08-2AR ORC REPORT - December 16, 2008
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call'homeJ1
CHARLIE CRIST
Governor
THOMAS G. PELHAM
Secretary
November 10, 2008
The Honorable Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor, City of Cleanvater
Post Office Box 4748
Cleanvater, Florida 33758-4748
Dear Mayor Hibbard:
The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for the City of Cleanvater (DCA Number 08-2AR), which was received on
September 11, 2008.. Based on Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F..S..), and Rule 9J-5,
Florida Administrative Code, we have prepared the attached report, which outlines the
Department's findings concerning the amendment. It is particularly important that the City
address the objections set forth in our review report so that these issues can be successfully
resolved prior to the adoption of the amendment. We have also included a copy of local,
regional and state agency comments for your consideration. Within the next 120 days, the City
should act by choosing to adopt, adopt with changes, or not adopt the proposed amendment. For
your assistance, our report outlines procedures for final adoption and transmittal.
'[he proposed Amendment (DCA Number 08-2AR) is an update to the comprehensive
plan based on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR).. In general, the issues identified in
this Objections Recommendations, and Comments Report relate to the potential to increase
residential density within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the lack of a planning timeframe,
concurrency management policies, capital improvements planning, and further clarification of
the affordable housing provisions. Our report includes recommendations to help the City in
addressing these issues prior to the adoption.
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-21QO
85Q-488M8466 (p) . 850~921-0781 (f) . Website: www.dca.state.ff.us
. COMMUNITY PlANN~NG 850-488--2356 (p) 85G-488-3309 (f) . FLORIDA COMMUNJTtES TRUST 850-922-2207 (p) 85G-921-1747 (!) .
. HOUS~NG AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 850-488-7956 (p) 850-922-5623 (f) .
The Honorable .Frank V. Hibbard
November 10, 2008
Page T'wo
We are available to assist the City in responding to our report. Please contact Valene
Jenkins., Senior Planner, at (850) 922-1803, if we may be of further assistance in the matter~
Sincerely,
Charles Gauthier, AICP
Director, Division of Community Planning
CG/vj
Enclosllres: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency Comments
cc: Sarldra E. Herman, Planner II, City of Clearwater
Malmy Pumariega, Executive Director, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
TRANSrvlITT AL PROCEDURES
Upon receipt of this report, the City has 120 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes,
or determine that the City will not adopt the proposed amendment. The process for adoption of
local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F .S.), and
Rule 9J-11..011, Florida Administrative Code (F..A..C.).. The City must ensure that all ordinances
adoptin.g comprehensive pIal?- amendments are consistent with the provisions of Chapter
163.3189(2)(a), F.S.
Wi thin ten working days of the date of adoption, the City must submit the following to
the DeI)artment:
Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment;
A copy of the adoption ordinance;
A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed;
A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the
ordinance; and
A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report..
The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a
compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent..
In order to expedite the regional, planning council's review of the amendment, and
pursuarlt to Rule 9J-II.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted ~endment directly
to MarulY Pumariega, Executive Director, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.
Please be advised that Section 163.3184(8)(c), Florida Statutes, requires the Department
to provide a courtesy information statement regarding the Department's Notice of Intent to
citizens who furnish their names and addresses at the local government's plan amendment
transmi ttal (proposed) or adoption hearings.. In order to provide this courtesy infonnation
statement, local governments are required by law to furnish the names and addresses of the
citizens requesting this information to the-Department Please provide these required names
and addresses to the Department when you transmit your adopted amendment package for
compliance review.. In the event no names, addresses are provided, please provide this
information as well. For efficiency, we encourage that the information sheet be provided in
electronjc format.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
FOR
CITY OF CLEARWATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT OS-2ARA
November 10, 2008
Division of Community Planning
Office of Comprehensive Planning
This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-I1.0 1 0, F~A~C.
INTRODUCTION
The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the
Depart1nenfs review of the City of Clearwater's proposed amendment to their comprehensive
plan (I)CA Number 08-2AR) pursuant to Chapter 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S~).
The objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Rule 91-5, Florida
Administrative Code (F..A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a
recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objections. Other
approaches may be more suitable in specific situations.. Some objections may have initially been
raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the
Departlnent's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the
Departlnent's objection would take precedence.
Each of these objections must be addressed by the local government and corrected Vf"'hen
the amt~ndment is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections, which are not addressed,
may result in a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may
have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items, which the local government
considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non-
applicability pursuant to Rule 91-5..002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department -will
make a determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is
sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed..
The comments, which follow the objections and recommendations section, are advisory
in nature and will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to
call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning
planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar,
organization, mapping, and reader comprehension.
Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other
state re"view agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are
advisor:y to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they
appear under the HObjections.t heading in this report..
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
FOR THE
CITY OF CLEARWATER
AMENDMENT 08-2AR
I. <:ONSISTENCY WITH CHAPTER 163, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES (F.S.),
AN-D RULE 9J-5, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (F.A.C.)
The City's proposed Amendment 08-2AR is the E~Taluation and Appraisal Report
(Ef\.R) based plan amendments to update the Comprehensive Plan. The Department
raises the following objections and comments to proposed Amendment 08-2AR.
OBJECTIONS:
A. Future Land Use Element:
I.. Lack of Planning Timeframe: The Future Land Use Map does not indicate the
futlLfe timeframe for which it is intended consistent with the planning timeframe for the
Civj's comprehensive plan.. Section 163.3177(5)(a), F.S., requires that comprehensive
plaJlS include at least two planning periods, one covering at least the first 5-year period
occurring after the plan's adoption and one covering at least a IO-year period.
(Set;tion 163..3 I 77(5)(a), (6)(a); and Rules 9J-5.005(4), F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Include with the amendment a Future Land Use Map with the future
timeframe for which it is intended clearly stated on the map consistent with the planning
tim(~frame for the City's comprehensive plan.
2. Density Bonuses for Affordable Housiiul Incentives: Proposed Policy A..2.2" 7 to
the Future Land Use Element requires that the City provide density bonuses to developers
of affordable housing and/or mixed-income developments based on recommendations
established in the City's Housing Assistance Plan. Likewise, proposed Policy C.l"IO.. of
the Housing Element would provide for density bonuses for affordable housing projects
that are constructed consistent with the US Green Building Council. However, there is
no I)olicy in the City's Plan to define the amount of development that will be granted
under a bonus program, and how it will be implemented.
Addjtionally, the proposed bonus program has the potential to increase residential
development in the Coastal High Hazard Area; however, the proposed policies do not
ensure that such density bonuses would not be permitted on properties located within the
City's Coastal High Hazard Area.. Therefore, the proposed policies could direct
poplllation concentration to the Coastal High Hazard Area.
[Sections 163,,3177(6)(t) 1.f; 163,,3178( I) and (2)(h); 163.3 I 78(9)(a), F.S.; and Rules 9J-
5.005( 6); Rule 9J-5..0 1 0(3)(b)7.; 9J-5.0 12(2)( e) I, (3)(b )5., 6., & 7.; 9J-5.0 16(3)(b )2,
F .A~ C.]
1
Re(;ommendation: Revise these policies to define the amount of residential development
that will be granted under a density bonus program, and how the program will be
imI)lemented by the City. Additionally, include language to these policies that would
ensure that such density bonuses are not being permitted within the Coastal High Hazard
Art:~ a.
3. Comment:
. Objective A.4.1 and Policy A.4.1" 1 refer to levels of service for traffic
circulation. However, the policy should be revised to refer to levels of service
for roads instead of traffic circulation.
B. Coastal Element:
4. Coastal Hi~h Hazard Area Map: Objective E.1.2 and Policy 1.2.1 creates the
Coastal Storm Area definition which encompasses the Coastal High Hazard Area. A map
depicting the Coastal Storm Area boundary as an area that includes the Coastal High
Hazard Area boundary is provided. However, based on the statutory requirements, the
Coastal Storm Area map does not make a clear distinction between the Coastal Storm
Area and Coastal High Hazard Area boundaries. Therefore, the City's Plan is not
proposed to be .revised to identity the Coastal High Hazard Area as required by law.
[Section 163 .3178(2)(h), F .S., and Rules 91-5 .006( 4)(b )6..; 91-5..012(2)( e)3 ", F .A.C.]
Recommendation: Amend the Coastal Storm Area Map to clearly depict the Coastal
High Hazard Area/Category 1 Storm Surge, as defined by Section 163.3178(2)(h), F.S.
5.. Public E"xoenditures within the Coastal High Hazard Area: Proposed Policy
E~3 .1..4 appears to contradict proposed Policy E.3.1.3. While Policy E.3" 1 ~3 states that
the City will "limit public expenditures that subsidize development pennitted in Coastal
High. Hazard Areas. except for the restoration or enhancement of native resources," Policy
E..3.1..4 states that the City will "ensure that construction of necessary infrastructure
improvements in the coastal storm area are phased to coincide with the demands
generated by development or redevelopment in support of the proposed densities of the
FutlLre Land Use Element." Thus, Policy E.3..1.4 has the potential to subsidize
development that will increase density within the Coastal High Hazard Area..
[Se(~tions ] 63.3178( 1) and (2)(h); 163 .3178(9)(a), and Rules 91-5.005(6); 91-
5.012(3)(b)5., 6., & 7.; 91-5..012(2)( e)l; 9J-5.0 16(3)(b)2, F..A.C]
Recommendation: Revi se proposed Policies E.3.1..3 and E.3 .1.4 to be internally
consistent and to require no subsidization of development that will increase density
within the Coastal High Hazard Area.. . '
2
6~ Comments:
. Objective E..I..2 and Policy 1.2.1 does not reference the correct Coastal Storm
Area Map. Objective E"I.2 and Policy 1.2..1 identifies Map-I 3 as the Coastal
Storm Area map; however, the Coastal Stonn Area map included as part of
the map seri~s is identified as Map E-l.. Therefore, the City should revise
Objective E..l.2 and Policy 1..2.1 to identify Map E-I as the correct Coastal
Storm Area map..
. Proposed Policy E..4.1. 9 provides for the preparation of a post-disaster
redevelopment plan in an effort to reduce or eliminate the exposure of human
life and public and private property to natural hazards. However, the policy
does not specify a date by which the City will have its post-disaster
redevelopment plan prepared..
c. Caoital Improvements Element:
7.. Lack of Potable Water SUDoly Concurrency: The Capital Improvements Element
doe's not address the requirements of Section 163.3180(2)(a), F~S., pertaining to water
supply concurrency which requires the following: that adequate water supplies be in
plaee and available to serve new development no later than the issuance by the local
go'venunent of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent; and that prior to
approval of a building pennit or its functional equivalent, the local govenunent shall
consult with the applicable water supplier to determine whether adequate water supplies
to serve the new development will be available no later than the anticipated date of
issuance by the local government of a certificate of occupancy or its functional
equivalent..
[Section 163..3177(6)(a) and (c); 163.3180(2)(a), F.S. Rules 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5..0055(3);
9J-5..011(1 and 2); 9J-5..016(3)(c)5 and 6, F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include a policy to ensure that the applicable
water supplier is consulted prior to the issuance of a building pennit or its functional
equivalent to ensure potable water supply will be available prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy as required by Section 163.3180(2)(a), F.S.
8. Lack of a Five-year Schedule of Capital Imorovements: This EAR-based
ame'ndment is not accompanied by an update of the Capital Improvements Element to
include an updated Five-year Schedule of Capital Improvements as required by Section
163 .3177(3)(a)5.., F.S., which addresses the capital improvements needs of the City
during the next five years.
[Sections 163..3164(32); 163.3177(2), (3)(a), (3)(b), (3)( c), (3)(d), and (3)(e )~;
163.3177(6)(a), (c), (8), F.S, and Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a), (c); 9J-..005(5); 9J-5.055(2)(a); 9J-
.006(2)(a), 9J-5.011(1)(b), (t) & (2)(b) & (c) and 9J-5..016(4)(a), F.A..C.]
3
Recommendation: Include, in the plan, a financially feasible Five-year Schedule of
Capital Improvements with committed funding for improvements in the first three years
and planned funding for the remaining two years of the Five-year Schedule.. The data and
analysis pertaining revenues and expenditure have to be updated to show that there is
adequate fund in each identified source to pay for the listed capital improvements. Also,
the data and analysis supporting the Five-year Schedule should include an update of the
projected capital improvement needs of the City and show that the improvements on the
sclledule will maintain and achieve the adopted level of service standards.. This should be
dOl1e by assessing what impro\'ements are needed to achieve and maintain level of
service in the short term platming horizons, the cost of the improvements for the short
tenn, the funds available to pay for the improvements, and the timing of the
imlJrOVements.
For long term projected capital facility needs, the comprehensive plan must include long-
tenn strategies which include programs and activities for the elimination of existing
capacity deficits (Rule 9J-5.016(3)(c)1..b., F.A..C.), but need not be accompanied by a
dernonstration that funding for projected needs is currently available or available from
planned funding resources. Rather, these strategies should be embodied in policies that,
as 'v/ith others in the comprehensive plan, spell out the way in which programs and
activities are conducted to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service standards for
the long term.
9. Lack of Adooted Level of Service Standards in the Capital Improvements
Element: With the exception of schools, the Capital Improvements Element does not set
forth the level of service standards for public facilities subject to concurrency which is
reqllired by Section 163.3177(3)(a)3., F.S.
[Section 163..3177(3)(a)3.., F..S., and Rules 9J-5.005(3); 9J-5.0055(2)(a) 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6..,
and 8.; 9J-5.0 15(3)(b)3; 9J-5.016(3)(c)4., F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Revise the Capital Improvements Element to include a policy that
establishes level of service standards for public facilities subject to concurrency..
10. Lack of Concurrency Requirements for Roads: The proposed amendment to the
Capital Improvements Element does not include changes to address the new requirement
in the law pertaining to transportation concurrency. Pursuant to Section 163.3180(2)( c),
F.S., transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place or under
actual construction within 3 years after the local government approves a building permit
or its functional equivalent that results in traffic generation. To address this issue, Policy
1.1.3.3, subsection 3, references Policy 1.1.3.3.1 and 1.1.3.3..2 which do not include
pro\'isions addressing the update to the law cited above.
{Section 163.3180(2)(c), F.S.., and Rules 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.0055(3); 9J-5.0l6(3)(c)5. and
6., F .A.C.]
4
Recommendation: Revise Policy 1.1.3.3, subsection 3, to delete reference to Policies
1..1.3.3.1 and 1.1.3.3.2, and to include provision that will ensure that transportation
facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place or under actual construction
within 3 years after the local government approves a building permit or its functional
equivalent that results in traffic generation in order to be consistent with the above cited
provision of the law.
D. Transportation Element:
11. Lack ofPlanninlZ Timeframe: The Future Transportation Map and map series
(Map #'s B-1, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-7, B-8, B-9, B-I1, and B-12) do not indicate the future
tiuleframe for which they are intended consistent with the planning timeframe for the
City's comprehensive plan. Section 163.3 1 77(5)(a), F.S., requires that comprehensive
plans include at least two planning periods, one covering at least the first 5-year period
oCGurring after the plan's adoption and one covering at least a 10-year period"
[St~ction 163.3 1 77(5)(a); and Rules 9J-5.005(4), F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Include, with the amendment, a Future Transportation Map and map
series Vv~ith the future timeframe for which they are intended clearly stated on all maps
corlsistent with the planning timeframe for the City's comprehensive plan.
12. Comments:
. Objective B.1.5 states that, "All County and State roadways in Clearwater,
except those identified as backlogged or constrained by Pinellas County MPO,
shall operate at level C average daily/D peak hour. However, the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) requests that the City revise this
objective to delete reference to the State Roadways..
. Policy 8.1.5.5 states that, "The City shall participate with the MPO and/or its
Technical Coordinating Committee to ensure that the level of service standard
for US Highway 19, a Strategic Intermodal System facility will be consistent
with FDOT's LOS designation of'D' for this road. However, the FDOT
requests that the City revise this policy to state that the LOS standard for US
I 9 is '''0''..
F. Housin2 Element:
13. Density Increases/Accessory Dwellin~ Units for Affordable Housing Proiects:
ProJ)osed Policies C.I.9.1 and C..I.9.4 would permit density increases for projects
inc(}rporating affordable housing units.. However, the policies do not clearly define the
amount of additional density possible to be allowed in a particular land use category and
to allso restrict such bonuses from occurring within the Coastal High Hazard Area.
5
Ad.ditionally, proposed Policies C.1..1.8 and C.1.9..5 to this element and A..6.1.12 to the
Future Land Use Element would allow accessory dwelling units within the City based on
sullicient parking, and other standards. However, the City"s Plan does not include
adequate standards guiding the development of accessory dwelling units, such as defining
the' density of use that will be allowed, requiring that such accessory units are not built
within the Coastal High Hazard Area and that the assessment of public facility impacts
take into account the accessory units.
[S(~ctions 163.3177(6)(1) 1.f; 163.3178(1) and (2)(h); 163.3178(9)(a), F ..S..; and Rules 9J-
5.005(6); Rule 9J-5.010(3)(b)7.; 9J-5.012(2)(e)l, (3)(b)5., 6., & 7.; 9J-5.016(3)(b)2,
F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Revise Policies C.l.9.1 and C.l.9.4 to clearly define the amount of
additional density to be allowed in a particular land use category as affordable housing
bOl1US. Additionally, revise Policies C.I..l.8 and C.1.9.5 to clearly define the amount of
density to be established for accessory dwelling units. Furthermore, revise the policies to
require that affordable housing bonuses as well as accessory dwelling units are not
allowed on properties located within the Coastal High Hazard Area. Also, define the
tenn "accessory dwelling units" and require that the assessment for public facility impact
tak,e into account the affordable housing units as well as accessory dwelling units
allowed.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH THE ST ATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed amendments do not adequately address and further the State
COlnprehensive Plan, relating to the following goals and policies:
. Goal 6.a, (Public Safety); Policy 6.b.23; (The amendments related to Objections 2
and 13);
. Goal 7.a, (Water Resources); Policies 7.b..5; (The amendments related to
Objection 7);
. Goal 17.a, (Public Facilities); Policies 17.b~5; (The amendments related to
Objection 8);
· Goal 19.a, (Transportation); Policies 19 ~b.3, and 19. b.13; (The amendments
related to Objection 12);
· Goal 25.a.., (Plan Implementation); Policy 25.b..7 (The amendments related to all
of the above objections).
Recommendation: Revise the proposed amendments to be consistent with the above
goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan~ as recommended in this report.
6