ponce de leon neighborhood plan

Ponce de LeonNeighborhood Plan

September 16, 2004

Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Plan

Executive Summary ................................................................................................ i

Introduction ................................................................................................................1

Codes & Property Maintenance....................................................................................9

Community Identity & Appearance............................................................................14

Transportation ..........................................................................................................23

Land Use & Traffic....................................................................................................30

Infrastructure..............................................................................................................49

Implementation..........................................................................................................55

Appendix...................................................................................................................57Summary of Zoning District RegulationsRezoning Requests Since 1977Summary of Optional Zoning Districts & Applicable RegulationsDevelopment ActivitiesCorresponding Comprehensive Plan Goals & ObjectivesLegal Authority of Neighborhood Plans

PONCE de LEON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS


The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Plan represents the vision of the neighborhood for its future.Participants in the neighborhood planning process provided input and recommendations used toformulate the policies and priorities of this plan. This plan is comprised of five (5) elements definedby residents, property owners and stakeholders in the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood in initial“brainstorming” sessions hosted by the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Association, Inc. The five (5)elements comprising this Plan are: Codes & Property Maintenance, Community Identity &Appearance, Transportation, Land Use & Traffic and Infrastructure. Neighborhood associationmeetings served as the means to identify the goals, objectives and specific recommendations toaddress the plan elements. These meetings were open to all residents and stakeholders – as well asmembers of the Association. The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Plan is a collaborative effortbetween the City of St. Petersburg and the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood.

The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood is unique in that it includes a combination of residential,commercial and industrial uses. It is bounded on two sides (22 Avenue and 34 Streets North bynd th

commercial and industrial uses on the east. The residential area is low-density, owner-occupied andencompasses 65 acres. The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood is bounded on the west by 34 Streetth

North and on the east by 25th Street North, extending from the northside of 22 to the southside ofnd

30 Avenues North. An active City Team meets monthly to identify and resolve priority propertiesth

and/or issues within the neighborhood. The citizen representatives that serve on the City Team areself-selected by the neighborhood. To date, priority properties/issues identified by the neighborhoodrepresentatives on the City Team have been specific day-to-day concerns that are resolved byrepresentatives of City Departments, including – but not limited to – Neighborhood Partnership,Police, Codes Compliance Assistance, and Internal Services. Other city department representativesare invited to participate as needed.

The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Plan tackles goals and objectives beyond the scope of day-to-dayconcerns. The neighborhood planning process defines neighborhood goals and objectives andexplores alternatives for achieving desired neighborhood and City initiatives. Plan preparationprovides a forum for residents, property owners and other stakeholders to initiate rather than reactto change. Interest groups within the neighborhood assemble to find mutually acceptable solutionsand define future goals. Further, this planning process addresses goals and objectives at a scale morerefined and responsive to the neighborhood than the broad scale of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The planning time horizon for implementation of a majority of the neighborhood planrecommendations is approximately one (1) year after St. Petersburg City Council acceptance.

Listed below are the goals and objectives identified within the neighborhood planning process withspecific recommendations to address the stated goals and objectives.

Executive Summary

iiiPonce de Leon Neighborhood Plan

GOAL 1: TO ELIMINATE CODE VIOLATIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODOBJECTIVE 1.1: Decrease the number of code violations in the neighborhood.

Recommendations: 1.1.1. Residents shall continue to work with its association’s strategy task force committee

to report code violations to the Codes Compliance Assistance Department.1.1.2. The neighborhood association shall continue to provide a forum in which to inform

property owners about code related issues through:a) Speaker at association meetings;b) Articles in the neighborhood newsletter and/or website; andc) Addressing issues with neighbors individually.

1.1.3. The association shall partner with neighboring business owners to encourage theowners to bring the properties into compliance and to provide ongoing maintenance.

1.1.4. The association and City Team should continue an ongoing review of active caseswithin the designated codes strategy areas to determine compliance timeframes,owner responsiveness and modify priority areas as needed.

1.1.5 The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Association shall continue to send representativesto the City Team to identify priority properties and areas and work toward resolutionof those issues.

GOAL 2: TO IMPROVE THE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE AND IDENTITY OF THENEIGHBORHOOD.

OBJECTIVE 2.1: Enhance neighborhood identity and appearance through landscaping,decorative lighting and signage.

Recommendations:2.1.1 Designate 28 and 31 Streets North between 22 , 30 Avenues North and 26th st nd th th

Avenue North between 31 - 34 Streets as gateway streets.st th

2.1.2 The Association and the City will work in partnership with Fire Station #10 locatedat the intersection of 30 Avenue North and 28 Street North to create a gatewayth th

entrance. Proposed improvements include:a) Decorative lighting;b) Two additional neighborhood identity signs; andc) Maintain existing live oaks along the eastern edge of the fire station.

2.1.3. Replace existing wooden neighborhood identity signs with decorative concrete signsalong 30 Avenue North: th

a) Southwest corner of 30 Avenue North and 28 Street; andth th

b) Southeast corner of 30 Avenue North and 32 Street.th nd

2.1.4. Install decorative concrete neighborhood identity signs at the following locations:a) Northwest corner of 26 Avenue and 25 Street North, andth th

b) Northeast corner of 28 Street North and 23th Avenue North. th

2.1.5. Install concrete monument with the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood’s logo within thetraffic circle proposed at the intersection of 26 Avenue North and 31 Street North.th st

2.1.6. Landscape the following gateway streets:

ivPonce de Leon Neighborhood Plan

a) 28 Street North between 22 - 30 Avenues N.th nd th

b) 31 Street North between 22 - 30 Avenue N.st nd th

GOAL 3: ENSURE THE SAFE PASSAGE OF RESIDENTS AND NON-RESIDENTS ONTHE STREETS AND SIDEWALKS IN THE PONCE DE LEONNEIGHBORHOOD.

OBJECTIVE 3.1: Implement traffic calming approaches to reduce cut-through traffic in theneighborhood.

Recommendations:3.1.1 Install traffic calming features at the following locations to reduce cut through traffic:

< Landscaped medians on 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 and 28 Avenues North between 26 -th th th th th th

31 Streets North;st

< Traffic circle at the intersection of 26 Avenue North and 31 Street North; andth st

< Traffic humps on 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 and 29 Avenues North west of 26th th th th th th th

Street.< Landscaped medians on 31 Streets between 24 - 28 Avenues North.st th th

3.1.2 Landscape 28 and 31 Streets North between 22 - 30 Avenues North to create anth st nd th

identity and also to encourage slower vehicular speeds.

GOAL 4: TO MAINTAIN THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE PONCE DELEON NEIGHBORHOOD AND MINIMIZE POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODIMPACTS DUE TO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.

OBJECTIVE 4.1: To provide buffering options to minimize negative impacts from non-residentialuses on the residential areas of the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood.

Recommendations:4.1.1 Identify the appropriate zoning classifications in Areas #1 - #3 (as previously identified)

to minimize impacts by non-residential uses on residential properties.

OBJECTIVE 4.2: Minimize or reduce cut-through non-residential traffic through the Ponce deLeon Neighborhood.

Recommendations:4.2.1 Implement Phase II of the neighborhood approval traffic plan as discussed in the

Transportation Element of the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Plan. 4.2.2 Evaluate impact of implemented traffic plans and future redevelopment within the

neighborhood.

vPonce de Leon Neighborhood Plan

OBJECTIVE 4.3: Identify potential on-street parking options adjacent to existing non-residential uses to minimize residential impacts from overflow parking.

Recommendations:4.3.1 Review the potential of creating parallel parking on city rights-of-ways on the following

sections of neighborhood streets to involve paving and designating specific parkingspaces:a. 23 Avenue [28 St. to 31 St.]rd th st

b. 23 Avenue [26 St. to 28 St.]rd th th

c. 26 Street [23 Ave. to 26 Ave.]th rd th

d. 24 Avenue [2500 Block]th

e. 24 Avenue [2600 thru 2700 Block]th

f. 25 Avenue [2500 Block]th

g. 26 Avenue [2500 Block]th

h. 27 Avenue [2500 Block]th

4.3.2 Encourage property owners to request special exception parking lots on residential lotsto address overflow parking only.

4.3.3 Encourage business owners to pursue joint use agreements for use of adjacent non-residential parking lots during peak business hours.

GOAL 5: TO IMPROVE THE PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF THENEIGHBORHOOD

OBJECTIVE 5.1: Improve alley conditions throughout the neighborhood.Recommendations:

5.1.1. Residents shall identify alleys to be paved and conduct a petition of all propertyowners who abut the identified alleys for paving.

5.1.2 Review the feasibility of the paving, without assessment, all alleys classified as shelland dirt on the Alley Conditions Map contingent upon a minimum of 51% writtenapproval of property owners per resident conducted petition.

5.1.3 Provide technical assistance to property owners who may wish to pave their alleys,at their expense, with the support of 51% of the abutting property owners.

OBJECTIVE 5.2: Improve the existing sidewalk network in the neighborhood.Recommendations: 5.2.1. Install new sidewalks along 31 Street North between 22 and 30 Avenues North,st nd th

a designated gateway street.5.2.2 Install new sidewalks along 30 Avenue North between 31 and 34 Streets Northth st th

to provide a connection with existing sidewalks. 5.2.3 Repair existing sidewalks within the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood as needed.

viPonce de Leon Neighborhood Plan

OBJECTIVE 5.3: Enhance the drainage system to alleviate flooding problems in theneighborhood.

Recommendations:5.3.1. Residents shall continue to report flooding problems in their neighborhood to their

Public Service Representative (PSR), Mayor’s Action Line (893-7111) or ActionOnline (www.stpete.org).

5.3.2. The association and the city should continue to evaluate the neighborhood’s drainagesystem and implement upgrades as identified in the City’s Infrastructure Master PlanSummary.

5.3.3 Residents and the association should report and document any and all flooding at theintersection of 24 Avenue North and 26 Street North to their Public Serviceth th

Representative (PSR), Mayor’s Action Line (893-7111) or Action Online(www.stpete.org).

1Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Plan

The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood planning areaencompasses 239.5 acres which are locatedbetween 22 and 30 Avenues North, from 25 tond th th

34 Streets North (see Location Map).th

The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Plan is one ina series of plans currently being developed inpartnership with neighborhoods throughout theCity of St. Petersburg. It is an important elementof the city’s comprehensive effort to address therevitalization of its neighborhoods. Theneighborhood planning process provides a forumfor residents to initiate rather than react to change.It encourages various interest groups withinneighborhoods to work out mutually acceptedalternatives and solutions to area problems anddefines future goals. Further, the neighborhoodplanning process addresses issues andopportunities at a scale which is more refined andresponsive to neighborhood needs than the broadpolicies of the Comprehensive Plan.

Originally, the primary focus of City’sneighborhood planning initiative was centered around neighborhoods that were located in closeproximity to the city’s downtown core areas. The successful revitalization of those neighborhoodssparked an interest in the planning process by other neighborhoods, struggling to improveneighborhood conditions. As of December 2003, there were 23 City Council accepted neighborhoodplans.

The neighborhood planning process is designed to accomplish three objectives:

� Build stronger relations between the city and neighborhood residents, businesses, andinstitutions.

� Reinforce the City’s economic development initiatives through neighborhood improvementsand new and rehabilitated housing.

� Address goals, issues and housing opportunities at a level that are more responsive to theneighborhood.

PONCE de LEON PLANNING AREA - INTRODUCTION


PLANNING PROCESS The planning process for the Ponce de Leon’s Neighborhood Plan was launched on February 18,1999, during a regularly scheduled community meeting. The first neighborhood plan meeting wasa brainstorming session. Residents were encouraged to list neighborhood assets and identify issues,and areas within the community that needed improvements. The information gathered was thencategorized into six major topics or elements. The elements identified - Codes, Community Identityand Appearance, Transportation, Land Use and Infrastructure issues are in order of priority. Theresidents voted to use a portion of each regularly scheduled neighborhood meeting to review data,verify inventory results, and discuss issues, and identify potential strategies. This input is vital to theneighborhood planning process and is a crucial component of this document. Input from theplanning committee will also guide development of the neighborhood plan. All residents andproperty owners were extended invitations to attend and participate in the neighborhood planmeetings.

Once residents and property owners have had opportunities for input, the plan is revised and presentedfor approval at a neighborhood-wide meeting. All residents and property owners will be notified andencouraged to participate in the meeting. After neighborhood approval, the plan is presented by citystaff to the Planning Commission for review and comments. The plan is then forwarded to Policy andPlanning Committee and finally to the full City Council for final review, public hearing andacceptance. After the neighborhood plan is accepted by the City Council, the implementation processbegins.

CONCURRENT REVITALIZATION EFFORTSIn October 2002, the City’s Vision 2020 Plan was approved by the City Council. The Vision 2020Plan recognizes that the City is characterized by three distinct land patterns, e.g., neighborhoods,centers and corridors, and as the City redevelops, careful attention needs to be paid to each area toensure that the desired development pattern is achieved. It is important to note that the Ponce de LeonNeighborhood was recognized as having both traditional and suburban neighborhood attributes andcharacteristics, and that both 22 Avenue North and 34 Street North (Ponce de Leon’s southern andnd th

western boundaries, respectively) were identified as highly traveled and visible corridors, connectingthe City’s neighborhoods to three major centers, i.e., the Tyrone and Gateway areas and downtown.

The first major order of business, subsequent to the approval of the Vision 2020 Plan, was to initiatethe rewrite of the City’s land development regulations, or LDRs, which guide all development andredevelopment within the City. The LDR Rewrite Project began in October 2002. LDRs regulatebuilding and site uses, occupancy loads, parking standards, building sizes and in some cases designstandards. More generically, they are responsible for creating the overall framework of the City anddirecting the urban form of the community.

Both the Vision 2020 Plan and the LDR Rewrite Project address issues that are important to theresidents and businesses located within the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood. Ponce de Leon is uniqueamong the City’s neighborhoods, due in part to three of its boundaries comprised of major roads, e.g.,22 and 30 Avenues North and 34 Street North. Moreover, the neighborhood is characterized bynd th th


a true mix of uses, including single and multifamily dwelling units, offices, retail and commercialbusinesses, and industrial operations. As will be pointed out in the Land Use and Traffic Chapter,the neighborhood’s mixed land use pattern and general lack of transition or separation between thevarious uses have resulted in conflicts and incompatibilities, that have further led to disputes andoften times opposition to proposed redevelopment projects. Thus, the LDR Rewrite Project issignificant to the Ponce de LeonNeighborhood, as these variousissues will be addressed.

CRIME TRENDST h e P o n c e d e L e o nNeighborhood residents did notidentify crime as a major issuewithin the neighborhood. Areview of the uniform crimereports (UCR) between 1998 -October 2003, shows that crimehas decreased between 2002 -2003. The estimated totalreported crime for 2003, ifassuming that crime trends are linear, would be 147. This estimated figure is 37.4% less than the2002. Two areas in 2003, auto theft and robbery, have either match or exceeded the 2002 reportedfigure.

There is 165 incident of crime per 1,000 people (235 / 1,423 persons) within the Ponce de LeonNeighborhood in 2002 and 103 per 1,000 persons in 2003, using the estimated total. This comparesto 84 per 1,000 persons citywide (20,914 total reported crime/248,232 persons) in 2002. Between2002 and 1998, there was a 39.1% decrease in crime.

The majority of crime are those against property (e.g. burglary, larceny and auto theft) as indicatedin the chart below:

Year AgainstPersons

% ofTotal

AgainstProperty

% ofTotal

Total

2003 * 12 9.5% 114 90.5% 126

2002 14 6.0% 221 94.0% 235

2001 11 4.7% 225 95.3% 236

2000 22 12.8% 150 87.2% 172

1999 10 6.6% 142 93.4% 152

1998 15 8.9% 154 91.1% 169*2004 - January - October only


DEMOGRAPHICSThe Ponce de Leon Neighborhood had a total of 798 housing units according to the 1990 and 2000U.S. Census. Fifty-five (55%) percent of the total housing stock was constructed between 1955 and1974, and 36% between 1975 and 1985. Only 8% of the units were built prior to 1954.

A comparison of the 1990 and 2000 Census for owner occupancy shows a slight decline from 59.1%in 1990 to 57.0% in 2000. The same time frame shows an increase in rental occupancy from 16.4%to 21.0%. Vacancies decreased from 1990 to 2000 from 24.5% to 22.0%.

The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood’s population increased by 126 residents between 1990 and 2000,according the 2000 Census. The population of 1,423 in 2000 was evenly divided between males andfemales (715 - 708 respectively) with 30.8% between the ages of 25 - 44 years followed by 21.1 inthe 45 - 64 year age range then 20.2% under the age of 18 years. There was decrease in persons 65years and older between 1990 and 2000 (27.5% and 20.0%, respectively). This data may indicate thatthe neighborhood getting younger residents to the community which mirrors the citywide trend.

The neighborhood’s median family income of $35,755 in 2000, reflects an increase of $8,033 morethan 1990. The Ponce de Leon per capita income increased from $12,790 to $15,891. Accordingthe 2000 US Census, the median family income, citywide, was $43,198 and the per capita incomewas $21,107.


DEMOGRAPHICS

2000 Census DataCensus Tract - 229.02Blocks : 2000- 2021, 3000-3028

1990 Census DataCensus Tract - 229.02Blocks : 201-230, 301-326

Vacancies: Homeowners:Rentals:Total Units :Population Data: Total: Males Females Whites alone Asian alone Black alone Others Age Breakdown: Under 18 years 19 - 24 years 25 to 44 years 45 to 64 years 65 year and overMedian Family Income:Per Capita Income:

178 (22.0%) 455 (57.0%) 165 (21.0%) 798 1,423 715 (50.2%) 708 (49.8%) 1,036 (72.8 %) 312 (21.9 %) 35 (2.5%) 29 (2.0%)

287 (20.2%) 113 (7.9%) 438 (30.8%) 301 (21.1%) 284 (20.0%) $35,755

$15,891

195 (24.5%) 472 (59.1%) 131 (16.4%) 798

1,297 610 (47.0%) 687 (53.0%) 1,201 (93.0%) 70 (5.4%) 6 (0.4%) 20 (1.5%)

228 (17.6%) 96 (7.4%) 370 (28.5%)

246 (19.0%) 357 (27.5%) $27,722

$12,790

Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census

HISTORYThe first individual to own the land, now known as Ponce de Leon, was Charles Russell. Originalmaps show that he owned the property during the late 1800s. Except for a few homes, Ponce deLeon remained pasture land until real estate developers began selling homes to buyers in the mid-1940s. Neighborhood residents of the 1920s told stories of accessing downtown St. Petersburgvia cow paths, which were the only open routes of travel at the time. Stormwater run off wasaided by gullies and ditches that existed along 28th Street between 26th to 28th Avenues. Historical maps reveal that 31st Street was originally a portion of Booker Creek that travelsthrough St. Petersburg and empties into the Bayboro Harbor. Booker Creek and the ditchesteemed with poisonous snakes and other small wildlife including fox and possum. Sadly, thisportion of Booker Creek disappeared along with the surrounding ditches and gullies as developersinstalled modern stormwater drainage systems and roads during the early 1960s.


The neighborhood’s exotic wildlife disappeared with this period of modernization. Much ofPonce de Leon’s northwest end was developed by real-estate developer, Arthur Lowell. From hisoffice at the north corner of 28 Avenue North and 31 Street, he would sell his land toth st

prospective homeowners, then provide a network of custom builders to accommodate them. TheTodd and Vandervort Construction Company was awarded construction contracts for many of thehomes. After Lowell’s death in 1968, the remainder of land was sold to variety of buildingcontractors and the diversity in architectural styles was more apparent.

The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood witnessed construction booms between 1950 -1979, with arecord number, 240 structures, built between 1950 and 1959. A second construction boomoccurred in the 1970s with 118 structures built.

ASSETSShopping convenience, easy bus access and moderate home prices are among the assets of thePonce de Leon Neighborhood. Ponce de Leon is bordered on three sides by a variety ofbusinesses, including a post office, pharmacies, grocery stores, dry cleaners, restaurants, banksand many speciality shops. Fire protection is provided by Station #10, which is within theneighborhood boundaries. Interstate 275 and 34 Street (US 19) are nearby. The entire perimeterth

of the neighborhood has access to the county bus system which provides transportation toresidents who prefer not to drive.


Easy accessibility to this neighborhood is a major attraction to home buyers (See Assets Map ).The neighborhood has one of the highest elevations in the City of St. Petersburg, which providesresidents peace of mind during tropical storms.

PONCE DE LEON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONThe Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Association was founded in August of 1992, by resident,Rosemary Grasso, who became alarmed afer a string of armed robberies in the late 1980s. TheAssociation has been incorporated since its inception and has been a participating member of theCouncil of Neighborhood Associations (CONA) since 1992. Ponce de Leon has an active CrimeWatch and has been closely involved with community policing.

The association mails a monthly newsletter to all residents of the neighborhood. Newsletters arefunded by an annual garage sale, advertisers and association memberships. The newsletter includescurrent neighborhood news, a neighborhood police page, a gardening section to help neighbors incaring for specific yard needs appropriate to that particular month and other current topics of interest.

The association is actively concerned with the health and welfare of its residents and arrangescardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) courses for those who wish to participate. Future goals includeorganizing a basic first aid class for members and developing a hurricane and disaster plan in theunlikely event the neighborhood is required to evacuate.


1st Neighborhood Partnership Grant - neighborhood

identity sign.

NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP GRANTSPonce de Leon has received two NeighborhoodPartnership Grants for landscaping and signage. Theprogram is a matching grant where award recipients canmatch with volunteer hours, cash or in-kind services.The first grant provided an attractive wooden signbearing the neighborhood name on the corner of 30thAvenue North and 28th Street. It is on the corner ofFire Station #10 and is surrounded with shrubbery.Another sign was placed in the treeline easement of30th Avenue North near 32nd Street and is visible whendriving in the eastbound traffic lane.

The second grant was used to fund a landscapingproject within the neighborhood’s treeline area. Thearea located along the southbound easement of 22nd Avenue North between 25th and 28th StreetsNorth was enhanced with trees and shrubbery. The project was successfully completed in 1995.


CHAPTER 2 ~ CODES AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE

INTRODUCTIONThe image of a community is strongly influenced by existing property conditions and ongoingimprovements. Well-manicured communities generate feelings of pride for its residents and serveas magnets for potential home buyers. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, abandoned or boarded-up properties can reduce values of nearby homes by 30.7%, and unsightly properties which arelittered with excessive junk, trash and debris, can reduce values by as much as 14.5%. Many lawenforcement officials say that ‘abandoned and boarded properties invite criminal activity and illegaldrug use.’ This comment is in keeping with the Broken Windows Theory which generally pertainsto neglected properties “attracting” additional nuisances such as trash, illegal activities, etc.

CODES COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCEThe Codes Compliance Assistance Department of the City of St. Petersburg works closely withresidents and property owners to insure that structures within the city meets minimum standards forsafety and sanitation. Investigators survey properties and provide homeowners with informationregarding City Codes. Once a code violation is observed, the investigator sends a violation notice tothe property owner listing the violation(s) and a ‘reasonable’ time frame given to correct the violation.The length of time defined by City Code as ‘reasonable time’ is ten days (10) although an extensionmay be requested and/or granted. The property is reinspected at the end of the ‘reasonable’ timeframe granted for compliance. If the reinspection reveals that property conditions still do not meetminium code standards, a second notice of violation may be sent to the property owners andadditional legal measures may be considered.

The Codes Compliance Assistance Department has the authority to schedule owners of noncompliantproperties for public hearing before the City’s Code Enforcement Board (CEB) following a periodof time for resolution with no progress or change. The board is empowered to impose fines and/orlevy liens against the subject properties. In extreme cases, noncompliant properties are referred tothe Pinellas County Court system where additional fines or penalties may be warranted. City recordsshow records list 227 active cases of code violations for the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood in January2003.

Property maintenance cases accounted for highest percentage (58.2 %) of the neighborhood’s activecase load, followed by zoning violations at 14.5% and improper vehicular parking at 10.1 %. Theactive cases are evenly distributed throughout in the neighborhood. Typical property maintenancecases include poor conditions of the structure or the site. Such cases may reflect damage to the roof,overhang, soffits, foundation, screens and windows or peeling paint (see map).


Neighborhood residents provide ongoing monitoring of site conditions within their community andrecognize the negative impact poorly maintained properties have on property values. A significantnumber of businesses, located along the neighborhood’s perimeters, present additional challengesfor residents, concerned about their neighborhood’s image. Many of those businesses aregrandfathered or non-conforming uses developed on substandard sized lots, making it difficult for theprovision of sufficient parking, landscaping, or adequate storage space. Resident express concernthat poorly shielded, illegal outdoor storage areas generate a negative neighborhood image. They alsohave concern about the commercial businesses encroaching into the residential areas of theneighborhood.

STRUCTURAL / SITE CONDITIONSIn August of 2000, staff conductedstructural and site conditions surveysthroughout the planning area and haveratings of excellent, sound, deterioratedor dilapidated. The analysis of structuralconditions found within theneighborhood was based primarily onthe overall condition of the individualstructure, and included the considerationof the following elements: walls, roof,fence, paint, windows, doors, sills andporches. These individual factors arerated and then an overall buildingcondition is assigned. Structures wereassigned a rating of deteriorated, if atleast two of the following was determined: sagging or cracked foundation; broken windows; warped,split or rotten supports; decomposed shingles; or roof disrepair. This rating identifies substandardstructures that could have negative impacts on property value as well as the neighborhood image.Only 2.9 % of the neighborhood’sstructures were classified deteriorated.

Site conditions surveys involved theproperty itself without the structure. Therating system used for site conditions isthe same as structural: excellent, sound,deteriorated and dilapidated. Anexcellent rating would indicate a wellmaintained, landscaped yard and fence.Sound condition may include some minoryard maintenance - an area of limited orno landscaping. Deteriorated wouldindicate a large portion of the yard withno groundcover and fence in disrepair.


Examples of sites classified as deteriorated include the following: existing junk, trash and debris;excessive outdoor storage; overgrowth of grass, weed or plant material; storage of inoperativevehicles in the yard; poorly maintained landscaped areas which exposed the bare ground, dead grassor plant material; yard parking, and fencing in advance stages of disrepair. Approximately 20 % ofthe neighborhood’s parcels were categorized as deteriorated. A dilapidated site would be devoid oflandscaping and more severe conditions than those listed above for deteriorated. It should be notedthat the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood does not have reclaimed water within the area which may bea factor in the high number of deteriorated yards.

The community supports a comprehensive approach to resolving code issues. Most residents areconcerned that average time allotments for resolution of code related issues were too lengthy.Excessive time extensions, they argue, allows property owners to circumvent code requirements andprolong the negative impacts noncompliant properties have within the neighborhood.

CODE STRATEGYPonce de Leon residents were concerned about the number of active code cases within theneighborhood and felt that the time frame allotted by the city to resolve zoning and propertymaintenance violations was too generous. Because residents said “businesses sometimes ignoredcode violations or prolonged the compliance time,” they were overwhelmingly supportive ofaggressive codes’ enforcement within their neighborhood to minimize negative impacts ofnoncompliant property owners. The map below shows the active code cases within the Ponce de LeonNeighborhood as of April 1, 2003.


To better address code compliant issues within the community, Ponce de Leon’s residents dividedthe neighborhood into six (6) code strategy areas and agreed to work with the Codes ComplianceAssistance Department to prioritized an enforcement timetable. Code areas were delineated based onits number of active cases, the type violations/ code issue and the average length required by propertyowners to bring the properties into compliance. The neighborhood association agreed to identifycode problems and to provide forums for on-going education on code issues for its residents. Ownersof businesses located within Ponce de Leon were invited to partner the neighborhood association toaddress code issues.


This chapter examines the code issues within the neighborhood and explores possible problemsolving initiatives.

GOAL 1: TO ELIMINATE CODE VIOLATIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

OBJECTIVE 1.1: Decrease the number of code violations in the neighborhood.

Recommendations: 1.1.1. Residents shall continue to work with its association’s strategy task force committee

to report code violations to the Codes Compliance Assistance Department.1.1.2. The neighborhood association shall continue to provide a forum in which to inform

property owners about code related issues through:a) Speaker at association meetings;b) Articles in the neighborhood newsletter and/or website; andc) Addressing issues with neighbors individually.

1.1.3. The association shall partner with neighboring business owners to encourage theowners to bring the properties into compliance and to provide ongoing maintenance.

1.1.4. The association and City Team should continue an ongoing review of active caseswithin the designated codes strategy areas to determine compliance timeframes, ownerresponsiveness and modify priority areas as needed.

1.1.5 The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Association shall continue to send representativesto the City Team to identify priority properties and areas and work toward resolutionof those issues.


INTRODUCTIONThe Community Identity and Appearance Elementexplores visual aspects of the Ponce de LeonNeighborhood. The chapter will identify existingelements which contribute to this community’soverall character and promote the development ofnew projects and programs designed to preservethe character of the neighborhood and strengthenits identity.

The Ponce de Leon community enjoys manyarchitectural styles. Homes in the neighborhoodwere built in phases. During the mid 1920s,bungalow styles houses were built along the 24th

Avenue corridor. Construction ceased until the1950s building boom. The 1950s gave way to twobedrooms, frame homes and larger moderately priced, contemporary two and three-bedroom, twobaths, ranch styles homes. Many of these homes were built with the niceties of the day, includingtile roofs, family rooms, dishwashers, etc. These homes became the executive homes of the 1950sand helped St. Petersburg change from a retirement community to a family community. The 1980sbrought more scattered construction and a variety of attractive masonry ranch styles, typical of theone pictured above. Landscaping around the residents’ homes vary. Some homes feature modest,manicured surroundings, while some residents prefer an assortment of bushes, flowers and trees toprovide a lush setting.

Residents within this community express pride of its rich history and positive image. When asked,during a neighborhood brainstorming session to list significant neighborhood attributes residentscompiled the following list:

T Commercial corridors along the south, west boundaries;T Diversity of housing types, sizes, and costs;T Proximity of city parks;T Ethnically diverse neighbors;T Proximity to bus routesT Low neighborhood crime ratesT High number of long time residents

When asked to identify needed improvement in the neighborhood, residents said “ a neighborhoodbeautification initiative with an emphasis on creating gateway entries into the community is needed,and that better signage would help to strengthen the identity of our neighborhood”.

Typical of ‘ranch style’ homes found within

the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood

CHAPTER 3 ~ COMMUNITY IDENTITY AND APPEARANCE


NEIGHBORHOOD GATEWAYGateways, which are primary entry corridors into areas, are used not only by people who live orwork in the neighborhood but also by those who are passing through the neighborhood. Gatewaysare typically identified by landmarks or special characteristic features. Special features may includeimprovements such as: signage, decorative street lighting, landscaping, specialty paving andenhanced conditions of abutting properties.

To enhance the neighborhood’s appearance and identityresidents identified three gateways (see map below): 1) 28th

Street North between 22 - 30 Avenues North; 2) 31nd th st

Street North between 22 - 30 Avenues North, and 3)nd th

26 Avenue North between 31 & 34 Streets North. Theth st th

residents proposed a Spanish-styled concrete monumentfeaturing a tile roof and two tile neighborhood logo insertsfor the center of the proposed traffic circle at theintersection of 26 Avenue North and 31 Street Northth st

(see conceptual drawing).

The residents plan to partner with the neighborhood’s FireStation at the intersection 30 Avenue North and 28 Streetth th

North, to create a gateway at that location. The proposalentails integrating Biscayne styled decorative lighting anda new concrete neighborhood identity sign with oak trees already existing along the station’s easternborder.

Conceptual drawing of monument

proposed for the traffic circle


SIGNAGESigns are useful identification and directionalvehicles. The neighborhood currently has two (2)wooden signs. One sign is located at theintersection of 28 Street North and 30 Avenueth th

North; the other is located along 30 Avenueth

North, between 31 and 32 Street North.st nd

Residents are recommending the replacement ofthose signs with new concrete signs. The residentspropose placing additional neighborhood signs atthe following locations: (see Identity & AppearanceMap below)

T Northwest corner of 26 Avenue and 25 Street North.th th

T Northeast corner of 28 Street North and 23th Avenue North.th

I d e n t i t y a n dAppearance Map

Existing identity signs

Proposed identity sign locations

Proposed traffic circle with identity monument (see conceptual drawing above)

Proposed landscaped median

Existing wooden neighborhood sign


View of the installed landscaping at Fire Station #10

In addition to the proposed neighborhood signs, residents recommended theuse of Biscayne style decorative lighting and the installation of newsidewalks along 31 Street North (see Infrastructure Element) to help st

generate a unified theme. Ponce de Leon’s residents discussed continuingthe neighborhood theme along 26 Avenue North by placing Biscayne lightsth

within the proposed landscaped medians and a traffic circle.

GENERAL FINDINGS:T The neighborhood’s residential core is

surrounded primarily commercial and industrialbusinesses.

T Trees at the intersection of 28 Street North andth

30th Avenue North (City of St. Petersburg’s FireStation #10) enhances plans for creating aprincipal gateway into the neighborhood.

T Two existing neighborhood identity signs are located along 30 Avenue North.th

GOAL 2: TO IMPROVE THE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE AND IDENTITY OF THENEIGHBORHOOD.

OBJECTIVE 2.1: Enhance neighborhood identity and appearance through landscaping,decorative lighting and signage.

Recommendations:2.1.1 Designate 28 and 31 Streets North between 22 , 30 Avenues North and 26th st nd th th

Avenue North between 31 - 34 Streets as gateway streets.st th

2.1.2 The Association and the City will work in partnership with Fire Station #10located at the intersection of 30 Avenue North and 28 Street North to create ath th

gateway entrance. Proposed improvements include:a) Decorative lighting;b) Two additional neighborhood identity signs; andc) Maintain existing live oaks along the eastern edge of the fire station.

2.1.3. Replace existing wooden neighborhood identity signs with decorative concretesigns along 30 Avenue North: th

a) Southwest corner of 30 Avenue North and 28 Street; andth th

b) Southeast corner of 30 Avenue North and 32 Street.th nd


2.1.4. Install decorative concrete neighborhood identity signs at the following locations:a) Northwest corner of 26 Avenue and 25 Street North, andth th

b) Northeast corner of 28 Street North and 23th Avenue North. th

2.1.5. Install concrete monument with the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood’s logo withinthe traffic circle proposed at the intersection of 26 Avenue North and 31 Streetth st

North.

2.1.6. Landscape the following gateway streets:a) 28 Street North between 22 - 30 Avenues N.th nd th

b) 31 Street North between 22 - 30 Avenue N.st nd th


Residents prioritized transportation issues as a high priority for this plan. Residents want acommunity that is safe for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. This chapter will review existingconditions, discuss residents’ issues, analyze collected traffic study data and providerecommendations related to transportation issues.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

STREETSThe Ponce de Leon Neighborhood roadsystem is generally grid patternallowing easy access to, from andthrough the neighborhood. The City ofSt. Petersburg has three functional roadclassifications - interstate, arterial andcollector. These road classifications aredetermined by City staff based oncriteria such as volume, trip lengths,number of travel lanes, and surroundingland uses. Arterial roadways areviewed as connectors - connecting aperson from point A to point B. Twentysecond (22 ) Avenue and 34 Streetnd th

North are both classified as arterials. Collector designated roads link residential traffic to arterialroadways. These roadways are not intended for long-distance traffic, rather they are for local traveland linkage to arterials. Twenty eighth (28 Street North and 30 Avenues North are used as roadth) th

links for residential traffic to arterial roadways.

The streets within the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood vary in width. A typical paved residential roadwidth in a suburban area ranges from 24 - 30 feet. These widths will accommodate two way trafficand parking on side. The paved areas within the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood range fromapproximately 20 - 32 feet in width. Twenty six (26 ) Avenue North is the widest road within theth

neighborhood.

Three avenues traverse east-west through the interior of the neighborhood: 24 , 26 and 28th th th

Avenues North. Four streets traverse north-south the neighborhood: 26 , 28 , 29 and 31 Streetsth th th st

North. Sharing its boundaries with several major business corridors (22 and 30 Avenues Northnd th

and 34 Street North) make Ponce de Leon a logical “cut through” neighborhood for vehicular trafficth

to bypass major intersections and traffic lights.

Chapter 4 ~ Transportation


SIDEWALKSAs mentioned in the Infrastructure Chapter,there are limited sidewalks within the Ponce deLeon Neighborhood. They are generally locatedalong the major streets rather than the residentialroads. This is consistent with suburbanneighborhood development.

Residents have requested sidewalks along 31st

Street North to allow safe pedestrian mobility.Properties west of 31 Street are morest

commercial than residential use.

ALLEYSAlleys are not a main transportation featurewithin the neighborhood. Out of the 38 blocks,only six (6) have alleys or a portion of an alley.Alleys can also serve as a transportation featurein neighborhoods by providing parking andtravel pathway opportunities.

CITYTRAILST he C i ty o f S t .Petersburg is embarkingo n a n e x t e n s i v ebicycle/pedestrian systemknown as CityTrails.City Trails is a five (5)

pronged approach: 1. New bicycle and pedestrian trails (150 miles total); 2. New and expanded sidewalks; 3. New and improved crosswalks (20 crosswalks and 61 upgrades by 2008);4. Education of bicycle and pedestrian safety issues; and5. Enforcement of traffic laws.

The total cost of implement is estimated at $11.5 million. CityTrails will be financed primarily with$7.6 million in state and federal grants, with additional capital dollars provided by the City throughthe Penny for Pinellas dollars.

There are several streets within the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood that will be part of the CityTrailssystem. Twenty eighth (28 ) Street North has been identified as a corridor for an on-road bicycleth

facility (Priority II). Construction on the 28 Street segment is proposed to begin in July 2004. Theth

route will also help slow traffic speeds. The portion of 30 Avenue North within the neighborhoodth

is proposed for further corridor study due to some physical limitations or constraints.


TRAFFIC ISSUESWhile residents view the neighborhoodstreet pattern as an asset due to itsmaneuverability, some excessive speedwas identified as an issue. Below arethe resident identified locations.

Excessive speeds: C 23 Avenue North, rd

C 24 Avenue North,th

C 28 Street North, andth

C 31 Street Northst

TRAFFIC PLANTo address their neighborhood trafficissues, Transportation Planning staff worked with the Ponce de Leon residents to develop a trafficplan. The Ponce de Leon had two raised installed. They are located at 26 Street & 28 Avenueth th

and at 26 Avenue and 31 Street North. However, cut-through traffic and speeds continued to beth st

concerns, thus the neighborhood began a second traffic plan process.

Location BetweenLocation

Dir.

Volume

Peak 24 hrs Speed HEI

31 St N 23-24 Ave N N/B 45 297 27.33 39

S/B 50 474 26.76

31 St N 24-25 Ave N N/B 29 272 32.1 52

S/B 34 374 27.6

31 St N 26-27 Ave N N/B 19 221 28.8 39

S/B 30 323 30

31 St N 29-30 Ave N N/B 27 261 27.18 36

S/B 34 420 25.15

29 St N 23-24 Ave N N/B 42 267 25.07 38

S/B 20 179 25.23

29 St N 28-29 Ave N N/B 19 190 24.86 40

S/B 11 78 29.15

28 St N 23-24 Ave N N/B 448 4757 33.89 53


Location BetweenLocation

Dir.

Volume

Peak 24 hrs Speed HEI

S/B 531 5401 33.02

28 St N 28-29 Ave N N/B 465 4954 37.12 55

S/B 410 5248 35.02

26 St N 23-24 Ave N N/B 30 303 25.12 38

S/B 30 229 27.23

26 St N 29-30 Ave N N/B 67 598 27.12 37

S/B 49 524 23.97

28 Ave N 29-31 St N E/B 30 328 30.42 39

W/B 21 327 30.39

27 Ave N 29-31 St N E/B 21 163 25.29 36

W/B 10 123 25.27

26 Ave N 29-31 St N E/B 28 226 33.92 47

W/B 30 277 35.61

25 Ave N 29-31 St N E/B 13 117 28.68 40

W/B 12 117 25.15

24 Ave N 29-31 St N E/B 59 492 34.24 46

W/B 60 476 34.16

29 Ave N 26-28 St N E/B 16 112 19.96 45

W/B 13 130 22.74

28 Ave N 26-28 St N E/B 32 286 27 40

W/B 34 284 28.3

27 Ave N 26-28 St N E/B 25 228 28.17 57

W/B 14 118 31.43

26 Ave N 26-28 St N E/B 19 146 38.39 47

W/B 34 324 29.07

25 Ave N 26-28 St N E/B 28 260 29.98 42

W/B 30 220 25.22

24 Ave N 26-28 St N E/B 45 360 31.93 42

W/B 35 409 32.21

28 Ave N 25-26 St N E/B 40 341 27 44

W/B 46 377 27.6


A review of the speeds and volumes of traffic(above) compared to the roads of most concern tothe residents (23 & 24 Avenues North, 28 &rd th th

31 Streets North) shows that 28 Street carries ast th

high volume of traffic compared to other streetswithin the neighborhood. This is consistent withits designation as a collector street. Twentyfourth (24 ) Avenue North carries about the sameth

volume of traffic as 31 Street between 23 - 24st rd th

Avenues North. Traffic volume decreases as oneproceeds north on 31 Street. Volume, speedsst

and pedestrian generators determine the HEI orhazard exposure index. This figure along withthe cost of the feature are used to develop a costbenefit ratio. This ratio is used to prioritize thefeatures for funding in a fiscal year. The morecostly the feature (e.g. traffic circle - $40,000) thelower the cost benefit ratio. Generally, speed plateaus/humps ($1,350 unit cost) have beenconstructed prior to other more costly features.

Traffic speeds are within 25 percent of the 30 m.p.h. residential speeds and in many cases below thespeed limit.

The traffic management process, conducted by the Transportation Planning Department, begins withan input meeting. Neighborhoodwide notifications were mailed by staff to residents, requesting theirinput and participation in the traffic planning process. The February 15, 2003, meeting attractedapproximately 30 residents. After a powerpoint presentation and open discussion, a TrafficCommittee was formed. After several meetings with both the traffic committee and theneighborhood association, a draft traffic plan was developed. To gage the level of support andcommitment by residents who would be the most impacted by the proposed traffic calming initiative,petitions were the provided by the Transportation Planning staff to association members to obtainresident and property owner signatures.

The Land Use Study recommends that traffic calming be considered to address the mix of residentialand business traffic. The proposed plan specifies the same areas identified as part of the land usestudy. The traffic plan recommends features to slow traffic rather than close off traffic. Beforeimplementation of any traffic feature will require review and design to ensure access by larger (e.g.sanitation trucks, moving vans, etc.) and emergency vehicles. The Traffic Plan was approved byresidents within the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood during the May 15, 2003, association meetingafter a neighborhood wide notification process by the Transportation Planning Department (seeabove).


PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

The residents in the Ponce de LeonNeighborhood have access to publictransportation in their community. The busstops are located on each block of theboundaries and on 28 Street North. th

GENERAL FINDINGST The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood was

developed using a grid street pattern. T Thoroughfares for east-west travel include

22 ,24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , and 30 Avenuesnd th th th th th

North and 25 , 28 , and 34 Streetsth th th

North for north-south travel.T 22 Avenue North and 34 Street North are classified as arterials. Collector roads in thend th

neighborhood include 28 Street North and 30 Avenue North. th th

T Paved roadways average 24 - 30 feet in width.T 28 Street North had the highest total vehicle volumes of the roadways studied.th

T Ponce de Leon residents have access to public transportation.

GOAL 3: ENSURE THE SAFE PASSAGE OF RESIDENTS AND NON-RESIDENTS ONTHE STREETS AND SIDEWALKS IN THE PONCE DE LEONNEIGHBORHOOD.

OBJECTIVE 3.1: Implement traffic calming approaches to reduce cut-through traffic in theneighborhood.

Recommendations:3.1.1 Install traffic calming features at the following locations to reduce cut through traffic:

< Landscaped medians on 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 and 28 Avenues North between 26 -th th th th th th

31 Streets North;st

< Traffic circle at the intersection of 26 Avenue North and 31 Street North; andth st

< Traffic humps on 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 and 29 Avenues North west of 26th th th th th th th

Street.< Landscaped medians on 31 Streets between 24 - 28 Avenues North.st th th

3.1.2 Landscape 28 and 31 Streets North between 22 - 30 Avenues North to create anth st nd th

identity and also to encourage slower vehicular speeds.


OBJECTIVE 3.2: Provide safe pedestrian access on gateway streets in the Ponce de LeonNeighborhood.

Recommendations:3.2.1 Install new sidewalks on 31 Street North between 22 - 30 Avenues North.st nd th

3.2.2 Install new and repair sidewalks on 30 Avenue North, as needed, to create a continuousth

sidewalk system.3.2.3 Support the development of the CityTrails system, especially the proposed bike routes

on 28 Street North and 30 Avenue North. th th


The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood is approximately 240 acres (or 1/3 of a square mile) in size,including all of the right-of-way and is characterized by a true mix of uses, including single andmultifamily dwelling units, offices, retail and commercial businesses, and industrial operations. Themixed land use pattern has resulted in significant conflicts and incompatibilities that has led todisputes over proposed developments, over-flow parking and rezonings. This chapter is intendedto frame issues, identify problems and their underlying causes and offer alternative solutions for theneighborhood’s consideration.

Neighborhood Context AnalysisThis section will examine the existing land use and traffic conditions in the Neighborhood andidentify challenges that will be the focus of the Study’s recommendations.

Existing Land UseAccording to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser’s office, which is responsible forclassifying the existing use for all real property in Pinellas County, approximately 55% of theexisting uses in the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood are residential, 29% commercial, and 14%industrial. Map 1 depicts and Table 1 summarizes existing uses within the Ponce de Leon area.

Table 1

Existing Land Uses(Does not include right-of-way)

Existing Land Use Acres Percentage

Single Family 65 38

Multifamily (duplex, triplex) 8.0 5.0

Mobile Home 20 12

Public/Semi-Public 1.0 -

Industrial 23 14

Commercial 50 29

Vacant 3.0 2.0

Total 170 100 percent

Sources: Pinellas County Property Appraiser’s Office, Pinellas County Planning Department, and

the City of St. Petersburg Development Services Department

Chapter 5 ~ Land Use and Traffic


Map 2 - Zoning Districts within the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood

Zoning DesignationsThe Neighborhood is also characterized by a variety of zoning map designations (Map 2), whichhave been in place since 1977. A summary of the Neighborhood’s Official Zoning Map designationsis provided in Table 2. Approximately 55 % of the Neighborhood is zoned residential (40 % singlefamily), 32 % of the Neighborhood is zoned industrial, and 11 % commercial. Attachment 1(Appendix) provides a general description of the zoning district regulations for each of the six zoningdistricts that are found in the Neighborhood.

Map 1 - Existing Land Use


Zoning MapDesignations Acres

Percentage

RS-75 (Residential Single Family) 68 40

RM-12/15 (Residential Multifamily) 7.0 4.0

MH-P (Mobile Home Park) 19 11

IG (Industrial General) 55 32

GO (General Office) 2.0 1.0

CG (Commercial General) 19 11

Total 170 99 percent*

* Not 100 percent due to rounding

Sources: Pinellas County Planning Department, and the City of St. Petersburg Development Services Department

Zoning TransitionsThe zoning pattern in the Neighborhood is a reflection of the historical development of the area andis characterized by several zoning transition problem areas or “conflict areas”. These areas, shownon Map 3, occur where RS-75, single family residential zoning is located across the street from IG,industrial zoning. The IG zoning district is the most intensive industrial zoning in the City andallows a floor area ratio of up to .65 and a maximum height of 50' with only 15' of setback requiredfrom residential areas. The neighborhood is experiencing the symptoms of the underlyingzoning/land use pattern conflicts in the form of over-flow parking, incompatible building scale andcut-through/mixed traffic. These conditions, overtime, can lead to disinvestment, communitydisputes and neighborhooddeterioration. Zoning and urbandesign options should be exploredthat improve the transition betweenthe residential and non-residentialareas and improve the long termviability of the Neighborhood.

Table 2

Zoning Map Designations


Rezoning RequestsSince the 1977 City-wide rezoning, 11 applications for Future Land Use Plan Map/OfficialZoning Map (PC cases) changes have been processed for property located within theNeighborhood. A total of six applications were approved by City Council, while three weredenied and two were withdrawn. It is interesting to note that five of the six applications thatwere approved resulted in more residentially-zoned land in the Neighborhood, while the sixthapplication resulted in additional commercial land (involving the Grant Ford, now Autoway,dealership). Two of the three applications that were denied involved requests for industrially-zoned land, while the third application involved a request for residential/office/retail-zoned land. Finally, the two applications that were withdrawn involved requests for residential/office-zonedland. The 11 applications for land use plan changes and/or rezonings are discussed below andsummarized in Table 4 and shown on Map 5.

Table 4: Zoning History

City File # Year Location Rezoning Request Outcome

PC-607 1999 NW corner of 28 St. and 23 Ave. From: RS-75th rd

To: RO-1Withdrawn

PC-511 1990 300' east of 34 St., between 24 and 26th th th

Avenues From: IGTo: CG

Approved


To: IGDenied

PC-270-A(16) 1982 SW corner of 26 Ave. and 31 St. From: Industrial land useth s t

To: Residential Medium landuse

Approved

PC-270-A(17) 1982 a) btwn 30 Ave. & Lown St., east of 28 St.th th

b) between 26 and 28 St., south of 30th th th

Ave.

a) From: Industrial land use To: Residential Low land useb) From: IG To: RS-75

a) Approved

b) Approved

PC-270-A(2) 1982 a) the majority of the block located between26 and 27 Avenues, east of 26 Street th th th

b) two lots generally located at the easternend of the above-mentioned block

a) From: Industrial land use To: Residential Low land useb) From: RS-75 To: IG

a) Approved

b) Approved

PC-330 1983 a) NE corner of 23 Ave. and 31 St.rd s t

b) two lots on the north side of 23 Ave., 80'rd

west of 29 St.th

a) From: RS-75 To: RM-12/15b) From: RS-75 To: RM-12/15

a) Approved

b) Approved

PC-259 1982 NW corner of 23 Ave. and 29 St. From: RS-75rd th

To: RM-12/15Approved

PC-99 1978 Eight lots on the east and west sides of 28th

St., between 24 and 25 Ave.th th

From: RS-75To: ROR-1

Denied

PC-64 1978 SW corner of 28 St. and 24 Ave. From: RS-75th th

To: RM-12/15Approved


To: IGDenied

PC-43 1977 SW corner of 28 St. and 25 Ave. From: RS-75th th

To: RO-1Withdrawn

Source: Development Services Department


Map 5

Development ActivityDevelopment activity in the neighborhood includes commercial, industrial and residential projects.Commercial and industrial development activity can be shown through a review of Site Plan Review(SPR) and Special Exception (SE) cases within or near the Neighborhood (Map 6). Additional non-residential projects that did not require SPR or SE approval have also occurred (e.g. the recent autorepair shop expansion located at the southwest corner of 28 Street and 23 Avenue North). Datath rd

on residential development is not readily available, however, through a windshield review of theNeighborhood, it is apparent that most of the homes were built in the 1950s with an occasionalnewer single family homeconstructed on scattered infilllots over the past severalyears.

Some of the development hasoccurred in the zoningtransition problem areas.Development in this area hasthe greatest potential fore x a c e r b a t i n gincompat ib i l i t i es andconflict. A summary of theSPR and SE cases isprovided in Appendix 4.


Traffic and ParkingThe neighborhood’s street system is an open grid street. The system provides generally goodaccessibility to the Neighborhood and allows flexibility in addressing some of the impactscreated by the Neighborhood’s land use pattern, including, mixed commercial, industrial andresidential traffic on local streets and over-flow parking in residential areas.

Traffic ConditionsThe Neighborhood contains several streetsthat are functionally classified as arterial andcollector streets in the City’s ComprehensivePlan (See Road Classification Map 7). Arterial streets include 22 Avenue and 34nd th

Street, which are four- and six-lane, dividedfacilities, designed to carry heavy trafficvolumes between major activity centers. Collector streets include 30 Avenue and 28th th

Street, which are two-lane, undividedfacilities that carry traffic from residentialstreets to arterial streets. The remainingstreets are considered local streets, and aretwo-lane, undivided facilities.

Traffic volumes are particularly heavy on 34 Street, which carried approximately 40,000th

vehicles per day in 1999. Traffic volumes are also high on 22 Avenue, which carried overnd

34,000 vehicles per day in 1999. Through truck traffic is permitted on 22 Avenue, 28 , and 34nd th th

Streets only.

Roadway Level of ServiceThe Pinellas County MetropolitanPlanning Organization (MPO), acountywide transportation planningorganization, works together with theCity to conduct a level of service(LOS) analysis for major streets. LOSis a qualitative measure that describesoperational conditions of traffic flowand its perception to motorists. Roadsare given letter designations, from “A”to “F,” with LOS “A” representing thebest operating conditions and LOS “F”the worst. The City’s adopted LOSstandard is “D,” meaning the Cityseeks to provide a LOS “D” or betteron its major roadways. All of the major streets in the Neighborhood currently function at a LOS“D” or better, with the exception of 22 Avenue, which functions at LOS “F” (Map 8).nd


Traffic Accident DataTable 5 identifies the locations of the 435 traffic accidents that occurred within and adjacent tothe Neighborhood over a 37 month period, January 1, 1997 through January 31, 2000. Thistranslates to approximately one accident every three days. It is estimated that 392 trafficaccidents (90 percent) occurred on 34 Street, 22 Avenue or 30 Avenue, which are (arguably)th nd th

roads external to the Neighborhood. It is also estimated that a total of 43 accidents (10 percent)occurred on internal streets, or approximately one accident every month.

Table 5 - Traffic Accidents*January 1, 1997 through January 31, 2000

22nd

Ave.23rd

Ave.24th

Ave.25th

Ave.26 Ave. 27th th

Ave.28th

Ave.29 Ave. 30 Ave. Totalth th

25 St. 2 3 1 6 12th

26 St. 2 1 12 15th

28 St. 18 4 3 1 5 1 5 25 62th

29 St. 15 1 1 2 1 4 24th

30 St. 1 1 2 4th

31 St. 16 1 2 1 1 2 2 6 31st

32 St. 10 1 1 1 1 14nd

34 St. 118 23 6 7 7 4 7 7 94 273th

Total 181 29 16 8 11 12 11 17 150 435

* Includes motor vehicle accidents, minor motor vehicle accidents, accidents with injuries, and hit and run

accidents.

Sources: St. Petersburg Police Department and Development Services Department

The following conclusions can be made upon analysis of the data:< Not surprisingly, the roadways with the highest number of traffic accidents are 34 Streetth

(273), 22 Avenue (181) and 30 Avenue (150), which serve as the neighborhood’snd th

boundaries, but are arguably roads that are external to the neighborhood. Over thereporting period, traffic accidents on 34 Street occurred at a rate of one accident everyth

four days; one accident every six days on 22 Avenue; and one accident every eight daysnd

on 30 Avenue.th

< The road with the highest number of traffic accidents that is internal to the neighborhoodis 28 Street (62). This is not surprising because of the higher traffic volumes on 28 . th th

23 Avenue also a significantly higher number of accidents than other internal streetsrd

(29), primarily because of the number of accidents at the intersection of 23 Avenue andrd

34 Street.th


< Again, not surprisingly, the intersections with the highest number of traffic accidents are22 Avenue and 34 Street (118), 30 Avenue and 34 Street (94), and 30 Avenue andnd th th th th

28 Street (25), which again, are arguably intersections that are external to theth

neighborhood. Over the reporting period, traffic accidents at the intersection of 22nd

Avenue and 34 Street occurred at a rate of one accident every ten days; one accidentth

every 12 days at the intersection of 30 Avenue and 34 Street; and one accident every 45th th

days at the intersection of 30 Avenue and 28 Street.th th

< The intersections with the highest number of traffic accidents that are internal to theneighborhood are all along 28 Street, specifically at 23 Avenue (4), 27 Avenue (5) andth rd th

29 Avenue (5). Over the reporting period, traffic accidents at the intersection of 28th th

Street and 27 and 29 Avenues occurred at a rate of one accident every eight months;th th

and one accident every nine months at the intersection of 28 Street and 23 Avenue.th rd

Traffic ControlTraffic signals are located only on the periphery of the Ponce De Leon neighborhood. On 22nd

Avenue, traffic signals are located at 25 , 28 and 34 Streets. On 30 Avenue, traffic signalsth th th th

are located at 28 and 34 Streets. Internal streets are typically controlled by two-way stops. th th

“No truck” signs are common in residential areas and exist on almost every avenue, including23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 and 30 Avenues, as well as 31 Street. Based on fieldrd th th th th th th st

observations, truck drivers seem to be obeying these restrictions, but staff will need the input ofneighborhood residents to confirm this belief.

Traffic CalmingThe purpose of traffic calming is to lower traffic speeds and reduce cut-through traffic andaggressive driving on residential streets, thereby improving safety conditions and quality of lifefor residents that live along these streets. The City’s Transportation Planning Department isresponsible for implementing and monitoring traffic calming measures. The Ponce de LeonNeighborhood has two raised intersections, which are located at the intersections of 31 Streetst

and 26 Avenue and 26 Street and 28 Avenue. The Transportation Planning Department isth th th

currently monitoring these raised intersections to determine if they have effectively loweredtraffic speeds.

It may be appropriate to implement additional traffic calming measures in the Ponce de LeonNeighborhood, such as speed plateaus, raised crosswalks, traffic circles, roundabouts, chicanes(horizontal curves), center medians, lane narrowing or neckdowns (reduced width atintersections). All of these measures, as well as raised intersections, have several advantages,such as reducing vehicles speeds, creating a safer environment for pedestrians and imposing onlya minor inconvenience to local traffic. Disadvantages include the construction and maintenancecosts associated with the device, the need for signage that may be viewed as unsightly, drivereducation, potential problems for bicyclists and emergency vehicles cannot pass through the areaas quickly. Other traffic calming measures have a more dramatic impact on travel patterns, suchas diagonal diverters (barrier placed diagonally across an intersection to convert the intersectioninto two unconnected streets) and cul-de-sacs. Both of these measures physically restrict throughtraffic and reduce traffic volumes. Diagonal diverters can be designed to allow emergencyvehicles to pass through.


Additional traffic calming measures may be most warranted in the Neighborhood’s identifiedconflict areas along 23 Avenue and 26 Street. A chicane may be particularly appropriate alongrd th

23 Avenue. Cul-de-sacs would be appropriate along residential streets that are being usedrd

inappropriately by through traffic or commercial traffic. Cul-de-sacs may be warranted onseveral avenues east of 28 Street, such as 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 or 28 Avenues, as well as 29th th th th th th th

Street south of 23 Avenue. One limitation may that only a small turn radius may be availablerd

unless additional pavement is provided.

The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood has completed discussion and review of a second phase oftraffic calming. The proposed plan is discussed in the Transportation Element.

ParkingParking restrictions vary throughout Ponce de Leon. Parking is not allowed on the majorexternal streets such as 22 and 30 Avenues and 34 Streets, as well as many of the internalnd th th

north-south streets, such as 25 , 28 and 31 Streets. Parking is allowed on the eastern side ofth th st

26 Street and both sides of 29 Street. Parking is allowed on most of the east-west avenues,th th

including 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 and 29 Avenues. Based on field observations, a largerd th th th th th th

number of cars park on the avenues between 25 and 26 Streets near industrial establishments,th th

as well as the avenues between 31 and 34 Streets near commercial establishments (carst th

dealerships). Motorists and commercial drivers obeyed parking restrictions during fieldobservations.

Significant over-flow parking occurs on Saturday mornings at 23 Avenue North at 29 Streetrd th

behind Mazzaro’s. During this peak period 23 Avenue is reduced to a single lane as cars parkrd

on both sides of the 24 foot wide Avenue. Currently there are no parking restrictions on 23rd

Avenue. Although the situation appears to be limited to weekends, the impact on the residentialproperties located on the north side of 23 Avenue and traffic flow/accessibility is significant. rd

This situation is probably an anomaly associated with a unique business operation. However, itis also a predictable outcome of adjacent incompatible residential and industrial/commercial useson 23 Avenue.rd

There are no road projects programmed or planned for the Neighborhood over the next twentyyears, thus 22 Avenue is projected to remain LOS “F.” However, the Pinellas County MPOnd

recently selected 22 Avenue, between I-275 and 34 Street, for a corridor study due to the highnd th

levels of traffic congestion on this segment. Physical and operational improvements that couldalleviate traffic congestion in this corridor will be studied, as well as potential transit, bicycle andpedestrian improvements. This study is expected to begin in the fall of 2000 and will be fundedby a $125,000 grant from federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program.


Summary of Findings

1. The predominant land use and zoning in the Neighborhood are residential (i.e., 55 percentof the Neighborhood’s total land area has residential zoning and is actually used forresidential purposes).

2. Less land is devoted to industrial business activity (i.e., 23 acres or 14 percent) then theindustrial zoning would allow (i.e., 55 acres or 32 percent).

3. More land is devoted to commercial activity (i.e., 50 acres or 29 percent) then thecommercial zoning would allow (i.e., 19 acres or 11 percent).

There are three major (related) reasons why it appears that there is more commercialactivity in the Neighborhood then might otherwise be expected. These reasons arediscussed below.

a) The Pinellas County Property Appraiser’s Office is the source of the informationprovided in Table 1 (Existing Land Use Designations). The Property Appraiser’sOffice utilizes a property use code and land type code classification system toclassify all real property within Pinellas County. This system classifies more“hybrid” and quasi-industrial uses as being commercial, then does the St.Petersburg Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the PropertyAppraiser classifies wholesale establishments, insurance and real estate offices,banks, and other professional office uses as commercial. The City classifies suchuses as either industrial or general office uses. (Examples of this in theNeighborhood are Mazzaro’s, located at 2909 22 Avenue and Wholesale Tile,nd

located at 3101 22 Avenue. The County classifies these businesses asnd

commercial, while the City considers them to be industrial uses.)

b) The Zoning Ordinance allows accessory commercial uses in the industrial generalland use and zoning district. Such accessory uses must occur within the structureto which it is accessory, and are not to exceed 25 percent of the floor area of theprincipal use to which it is accessory. (An example of this in the Neighborhood isagain, Mazzaro’s, located at 2909 22 Avenue.)nd

c) The Zoning Ordinance allows some commercial uses in the IG zoning district,such as filling stations and veterinary establishments.

4. The current Zoning designations are reflective of a pre-existing development pattern (pre-1977), that includes severe incompatibilities with little or no transition or buffering inseveral locations. These land use/zoning transition problem areas are locations whereindustrial uses and zoning abut residential uses and zoning (Map xx). The neighborhoodis experiencing the symptoms of the underlying zoning/land use pattern in the form ofover-flow parking, out-of-scale buildings and cut-through traffic. These conditions,overtime, can lead to disinvestment, community disputes and neighborhood deterioration.


Options for Consideration

The preceding analysis has identified a number of related land use and transportation challengesthat are affecting the neighborhood:

< poor land use transition< cut-through/mixed traffic< over-flow parking

This group of related target issues have as their underlying cause the combination of theNeighborhood’s land use pattern and “open” grid street system. This section of the report willidentify some options for addressing these issues.

Addressing Land Use TransitionTransitions are areas where land uses change from one use to another. Desirable land usetransitions separate uses with different intensities, thus a detachment or distancing of anyresulting negative impact from those uses, e.g., noise, parking, traffic, aesthetics, hours ofoperation, fumes, etc. Since the Neighborhood was established long ago, it is difficult, at best, tomake substantive changes to the existing uses of the land and the zoning pattern. A relevantadage may be that “it is impossible to un-ring a bell.” However, opportunities to improve thequality of the transitions are available and should be explored.

Rezoning Transition AreasBefore going further with a discussion on rezoning it is important to understand some limitations.Simply rezoning property does not make the desired land use changes occur. Uses that do notconform with the zoning can continue forever in a grandfathered or nonconforming status. However, over-time change will occur if there are market forces that support the change.

This Study identifies 3 areas with poor land use transition that are candidates for rezoning (Map9). Pictures of the transition areas are provided in attachment x. When evaluating zoningoptions for the three areas, including a status quo option, the following objectives/criteria will beused:

< Degree to which conflict is reduced/transition improved - would the rezoning,through the uses allowed and the likely impacts, improve the transition ascompared to the existing situation?

< Conflict is not transferred to another location - would the rezoning just move theconflict from one location to another (zero-sum)?

< Market reality/property rights, particularly in the case of a “down zoning” - isthere a likelihood of the property owners investing in the property for the usesallowed under the proposed zoning?

Each rezoning option will be scored on a scale of 1 to 4 with one being the best and four theworst. The evaluation is not intended to provide a final answer or recommendation but rather tostimulate discussion and focus the issues.


A summary of the existing and optional Neighborhood zoning designations are provided inattachments 1 and 3. Any selected zoning option can be implemented as a recommendation froman adopted neighborhood plan in two ways: 1) City initiation upon Neighborhood Plan adoptionor 2) the less aggressive approach of identifying areas where specific rezonings would befavorably received on an as requested basis by property owners.

Area #1 is a two block area generally located along 23 Avenue North between 28 to 31rd th st

Streets. This area is characterized by IG, industrial zoning and uses on the south side of 23rd

Avenue and RS-75, single family residential zoning and uses on the north side of 23 Avenue. rd

The zoning options for Area #1 evaluated are to rezone the north side blocks of 23 Avenuerd

North either RM 12/15, RO-1, CI, IP-1 or IG.

Area #1 Zoning Options Evaluation Table

Criteria RS-75* RM 12/15 RO-1 CI IP-1 IG

improvedtransition

4 3 2 1 1 1

conflict nottransferred

1 1 2 3 3 4

marketreality

2 2 2 3 3 2

total score 6 6 6 7 7 7

*existing zoning

Although the evaluation provides no clear choice for a rezoning alternative, the status quo RS-75,RM 12/15 or RO-1 zonings received marginally better ratings. Further discussion regarding azoning choice for this area is required.


Area #2 is a one block area generally located along 24 Avenue North between 26 and 28th th th

Streets. The area is characterized by IG, industrial zoning and residential uses on the south sideof 24 Avenue. The north side of 24 Avenue is zoned RS-75, single family and developed withth th

single family uses. The zoning options evaluated for Area #2 are to rezone the south half of thearea from IG to RS-75, RM12/15, RO-1 or IP-1.

Area #2 Zoning OptionsEvaluation Table

Criteria RS- 75 RM 12/15 RO-1 IP-1 IG*

improvedtransition

1 2 2 3 4


2 2 2 1 1

marketreality

1 2 2 3 3

total score 4 6 6 7 8

* existing zoning

Rezoning Area #2 to RS-75 has significant advantages. The following provides further analysisof the RS-75 rezoning option:

Advantages: 1) The zoning would essentially be brought into conformance withthe majority of the existing uses, i.e., single family homes.

2) RS-75 zoning at this location would ensure a better transitionbetween what is presently industrially-zoned property on the southside of the avenue and the single family uses on the north.

3) Potential traffic increase under current IG zoning would nothappen.

4) Stabilizes the block.

Disadvantages: 1) The City’s relatively low supply of industrial land would bereduced.

2) Any existing industrial businesses would remain legal, butnonconforming.

Area #3 includes two block faces along 26 and 27 Avenues North between 25 and 26th th th th

Streets. The area is characterized by IG, industrial zoning and uses on the north side of 27th

Avenue and the south side of 26 Avenue. On the block between 26 and 27 Avenues is RS-th th th

75, residential single family zoning and uses with the exception of the eastern end of the blockwhich is zoned and developed industrial. The zoning options evaluated for Area #3 are to rezonethe block faces either RM 12/15, RO-1, IP-1, or IG. The options assume the IG zoning at theeastern end of the block remains.


Area #3 Zoning Options Evaluation Table

Criteria RS-75* RM 12/15 RO-1 IP-1 IG

improvedtransition

4 3 3 1 1


1 1 1 2 2

marketreality

2 2 2 2 1

total score 6 6 6 5 4

* existing zoning

The two industrial zoning choices provide viable alternatives to the status quo (RS-75). The IGzoning was given a better market reality score because of the larger lot sizes and landscapingrequirements of the IP-1 zoning would be difficult to meet in this area because of the small lotsin the area.

Advantages: 1) RO-1 zoning permits multifamily units as well as professionaloffice uses, which would improve the transition between thesubject block and the industrial businesses located in the blockslocated immediately north and south.


Disadvantages: 1) The City’s relatively low supply of industrial land would bereduced.

2) Any multifamily or office development in this block would belargely at the expense of established single family homes.


4) Potential increase in traffic.

Addressing Cut-Through/Mixed TrafficAlthough the grid street system provides excellent access and connectivity, when combined withthe industrial and commercial land uses along 22 Avenue and east of 26 Street, the Ponce dend th

Leon Neighborhood is vulnerable to cut-through/mixed traffic. Minor changes to the streetsystem would help preserve the integrity of the residential areas and reduce mixed traffic flows.


Intersection ModificationsEight intersections should be considered for modification as shown on Map 10; 26 Street at th

24 , 25 , 26 , 27 and 28 Avenues, 31 Street at 24 , 26 and 28th Avenues and 29 Street atth th th th th st th th th

23 Avenue. Specifically, road diversions or cul de sacs at one or all of these locations wouldrd

limit mixed traffic in residential areas resulting from the industrial and commercial businesseslocated in the southern and eastern areas of the Neighborhood. Intersection modifications havesignificant costs and would alter the neighborhood, therefore, the advantages and disadvantagesshould be carefully considered:

Advantages: 1) A substantial amount of business traffic will be diverted away fromthe primary residential areas in the interior of the Neighborhood. Mixed traffic currently using the Neighborhood streets will beforced to take 26 Street either north to 30 Avenue or south toth th

22 Avenue or 23 Avenue.nd rd

Disadvantages: 1) The grid pattern of streets and avenues will be interrupted,however access to the major streets for residents and businesseswould not be significantly compromised.

2) Perceived inconvenience by Neighborhood residents would have tobe balanced by the reduced through traffic in the Neighborhood.

Street ClosureThe segment of 29 Street located between 23 and 24 Avenues North could be considered forth rd th

closure to further the objective of reducing mixed and cut through traffic in the residential areasof the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood. This segment of 29 Avenue has significant undergroundth

utilities including 8 and 10 inch sanitary sewer lines and a 24 inch storm drain pipe that wouldlimit any future redevelopment of the property to uses other than a street, open space or perhapssurface parking. This street closure is a more viable option if the north side of 23 Avenue isrd

rezoned from its current RS-75, to RO-1, CI, IG or IP-1, in which case the south half of thesegment could be used for a 20 space (mol) off-street parking lot.


Addressing Over-Flow ParkingOver-flow parking is a symptom of the poor land use transition in some areas of theNeighborhood. Presently the problem is primarily limited to the Mazzaro’s area at this time,however, as businesses come and go the problem can reoccur whenever lands use separations andtransitions are inadequate. This problem is exacerbated by older buildings that have limitedparking available.

Mazzaro’sPeriodic field inspection of parking in and adjacent to the non-residential areas of theNeighborhood indicate that over-flow conditions are primarily limited to the Saturday businesshours of the Mazzaro’s facility located at the northwest corner of 22 Avenue North and 29nd th

Street. Over-flow patron’s of Mazzaro’s are using both sides of the 24 foot wide 23 Avenuerd

during this period. Complaints include blocking residents drive-ways and blocking 23 Avenue. rd

Currently there are no parking restrictions on 23 Avenue, despite the narrow width of pavement. rd

Mazzaro’s has maximized off-street parking spaces through their available land and the use of23 Avenue and 29 Street rights-of-way. Additional off-street parking is available at adjacentrd th

businesses, however, these spaces are closed with tow away warning signs.

Two possible actions can help the Mazzaro’s over-flow parking situation:

1. Mazzaro’s should reinvestigate use agreements for adjacent unused off-streetparking spaces during the Saturday peak periods.

2. The City should consider prohibiting parking on the north side of 23rd Avenue tominimize conflicts with residences.

The recommendation for limiting on-street parking to one side of the street is viable for all busier24 foot wide streets.

Special Exception (SE) Parking LotsExisting vacant residential land in the Neighborhood could be considered for off-street parking.Off-street parking lots are a permitted Special Exception (SE) Use in the RS-75 zoning district. The City’s Environmental Development Commission (EDC) may approve such applications,after public notice and hearing, and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards.

Advantages: 1) There will be less on-street parking by both the customers and theemployees of the various industrial and commercial establishmentsin the Neighborhood.

2) There are at least 12 conditions that must be met before an SEparking lot is approved, including the construction of a five-foot solidand decorative masonry wall along the sides of such parking areaswhere they adjoin residential property or residentially-zoned property;the parking lots cannot be used between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and7:00 a.m.; and additional landscaping can be required to protect theintegrity of surrounding residential properties.


Disadvantages: 1) Limited residential land is being used for a nonresidential purpose.

2) Even with conditions and safeguards, possible negative impacts onadjacent residential properties including property values.

3) Such parking lots may not be associated with any particular businessproperty, and may seem “isolated” or “out of place” on what isotherwise a residential block.

Right-of-Way Parking OptionExisting excess right-of-way (ROW) on 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 and 27 Avenues, as well as 26 Streetrd th th th th th

can be paved, and parking spaces created, to ease the present congestion on the neighborhood roadsresulting from customer and employee parking (Map 11). An example of this is the west side of 29th

Street between 22 and 23 Avenues and the south side of 23 Avenue adjacent to Mazzaro’s wherend rd rd

x parallel and x angled parking spaces have been created in the right-of-way. These spaces can becreated through City approval of a minor easement or vacation of right-of-way sections and shouldbe reviewed on a case by case basis. Impacts on existing residences, drive-ways, trees and sidewalksshould all be evaluated prior to implementation.

Existing excess ROW on the following avenues and streets should be considered for parking:

23 Avenue [28 St. to 31 St.] - Existing right-of-way (ROW) is approximately 100-feet wide; therd th st

existing roadway is approximately 24-feet wide. Parallel parking spaces can be created in the ROWon the south side of the avenue.

23 Avenue [26 St. to 28 St.] - Existing right-of-way (ROW) is approximately 100-feet wide,rd th th

including 20-feet on both the north and south side of the avenue which is retained as a utilityeasement; the existing roadway is approximately 24-feet wide. Parallel parking spaces can be createdin the ROW on the south side of the avenue.


26 Street [23 Ave. to 26 Ave.] - Existing right-of-way (ROW) is approximately 65-feet wide;th rd th

the existing roadway is approximately 24-feet wide. Parallel parking spaces can be created in theROW on the east side of the street.

24 Avenue [2500 Block] - Existing right-of-way (ROW) is approximately 100-feet wide, includingth

20-feet on both the north and south side of the avenue which is retained as a utility easement; theexisting roadway is approximately 24-feet wide. Parallel parking spaces can be created in the ROWon the north and south sides of the avenue.

24 Avenue [2600 thru 2700 Block] - Existing right-of-way (ROW) is approximately 80-feet wide,th

including 20-feet on the south side of the avenue which is retained as a utility easement; the existingroadway is approximately 24-feet wide. Parallel parking spaces can be created in the ROW on thesouth side of the avenue.

25 Avenue [2500 Block] - Existing right-of-way (ROW) is approximately 100-feet wide, includingth

20-feet on both the north and south side of the avenue which is retained as a utility easement; theexisting roadway is approximately 24-feet wide. Parallel parking spaces can be created in the ROWon the north and south sides of the avenue.

26 Avenue [2500 Block] - Existing right-of-way (ROW) is approximately 100-feet wide; theth

existing roadway is approximately 24-feet wide. Parallel parking spaces can be created in the ROWon the north side of the avenue.

27 Avenue [2500 Block] - Existing right-of-way (ROW) is approximately 100-feet wide; theth

existing roadway is approximately 30-feet wide. Parallel parking spaces can be created in the ROWon the south side of the avenue.

The purpose of this chapter was to evaluate the land uses and zoning within the Ponce de LeonNeighborhood and determine potential strategies to alleviate issues related to the variety of useswithin the neighborhood.

GOAL 4: TO MAINTAIN THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE PONCE DE LEONNEIGHBORHOOD AND MINIMIZE POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODIMPACTS DUE TO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.

OBJECTIVE 4.1: To provide buffering options to minimize negative impacts from non-residential uses on the residential areas of the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood.

Recommendations:

4.1.1 Identify the appropriate zoning classifications in Areas #1 - #3 (as previously identified)to minimize impacts by non-residential uses on residential properties.


OBJECTIVE 4.2: Minimize or reduce cut-through non-residential traffic through the Ponce deLeon Neighborhood.

Recommendations:

4.2.1 Implement Phase II of the neighborhood approval traffic plan as discussed in theTransportation Element of the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Plan.

4.2.2 Evaluate impact of implemented traffic plans and future redevelopment within theneighborhood.

OBJECTIVE 4.3: Identify potential on-street parking options adjacent to existing non-residential uses to minimize residential impacts from overflow parking.

Recommendations:

4.3.1 Review the potential of creating parallel parking on city rights-of-ways on the followingsections of neighborhood streets to involve paving and designating specific parkingspaces:a. 23 Avenue [28 St. to 31 St.]rd th st

b. 23 Avenue [26 St. to 28 St.]rd th th

c. 26 Street [23 Ave. to 26 Ave.]th rd th

d. 24 Avenue [2500 Block]th

e. 24 Avenue [2600 thru 2700 Block]th

f. 25 Avenue [2500 Block]th

g. 26 Avenue [2500 Block]th

h. 27 Avenue [2500 Block]th

4.3.2 Encourage property owners to request special exception parking lots on residential lotsto address overflow parking only.

4.3.3 Encourage business owners to pursue joint use agreements for use of adjacent non-residential parking lots during peak business hours.


The appearance and condition of the streets, alleys, sidewalks, street lights, and drainage facilitieswithin a neighborhood can affect the general character of the area. It can also impact how theneighborhood is perceived by others. These physical features are considered the area’s infrastructure.

StreetsThe streets within the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood follow the same grid pattern as the majority ofSt. Petersburg’s streets. Streets flow north-south while the avenues traverse the neighborhood east-west. As mentioned in Land Use chapter, there are two arterial and two collector roads within theboundaries of the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood.

Arterial streets include 22 Avenue andnd

34 Street, which are four- and six-lane,th

divided facilities, designed to carry heavytraffic volumes between major activitycenters. Collector streets include 30th

Avenue and 28 Street, which areth

two-lane, undivided facilities that carrytraffic from residential streets to arterialstreets. The remaining streets areconsidered local streets, and are two-lane,undivided facilities.

Neighborhood residents are generallysatisfied with the road maintenance andconditions within the neighborhood.

AlleysThe majority of the properties within the Poncede Leon Neighborhood do not have alleys. Outof the 38 blocks, only six (6) blocks have alleyaccess. The lack of alleys is generallycharacteristic of suburban neighborhoods. Thepeak development periods of the neighborhood -during the 1950s and 1970s - is also consistentwith a suburban neighborhood.

Chapter 6 ~ Infrastructure


During the month of October 2002, a visual survey wasconducted to evaluate the conditions of the existingalleys within the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood. Of the14 alleys surveyed, only two (2) were paved (see map).The remaining alleys were surfaced with an unevenmixture of soil and crushed shells. The unpaved surfacewould allow erosion to occur thus leaving the alleysuneven and often with pot holes. The dirt and residuewashes from the alleys into the streets and into thedrainage system.

SidewalksSidewalks are generally another major concern toresidents. As mentioned previously, the Ponce de Leonis a suburban neighborhood. In addition to limited/noalley access, there are little or no sidewalks. Along theavenues internal to the neighborhood, there are nosidewalks. Sidewalks are located along the major streets(collectors and/or arterials) as indicated in the mapbelow.

Ponce de Leon’s residents would like to expand thesidewalk system to include the west side of 31 Streetst

North between 22 and 34 Avenues North, and alsond th

along the south side of 30 Avenue North between 31th st

and 32 Streets North.nd

The proposed sidewalk on 31 Street North betweenst

22 - 30 Avenues South would allow residents tond th

safety walk 31 Street. This street is generally ast

“dividing line” between single family resident andcommercial uses.

StreetlightsStreetlights are found approximately on every block ofthe neighborhood. They are the cobra head lights withhigh pressure sodium, 100 watt lamps. The residentsdid not identify a lighting concern within theneighborhood. The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood hasvery few trees in the rights-of-ways; therefore, lightsare not obstructed by vegetation.

Examples of typical alley conditions within the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood


DrainageThe city’s storm drainage system is intended tomove a large volume of water off streets and yardsunless it is coping a large volume in a relativelyshort time period. For example, the City’sEngineering Stormwater and Traffic OperationsDepartment’s engineers agree that three to 5 inchesof rain over several hours would flood streets, buton its own probably would not reach the houses.Ten inches or more over the same of time, they say,increases the changes of water getting into houses.Storm surges combined with rain, of course, meanhigher water levels taking longer to drain.

Drainage IssuesResidents view drainage problems as a majorconcern within the neighborhood. Duringmoderate to heavy rain downpours, variousneighborhood streets are frequently submergedmaking vehicular traffic almost non maneuverable.The following locations were identified by residentsas sites of flooding:

1. Corner of 29 Street North and 26 Avenue th th

North (recent drainage upgrades appear to have provided flooding relief at the location.)

2. Corner of 31 Street North and 26 Avenue st th

North - flooding at this location, is an ongoing concern for residents. Installation of a traffic speed hump at this intersection may actually inhibit the natural flow of rain water run off and as a result, flooding has intensified.

3. Intersection of 29 Street North and 28 Avenue North - after the upgrades for stormwaterth th

drainage were completed at the corner of 29 Street North and 26 Avenue North, residentsth th

noticed flooding at this location.

4. The intersections of 26 Street North and 24 Avenue North and 23 Avenues North - this entireth th rd

area is completely submerged during moderate to heavy rain downpours.

5. 27 Avenue North, beginning east of 26 Street and extending to 25 Street North - this area isth th

completely submerged during moderate to heavy rain downpours.


.

The City’s Infrastructure Master Plan Summary, which was completed on June 23, 2000, showsa time line for Ponce de Leon’s stormwater drainage upgrades (see map). With the exception of24 Avenue North & 26 Street intersection, the proposed stormwater improvements are locatedth th

in the areas of resident identified flooding concerns. After viewing the Plan, residents voicedconcerns related to the time line. Theynoted that although the first phase ofconstruction was scheduled to begin in2001, the overall completion date of theproject was not until 2021.

The following projects were completedin August/September 2003: 1. 29 St N between 20 - 26 Ave N;th th th

2. 26 Ave N between 28 - 29 Sts N;th th th

3. 25 Ave N between 28 - 29 Sts N;th th th

and4. 29 - 31 Sts N @ 24 Ave N.th st th


These projects should address the flooding concerns west of 28 Street North. The proposedth

projects remaining are scheduled, at the earliest, during the year identified on the master plan;however, it should be noted that actual design and construction is dependent upon availablefunding. Actual construction for proposed master plan projects has been within 1 - 3 years of theestimated plan timeframe.

In discussions with Engineering staff regarding the resident identified flooding issue at 24th

Avenue North @ 26 Avenue North, staff indicated that modifications to proposed futureth

projects may occur. It was recommended that residents to call in when the intersection floods forfollow-up and to document every flooding occurrence.

The purpose of this chapter is to address infrastructure concerns and identify strategies to addressthem.

GOAL 5: TO IMPROVE THE PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF THENEIGHBORHOOD

OBJECTIVE 5.1: Improve alley conditions throughout the neighborhood.

Recommendations:

5.1.1. Residents shall identify alleys to be paved and conduct a petition of all propertyowners who abut the identified alleys for paving.

5.1.2 Review the feasibility of the paving, without assessment, all alleys classified asshell and dirt on the Alley Conditions Map contingent upon a minimum of 51%written approval of property owners per resident conducted petition.

5.1.3 Provide technical assistance to property owners who may wish to pave theiralleys, at their expense, with the support of 51% of the abutting property owners.

OBJECTIVE 5.2: Improve the existing sidewalk network in the neighborhood.

Recommendations: 5.2.1. Install new sidewalks along 31 Street North between 22 and 30 Avenuesst nd th

North, a designated gateway street.

5.2.2 Install new sidewalks along 30 Avenue North between 31 and 34 Streets Northth st th

to provide a connection with existing sidewalks.

5.2.3 Repair existing sidewalks within the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood as needed.


OBJECTIVE 5.3: Enhance the drainage system to alleviate flooding problems in theneighborhood.

Recommendations:5.3.1. Residents shall continue to report flooding problems in their neighborhood to their

Public Service Representative (PSR), Mayor’s Action Line (893-7111) or ActionOnline (www.stpete.org).

5.3.2. The association and the city should continue to evaluate the neighborhood’sdrainage system and implement upgrades as identified in the City’s InfrastructureMaster Plan Summary.

5.3.3 Residents and the association should report and document any and all flooding atthe intersection of 24 Avenue North and 26 Street North to their Public Serviceth th

Representative (PSR), Mayor’s Action Line (893-7111) or Action Online(www.stpete.org).


Specific projects are proposed in the Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Plan which reflect thecollaborative neighborhood planning initiative with the neighborhood. The implementation stageof the planning process is the most anticipated phase. After adoption of the Plan, the neighborhoodand the City will partner to prepare for Operation Commitment.

Operation Commitment is a six-month implementation program in which the residents and the Citywork to complete as many projects and recommendations as possible. The Ponce de LeonNeighborhood Plan serves as the guideline for the Operation Commitment work program and forcontinuation of the plan implementation beyond Operation Commitment. Operation Commitmentis planned to begin two (2) to four (4) months after the final approval of the neighborhood plan bythe City Council.

The Ponce de Leon City Team will work closely with the neighborhood and crime watchorganizations to implement the recommendations identified within the plan. A work program basedon the prioritized plan recommendations will determine project schedules within the six monthOperation Commitment period.

Estimated costs and potential funding sources of plan recommendations are outlined in the attachedtable. The primary funding source for the proposed projects is the $100,000 Neighborhood PlanImprovement dollars, a program dedicated to city-initiated neighborhood plans. Neighborhood plansidewalks are funded through a $350,000 Neighborhood Infrastructure Capital Improvement fundspecifically allocated for two neighborhood plan areas’ sidewalk improvements. Other potentialfunding sources will be sought. These may include the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP)and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.

Chapter 7 ~ Implementation


PONCE DE LEON NEIGHBORHOOD PLANPROPOSED BUDGET

PLAN PROJECTS Estimated Costs Funding Sources

COMMUNITY IDENTITY & APPEARANCE

* Decorative lighting @ 26th

A/N & 31 Street Nst

$4,525.00 $100K Neighborhood Improvement CIP

* Concrete identity signs (4) $ $100K Neighborhood Improvement CIP

* Identity monument $ $100K Neighborhood Improvement CIP

* Landscaping (28 & 31 St)th st $100K Neighborhood Improvement CIP

* Landscaping for medians

TRANSPORTATION

* 15 medians ($6,000 each) $90,000

* 6 speed humps ($1,350 each) $8,100 $100K Neighborhood Improvement CIP

* traffic circle $40,000

INFRASTRUCTURE

* Alley paving # TBD TBD

* Sidewalk installation $ Neighborhood Infrastructure CIP

* Drainage upgrade (perInfrastructure Master Plan)

$3.8 M** Future CIP 2021 or later

TOTAL:

# This requires a minimum of 51% support from impacted property owners. This is typically100% funded through property owner assessment.

** This is an estimate based on 2003 dollars.

57

APPENDIX 1

Summary of Zoning District Regulations

ZoningDistrict

Principal Uses (primary)

Special ExceptionUses (primary)

Minimum LotSize (sq. ft.) /Lot Width (feet)

Setback (in feet)Front/Side/Rear

MaximumHeight (in feet)

Parking SpaceRequirements

RS-75 single familyresidences, CRH < 6residents

day care centers,churches, off-streetparking

7,500/75

25/7.5/20 35 (sf home)50 (other)

2 spaces/sf home

RM-12/15

single andmultifamilyresidences, CRH <14 residents

churches, off-streetparking, day carecenters, bed &breakfast

6,500/60 (sfhomes)

3,630 perunit/60 (mfdwellings)

25/6/20 (sfhomes)

20/7.5/15 (mfdwellings)

35 (canincrease withadditionalsetback)

1 space/sf home

1.5 spaces/ mfunit

MH-P mobile homes churches, off-streetparking

15 acres for thepark

4,000/mobilehome

5/5/5 (mobilehomes onindividualspaces)

20 (mobilehome)

35 (other)

2 spaces/mobilehome

GO offices, banks,churches, off-streetparking, day carecenters, studios

community serviceclubs, veterinaryoffices,temporaryemployment offices,social serviceagencies,probation/paroleoffices

7,500 for thefirst office/75 20,000for abank/150

10,000 for mostother uses

25/6/20 for anoffice use

All yards 25' formost other uses


1 space/200 sq. ft.of gross floor area

IG warehousing, lumberyards, fillingstations, light/heavymanuf., wholesale,service & repair,filling station, boatassembly/repair

junkyard, outdoorstorage yard, kennel,social serviceagencies, temporarylabor employmentoffices, probation/parole offices

10,000 forfilling or servicestations/100

5,000 for allother uses/50

20/0/0 (a 15'side and rearbuffer yard isrequired whenadjacent to aresidentialdistrict)

50 1 space/200 sq. ft.for retail/service/repair

1 space/2,000 sq.ft. for ware-housing & storage

1 space/300 sq. ft.for most otheruses

CG retail stores, offices,banks, service,motels/ hotels,restaurants,service/fillingstations, day carecenters, studios,parking lots

light manufact-uring (Class A),outdoor sales anddisplay, new & usedauto sales, car wash,recreationuses/structures,social serviceagencies, proba-tion/parole offices

5,000 foroffices, service,studios/ 50

10,000 for mostother uses/100

25/6/10

(25 for a streetside yard)


1 space/150 sq. ft.for restaurants

1 space/200 sq. ft.for most otheruses

APPENDIX

58

APPENDX 2: REZONING REQUESTS SINCE 1977

T City File PC-607 On November 16, 1999, the Planning Commission was to have taken actionon a request to amend the Future Land Use Map from Residential Urban to Residential OfficeGeneral and the Official Zoning Map from RS-75 (Residential Single Family) to RO-1(Residential Office) for three lots located on the northwest corner of 28 Street and 23 Avenue. Theth rd

application was WITHDRAWN several weeks before the scheduled public hearing afterconcerns were raised related to the requested zoning’s incompatibility with adjacent residentialuses and zoning. The stated purpose of the request was to convert the existing single familyhome into an office.

T City File PC-511 On August 16, 1990, City Council APPROVED a request to amend theFuture Land Use Map from Industrial General to Commercial General and the Official ZoningMap from IG (Industrial General) to (CG) Commercial General on property generally locatedbetween 24 and 26 Avenues, 300-feet east of 34 Street to 32 Street (extended). Theth th th nd

Planning Commission and Administration also recommended APPROVAL. The stated purposeof the request was to expand the automobile sales area for the Grant Ford dealership.

T City File PC-503 On July 13, 1989, the Planning Commission recommended DENIAL of arequest to amend the Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Industrial and theOfficial Zoning Map from RS-75 (Residential Single Family) to IG (Industrial General) for threelots located on the northwest corner of 28 Street and 23 Avenue. This was the same property that was theth rd

subject of City File PC-607. The Planning Department staff report recommended denial, forreasons that included incompatibility with adjacent residential uses and zoning, and the relativelysmall size of the subject property. The applicant did not appeal to the City Council. The statedpurpose of the request was to develop a small industrial or manufacturing operation.

T City File PC-330 On November 17, 1983, City Council APPROVED a request to amend theFuture Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and theOfficial Zoning Map from RS-75 (Residential Single Family) to RM-12/15 (ResidentialMultifamily) on two lots generally located on the northeast corner of 23 Avenue and 31 Streetrd st

and two lots generally located on the north side of 23 Avenue, approximately 80-feet west ofrd

29 Street. The Planning Commission and Administration also recommended APPROVAL.th

The stated purpose of the request was to construct a duplex on what was then vacant land.

T City File PC-270-A (16) On October 21, 1982, City Council APPROVED a City-initiatedrequest to amend the Future Land Use Map from Industrial to Medium Density Residential onproperty generally located on the southwest corner of 26 Avenue and 31 Street. The Planningth st

Commission and Administration also recommended APPROVAL. The stated purpose of theCity-initiated request was to bring the future land use plan designation into conformance withthe existing mobile home park (MH-P) zoning and use.

59

T City File PC-270-A (17) On October 21, 1982, City Council APPROVED City-initiatedrequests for the following: 1) amend the Future Land Use Map from Industrial to Low DensityResidential on property generally located between 30 Avenue and Lown Street, east of 28th th

Street ; and 2) amend the Official Zoning Map from IG (Industrial General) to RS-75(Residential Single Family) on property generally located between 26 and 28 Streets, south ofth th

30 Avenue. The Planning Commission and Administration also recommended APPROVAL.th

The stated purpose of the City-initiated requests was to create consistency between the futureland use plan and zoning designations and the established single family homes located in thispart of the neighborhood.

T City File PC-270-A (2) On August 5, 1982, City Council APPROVED City-initiated requestsfor the following: 1) amend the Future Land Use Map from Industrial to Low Density Residentialon the majority of the block located between 26 and 27 Avenues, east of 26 Street ; and 2)th th th

amend the Official Zoning Map from RS-75 (Residential Single Family) to IG (IndustrialGeneral) on two lots generally located at the eastern end of the aforementioned block. These twolots retained the Industrial Plan designation and were abutting property already zoned IG. ThePlanning Commission and Administration also recommended APPROVAL. The stated purposeof the City-initiated requests was to create consistency between the existing uses and the futureland use plan and zoning designations.

T City File PC-259 On February 18, 1982, City Council APPROVED a request to amend theFuture Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and theOfficial Zoning Map from RS-75 (Residential Single Family) to RM-12/15 (ResidentialMultifamily) on two lots generally located on the northwest corner of 23 Avenue and 29rd th

Street. The Planning Commission and Administration also recommended APPROVAL. Thestated purpose of the request was to construct a duplex on what was then vacant land.

T City File PC-99 On February 6, 1978, City Council DENIED a request to amend the FutureLand Use Map from Low Density Residential to Residential Office Retail and the OfficialZoning Map from RS-75 (Residential Single Family) to ROR-1 (Residential Office Retail) ona total of eight lots, generally located on the east and west sides of 28 Street, between 24 andth th

25 Avenues. The Planning Commission and Administration also recommended DENIAL. Theth

applicants stated purpose of the request was to develop office and retail uses.

T City File PC-64 On January 30, 1978, City Council APPROVED a request to amend theFuture Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and theOfficial Zoning Map from RS-75 (Residential Single Family) to RM-12/15 (ResidentialMultifamily) for property located on the southwest corner of 28 Street and 24 Avenue. The Planningth th

Commission and Administration also recommended APPROVAL.

60

T City File PC-45 On December 15, 1977, City Council DENIED a request to amend the FutureLand Use Map from Low Density Residential to Industrial and the Official Zoning Map fromRS-75 (Residential Single Family) to IG (Industrial General) for property located on the northwestcorner of 28 Street and 23 Avenue. The Planning Commission and Administration also recommendedth rd

DENIAL. The Planning Department staff report recommended denial due to the requestedzoning’s incompatibility with adjacent residential zoning and uses.

T City File PC-43 On October 13, 1977, the Planning Commission was to have taken action ona request to amend the Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Residential Officeand the Official Zoning Map from RS-75 (Residential Single Family) to RO-1 (ResidentialOffice) for two lots located on the southwest corner of 28 Street and 25 Avenue. Theth th

application was WITHDRAWN prior to the scheduled public hearing. The Planning Departmentstaff report recommended denial, largely due to the requested zoning’s incompatibility withadjacent residential zoning and uses. The staff report pointed out that the subject property wassurrounded on all four sides with single family homes.

61

APPENDIX 3 - SUMMARY OF OPTIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS & APPLICABLEREGULATIONS

Table 4

ZoningDistrict

Principal Uses (primary)

Special ExceptionUses (primary)

Minimum LotSize (sq. ft.) /Lot Width (feet)

Setback (in feet)Front/Side/Rear

MaximumHeight (infeet)

Parking SpaceRequirements

RO-1 single and multifamilyresidences, CRH < 14residents, offices,banks, churches, off-street parking, day carecenters, bed &breakfast

community serviceclubs, veterinaryoffices, temporaryemployment offices,labs, studios, socialservice agencies,probation/paroleoffices

5,130/50 (sfhomes)

3,630 perunit/60 (mfdwellings)

7,500 for thefirst office/75

20,000 for abank/100

25/7.5/20 for anoffice use

25/7.5/20 (sfhomes)

25/7.5/20 (mfdwellings)


2 spaces/sfhome

1.5 spaces/ mfunit

1 space/200 sq.ft. of grossfloor area foroffice andstudio uses

CI warehousing/wholesaling/ indoor storage/distribution, service &filling stations, lightmanufacturing, outdoorstorage, service &repair, offices, tradeschools, banks,restaurants, veterinaryoffices, labs, parkinglots

blood plasmacenters, restaurantswith drive-through,temporaryemployment offices,social serviceagencies, probation/parole offices

5,000 for offices,service, studios/50

10,000 for mostother uses/100

25/6/10

25 for a streetside yard


1 space/150 sq.ft. forrestaurants

1 space/200 sq.ft. for mostother uses

IP-1 light manufacturing/assembly, boatassembly/manufacture/repair,accessory day care/office/commercial

wholesaling/warehousing/ indoorstorage/distribution, heavymanufacturing,veterinary offices/kennels, temporaryemployment offices

12,000/80 25/10/10

25 for a streetside yard

25 interior side and rear yard(s) when adjacent toa residentialdistrict


1 space/400 sq.ft. for mostuses

1 space/200 sq.ft. foraccessoryoffice

1 space/1,000sq. ft. forwholesaling/warehousing/indoor storage/distribution

62

APPENDIX 4 - DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

� City File SE-00-017 (commercial) In August 2000, the Environmental DevelopmentCommission (EDC) approved a site plan to construct a 12,800 sq. ft. building addition at2525 34 Street, to be used by AutoWay Ford for a vehicle service center. (Map Locationth

#1)

� City File SPR-99-035 (industrial) In August 1999, the Environmental DevelopmentCommission (EDC) approved a site plan to construct a 2,200 sq. ft. metal building on thenorthwest corner of 22 Avenue and 31 Street at 3101 22 Avenue, to be used bynd st nd

Wholesale Tile, Inc. for tile storage. (Map Location #2)

� City File SE-99-015 (commercial) In May 1999, the EDC approved a Special Exceptionrequest and related site plan to construct a 3,100 sq. ft. (MOL) RaceTrac service station andconvenience store on the northeast corner of 22 Avenue and 28 Street at 2227 28 Street.nd th th

(Map Location #3)

� City File SE-98-018 (commercial) In May 1998, the EDC approved a site plan to constructa 160,000 sq. ft. (MOL) Lowe’s Store on the northeast corner of 22 Avenue and 25 Streetnd th

at 2401 22 Avenue, immediately east of the neighborhood. (Map Location #4)nd

� City File SE-1538 (commercial) In January 1994, the EDC approved a Special Exceptionrelated site plan request from the Budget Car Rental Company for a rental operation andvehicle storage area, located on the northeast corner of 22 Avenue and 28 Street, at 2201nd th

28 Street. (Map Location #5)th

� City File SPR-837-P (industrial) In August 1992, in-house approval was granted for theconversion of two single family homes located at 2709 and 2719 23 Avenue into anrd

industrial use. (Map Location #6)

DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

1 - City File SE -00-172 - City File SPR-99-0353 - City File SE-99-0154 - City File SE -98-0185 - City File SE - 15386 - City File SPR - 837 -P7 - City File SE - 13088 - City File SPR - 682 - P9 - City File SPR - 627 - P10 - City File SPR - 62411 - City File SPR - 53712 - City File SPR - 506 p13 - City File SPR - 489 - P14 - City File SPR - 86

63

� City File SE-1308 (commercial) In March 1989, the EDC approved a sign variance for theChrysler new car lot located on the northeast corner of 22 Avenue and 34 Street. (Mapnd th

Location #7)

� City File SPR-682-P (industrial) In July 1988, in-house site plan approval was granted fora vehicle storage lot, located at 2650 and 2700 24 Avenue. (Map Location #8)th

� City File SPR-627-P (industrial) In May 1987, in-house approval was granted for theconstruction of a 25,000 sq. ft. building on the southeast corner of 24 Avenue and 26th th

Street. The building was to be used for wholesale activities. (Map Location #9)

� City File SPR-624 (industrial) In May 1987, the EDC approved a site plan for a warehouseand outdoor storage area on property located west of 25 Street, between 22 and 24th nd th

Avenues. (Map Location #10)

� City File SPR-537 (industrial) In May 1986, the EDC approved a site plan request from theHertz Corporation for an addition to the existing building and variances to landscaping andshielding for an outdoor storage yard located at 3001 22 Avenue. (Map Location #11)nd

� City File SPR-506-P (industrial) In December 1985, in-house approval was granted for theconstruction of a one-story, warehouse/storage addition to the existing radiator repair shoplocated at 3151 24 Avenue. (Map Location #12)th

� City File SPR-489-P (industrial) In July 1985, in-house site plan approval was granted fora one-story warehouse addition at 2558 26 Avenue. (Map Location #13)th

� City File SPR-86 (commercial) In February 1978, the EDC approved a landscape plan fora previously approved Special Exception new car lot located between 32 and 34 Street,nd th

from 23 Avenue to 24 Avenue. (Map Location #14)rd th

64

APPENDIX 5 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPARISON

Ponce de Leon NeighborhoodPlan Objectives

Corresponding Comprehensive Plan Goals,Objectives and Policies

Support for neighborhood plans: LU10.1 Studies and programs to identify and

address the needs of specific areas

shall be conducted on an ongoing

basis.

LU10.2 The need for redevelopment should

be assessed based on the following

factors; 1)building conditions, 2)

socio /economic characteristics, 3)

land to improvement value ratios, 4)

non-conforming uses and 5) potential

for private investment.

Support for neighborhood plans: LU11.2 The City shall track neighborhood

conditions by: a) issuing periodic

reports that describe the status of the

following indicators for

neighborhoods citywide: police calls

for service, total crime, home

ownerships, property value, vacant

buildings and code violations, and;

b) periodically conducting resident

surveys (citywaide and neighborhood

specific surveys) regarding

neighborhood quality of life issues.

65

Chapter 2 - Codes and Property Maintenance

1.1.4. The association and City Team should continue

an ongoing review of active cases within the

designated codes strategy areas to determine

compliance timeframes, owner responsiveness

and modify priority areas as needed.

1.1.5 The Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Association

shall continue to send representatives to the City

Team to identify priority properties and areas

and work toward resolution of those issues.

LU11.5 The City shall maintain and upgrade the

physical quality of St. Petersburg

neighborhoods by continuing and, where

necessary, expanding the following

programs: 1) Neighborhood Partnership

and N-Team, 2) Community Service

Coordinator Program, 3) Operation

Commitment, 4) St. Petersburg Code

Compliance Assistance Program, 5) Traffic

Calming, 6) Community Policing

2.1.2 The Association and the City will work inpartnership with Fire Station #10 located atthe intersection of 30 Avenue North and 28th th

Street North to create a gateway entrance. Proposed improvements include:a) Decorative lighting;b) 2 additional identity signs; &c) Maintain existing live oaks

2.1.3. Replace existing wooden neighborhoodidentity signs with decorative concrete signsalong 30 Avenue North: th

a) SW corner of 30 A/N and 28 S/N; andth th

b) SE corner of 30 A/N and 32 S/Nth nd

2.1.4. Install decorative concrete neighborhoodidentity signs at the following locations:a) NW corner of 26 A/N and 25 S/Nth th

b) NE corner of 28 S/N and 23th A/Nth

2.1.5. Install concrete identity monument w/i thetraffic circle proposed at the intersection of26 Avenue North and 31 Street North.th st

2.1.6. Landscape the following gateway streets:a) 28 S/N btwn 22 - 30 A/N.th nd th

b) 31 S/N btwn 22 - 30 A/N.st nd th

H8.2 The City shall continue to schedule andconcentrate public infrastructure andsupporting infrastructure and services toupgrade the quality of all existingneighborhoods including those identifiedin City Council approved neighborhoodplans and needs studies/assessments.

Chapter 4 - Transportation

3.1.1 Install traffic calming features at the followinglocations to reduce cut through traffic:< Landscaped medians on 24 , 25 , 26 ,th th th

27 and 28 A/N btwn 26 - 31 S/N;th th th st

< Traffic circle at the intersection of 26 th

A/N and 31 S/N; andst

< Traffic humps on 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28th th th th th

and 29 A/N west of 26 Street.th th

< Landscaped medians on 31 S/N btwnst

24 - 28 A/N.th th

3.1.2 Landscape 28 and 31 Streets North betweenth st

22 - 30 Avenues North to create an identitynd th

and also to encourage slower vehicularspeeds.

LU11.5 The City shall maintain and upgrade thephysical quality of St. Petersburgneighborhoods by continuing and, wherenecessary, expanding the followingprograms: 1) Neighborhood Partnershipand N-Team, 2) Community ServiceCoordinator Program, 3) OperationCommitment, 4) St. Petersburg CodeCompliance Assistance Program, 5) TrafficCalming, 6) Community Policing.

H8.8 The City shall actively coordinate CityCouncil approved neighborhood planrecommendations with other initiatives toensure maximum results in all programs.

66

Chapter 5 - Land Use and Traffic

4.1.1 Identify the appropriate zoning classifications inAreas #1 - #3 (as previously identified) tominimize impacts by non-residential uses onresidential properties.

LU2.8 The City shall protect existing and futureresidential uses from incompatible uses,noise, traffic and other intrusions thatdetract from the long term desirability ofan area through appropriate landdevelopment regulations.

4.2.1 Implement Phase II of the neighborhoodapproval traffic plan as discussed in theTransportation Element of the Ponce de LeonNeighborhood Plan.

4.2.2 Evaluate impact of implemented traffic plansand future redevelopment within theneighborhood.

LU11.5 The City shall maintain and upgrade thephysical quality of St. Petersburgneighborhoods by continuing and, wherenecessary, expanding the followingprograms: 1) Neighborhood Partnershipand N-Team, 2) Community ServiceCoordinator Program, 3) OperationCommitment, 4) St. Petersburg CodeCompliance Assistance Program, 5) TrafficCalming, 6) Community Policing.

Chapter 6 - Infrastructure

5.1.1. Residents shall identify alleys to be paved andconduct a petition of all property owners whoabut the identified alleys for paving.

5.1.2 Review the feasibility of the paving, withoutassessment, all alleys classified as shell anddirt on the Alley Conditions Map contingentupon a minimum of 51% written approval ofproperty owners per resident conductedpetition.

5.1.3 Provide technical assistance to propertyowners who may wish to pave their alleys, attheir expense, with the support of 51% of theabutting property owners.

H8.2 The City shall continue to schedule andconcentrate public infrastructure andsupporting infrastructure and services toupgrade the quality of all existingneighborhoods including those identifiedin City Council approved neighborhoodplans and needs studies/assessments.

5.2.1. Install new sidewalks along 31 Street Northst

between 22 and 30 Avenues North, and th

designated gateway street.5.2.2 Install new sidewalks along 30 Avenueth

North between 31 and 34 Streets North tost th

provide a connection with existing sidewalks.5.2.3 Repair existing sidewalks within the Ponce de

Leon Neighborhood as needed.

T16.8 The City shall facilitate the expansion ofsidewalks in St. Petersburg where they are mostneeded. These include locations along principaland minor arterial collectors and neighborhoodcollectors where gaps exist between existingsidewalks or between an existing sidewalk anda major destination such as a park, shoppingcenter, major employer or school.

5.3.1. Residents shall continue to report floodingproblems in their neighborhood to their PublicService Representative (PSR), Mayor’s ActionL i n e ( 8 9 3 -7 1 1 1 ) o r A c tio n O nlin e(www.stpete.org).

5.3.3 Residents and the association should report anddocument any and all flooding at theintersection of 24 Avenue North and 26th th

Street North to their Public ServiceRepresentative (PSR), Mayor’s Action Line(893-7111) or Action Online (www.stpete.org).

LU11.5 The City shall maintain and upgrade thephysical quality of St. Petersburgneighborhoods by continuing and, wherenecessary, expanding the followingprograms: 1) Neighborhood Partnershipand N-Team, 2) Community ServiceCoordinator Program, 3) OperationCommitment, 4) St. Petersburg CodeCompliance Assistance Program, 5) TrafficCalming, 6) Community Policing

67

APPENDIX 6 - LEGALITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS

MEMORANDUMCity of St. Petersburg, Florida

TO: Susan Ajoc, Neighborhood Partnership

FROM: Al Galbraith, Assistant City Attorney

RE: Neighborhood plans

DATE: July 30, 2003

From time to time, questions are raised regarding the extent to which a neighborhood plan,approved by a resolution adopted by the City Council, may be binding or have the effect of beingmandatory upon the City, property owners, or developers.

Legal authority of neighborhood plans

Neighborhood plans are approved by resolution adopted by the City Council. The resolutions usedto approve neighborhood plans, in their current form, state that the City’s Neighborhood PlanningProgram is “mandated by the City’s Comprehensive Plan.”

The statement that neighborhood plans are mandated by the City’s Comprehensive Plan is derivedfrom Objective LU11 of the Future Land Use element of the Plan. The paragraph that introducesObjective LU11 begins by stating that “neighborhood preservation has been an ongoing planningpriority since adoption of the 1974 Conceptual Plan.” Objective LU11 states:

The City of St. Petersburg shall continually strive to maintain and enhance thevitality of neighborhoods through programs and projects developed andimplemented in partnership with CONA, FICO and neighborhood associations.

Objective LU11 is followed by six “policies.” A copy of Objective LU11 and the six policies isattached hereto. The first five of the policies are to encourage participation by neighborhoodgroups in planning activities and decisions (LU11.1), track neighborhood conditions (LU11.2),notify neighborhood associations and others of applications for certain specified land developmentapprovals (LU11.3), prepare a report regarding the feasibility/desirability of adopting aneighborhood commercial zoning district (LU11.4), and maintain and upgrade the physical qualityof the City by continuing and, where necessary, expanding certain programs (LU11.5).

The sixth policy is to consider the neighborhood plans approved by the City Council, and therecommendations contained therein, as guidelines to maintain and enhance the vitality of theneighborhoods (LU11.6). (Italics added.)

68

The City Council added the sixth policy to the Comprehensive Plan on April 20, 2000, by adoptingOrdinance 413-G. Ordinance 413-G made other changes relating to neighborhood plans. Withrespect to the North Shore Neighborhood Redevelopment District, the ordinance added a referenceto “the City’s vision for this area” (italics in original) in accordance with the adopted North ShoreNeighborhood Plan (Policy LU2.1.E.5).

The ordinance amended the Housing Element to state that the City would “continue to implementthe neighborhood planning program and produce neighborhood plans on an ongoing basis”(Objective H8A); would “continue to schedule and concentrate public infrastructure. . . andsupporting facilities and services to upgrade the quality of all existing neighborhoods includingthose identified in City Council approved neighborhood plans and needs studies/assessment”(Policy H8.2); and “shall actively coordinate City Council approved neighborhood planrecommendations with other initiatives to ensure maximum results in all programs” (Policy H8.8).

Status of neighborhood plans approved by the City Council

Approved neighborhood plans are guidelines. They are not approved in the manner provided byFlorida law for amendments to a comprehensive plan, and they do not become elements of theCity’s Comprehensive Plan unless the Comprehensive Plan is amended to incorporate visionstatements or other provisions of neighborhood plans (see above).

The Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan is implemented through land developmentregulations adopted by ordinance. Neighborhood plans are not adopted by ordinance and theapproval process for neighborhood plans does not follow the statutory requirements for theapproval of land development regulations.

The references to adopted neighborhood plans in the Housing Element (summarized above) arein the nature of broadly-stated goals and policies. The most concrete policy, to “schedule andconcentrate public infrastructure. . . and supporting facilities and services,” is not self-executingbut requires funding.

A neighborhood plan might call for the expenditure of City funds, but such expenditure will notbe authorized unless such expenditure is included in the budget and approved.

A resolution accepting a neighborhood plan authorizes the Mayor to “initiate the development ofregulations, programs and projects as identified in the Plan to the extent they are consistent withthe City's plans, goals and objectives.” The resolution requests the Administration to report to theCity Council within one year after adoption of the resolution regarding the status of theneighborhood plan and the development of such regulations, programs and projects. Regulationsof an ongoing, permanent nature should be adopted by the City Council in the form of anordinance.

69

Neighborhood plans and the City Code

Some elements of a neighborhood plan have been adopted by ordinance and have become part ofthe zoning code, thereby limiting development in a neighborhood. An example is Section 29-1039(2)b. of the City Code, the zoning district regulations for the Neighborhood RedevelopmentDistrict (NRD). This limits multi-family developments with accessory commercial uses in theNorth Shore Neighborhood to Fifth Avenue North. Such a limitation could not be adopted byresolution.

The zoning district regulations for single-family and multifamily residential districts permitdevelopment to be regulated by adopted neighborhood plans with respect to lot dimensions andsetbacks. Without the necessity for a variance, the lot width and area can be less than the City’sminimum requirements if the dimensions are consistent with the minimum lot dimensions of anadopted neighborhood plan. In the Neighborhood Redevelopment District (NRD), the height ofa building can be greater than the City’s maximum height limitation if it is not taller than themaximum building height provided in an adopted neighborhood plan.

I have attached a list of City Code sections that provide for lot dimensions and building heightsconsistent with an adopted neighborhood plan.

Also, development in a neighborhood with an approved neighborhood plan is subject to theNeighborhood Design Review Ordinance (Sections 16-631-636, City Code), which providesneighborhood design guidelines and design review procedures applicable to exterior changes,building additions, and new development.

Conclusion

In summary, an adopted neighborhood plan is not binding or mandatory, unless elements of theplan have been adopted, directly or indirectly, by ordinance.

MAG:a

ZONING CODE and NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS

Development in a neighborhood with an Approved Neighborhood Plan may comply with the development

characteristics of the Plan without a variance if the City Code authorizes such development. The City Code authorizes

such development in the following zoning districts:

RS-100 (Residential Single-Family District)

Sec. 29-306. Minimum lot requirements. Lot width, lot area

Sec. 29-307. Minimum yard requirements. Front, side, rear yards

RS-75 (Residential Single-Family District)



RM-10 (Residential Multifamily District)



RM-12/15 (Residential Multifamily District)



NRD (Neighborhood Redevelopment District)

Sec. 29-1041. Maximum lot development. Residential densities*



Sec. 29-1045. Maximum height of structures. Building height**

* The “specific area to which this ordinance will apply will be adopted by ordinance by the

City Council.”

** In the North Shore Neighborhood only.


MEMORANDUMCity of St. Petersburg, Florida

TO: Susan Ajoc, Neighborhood Partnership

FROM: Al Galbraith, Assistant City Attorney

RE: Neighborhood plans

DATE: July 30, 2003

From time to time, questions are raised regarding the extent to which a neighborhood plan,approved by a resolution adopted by the City Council, may be binding or have the effect ofbeing mandatory upon the City, property owners, or developers.

Legal authority of neighborhood plans

Neighborhood plans are approved by resolution adopted by the City Council. The resolutionsused to approve neighborhood plans, in their current form, state that the City’s NeighborhoodPlanning Program is “mandated by the City’s Comprehensive Plan.”

The statement that neighborhood plans are mandated by the City’s Comprehensive Plan isderived from Objective LU11 of the Future Land Use element of the Plan. The paragraph thatintroduces Objective LU11 begins by stating that “neighborhood preservation has been anongoing planning priority since adoption of the 1974 Conceptual Plan.” Objective LU11 states:

The City of St. Petersburg shall continually strive to maintain and enhance thevitality of neighborhoods through programs and projects developed andimplemented in partnership with CONA, FICO and neighborhood associations.

Objective LU11 is followed by six “policies.” A copy of Objective LU11 and the six policies isattached hereto. The first five of the policies are to encourage participation by neighborhoodgroups in planning activities and decisions (LU11.1), track neighborhood conditions (LU11.2),notify neighborhood associations and others of applications for certain specified landdevelopment approvals (LU11.3), prepare a report regarding the feasibility/desirability ofadopting a neighborhood commercial zoning district (LU11.4), and maintain and upgrade thephysical quality of the City by continuing and, where necessary, expanding certain programs(LU11.5).

The sixth policy is to consider the neighborhood plans approved by the City Council, and therecommendations contained therein, as guidelines to maintain and enhance the vitality of theneighborhoods (LU11.6). (Italics added.)

Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Plan 49

The City Council added the sixth policy to the Comprehensive Plan on April 20, 2000, byadopting Ordinance 413-G. Ordinance 413-G made other changes relating to neighborhoodplans. With respect to the North Shore Neighborhood Redevelopment District, the ordinanceadded a reference to “the City’s vision for this area” (italics in original) in accordance with theadopted North Shore Neighborhood Plan (Policy LU2.1.E.5).

The ordinance amended the Housing Element to state that the City would “continue toimplement the neighborhood planning program and produce neighborhood plans on an ongoingbasis” (Objective H8A); would “continue to schedule and concentrate public infrastructure. . .and supporting facilities and services to upgrade the quality of all existing neighborhoodsincluding those identified in City Council approved neighborhood plans and needsstudies/assessment” (Policy H8.2); and “shall actively coordinate City Council approvedneighborhood plan recommendations with other initiatives to ensure maximum results in allprograms” (Policy H8.8).

Status of neighborhood plans approved by the City Council

Approved neighborhood plans are guidelines. They are not approved in the manner provided byFlorida law for amendments to a comprehensive plan, and they do not become elements of theCity’s Comprehensive Plan unless the Comprehensive Plan is amended to incorporate visionstatements or other provisions of neighborhood plans (see above).

The Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan is implemented through land developmentregulations adopted by ordinance. Neighborhood plans are not adopted by ordinance and theapproval process for neighborhood plans does not follow the statutory requirements for theapproval of land development regulations.

The references to adopted neighborhood plans in the Housing Element (summarized above) arein the nature of broadly-stated goals and policies. The most concrete policy, to “schedule andconcentrate public infrastructure. . . and supporting facilities and services,” is not self-executingbut requires funding.

A neighborhood plan might call for the expenditure of City funds, but such expenditure will notbe authorized unless such expenditure is included in the budget and approved.

A resolution accepting a neighborhood plan authorizes the Mayor to “initiate the development ofregulations, programs and projects as identified in the Plan to the extent they are consistent withthe City's plans, goals and objectives.” The resolution requests the Administration to report tothe City Council within one year after adoption of the resolution regarding the status of theneighborhood plan and the development of such regulations, programs and projects. Regulations of an ongoing, permanent nature should be adopted by the City Council in the formof an ordinance.

Ponce de Leon Neighborhood Plan 50

Neighborhood plans and the City Code

Some elements of a neighborhood plan have been adopted by ordinance and have become partof the zoning code, thereby limiting development in a neighborhood. An example is Section 29-1039(2)b. of the City Code, the zoning district regulations for the Neighborhood RedevelopmentDistrict (NRD). This limits multi-family developments with accessory commercial uses in theNorth Shore Neighborhood to Fifth Avenue North. Such a limitation could not be adopted byresolution.

The zoning district regulations for single-family and multifamily residential districts permitdevelopment to be regulated by adopted neighborhood plans with respect to lot dimensions andsetbacks. Without the necessity for a variance, the lot width and area can be less than the City’sminimum requirements if the dimensions are consistent with the minimum lot dimensions of anadopted neighborhood plan. In the Neighborhood Redevelopment District (NRD), the height ofa building can be greater than the City’s maximum height limitation if it is not taller than themaximum building height provided in an adopted neighborhood plan.

I have attached a list of City Code sections that provide for lot dimensions and building heightsconsistent with an adopted neighborhood plan.

Also, development in a neighborhood with an approved neighborhood plan is subject to theNeighborhood Design Review Ordinance (Sections 16-631-636, City Code), which providesneighborhood design guidelines and design review procedures applicable to exterior changes,building additions, and new development.

Conclusion

In summary, an adopted neighborhood plan is not binding or mandatory, unless elements of theplan have been adopted, directly or indirectly, by ordinance.

MAG:a


ZONING CODE and NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS

Development in a neighborhood with an Approved Neighborhood Plan may comply with the development characteristics of the Plan without a variance if the City Code authorizes suchdevelopment. The City Code authorizes such development in the following zoning districts:

RS-100 (Residential Single-Family District)Sec. 29-306. Minimum lot requirements. Lot width, lot areaSec. 29-307. Minimum yard requirements. Front, side, rear yards

RS-75 (Residential Single-Family District)Sec. 29-326. Minimum lot requirements. Lot width, lot areaSec. 29-327. Minimum yard requirements. Front, side, rear yards

RM-10 (Residential Multifamily District)Sec. 29-426. Minimum lot requirements. Lot width, lot areaSec. 29-427. Minimum yard requirements. Front, side, rear yards

RM-12/15 (Residential Multifamily District)Sec. 29-446. Minimum lot requirements. Lot width, lot areaSec. 29-447. Minimum yard requirements. Front, side, rear yards

NRD (Neighborhood Redevelopment District)Sec. 29-1041. Maximum lot development. Residential densities*Sec. 29-1042. Minimum lot requirements. Lot width, lot areaSec. 29-1043. Minimum yard requirements. Front, side, rear yardsSec. 29-1045. Maximum height of structures. Building height**

* The “specific area to which this ordinance will apply will be adopted by ordinance by the City Council.”

** In the North Shore Neighborhood only.

ponce de leon neighborhood plan

Documents