03/14/1980
.'. '
;...
1'1
~
! '
~PROVED
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
City of Clearwater, Florida
March 14, 1980
~/
Members l"rescnt':
Elizabeth S. Hacseker, Chairman
Cecil M. Hendcrson, Jr., Assistant Dircctor of Public Works
Michael W. Kenton, Assistant Director of Public Works/Environmental-- representing
Water Resources Specialist
..~-.~
'1;
David P. Healey, Planning Director
Roy J. Ayres, Building Director
William E. Tripp, Assistant Building Director
George Buhmeyer, Fire Marshal
Art Kader, Assistant Director, Parks & Recreation
Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineer
Donald A. Maerians, Assistant Traffic Engineer
,John Peddy, Energy Officer
Paul Rettig, Utilities Director
Absent: Michael Campbell, Land.Resources Specialist
-Others Present: Karen Wilson, Water Resources Specialist
Chairman Haeseker called the meeting to order at_10:05 AM in the Operations Center
Conference Room.
,L' ~.
.:~\
':-';.
.:,~ ,
t ~f.,
":/.'
::,i';
.' 'rc
c. J ~
.'
, .'
r,
. :~:-i:
"',j
Minutes of Februarv 22. 1980, Resource Development Committee
Cecil Henderson moved to approve the minutes as presented. George Buhmeyer
seconded the mption which carried unanimously.
,. ,
",\
"~ .
',:
Suggestion was made by Cecil Henderson that the minutes reflect the initials of
.., the secretary who takes the minutes. Chairman Haeseker stated this would be each
secretaryts ,option.
"",
'.;'
":'
'.
\ .':
, .
Dfaft of Proposed Downtown Development Ordinance
Mr. Healey described the background and history of proposed Downtown Development
'-Ordinance and stated it is designed to be an amendment to the zoning ordinance, re-
placing the PRUC zoning category. Its purpose is to recognize the downtown district
and encourage development. He outlined the highlights of the proposed measure, after
. which the following comments were noted and concerns expressed.
, h
.' I.
;:,:.:
" .
~ ,
)..
,.~l.: ;
','1'::
....,.
::/'i
:.~
PaulRetti~ -
Asked for a clarification of the sub-areas comprising the district.
Questioned if more detail was necessary relative to defining categories of use
on P. 2 under General Requirements.
. Questioned the'prohibiting of Blood Plasma Centers and suggested the City
could be open to a suit.
Questioned meaning of F.A.R; provision on P. 4~
Inquired what one does with reference to cancellation of agreement for
parking on P. 6.
. Noted that changing usage, with more services required) there would be a
need for more capital expenditure; e. g., water mains.
~'. ." Inquired aa to the status of parking bonds as they might affect parking
proposal.
.~ "
.;.,
~ 't..
':i
,,:/
"',>'
>,;:'
:.~ : i.
: . ~, '
",
.\'c
:' .;
<,I-
'\~.~ .:
':'::.~; !
" .<~~
~: \.
',:;,.
h....
f"l.
, : ,
. , " ~
.....1 "....:.,
, :" ~ .'
. ..' 'I
, c' . c ~ I
~'" ~...'~ ...'."I.....:~~
I.
I '. "1';'.'<". ,':
'::,.,' '" .' 'Co', ij
. " 'n'.; .,. '.,' po
i';":.':~r..::':.>' ';.. .;,.... ".
"'::,~t: ::", +~ > , i, ' . '~ ,c .
J . '. I I ,. L..:.....' .'
i~,.,~~',~~.':~'/',,,:-,,, ,~ ." 1+
.. ...}.:;<...':..,....:......;:.~~:'<,',:,...:.... :,.:.' ~~:
'1': . .:.... '.;:. :'. '.': "'. ....
" +;,' . .,,'.:,.', c::.,!..,
\:.~"::~~"~'.:'
" .
,~. :\.~ t:,,', . '\ \
(<', i ',:~":
, ... ~
, : ';. J\ .
., "
,'P, ,
c'
J J' ,. 'i.
), ,
:' .a c\ . ;, ~ ' . . u '.'.l.: \' .... j ;.",
"'r.',> .'.,' ,..,. ,
. . '.',. , . :':- ;...~.~.::.. "(I ;, '< ~),:', : "
r I) . I.
'", ;. ::~,-'. t '\,~'.':. -"j .:.......':~'~;'F\...:.r~:
"\':,3;Y:r~;;!;i; ,"','.' "',i \:;;:\
.' ::",:),:';:.';.jJ.'::. , .',. .J.: '. :..II. .' ,'.' '.'
," ,!:!;\;'i\?::;1':,;;,..~,%;(h
. 'I" '. I . '. . I "d. _ .......
'".,! ,:/',1, ,;':..I, '(\~:/{'~~:;;.t'!\~J,
,. ;',
"'. ',J
'<I. j I
.. ~"
,'.: "'>~,>::,
\ ~ I ,
: 'c
. :::-
'/'>'"
. .'
'. .
':\
'.
'l"L'
~:c
.--;, I
>1. ,
".\-:-- . ~il' .'
,
, :</
. .'F,
. ~..
\'~" '.
. ,"
. \., .d I'......
I'}"'T :; "
.:~:: ~ '.1. l" ,..~.< I,: .. .
,( ~ ,'/' ' ;'..
"i.:>
. ' ::>.-:~;
Ii:",:
~ I .
.. .
. ~
PJ ".
" , "
. , '. ' " .~ .~. ~ .~ l
,'.. '
",
."
. \ .'
'''.r..
.,. ..:",',';>:';',:
. .~.I':. 'F',
...:~
" '.~'
'.- " ~
':, ..
~)
I ~:I i
" '::,> ,
",
. f
1. '.'
'.
, '
""" ":'"
~ ... I / ,
", '." '! ;'". ".... : ,'" " ,. " '. . ' . , '.
.,.,'. '." I. :,:"~,.:.<.~./,,,,. :;:~~:"/.1?' > .<'~.{'
. ,....:.'c '. 'l
.. "':".\':<.' .....,.....,:..."
, .. .I _.' '. :.,-" :..~l
.::~.:>'..' :,:,-:'. - .'
:'. .,. !....',
;'. '.;". (. :.:..
':,.
'. "
. ,I'.
'f.'::' ."/'. ~':r"
. \. ~
I,'
. ": ~ ~~ ~ ..
.. I." .".:;.;.c~:'
'.; ....,..i....
. " . .~,. ". .
"
, .J,.,
<,.,;'J ,;
c...., ".,
, /", ~.I .
J,
, : ~ : .,' ...;
, l
.' : ':./;" 'l . " '
.1' ' ,
, .
, " ..'
~ '.', .~,
.~~ .
.,
,~
r---
Minutes of the Resource Development Committee
Page #2
Keith Crawford -
Questioned overall philosophy of Ordinance and asked whether this is what
the City was really prepared to do. Questioned advisability of allowing uses now non-
conforming with respect to parking to rebuild.
Exprossed concern with parking provisions. Noted that 90% utilization rote
1s high - 957. occupancy rate on the Bdach is figured on a busy day and reflects vir-
tual capacity.
Expressed concern with mon power requirements of determining available
capacity.
Questioned implications with respect to long-term vs. short-term distinctions.
Inquired about specifics of determining dimensions.
Questioned whether formula would apply to property City leoscs 8S well as
publicly owned lots.
Questioned payment in lieu of parking arrangement and its workability on a
day-to-day basis.
Stated parking garage feasibility study will relate to many of his concerns
and should be considered.
(Bill Tripp was replaced by Roy J. Ayres at 10:45 AM.)
Art Kader ..
Noted that bayfront orca
is an impact on recreation service
e. g., large residential projects.
portent to protect these parks.
From a maintenance standpoint, downtown
such as beautification and this is not addressed.
is excluded in Ordinance. Without restrictions there
delnand and it should be studied from this viewpoint;
There are only two parks on bayfront and it is lm-
requires City to do certain things,
Michae 1 Kenton -
Shared Art Kader's concerns re impact on recreation.
Stated Ordinance does not address lot coverage.
Concerned with meeting landscaping code.
Questioned if they could build from lot line to lot line. It should have
some retroactive provision to make it possible to institute landscaping provisions.
Supplementary Design Review Regulations - Questioned if it would include
landscaping. It should be a requirement to have a five..foot landscaping buffer or
something which would assist in drainage and run-off. Buffer would also aid any
noise problem. This is not addressed in the Ordinance.
Karen Wi laon -
Concerned that Ordinance doesn't address storm water retention. EPA has
suggested any redevelopment incorporate retention the same as any new development.
Retention should be put into the site and incorporated into the landscaping. Her
preference is for dry retention or roof-top retention.
Cecil Henderson -
Without limitation on density and buildings, utility systems cannot be pro-
jected to serve the downtown area; no idea how much water and sewer services will be
required. Questioned whether citizens would pay, or if individual large developments
would be required to pay additional costs to serve them. Stated City should be com-
pensated for additional work done needed to serve them.
Lead time would be required so that current projects would not have to be
postponed. If not commenced immediately this .wou1d be the case, assuming a location
. ,could be found to install utilities. Installation would tear up downtown to serve
development that could occur in the proposed change.
.' .
t~?:':~"~':.::":"! :.:'.:-:: y~:~r~:~
,~
, ,
".......
Minutes of the Resource Development Committec
Pogo /13
Public Works survey should be donc in the core and periphery to discover
what would have to be done to cxpand services to this area. Complying with above
would involve a major capital expenditure.
City will need to come up with a solution as it is too late for private
developers to handle individually.
GeorRe Buhmeyer ~
Building and Fire Codes are not addressed.
Concerned re facilities in the downtown area as three fire pumps might be
necessary to serve the area. Water supply could be a major problem.
Under Off-Street Parking and Loading - Doesn't agree with statement: "except
that existing uses non-conforming with respect to parking shall be entitled to be rc~
established if damaged or destroyed, irrespective of extent of same." They should
be required to meet the code the same as if a structure were destroyed by fire. Parking
should follow the same example.
Doesn't agree with definitions in the Ordinance; e. g., institutions.
Roy Ayre s -
Stated building codes take care of themselves but there will be problems
in other areas when applications for building permits come in. Procedures need to be
clarified.
More latitude would be given to clutter of signs.
Would prefer the term "Building Official" in lieu of "Zoning Enforcement
Officer. II
Roof-top retention was discussed.
John Peddy -
Comments are attached and were discussed.
Energy-efficient equipment must be installed and lighting levels are some-
thing we have to work with. Criteria should be established for at least that part of
.energy use.
Solar access was not addressed. It is difficult and will take considerable
research.
Discussed parking - available area should be on a per-square-foot basis.
General Discussion Summary -
The Committee reviewed the various comments and what was expected of it at
this. juncture.
Cecil Henderson moved to recommend to the City Manager that the proposed
Ordinance not be submitted to the City Commission until additional information can
be developed by staff regarding impact on the City and, further, that such information
be provided to permit Ordinance to proceed to be considered within 45 days. Motion
was seconded by Michael Kenton and carried.
Preliminary Amendments to Provisions of Zonin~ Ordinance Dealin~ With Fences
Hr. Healey stated there had been problems with corner lots and double frontage
lots. The Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Zoning has become frustrated with ~he
variances and these code amendments would assist in simplifying the procedure. ..Present
Ordinance now allows up to 30-inch fence anywhere on lot. Above that height in building
setback area requires a variance. Mr. Healey proceeded to give the Committee examples
of each situation. As drafted, the amendment would allow,a 4-foot fence along property
line in the backyard of double frontage lots.along minor residential streets, whereas
,.
'"
:'
'.
rl
/-""'1
i.... t:." ' .-
'", I. .
'.
. ~ "(
. ,. .
, .
I,.:
.",
,
~ .' ,
I" .
.: .
This is the Energy Office's comments on the Downtown Development
. .
Ordinance. We suggest. that affer Section 24.07 a pbragraph should
. . ,. . .
be.addedcove.r1ng outdoor lighting. A guide for this paragraph.
. 'is as follows.
.I"F ._ .
,"(',
h' .'~ .-
"( ~ ~' . ~ '".
!.<;:.: I
,(.;',.', .
~',: " .
. '
-I ~. 't. >; . ' .' ,
~;:.~. . .:.~:
:, Any proposed new, altered, or replaced outdoor lighting will be of
the,type that will deliver approximately 68 mean lumlns per ~ated
lamp' watt. The lighting level for various applications.shall not
" 'exceedthe following:
,'. ~.: "]' -
'.~':::, \ ! " " ." I .
~- ,: ,
~I:.. . > .. ."
~\::.,' ;:.....":
.!;:.... ",' '.,
~;{;./... ':::':':. '
;~i'/~.~', : .'
I:l:.~;;;
:f-~;\.' " 'J" ..
l@',.(,.,..
~?;:.;:<: ."
r'O)"', " ' .
;;:~\:( ,T,L' '"1 ~,: "..' ..
1i!b., ',' .'
>y~ i'. " " .' ", "
~~';:':..';'. :\... ::...: ' .
~" '. ." :'. . .'
';;,~;,.\.,.,.,""'. '..................... ...
-'. ,,:' .- .. .... <',
";~~:~.r.>:tl:...' \' _..>..~.).+.. ", < "
~~i,:i}t,:);,ir~,);;.; ...;,... ..'
. '\ '."
l.
2.
.3.
,,4.
Parking - 2 footcandles.
Security - 2 footcand~es.
Sign illumination.. 50 footcandles.
Sports or recreational activities -
. ".'
,
, '.
20 footcandl es ..
"c\;
. ~1,1 outd~o.r l}ghting not necessary to the safety, health, security,
. or identificatioQ of persons or propert~ shall be time controlled
.and' extinguished 'at 12:00 A.M. midnight.
. '
" .
. .
, i ' >
'I
"
'..
. .j
-,
:t,
-::'
I ~ .. . .
in
-'i
, ,
". .
, 5.
."
.
n
Minutes of the Resource Development Committee
Page 114
/,',
a 6wfoot fence would be permitted on nrterial streots. Suggested language would
encourage masonry wall rather thon wood fence.
Paul Retti~ -
Felt there was nothing wrong with wooden fence.
Keith Crawford -
No problem with 6-foot fence. Only problem would be with driveway. If
there is a site problem on a corner lot, there should be a mechanism whereby it can
be removed or relocated.
Art Kader -
Questioned what survey would be required to accompany application. At
present requirement for survey has held up projects nnd inconvenienced Parks and
Recreation Department.
Roy Ayres -
Stated it shouldn't be the City's responsibility to see t~at the fence is on
the correct property and that most people do not have a survey.
. Stated no problem with either 4-foot or 6-foot fence.
:.' Stated nrob1em of exiGtillSl: illegal and unpermitted fences.
;. *Questioned whether tIle C~ty Depta. COUld b~ exempt f-rom go1.ng to the Board of Adjustment and
i. Appeal on ZoninR1oD fencinSl: projects. (To be taken into consideration by Dave Healey).
: Cec~ Henderson-
Stated no objection to fence but expressed concern re drainage.
Recommended that if long stretches of fence are installed) access to right-
of-way should be provided through fences by the property owner.
Stated survey is essential part of having a fence installed and that many
people do not know where their property line is.
Geor~e Buhmeyer
Stated BAA fenced off emergency lanes for vehicles by an action they took at.
Ru~tlewood. He read a letter he wrote to Mr. Herbert Miller, Russe11wood Condominium,
.in Which he suggested that gates be installed. The site plan showed access/egress area
. and was reviewed by this Committee. Dave Healey suggested he review Police Department
security study and recommendation in connection with this project and BAA action.
Roy Ayres -
Stated there are several irregular fences in Countryside. Some were .
installed with permits and some without.
Felt there was a problem with 4-foot fence but saw nothing wrong with a
6-foot fence.
John Peddy
In favor of any law that promotes and simplifies saving energy.
Mr. Healey stated be would review'comments and forward revised draft copies to
Committee before proceeding with amendments.
Meeting adjourned at 1:05 PM.
~ ~ c;~i!' .~