11/17/1998
.--
r)
'......
v
CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL WORK SESSION
CITY OF CLEARWATER
November 17, 1998
Present:
Rita Garvey
Ed Hooper
J. B. Johnson
Robert Clark
Karen Seel
Mayor/Commissioner
Vice-Mayor/Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Also Present:
Michael J. Roberto
Richard L. Hedrick
Pamela K. Akin
Cynthia E. Goudeau
Gwen Legters
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Board Reporter
The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m. at City Hall to discuss the land
Development Code rewrite.
The City Manager stated it has become necessary that land development
regulations address community needs into the next century, eliminate conflicts in the
code, and provide direction for redevelopment and new development. The City has held
27 public discussion meetings since July 1998.
Charles Siemon and Wendy larsen, consultants from Siemon, Larsen & Marsh,
reviewed the rewrite, to be called the Community Development Code. The new code is
built on several years of significant effort by City staff. Their comments and suggestions
have been incorporated to create a document that is important to those familiar with City
needs. Many citizen groups, neighborhoods, professional organizations, local engineering,
architectural, contractor/builder, and realtor associations have reviewed the document.
The new code streamlines the development process and provides predictability and
flexibility in a manner that creates adeq~ate safeguards for surrounding properties and
neighborhoods. Highlights of the new code were summarized:
General benefits are improved organization and simplified language. The document
is much bulkier than had been anticipated because, while it consolidates much of the
language, repetitions were included where needed to simplify use. Illustrative graphics
include drawings, tables and charts. Increased flexibility will facilitate revitalization and
redevelopment. A simplified development review process provides for a Community
Development Board to consider items that previously were heard by four City regulatory
and advisory boards.
Benefits to residential neighborhoods include Citywide beautification through tree
protection, expanded landscaping, and sign incentives. Improved property maintenance
standards clarify ambiguities for more effective enforcement. Redevelopment incentives
provide more flexible standards to encourage investment and revitalization. Neighborhood
Conservation Districts (NeD) protect stable neIghborhoods or impose special regulations.
Enhanced screening requirement improves standards for visually screening mechanical
msw1198
11/17/98
1
\~
equipment and dumpsters. Home occupation principles are clarified in recognition of
expanding professional functions due to technology. Outdoor storage and display, noise
controls, outdoor lighting and temporary uses are addressed.
Ouestions were raised and the procedure for creating a neighborhood overlay for a
well maintained, upscale neighborhood was discussed. Mr. Siemon recommended care
during the creation process because of the formal procedure that would be needed to
modify an overlay. In his experience, the device is successful, but not for all areas. The
City Manager stressed the City does not have authority to enforce deed restrictions. The
ability to create Neighborhood Conservation Districts enables neighborhood consensus for
creation of standards that can be enforced legally. Concern was expressed the code does
not provide a consensus procedure. Mr. Siemon said ratio of improvement value to land
value is a strong indicator of neighborhood strength. The County Tax Assessor's property
value data is used. He felt reaching a consensus outside the City Commission process
would be very cumbersome.
Benefits to non-resIdential neighborhoods are increased flexibility for mixed uses,
consolidation of use categories, and minimum property maintenance standards. The new
code provides for more flexible management non-conformities, shared parking, and sign
standards.
The following policy issues were presented for Commission consideration:
,,-",
, }
~_/
Notification orocess and neiahbor's riaht to aooeal - The draft code permits appeal
to the Community Development Board only by the applicant, with no notice to adjacent
property owners. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended sending notice to
adjacent properties at the time a Level One application is filed, with neighbors having the
right to appeal within 5 days and a consent agenda approach for appeal, in case staff
made a mistake. Mr. Siemon referred to a letter to the editor regarding the code
reorganization, the concurrency provision, and the appeal process. He said the use of
gross densities, as a cap on development, is unnecessary in a concurrency environment.
Consensus was to include a right to appeal Level I approvals with notice to adjacent
property owners.
Front vard masonrv walls (courtvards) - Concerns were expressed that building
walls prevents neighbor interaction. General consensus was to delay the addition of this
provision, to continue allowing where currently allowed, and making it a Level Two
approval.
Attached residential units in slnale-familv districts -- Clarification was provided
regarding how the number of doors per street frontage relates to density requirements.
Discussion ensued regarding code requirements for vacant, corner, and existing lots, and
the amount of increased value it would take to make attached residential units
economically feasible. Discussion ensued regarding the changing nature of society toward
extended family households. Consensus was to ensure limitations are carefully drafted.
Additional pictures were requested for Thursday.
.....)
msw1198
2
11/17/98
'1
..-.........
'.....J
Accessorv dwelllnQ units - Concern was expressed with creating space that can be
rented later. Mr. Siemon reviewed abjections and advantages to "granny flats" in a
community. It was agreed this issue has raised considerable debate and may need to be
deferred In order to achieve a positive consensus regarding the code.
Mr. Siemon stated the new code will be a good and valuable tool if standards are
added where gaps exist, authority is reallocated where necessary, and amendments are
adopted coherently.
The meeting recessed from 11 :01 to 11 :21 a.m.
Article 1 was reviewed regarding consolidation/transition of old/new districts. It
WDS indicated work on beach and downtown provisions is proceeding independently. The
4-acre minimum for rezoning will be replaced by more flexible criteria.
Article 2 changes to community residential (group home) density were discussed.
ConfHcting opinions were expressed with regard to increasing allowable residency from 6
to 14 in low-density residential districts. Some felt 14 was excessive, but retaining the
standard at 6 residents was inflexible. State licensing provisions, owner-occupancy
requirements, operating a for-profit business in a residential neighborhood, and availability
of quality caregivers for small and large operations were discussed. Majority opinion was
to retain the 6-resident requirement.
Article 5 creation of the Community Development Board (COB}, its membership
criteria, quorum requirements, chair appointment, and appeal process were discussed.
Consensus was to compose the 7-member board of 4 members with industry or
professional designations. Staff was requested to add a list of those designations.
Discussion ensued regarding transfer of development rights across districts.
Planning Director Ralph Stone stated incentives will be created in areas needing to be
turned around.
Discussion continued regarding Community Development Board terms. The
majority agreed to 4-year terms.
Commissioner Hooper left the meeting at 12:12 p.m.
Majority consensus was to set Community Development Board quorum
requirements at 5 of 7 members, with 4 affirmative votes needed to approve an issue, and
applicants will be allowed to ask for a continuance if less than a full board is present.
Strong disagreement was expressed with restricting the CDB by requiring the City
Commission to annually appoint its chairperson.
Concerns were expressed regarding changes to alcoholic beverage regulations in
Public/Semi-public districts to allow on- premises consumption in Article 2. Discussion
ensued regarding flexible approval criteria. Mr. Siemon stated the intent is to avoid
preventing golf courses and marinas from having on-premises consumption as a
subordinate use. It was noted some alcoholic beverage operations on the beach do not
msw1198
3
11/17/98
:"n
i; ..~~
seem to bother anyone, but it may be necessary to develop specific standards in some of
the 7 beach districts in the future.
1';1
~~<,\.;", '
...;-..... '.:
c. ,'" j ~':",'"; \ .,:..
t'
Mr. Siemon was commended for creating adult use standards specifically
concerning State Road 60 In Article 3. Concern was expressed with the separation
distance reduction in relation to square footage. Mr. Siemon responded he worked with
the City Attorney's office to meet, without exceeding, the law regarding the rights of
adult use businesses and their reasonable opportunity to develop. Staff was requested to
determine the number of adult use business that could develop under the new code. The
City Attorney will provide the number and case law references.
I;,. ,.
Discussion ensued regarding rationale for locating soup kitchens and making them
Level One approvals. It was questioned why soup kitchens would be allowed to abut
offices, retail and residential, but not manufacturing uses, when staff had indicated soup
kitchens would be prohibited adjacent to residential uses. Consensus was to change soup
kitchens to Level Two applications.
.' '
~. .
A request was made to continue newspaper advertising and mailing notices to
surrounding properties within 200 feet of a Level Three application. City Clerk Cyndie
Goudeau said her department typically does both, and has a policy to mail notices within a
500-foot radius.
!
'~_..."
Staff was charged with ensuring that newly recruited staff is trained and
competent to handle issues regarding the new code. Mr. Stone said Planning and
Development Services has had and will continue having 4-hour training sessions. The City
Manager affirmed he expects every staff member to become intimately familiar with the
new code while continuing to enforce the current code.
The special work session adjourned at 12:46 'p.m.
u
msw1198
4
11/1 7198