Loading...
11 30/1992 - Joint Worksession , . . . f ' . ~ '.. ., ~:' . .." r, > "',' , .' './' ,.,:' , .: " ' . '1 ," j,1' 1 1 . r',. .' '. ", l: ' . .. , ''} r. ,): (/-.Z- +. e" . l'~ CITY COMMISSION/PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JOINT WORK SESSION November 30, 1992 The City Commission and Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Clearwater met in a joint work session at City Hall with the following members present: Rita Garvey Richard Fitzgerald Sue A. Berfield Arthur X. Deegan Mayor/Commissioner Vice.Mayor/Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Planning and Zoning Board Members: Ed Mazur, Chairman Robert Bickerstaffe Lois Martin Lee Savage John Carassas, Vice-Chairman Kenneth Hamilton Dr. Kemper Merriam Also present were: Michael J. Wright M. A. Galbraith, Jr. James Polatty, Jr. Cynthia E. Goudeau , City Manager City Attorney Planning and Development Director City Clerk The meeting was called to order at 12: 15 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the Consistency Program. Jim Polatty. Planning Director, stated with the Consistency Program there would now be another level or two of processing for land use plan and zoning changes. He stated the City will have to process some amendments in order to come into consistency. This will include amendments to land use plan designations, zoning categories, and the land development code. Issues still to be addressed include transter of development rights as, currently, city code allows all density from a wetlands area to be transferred to the ,upland property, and the PPC proposal will allow a maximum of one unit per acre, Another issue has to do with minor density/intensity reductions as, currently, the City uses net units per acre while the County plan will use gross units per acre, There will also be some slight changes in neighborhood commercial zonings regarding their floor area ratios. It was stated floor area ratios in the industrial zones will be reduced, but it was not felt that much would be lost although these figures have not been calculated. The City Manager indicated it will impact the industrial park and may impact UPARC (Upper PinelJas Association of Retarded Citizens) redevelopment, ccpzspws 1 11/30/92 " ',.,~, I. ,J. ' , ,'" ~ .', ~ ',.' , '. I '.,' + . " :, . . '" \, ' . " . . ',' ~I. I'. ... ..', ,),' . .. ,; . ',', . , , David Healey, Executive Director of the Pinellas Planning Council, stated there was a ,---, choice to leave these areas as they are until additional commercial is added and to deal with them at that time. The Planning Director indicated the overall issue has to do with the number of land use plan categories being instituted with it being felt there will be a loss of control over zoning decisions on the local level. He stated while the City is adopting the land use plan categories, not all of them will be used inside the City, He stated the designations are being recognized in order to allow the City to annex properties without having to go through the land use plan amendment process. Mr. Healey indicated, that in May, 1991, there were 14 issues of disagreement between the Pineflas Planning Council staff and the City, and that both staffs have worked to address these concerns. He stated the PPC has members representing all the local governments in the County. Prior to 1987, Pinellas County staff worked for the PPC, and this has been corrected. Mr. Polatty indicated the Countywide Planning Agency is the County Commission. Mr. Healey stated a super majority of the Agency would be needed in order to overturn a ppe decision. Mr. Healey further indicated the changes being requested are a basis for streamlining and they are being asked for in order to eliminate some overlaps. In response to a question, he indicated the ppe's countywide plan does not supersede the local plan; however, they can not conflict. Mr. Polatty indicated some of the provisions do provide good checks and balances, but the City's position is that the PPC rules go too far in restricting the cities in their local matters. In response to a question regarding the consequences if the City does not change its plan, Mr. Healey indicated that once the plan is in place, each city must make an affirmative finding of consistency. This will be reviewed and, if determined not to be consistent, the inconsistencies will be listed and there will be mediation to resolve these situations. He stated there are no penalties spelled out for non-consistency. In response to a question, he did indicate that development being halted was one possible consequenC<;l of non-consistency. The City Manager indicated he felt the major impacts for the City of Clearwater would be on the beach, the downtown area, and at the airpark. Mr. Polatty. Planning and Development Director t indicated the North Fort Harrison/Myrtle study and the Downtown Plan zonings are not reflected in the Consistency Program. In response to a question regarding the differences between ner acreage versus gross acreage, Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner, indicated that 10 units per net acre would equate to 9.5 units per gross acre, Scott Shuford, Planning Manager, indicated the Seville Development is being addressed separately to allow 10 units per acre, "-' ccpzspws 2 11/30/92 t,' ' ..." :' ... ~ . , '," ~:., ,_~, ". .' : ".. .,'.' /',,'.,' I . ' ~ ',,", '. ,''',:". ", '. '" . . , , ~ r...... r: \."-' Mr, Healey indicated that, as distasteful as it may be to have someone else making these decisions, if the consistency plan works it will have balanced community prerogative with the need to have countywide consistency. Mr. Shuford indicated there were two major areas of concern, those being the beach commercial area and Morton Plant Hospital. Staff is recommending the Pinellas Planning Council revise their regulations to allow a 1.0 F,A.R, (floor area ratio) for hospitals. The question regarding the beach commercial area is whether or not to request a revision to the PPC staff's recommendation for a ,95 impervious surface ratio, Mr. Healey indicated this is a component of measuring intensity and that it is an infrastructure issue regarding drainage, but also addresses aesthetics and economic concerns. He indicated there will be other techniques to deal with the nonconforming properties on the beach, He indicated PPC staff will take affirmative action to deal with the hospital's floor area ratio question, and that would be to provide a mechanism for local communities to deal with this problem. It was indicated this would be a good compromise. In response to a question regarding on what this mechanism would be based, Mr. Healey indicated it would be based on a locally approved process that would allow some local latitude based on a process of which both the local government and the PPC are comfortable. Mr. Polatty indicated they felt a major issue was that the Pinellas Planning Council should be concerned with countywide impacts, not local impacts; and the issue of impervious surface ratio was getting close to the zoning issue of local impact, There was some sentiment the County should deal with the land use categories and not specific development. Mr. Healey stated there were three areas on the beach that were zoned commercial. and there would be local nonconforming provisions to deal with the existing circumstances, In response to a question regarding whether or not a hotel which was nonconforming could expand. it was indicated there would be an ability to do this through the variance process. and that variances would be legitimate in some cases, Messrs. Carassas and Savage of the Planning and Zoning Board left the meeting at 1 :32 p.rn, Mr. Healey indicated there was also the possibility of a Community Redevelopment District on the beach. This would allow free reign to redevelopment within that plan, and presented a lot of promise for the beach. A question was raised regarding activity centers, and Mr. Healey indicated there were two kinds. primary and secondary - whose sole purpose is to allow more intensive development. There has to be a plan to support this increase intensity; but with that, it would be acceptable to the ppe. ccpzspws 3 11/30/92 ..~ 4. ': .",', t .,.: .. ,'I ..~ '" .,,'" J " .,,' . .' - ..'.~ '+, ~'~'" ' .,', ",,',', .' " . ~ /...~, '-. '"-' A question was raised regarding property at the north end of the runway at the Airpark having been transferred to the Airport Authority and in the plan as industrial. It was felt this should be changed as this land was transferred to the Airport Authority to provide a buffer at the end of the runway. It was stated this is shown as industrial at this time as this was not in conflict with the current plan. It can be changed in the future. A statement was made that the major concern was that the PPC was there to address broader disputes, and this is creating another level of government with further restrictions. It was questioned whether or not people from other cities would understand the issues of Clearwater and vice versa. A concern was expressed that if we did not conform to the Consistency Program there would be some ramification. A statement was made that the Planning and Zoning Board voted against the consistency plan. not because of City staff's work, but they questioned the control being given to the PPC and the County. A question was raised regarding where the one acre of transfer for development rights had come, Mr, Healey indicated it had been in the rules for a long time, and it was felt one unit per acre was reasonable. The City Manager left the meeting at 1 :55 p.m. In response to a question regarding the North Greenwood study and whether or not there were recommendations to change Alternate 19, Mr, Shuford indicated this would be discussed with the Planning and Zoning Board at their next meeting and that he had no information regarding Alternate 19. The meeting adjourned at 1 :58 p,m. ccpzspws 4 11/30/92