURTHER DISCUSSION
The following issues were identified for further discussion:
Comprehensive Sign Program
The CDB discussed proposed revisions to the maximum sign area permitted
through the Comprehensive Sign program (section 91 of the ordinance). At the request
of representatives from the Sembler Company, the CDB entertained a discussion about
increasing the maximum permitted area proposed for attached signage from up to five
(5) percent of the building façade to six (6) percent. The Board also had a lengthy
discussion about sign needs for large parcels and whether different sign size
requirements should apply to parcels exceeding a certain size.
The two methods for calculating freestanding sign area also were discussed by
the CDB. One developer who attended the CDB Work Session had proposed
eliminating the building façade method and calculating sign area only based on street
mcd04b02 7 4/16/02
frontage. The CDB also discussed whether or not a maximum size for freestanding
signage should be imposed. No consensus was reached on this issue.
Sandwich Board Signage
The CDB requested that the Planning Department consider allowing commercial
areas on the beach to have sandwich board signs like those allowed in the Downtown
zoning district. Planning staff will include this issue in the next Code update.
Planning Department Proposed Changes
Due to a conflict between window signage provisions, the Planning Department
is proposing to delete Section 3-1803.U, which prohibits temporary window signs in
residential districts. No changes are proposed to the other provision, Section 3-1805.Q,
which allows window signage of a certain size without regard to location.
The Planning Department has identified that the title of Section 45a of the
proposed Ordinance is incorrect. Instead of deleting Section 3-804.F. “in its entirety”,
the section title should read, “is hereby amended as follows.”
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the February 19, 2002 meeting, the CDB deferred action on the proposed
amendments to the Community Development Code (Ordinance No. 6928-02) so the
Planning Department could research several issues raised by the Board. The City
Commission also reviewed this proposed ordinance on February 21, 2002, and deferred
action until additional information could be provided on several proposed provisions in
the ordinance.
Listed below are the issues that were identified through the meetings with the
CDB, the City Commission, as well as Planning Department review. CDB issues are
listed first, followed by City Commission issues and Planning Department revisions.
Each section identifies the issues and the analysis section identifies what revisions were
made.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD ISSUES
The CDB discussed and requested further information or made specific requests
on the following five issues:
??
Final plat approval and issuance of building permits;
??
Evidence presented during an Appeal Hearing;
??
Setback measurements for non-vertical structures;
??
Parking demand study requirements; and
??
Roof overhang into required building setback.
ANALYSIS:
After conducting the necessary research, the Planning Department is
recommending several revisions to proposed Ordinance No. 6928-02 to address the
mcd04b02 8 4/16/02
CDB’s concerns. Several changes discussed by the CDB, however, are not
recommended by the Planning Department and have not been included in this
ordinance. Below is a discussion of each issue.
1. Final Plat Approval and Issuance of Building Permits (Section 108, Section
109, Page 45 of proposed ordinance.)
The Planning Department is recommending to revise Code Section 4-702, which
regulates subdivision plats, to eliminate inconsistencies between Code Sections 4-702
and 4-708.C. regarding when a building permit can be issued for property involving a
subdivision plat.
In response to concerns raised by the CDB, the Planning Department also is
proposing to revise Code Section 4-708.C., which requires the recording of a final plat
prior to issuing any building permits. The revision proposes to give authority to the
Community Development Coordinator to allow the issuance of certain types of permits
such as demolition, site and utility after final plat approval but prior to final plat
recordation.
Planning staff researched 12 local jurisdictions in developing this revision. Those
12 jurisdictions included Pinellas County, Dunedin, Gulfport, Largo, Oldsmar, St.
Petersburg, St. Pete Beach, Treasure Island, Hillsborough County, Tampa, Bradenton,
and Boca Raton. Of the 12 local jurisdictions surveyed, only Largo allows building
permits to be issued before the final plat is recorded. See attachment for each
jurisdiction’s requirement.
2. Evidence Presented during Hearing Appeal (Section 105, Page 44 of
proposed ordinance.)
The CDB requested that no new evidence be allowed to be presented during an
appeal hearing so that the appeal would be based on the record and not be a new
hearing.
Preventing new evidence in the appeal hearing is the same type of appeal
hearing that is conducted by the court system. The philosophy of the current code
allows two appeals from each level of approval. By requiring a hearing officer to perform
the same review of the record performed by the court, there is no need to have the
hearing officer appeal. Making this change would leave only one appeal and change
the philosophy of the Code.
The Planning and Legal Departments recommend that the original proposed
ordinance language not be revised so that the appeal process is maintained at the local
level and the philosophy of the code is upheld.
3. Setback Measurements for Non-Vertical Structures (Not within proposed
ordinance)
The CDB discussed the issue of how setbacks are measured for non-vertical
structures (such as brick pavers and parking lots). Concern was raised that pavement,
pool decks, etc. must comply with building and/or accessory structure setbacks and this
is too restrictive. The CDB suggested in the alternative to establish a percentage of the
mcd04b02 9 4/16/02
setback that must be landscaping. This issue was not addressed in the original
proposed Ordinance No. 6929-02.
The Planning Department recommends maintaining the current method for
measuring setbacks. As the City continues to redevelop, this method will ensure a
consistent width of landscaping and open space within the required setbacks. This is
particularly important in a redeveloping community because it will create a predictable
vista along the roadways, which will enhance community aesthetics and it will also
provide adjacent properties with a predictable area of open and green space.
To avoid any possible confusion to the public, the Planning Department has
already revised its notices to surrounding property owners distinguishing between a
setback reduction for a building and for a setback reduction for paving/parking
4. Parking Demand Study (Section 62, Page 35 of proposed ordinance.)
The CDB noted it was not clear who is required to conduct a parking demand
study and when such study is required.
The Planning Department has revised proposed Code Section 3-1401.C
clarifying that the Community Development Coordinator may require an applicant to
prepare a parking demand study in conjunction with a request for deviations to the
required parking standards.
5. Roof Overhang (Section 49, Page 31 of the proposed ordinance.)
Based on concerns raised by the CDB that a 30” roof overhang is too limiting and
did not relate to existing and previous code requirements, the Planning Department is
proposing to identify roof overhangs and eaves within Section 3-908.A. that allows for
building projections to extend 40% into the required setback or 10 feet whichever is less.
In the “C”, “T” and “D” districts building projections are allowed to extend 10 feet into
required setback. This change will make roof overhangs and eaves consistent with
existing and previous code requirements.
CITY COMMISSION ISSUES
The City Commission discussed and made recommendations on three issues
found in the proposed Ordinance No. 6928-02 at the February 18, 2002 Commission
workshop and the February 21, 2002 public meeting. Those issues included the
following:
??
Portable storage units and length of time that they would be allowed to placed on
property during emergency repairs;
??
Signs at elevated intersections; and,
??
Vending machines;
Additionally, the Commission requested that the Planning Department provide
the Commission with graphics to illustrate proposed changes to the sign ordinance.
ANALYSIS
mcd04b02 10 4/16/02
The Planning Department is recommending three changes to proposed
Ordinance No. 6928-02 to address concerns raised by the City Commission.
1. Portable Storage Units
(Section 94, Page 42 of proposed ordinance.)
The Planning Department is proposing to limit a portable storage unit to a time
period of 15 days for emergency home repairs, with the possible extension of an
additional 15 days if needed to complete emergency repairs.
The Planning Department revised this section to address the Commission’s
concerns regarding the length of time a portable storage unit could be on a property for
emergency repairs.
2. Signs at Elevated Intersections (Section 86, Page 39 of the proposed
ordinance.)
The Planning Department is proposing that signs at elevated intersections be
permitted at 14 feet above the highest point of the elevated road within the property lines
that are perpendicular and adjacent to the elevated roadway, excluding frontage and
service roads.
This modification addresses the Commission’s concern that properties located
along elevated intersections would all be 14 feet above the highest point of the road
regardless of where the business is located along the elevated roadway.
1. Vending Machine Signage Section 52, Page 32 of the proposed
(
ordinance.)
At the direction of the City Commission, the Planning Department is proposing to
limit the amount of signage allowed on the front of vending machines to 35% of the front
of the machine, including the selection buttons. The previously proposed amendment
excluded the selection buttons.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVISIONS
In addition to the amendments discussed above, the Planning Department has
made five more revisions to the proposed ordinance since the CDB and City
Commission meetings. These revisions address the following:
??
Maintenance of seawalls;
??
Transfer of Development Rights;
??
Address signage allowed in addition to total square footage of signage;
??
Competent substantial evidence in appeal hearings; and,
??
Fences on attached dwelling lots
ANALYSIS
1. Maintenance of Seawalls (Section 75, Page 37 of proposed ordinance.)
mcd04b02 11 4/16/02
At the direction of legal counsel, the seawall maintenance provision has been
modified to specify that seawalls shall be maintained in a structurally sound condition
and shall comply with applicable building and coastal construction codes. The original
proposal did not identify who would be responsible for inspecting the seawalls and what
criteria would be used for that inspection. This revision also addresses concerns raised
by the Marine Advisory Board.
2. Transfer of Development Rights Section 113, Pages 46-47, Section 114,
(
Pages 47-48, and Section 115, Page 48 of proposed ordinance.)
Based on input from the Pinellas Planning Council, the Planning Department is
proposing to make several minor editorial changes to the Transfer of Development
Rights regulations. Code Section 4-1402 is being revised to better identify the criteria
necessary to use Transfer of Development Rights. The proposed revision requires such
transfers to be in compliance with subsections 1, 2, and 3 of the provision and specifies
that they are permitted only in circumstances outlined in either subsection 4 or 5.
Proposed Code Section 4-1403.E is being revised to further identify that development
rights transferred from a Community Development District, Central Business District, or
other designated redevelopment area may be transferred only to property located within
the same designated redevelopment area.
Proposed Code Section 4-1403.C specifies that when reviewing height increases
for projects using transfer of development rights that compatibility with the surrounding
area and the viability of the project should be considered. The Planning Department is
recommending to replace “viability” with “feasibility” so it is clear that the criteria is
project feasibility and not solely economic viability.
3.
Address Signage Allowed in Addition to Total Square Footage of Signage
(Section 81, Page 38 of proposed ordinance.)
The Planning Department is proposing an amendment to the sign ordinance to
clarify that address signage is allowed in addition to the total permitted sign area.
4. Competent Substantial Evidence in Appeal Hearings (Section 102, Page 43
of proposed ordinance.)
The Planning Department is proposing to revise Code Section 4-502.A to identify
that an appeal of a level one approval by an applicant or property owner must present
competent substantial evidence in the Level 1 review.
5. Fences on Attached Dwelling Units. (Section 45a, Page 30a Insert to
proposed ordinance.)
The current fence ordinance restricts fences on attached dwelling lots to four
feet, except along the boundary of the property. Based on the fact that many such
properties have existing six feet high fences, the Planning Department is proposing this
amendment to accommodate existing development and to allow privacy fences within
this type of development.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
mcd04b02 12 4/16/02
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,
mcd04b02 13 4/16/02
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, and 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.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
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 districts.
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.
mcd04b02 14 4/16/02
One resident representing the developer of the Clearwater Mall and the Drew 19
shopping center, stated his clients are requesting that the CDB consider: 1) giving staff
the flexibility to raise the maximum permitted area proposed for attached signage from
up to 5% of the building facade to up to 6%; 2) the height of signs at elevated
intersections/overpasses be measured from the top of the guard rail, not from the crown
of the road; and 3) more flexibility to have freestanding signs higher than the maximum
of 14 feet under the Comprehensive Sign Program, including one sign on each frontage
to be up to 35 feet, keeping the same ratio that the height could not be more than 1.5
times the width. Discussion ensued regarding how staff calculates freestanding or pylon
signs. Ms. Tarapani said staff opposes establishing a separate height for large sites, as
it would provide that owner or developer with something that other sites in the City do
not enjoy. She suggested the CDB consider keeping the 14 foot high maximum in place.
In response to a question, she said if directional signs cannot been seen from the
adjacent property, they do not count as additional square footage with respect to
signage.
One resident said he felt the proposed amendments are a step in the right
direction. His biggest concern was with the aesthetics of signage. He felt signs should
be large enough to serve the purpose of advertising a business. He was in favor of the
up to 6% cap for attached signage on building facades. He expressed concern that staff
must work with small as well as large developers regarding signage. He felt the 1% cap
should be increased 2%.
Discussion ensued regarding staff’s flexibility to grant the maximum allowable
signage. It was suggested the 1% cap for small businesses is too low and that
downtown district may need to be looked at differently than other parts of the City. It
was remarked that the City should keep signage consistent throughout the City, but that
small businesses and developers should have the opportunity for flexibility on an
individual case basis. It was remarked that staff should have the flexibility to determine if
a business should be granted the maximum signage allowable.
Ms. Tarapani said staff makes decisions regarding the majority of applications
submitted under the Comprehensive Sign Program. If the case would normally come to
the CDB, the sign program also would come to the CDB as part of the application
package. When the Community Development Coordinator makes a decision on an
application, the decision can be appealed to the CDB for review. Staff considers all
applicable criteria including special area plans, general standards, etc. when reviewing
an application and making a final decision.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said the City is in litigation regarding all facets of the City’s
current sign code regulations. She expressed concern regarding height limitations
suggested. Staff recommends no changes be proposed to the Code based on one
particular parcel owner’s needs/requests at this time.
Member Moran moved to recommend to the City Commission that the maximum
permitted area proposed for attached signage in the Code be increased from up to 5% of
motion
the building façade to up to 6% of the building façade City-wide. The was duly
seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Moran, Plisko, Doran, and Milam and
carried
acting Chair Hooper voted “aye”; Member Mazur abstained. Motion .
mcd04b02 15 4/16/02
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not it is necessary to change the
language regarding how signage at elevated intersections is measured from the crown
of a road versus from the top of a guard rail. Ms. Tarapani said staff’s proposed
modification to Section 86 of the Code relates to signs at elevated intersections be
permitted at 14 feet above the highest point of the elevated road within the property lines
that are perpendicular and adjacent to the elevated roadway, excluding frontage and
service roads.
Member Moran moved to recommend to the City Commission staff’s modification
which addresses the Commission’s concern that properties located along elevated
intersections would all be 14 feet above the highest point of the road regardless of where
motion
the business is located along the elevated roadway. The was duly seconded.
Upon the vote being taken, Members Moran, Plisko, Doran, and Milam and acting Chair
carried
Hooper voted “aye”; Member Mazur abstained. Motion .
Member Moran moved to recommend to the City Commission proposed
amendments as recommended by staff to the Community Development Code as
presented, except that the section regarding maximum permitted area proposed for
attached signage in the Code be increased from up to 5% of the building façade to up to
motion
6% of the building façade City-wide. The was duly seconded. Upon the vote
being taken, Members Moran, Plisko, Doran, and Milam and acting Chair Hooper voted
carried
“aye”; Member Mazur abstained. Motion .
F. DIRECTOR’S ITEMS:
Election of Officers – Chair and Vice-Chair
Consensus was to postpone this item to the next meeting in May.
Acceptance of Marc Mariano, Planner, as expert witness
Member Plisko moved to accept Marc Mariano as an expert witness in the fields
motioncarried
of general and transportation planning. The was duly seconded and
unanimously.
Discussion of July CDB meeting date
Discussion ensued regarding changing the July meeting to July 16, 2002, due to
staffing issues.
Other Business
Concern was expressed that the window signs at the Cigar Store on Druid Road
and Fort Harrison Avenue are inappropriate. The signs advertise alcoholic beverages
on a property that is less than 100 feet of a school, and the business had indicated that
alcohol sales was an incidental product to his business. Concern also was expressed
that the business has created an illegal parking space on the property and has placed an
A-frame sign on the sidewalk advertising products within his establishment. Staff will
research the matter and report back to the CDB next month. Window signage is
regulated in the Code.
mcd04b02 16 4/16/02
Ms. Dougall-Sides gave an update regarding Renaissance Square Apartments
and the Clearwater Group Limited (former Sunshine Mall site) appeal. The parties
involved worked out their differences and Renaissance Square Apartments owners
issued a motion to dismiss its appeal.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:26 p.m.
mcd04b02 17 4/16/02