11/17/1992
,.
,~
, ,
.; c
....... WORKSESSION
. 0
'. ' .
.' "'
,; c.,.
,I .'
o City Commission Worksession Minute~
, .
I. 0
.0 0 0 Date .
JOint Worisesslon WIt//,
P/I.Minj ttZonillj Bod''''
I
,
. .
. .
I
· ~:). c94C1 I
"':.~' 1, I} . '", $. . I ~ " ,. ,I ." . I, - > ,. '., '> : 1 l' . .: , .
. .
I
, -'r' O. .'... ' .... . '.;'. :'. . ":, .. ''''". t. '. <.:.'.
~
,I::)
'J
city commission/Planning & Zoning Board
Joint Work Session
November 17, 1992
fiECEJV.ED
AUG 18 1993
CITY CLERK DEPT.
Members Present:
Mayor Garvey, Commissioner Berfield,
Commissioner Deegan, Commissioner Regulski,
Mr. Mazur, Mr. Bickerstaffe, Mr. Carassas, Mr.
Hamilton, Mr. Merriam, Mr. Savage, and Mrs.
Martin
Also Present: David P. Healey, Executive Director,
pinellas Planning council
Michael Wright, city Manager
Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager
M. A. Galbraith, Jr., city Attorney
Cyndie Goudeau, city Clerk
James M. Polatty, Jr., Director of Planning &
Development
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Doreen Feldhaus, Staff Assistant II,
Recording Secretary
Mayor ,Garvey welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked the
Planning and Zoning Board members for taking extra time for this
meeting.
Mr. Polatty gave the history of the Plnellas Planning Council
(PPC). He explained that the PPC is responsible for the
development of countywide comprehensive land use plan and
countywide management growth perspective, and the development of
rules, standards and objectives that implement the plan.
Mayor Garvey introduced Dave Healey, Executive Director of the
Pinellas Planning Council.
Mr. Wright stated that pinellas County and Broward County are the
only two counties in the state who have a circumstance like this,
and that the other 65 counties operate differently.
Mr. Polatty discussed the PPC rules and their relationship with the
clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Comprehensive
Plan. He discussed changes necessary to meet the PPC Cons~stency
Program requirements.
Mr. Wright discussed the differences between land use plan
categories and zoning districts.
Mr. Shuford explained that staff is proposing to adopt 22 of the 29
categories that would be included in the countywide Plan. He
stated that the reason for so many is because if we adopted only
the minimal number to accommodate our uses and needs, there are a
number of properties in the County abutting the city that we would
not be able to bring into the city for annexation without going
through the LUP amendment plan process. Mr. Shuford added that,
for example, if we were expected to annex subdivisions of
commercial property, why not include in our list of land use
J
I
I
I
1
i
I
\
. ~~\t\ <!t!.p1.Il.a. q a
. '.
.,",
,'.
Mr. Healey stated
originally and have
added that the plan
that will allow all
that since 1973 there were 27 categories
only added 2, therefore there are now 29. He
had 27 categories we've got to prepare a plan
the cities to fit under it.
:'. ~
classifications a larger number so that we can bring those
properties in under the Interlocal Agreement we have with pine lIas
~ County without having to go through the LUP amendment process.
Mr. Polatty stated that the major issue for the Planning and Zoning
Board and the city Commission is the loss of local control over
what you want your city to be.
Mr. Wright discussed the issue of the city and the Countywide
Planning Agency (County cow~ission). He noted that in 1989 when
they passed the local act it made us different from the majority of
the counties in the state, and are now working out the details.
Mr. Wright felt that we have relinquished certain major functions
including land use, that the final decision is not made a city
level, it is made at the county level. He added that in those
cases, the city commission has to act almost like a Planning and
Zoning Board to the County commission through the PPC.
In response to a question by Mr. Merriam, Mr. Polatty discussed why
Broward and Pinellas are different from the rest of the counties.
:\:.
; ~.,
;.;.!
.~ t \.
'.'
:','
.::,:.,
:'.>.::
Mr. Wright added that Pinellas County has 24 municipalities and is
the most densely populated county in the state, the second most
densely populated being Dade County.
: :/.
,
'. .
'j""
d'
Mr. Savage stated that there is obviously a lot of inconsistency
with all the municipalities or we wouldn't be going through this
".,'1.r~l
\. :.'~'J now.
'..;-1
",".
:,: ::l.:
',1,:'
'I',:
1;','
.....
."
Ms. Garvey stated that it is difficult to fit 24 cities to fit
under one umbrella when each city has their own wants and needs.
,';</
:.;:
Mr. Healey stated they had visited with Planners Advisory Council
and addressed the issue with them, and outlined three or four major
alternatives and the pluses and minuses. He added that everyone
felt more comfortable with the original 27 categories, or a
variation of them with the two added categories as opposed to
reinventing the whole plan.
Mr. Polatty stated he felt the issue is not how many categories we
have, it is having to use all these categories and when we want to
make a change we have to use one of these categories in the future.
. I: ~'
~,:.<
'<,: ;;
'"-'!"'.
.../~
"
. ,
',':
':::l)
'.
:....';.
I' , ..' i
~
Mr. Healey stated that the difficulty comes if you have a single
commercial category and making an amendment to an area that might
be ve~y well suited to a low intensity commercial use, as opposed
to commercial general. If you make a change using only the single
category, when we review it at the PPC level, we've got to assume
. .l.~
". "
,<, ~
I;,.
,\
", ".
",
ClIY Camlioa~ A ZanIn& hrd
2
III I 1/91
1
i
I
I
f
1
,
.,.
" .
,. .
. ~ .
, .,
'. .,
" '.
I,",
. .
.,
..
"L] "~', ::
il,' '
'.:' " " :. ':. ...., t, '.
. 4' . .. . , . , .. . ,.. I .. .,. ",. , .'....,..:.:.,.::,...1/' .,i.::.... .. ,''':'.. "':.." :.~.:,::)':i./~:;:':.;'..:.~~'<::?>.:.:',~:..;,.,. . l' I
. ~. '.
:':1
.. ~. .:
"
In response to a question by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Healey stated that
there is no application fee, there is a cost to the city to send it
over and a cost to us to process and advertise it, which is part of
our budget.
~
the worst case. If it is amended to general commercial, even if
your intention to do less and you don't select the lesser category,
we are forced to assume the worst case scenario. He explained that
this is why it is better to have a larger amount of categories to
choose from.
,\'.,
Mr. Polatty discussed the issue of assuming the worst case
scenario. He felt using thresholds is critical rather than assume
the most intense use. He felt that using thresholds like the state
established should be considered, and that would be anything below
a certain threshold would not have to go through this process.
Mr. Healey stated that one of the things PPC struggled with in
writing the rules is the issue of thresholds. Input was obtained
from many sources from chambers of commerce, development groups, to
the communities themselves. We have in the rule a system of
thresholds that range from one acre up to an unlimited amount of
area if it is placed in the less intensive categories. If a
property is now classified residential and going to changed to open
space it doesn't matter if its 10 acres or 100 acres that can go
through this expediting process. We had estimated that between 35-
40% of all amendments would fit into this sub-threshold
classification, but it is actually running at approximately 50%
over the last 8 or 9 months.
, ' ~. I<
,~'.. '
;-.1
'..:-:1
"
:i>':
",,,
(E.~
'.J .,.
Mr. Wright stated that the bottom line of the point Mr. Polatty is
making is that everything goes through Ppc.
Mr. Healey responded that everything, any LUP amendment would need
to go through the process. There is a separate timetable for the
subthreshold amendments, and a separate level of evaluation.
, ,
,,'
'.("
'.' I
"
./'!
~..':: ':
~. :'
i:,':
; :~l.
'"
,.
Discussion ensued regard the time frame for land use plan change
requests to be completed.
Mr. Shuford stated the city sends land use plan amendments to the
state, but in a summary format.
Discussion ensued regarding properties that abut the city of
Clearwater and county jurisdictions.
:i;?
:::::i
1:.1'.
,
. "
" ,
... .~: ~
l; i
" '.'
v
Discussion ensued regarding the impervious surface ratio situation
in the Beach Commercial districts. Mr. Polatty stated that Mr.
Healey and staff proposed we use variances to resolve nonconforming
uses on a case by case basis. Another solution would be to use the
activity center approach.
In response to a question by Mr. Wright, Mr. Healey stated that
variances can be granted to impervious surface ratios on a case by
case basis, however the Planning and Zoning Board has advised that
"
.;',
','.,:.
:.;1;
I': .
I....
,....
....: '
< ..'
Cll)' Cam\lulcnll'lamln& " ~ llaarll
3
1I1111'n
: I :'~
,~.' ,
'..' .
':\
<
I;.. ,"
,/:,:.\,
,'. , '. '1'." " ~.. :~.:,:~,1.:T>:'.........,:~/~
j>:/.)\:i;;";:\ ..' ':. , ..' :.,;,;"
. .' '. ..' . ',; :' . ~ . ' . I, .
, "
'.~4<':'l~.
,':., '
...~.t{
"
.'" .'
,,'. '.j,
I""
"
.,..:"i",!'j,'J. .'.
\: 'i' ~ ~: " "" :1" ':' ';... > ~ ,. ,,'
,. . . . '/ : ~ I, :. .
:'.: I: :.'i.', ,'" ,"i' ., ..:
':' J~.';.. '{ I. ~ : . '
.: . . ~. '} .. , .
. I:.:.,
:,"
":6' ":,,,~;\,,,.;:;:}';, ':;:::r;:\~;';:\I:::,,;~{~;:~,t:l"
.~ ,'. " ,
'. ,.
.':
','
,)
.. '.1' >(
Discussion ensued regarding FAR variances, and the review process
for these variances.
.
.
.'.
.' .
you cannot do that in Clearwater. He added that in the Countywide
Rules they would allow you to do that if you choose to do so.
1 Mr. Galbraith stated that the code does not give that kind of
authority to your board because it is equivalent to rezoning with
a higher density. If you want to give the board that authority
there should be a limit since the board cannot increase the FAR
more than 8%.
'.
" ,
'.
...
:"
~. ~.
,",'
: ;1.
Mr. Polatty stated that in the Public/semi-Public classifications
there is a current 1.0 FAR and that this FAR is a problem for
Morton Plant Hospital.
.-,.
'~~.: ~ :
Ms. Garvey stated that in regard to variances it is the consensus
of the city commission not to create laws that encourage variances.
r
':'::i~)
'::.r:.;
.~: .;
tt,lfr~
. I.~
..~~..-.......
Mr. Shuford stated that if the variance approach is used for FAR it
could be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan as an allowable
range for that classification. He added that it should have a cap
or specific limit.
Mr. Healey stated they are not recommending using variances to
resolve Morton Plant Hospital's problems. He felt Mr. Polatty has
mixed together the issue of impervious surface ratio on the beach
where variances are a potential solution for isolating properties
that are now not conforming. Mr. Healey stated that it is not a
solution for FAR at all. Mr. Healey added that Clearwater has
already decided not to use it for that and supports that decision.
;."..
'.
'. ',.
:; :....
\',:
'..
~. ; ~.:
.. ~
~'. ".'
.: ~ I .
.... .
, .'
'.('
:, -,,:
/"-:
" ~.
I...
,'1:.':
""e
I;.':
".jj
. . ~.
"1',
Mr. Healey stated these are not subject to PPC review, but it would
constitute an amendment to the comprehensive plan and therefore
probably to be reviewed by the Department of community Affairs.
Mr. Polatty stated this is becoming more like a zoning code, that
it is too detailed and regulatory. He felt the impervious surface
ratio (ISR) requirement is good but there are several steps in this
process we have argued all along that should not be taken. He
added a system should be established that would regulate land use
and protect the county where the county needed protection, but not
overprotect and not by taking property rights and local control
should be left in local hands.
.....
'.' "
..~r.f
.....
.~..(~;
. ~11."r
~.:' 'c
~ . ~
',. I
i\:;
..:.:~~:
'.,:
','
. .-
~. :
'" .
".:. : ~
.<\
>.'.,
....:;
....
.::....1
Mr. Mazur stated he felt the activity center approach is the better
idea.
. I'"
. :(:
;':,::':
'"
Mr. Polatty explained in detail the activity center concept.
Mr. Healey explained the basic two levels of the activity center
classifications and that he felt the that a Community Redevelopment
District would be a better solution for Morton Plant Hospital.
J :<:.
I.',' :
..'.....
"
. ,
.\.,:,
v
'.:::
~ I "
....
.;',.,
ell)' CatmIlulmlPJ.o.mlD& " ~ &uIl
4
1IJ17N:
.': I
'eI,
. .'
..
'\ ;:.
" ...
"".-:.,.;;
.' ','l
'I'. .
..'r
.. ".. , .
, :. t' '.' ", ',. ,':. ~:~ ',1' .: ': .
.....\.,,: ":' H' . H\ ",
, ',,',; ('.':. .'" ,',';'., ..' ....." .... :.','. .,/'.: ,:"",: :,.'.,;;';::,,',
.".' '. \..... "". . ". ;,. ., . ! :. :,....'..:..:., .'1....:..'....,......::.........:.:....:.......'.. ....
. ". . ., ..,:...>...::'.\/:::::',::" ....,
. .. . . .', "..!. '. .' ~'.',,' .
....,". .......' 4...... ..., .............,....,' " " '0":'"
.' .~' " .", . ~.' ,'..' ..' " " c:'
::,1:':,"::/, :t:: /;:>~: ,':'\5 ',',: .' .'. '.'
.:1
. . :~:':' :. I :.'~~~ ';::';~.::'.'. :i:. .~.. <"
>. .:.....;.,.= './... .
. .:,>':~."'.: ,', ).::'..:).:':l:"~. "
:'
. .
. I
~
~.
~,
~.' .,
~ '.
~.,. .
t"
, ,
t'. .
:JU
!
'!,
;,
'0
, .
"
.'
" :
"L , ~
,:,:' ,
Discussion ensued regarding the potential for Morton Plant to have
to identify their' future expansion plans and provide a master plan
concept.
Ms. Garvey expressed opposition to this because what they might
like to do may decide not to do. She felt we should leave the
local decisions to the local juriSdictions and as things develop
make decisions along the way.
Mr. Healey stated he has many alternatives available specifically
for Morton Plant and discussed them in detail, which included:
Activity Center, Community Redevelopment District, local variance
process, local nonconforming provisions and Countywide Rules
amendment.
. Discussion ensued regarding the public hearing schedule and
scheduling another joint meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
.....
Polatty, Jr.
of Planning and
01)- C~l~ I; z...In& lkanl
5
:"d~. ";"}, ~~' "'li'i.:i.'I!:~ioo:~"'''''->''>' ..
. ',,;.~.
. . '.
C .<.....~.l ~"-,,::;;.H.:.:'f..j.:..rl:'4.~-;i\:.,:i, ..:!~: ,.
'. '.r ." tn'.".";
". .,....
11I17/91
. ' >"". - ',/, I:' .~'; j' ..\ <':>....
" ~.. <'