12/20/2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
December 20, 2016
Present: Chair Brian A. Barker, Vice Chair John Funk, Board Member Michael
Boutzoukas, Board Member David Allbritton, Board Member Christopher J. Anuszkiewicz,
Board Member Mary A. Lau, Board Member Mike Flanery, Acting/Alternate Board
Member John Quattrocki
Also Present: Jay Daigneault - Attorney for the Board, Camilo Soto - Assistant City
Attorney, Gina Clayton - Assistant Planning & Development Director, Patricia O. Sullivan -
Board Reporter
A. CALL TO ORDER, INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 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.
B. ROLL CALL:
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: October18, 2016
Member Funk moved to approve the minutes of the October 18, 2016 Community
Development Board meeting as submitted in written summation. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Quattrocki did not vote.
D. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD RE ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-3):
1. Level Three Application
Case: TA2016-12003 —Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater
Request: The Community Development Board (CDB) is reviewing a request to amend
the Clearwater Community Development Code to impose a six (6) month
moratorium on the operation of any additional dispensing organizations that
dispense low-THC cannabis or medical cannabis or on the operation of medical
marijuana treatment centers within the City of Clearwater, and making a
recommendation to the City Council.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: Rob Surette, Assistant City Attorney
Community Development 12/20/2016 1
Assistant City Attorney Rob Surette reviewed the Staff report. In response to a question,
he said similar temporary moratoriums adopted by the cities of Jacksonville and Orlando
had not faced legal challenges so far. The moratorium would not affect the existing
dispensary, which complied with current regulations. The City had no preauthorization to
open new dispensaries until Florida Department of Health adopted standards and
regulations. There will be a sufficient number of dispensaries to treat the community. Major
David Dalton said dispensaries were well regulated and looked like a professional sales
organization. The products could not be used in public.
Concerns were expressed that restrictions did not limit sales of pharmaceutical drugs such
as Prozac and Adderall near schools.
Attorney Surette said the amendment was subject to subjective relief if the State missed its
deadline. The City wanted its regulations to be compatible with the County.
Member Boutzoukas moved to recommend approval of Case TA2016-12003 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's
hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member
Quattrocki did not vote.
2. Level Three Application
Case: TA2016-12002 —Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater
Request: The Community Development Board (CDB) is reviewing a request to amend
the Community Development Code to establish a new US 19 Corridor ("US 19") District
with new development standards and a regulating plan for properties located along US
Highway 19 and along cross streets, to allow telecommunications towers as a minimum
standard use, to create standards for bicycle parking, and to make other amendments
associated with the new US 19 Corridor District, and making a recommendation to the
City Council.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Member Boutzoukas declared a conflict of interest.
Long Range Planning Manager Lauren Matzke provided a PowerPoint presentation and
reviewed the Staff Report.
In response to questions, Ms. Matzke said drive thrus to the rear or side of a site with no
circulation in the frontage would be permitted at Type A and B sites; 360 degree circulation
would be permitted at Type C, D, and E sites. Staff level approval would be allowed for
vehicle sales and display uses in all 3 sub districts. Cross parcel connections would be
stitched together over time. Design standards for landscaping parking islands permitted
them to also serve as stormwater treatment. Restricted access sites would be exempt from
Community Development 12/20/2016 2
Design Standards and included facilities with security requirements such as the City's
Water Treatment Plant.
Assistant Planning & Development Director Gina Clayton said the plan would make
properties consistent for many uses, allowing changes of use to be easier.
The Westfield Mall representative distributed recommendations and expressed concerns
the plan would affect the regional mall's ability to expand and required first floor storefronts
in parking structures, which he opposed. He discussed the unique 5-party ownership of the
mall, recommended separate regulations for the mall, and requested certainty that the mall
would be subject to 200-foot frontage standard exemptions. He said regulations should
allow the mall's frontage to evolve over time. He said one-way aisle requirements would
affect circulation.
Assistant City Attorney Camilo Soto said text amendments included flexibility and must
apply district-wide. Mall uses were anticipated to change in future decades.
A seasonal mobile home park resident distributed recommendations, including one to
refine lighting standards to limit light intrusion from commercial property onto residential
properties.
Representative for the former AmSouth building expressed concern proposed regulations
would waste land, negatively affect the site, which required circulation around the property
for its drive thru, and create pedestrian conflict if the entrance faced the frontage road and
parking was in the rear. She suggested flexibility allow review of requests for drive thru
facilities if higher standards were imposed. She stated while the plan attempted to increase
pedestrian connectivity, it was unlikely pedestrians would visit Type D or E sites. She
expressed concern regulations would allow no parking circulation in front of a building and
necessitate a secondary rear door, requiring reception areas at each entrance. She
requested that 1 entrance could be blocked until needed.
Ms. Matzke said the former AmSouth building was on a corner where 2 entrances would
not be required based on flexibility. Type A or B properties required front and rear
entrances. Forward Pinellas reviewed the preliminary plan and concurred the draft met
urban design principles for entries and structure orientation toward sidewalks and a safe
comfortable walking and biking environment. The plan will be presented to the City Council
on January 19, 2017.
The representative of Cypress Shopping Center expressed concerns re proposed limits on
exterior renovations, limits to the size of storefronts, and dangers associated with the low
impact development stormwater technique used in parking lots. Ms. Matzke said sites that
renovated more than 25% of the total assessed value of a property would need to comply
with pedestrian walkway and bicycle parking requirements, as well as general parking and
landscaping requirements in the current Code.
Community Development 12/20/2016 3
Ms. Clayton said Type A or B properties in key locations must meet strategies of
countywide planning rules; an important component required pedestrian access along
corridors and meeting pedestrian needs. Concerns had been raised that drive thrus were
oriented to vehicles, not pedestrians. Design criteria stopped drive thru conflicts with
pedestrians by locating them to the rear and side of properties and not allowing front
vehicle circulation on Type A or B properties. She was uncertain if Pinellas County would
approve drive thrus for Type A or B properties.
Staff was commended for developing the comprehensive plan and communicating with the
community. Suggestions were made for staff to consider flexibility that would allow cul-de-
sacs on sites with constraints. Support was expressed for rain gardens in parking lots. It
was suggested this item be continued to address public concerns.
Attorney Soto said today's hearing was advertised and a continuance would have
significant costs. Staff had worked on the drafts for 3 years.
It was felt the plan would have a big impact on corridor properties and needed more time
for review. Concern was expressed many corridor properties already experienced long-
term hardship during road construction. It was felt staff had done the best they could and
did a great job on a complicated issue. Additional dialogue with the mall was
recommended as that property was unique. It was stated staff seemed willing to look at
areas of concern and a board vote to recommend approval would not preclude staff
conversations re modifications nor derail the time line.
Discussion ensued regarding the mall's requests. It was requested that staff review
recommendations submitted by the resident.
Ms. Clayton said requirements to comply with current Code re landscaping and parking
improvements when renovations exceeded 25% of the total assessed value of a property
were adopted in 2000 to enhance community aesthetics. This plan was based on the
flexible Code which had been successful for at least 18 years. Developers appreciated
flexibility. Developers would have no ability to request flexibility without a flexibility
provision.
Attorney Soto said the CDB (Community Development Board) would hear appeals of staff
decisions. Many of the requests by today's speakers were included in the plan's flexibility
criteria. Nothing prevented further modification to the plan.
Member Funk moved to recommend approval of Case TA2016-12002 based on evidence
in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report and a request that staff discuss
issues brought up at the meeting with today's speakers. The motion was duly seconded.
Members Funk, Allbritton, Anuszkiewicz, Lau, Flanery, Chair Barker, and Acting Member
Quattrocki voted "Aye"; Member Boutzoukas abstained. Motion carried unanimously.
Community Development 12/20/2016 4
3. Level Three Application
Cases: REZ2016- 09006, REZ2016- 09007, and REZ2016 -09008 —
Properties within the City of Clearwater within the US 19 Corridor study area
Owner: Not Applicable; City of Clearwater Initiated Amendment (per Section 4-
603.B.1., Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater (100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone:
727 - 562 -4547; email: lauren .matzke(a�myclearwater.com)
Location: 1,641.35 acres generally located along US Highway 19 between Belleair
and Curlew roads, including properties east and west of US 19 along cross streets
Request: The Community Development Board (CDB) is reviewing a request to amend
the Zoning Atlas from 12 different zoning districts corridor -wide to the US 19 Corridor
(US 19) and Preservation (P) Districts, and making a recommendation to the City
Council.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, Coachman Ridge
Homeowners Association, Morningside Meadows Homeowners Association, Sunny
Grove Neighborhood Association, Tropic Hills Homeowners Association, Glen Ellen
MHP Association, KB Townhomes Sunset Pointe, Misty Springs Condominium
Association, Island in the Sun, Riviera Estates MHP, Village on the Green Condo I, 11 &
III
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Member Boutzoukas declared a conflict of interest.
Long Range Planning Manager Lauren Matzke reviewed the Staff Report.
Member Funk moved to recommend approval of Case TA2015 -10003 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's
hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
Report. The motion was duly seconded. Members Funk, Allbritton, Anuszkiewicz, Lau,
Flanery, Chair Barker, and Acting Member Quattrocki voted "Aye "; Member Boutzoukas
abstained. Motion carried unanimously.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Chair
Community Development Board
Community Development 12/20/2016 5
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
NAME —FIRST NAME — MIDDLE NAME
NAME—FIRST
Uu � � r 7 let Q'S il4 ( t
1
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORI OR COMMITTEE
L6 l'i't it,/ t,' u, /141 )1 e ti'c' / (? UU1, A
MAILING ADDRES
2(t:52 aMG �j � "l
THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
W-IICH I SERVE IS AUNIT OF:
CITY ❑COUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
CITY _
e
C TLLBci r
COUNTY
�� /
ltX�
9
J
AME OF POLITICAL SUBD ISION:
l (,ed9 w,o i'
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
i ZI 2-0114
MY POSITION IS:
❑ ELECTIVE X APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of
interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on
a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained
(including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a
relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies (CRAs) under
Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited
from voting in that capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father -in -law,
mother -in -law, son -in -law, and daughter -in -law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are
abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise
participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,
whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
• You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2)
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 11/2013
Adopted by reference in Rule 34- 7,010(1)(f), F.A.C.
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
Pit ka..a s , hereby disclose that on �� :4c(�,�'` Z`'
,20 IC :
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one or more)
inured to my special private gain or loss; / / `�� //
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate -*re -& Bf 1 - e� e tstGt TLt, ISaiTi qt r ti,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative
inured to the special gain or loss of , by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of , which
is the parent subsidiary, or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
ahvl
1,4 ce.14„cy p et 0 04;7fri rfiro r rt. t 12-err dzkilAr,44
r ti& I tt-( Ctf> e? 71/-3 e4 f et> t I,t 1 cLe yl 7 (7 t_ti frod 414-d
G4
V W" a7"
ecoo I tM `F-tv. (,43 1. ! `P mil l e't.)
LIZ. �a Zdi(v- 1200.3
Sk ge I(O -0560 `o, 6 z 261 D y 7, c '1
1/42-001 (0-- 67006
If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules goveming attorneys, a public officer,
who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of the interest in such a way
as to provide the public with notice of the conflict.
142-6/(1
Date Filed
)/1"
hfiL-
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 11/2013
Adopted by reference in Rule 34- 7.010(1)(f), F.A.C.
PAGE 2
CITY OF CLEARWATER
CLEARWATER PLANNLNG & DEVELOPMENT, POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758 -4748
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 So rH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4567
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Camilo Soto, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist, / Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for
DATE: December 20, 2016
CDB packets being distributed contain the following:
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting September 20, 2016 will be emailed
Site investigation form
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (ITEMS)
1. Case: TA2016 -12003 — Amendments to the Community Development Code
Presenter: Rob Surette, Assistant City Attorney
2. Case: TA2016 -12002 — Amendments to the Community Development Code
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
3. Case: REZ2016- 09006, REZ2016- 09007, and REZ2016 -09008 — Properties within
the City of Clearwater within the US 19 Corridor study area
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
I have conducted a personal investi : ation o, the . ersonal site visit to the following properties.
Signature:
PRINT NAME
Date:
/.2. /zoii6
S: (Planning Department#C D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2016112 December 201611 Cover MEMO 2016.docx