Loading...
07/02/2008 NOTES CITIZEN’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE EAR-Based Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT & EAR ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN: REDEVELOPMENT, COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND ANNEXATION Wednesday July 2, 2008 Municipal Services Building (MSB), Room 130 100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33756 Time of Meeting: 1:00 – 4:00 pm Attendees: CAC Members: Norma Carlough, Barbara Green, Judy Melges, David Walker, Ron Delp and Frank Dame. Other Citizens: Anna Fusari, Chair, EAB, Bill Jonson City Staff: Scott Rice, Michael Delk, AICP, Gina Clayton, Leslie Dougall-Sides, Priyanka Thatte, Catherine M. Porter, AICP, Ed Chesney, Heather C. Shell, Adam Tully (Intern), Tammy Vrana, and Sandra Herman I. Welcome and Introduction. Porter welcomed everyone and introduced herself and asked everyone to each introduce himself/herself. Porter said the agenda was re-arranged and passed out the new agenda. II. City Efforts Toward Education on Environmental Issues – Heather C. Shell Shell advised the group about the City’s Public Communications many efforts on subjects discussed last time including the use of fertilizers, recycling, the Think Green program, and other important environmental campaigns. She referred them to the City’s MyClearwater.Com website and also advised that the City’s C-News publication is published the second and fourth Thursday of the month, the City sends out letters and other documents such as the Sunshine Lines with City Utility bills, etc. to help inform the public on issues such as these discussed. III. Future Land Use Element - Catherine Porter, AICP Porter apologized on behalf of the Department for the short amount of time for review of the document. She said it is very complex and involves interdependent issues, but that we will take adequate time to discuss all the issues now. F:\CAC 2008\070208CAC Notes.doc - 1 - Porter said the changes involve: (1) statutory/typos and (2) added GOP’s in response to the EAR Issues of Local Concern. Porter went over #2. She said the FLUE has been re- organized including Goal 2 relocated to new Goal 6 and that Goals 3, 4 and 5 have been renumbered as Goals 2, 3, and 4. Goals 5, 7 are new. Some changes address redevelopment and community character. Staff conducted research and discussed issues such as, “Does corridor redevelopment go under redevelopment or under linkages?” “Do sustainablilty GOPs go under redevelopment or under design?” IV. ISSUE OF LOCAL CONCERN: Community Character – Priyanka Thatte Thatte talked about Community Character. She said Goal 5 is new and told the group about it. She said that the design structure is something that tells us about the City Design Structure. Policies 5.1 and 5.2 are hierarchy and linkages designed. She went over destination points: City / Co. (star on key) and Church of Scientology (diamond on key). She said there were neighborhood features, etc. These together form the hierarchy. Objective 5.3 gives us corridors for preservation and Objective 5.4 is for corridors to be redeveloped. She said the Long Range Division did a large amount of field study and prepared a report which resulted in the GOP’s that are now presented. Delp asked about the priorities. Delk said that this is not a priority setup.Clayton said it was intensity and economics/size intensity based. Thatte said Objective 5.5 is the one for design standards and 5.6 is for the Public Art Program. She said Citywide Design Structure should also improve the visual aspects that form uniquely “The City of Clearwater.” In the report to CAC, the bullets from front page are as per EAR and green font are staff’s responses. Carlough asked, “What is different about Clearwater that no one else has?” She couldn’t think of anything. She felt we should protect historic things and wondered how we will do it. Then about artwork, we shouldn’t be getting it from Lakeland – what does that have to do with Clearwater? The proposed art down the center of Cleveland sounded like it would be not be unique to Clearwater. For corridors, redevelopment, etc., why have pieces of Lakeland, Miami, etc. – that is not unique to Clearwater. Dame: How are we defining what makes Clearwater unique? Carlough: Regarding the current statutes at end of bridge – yes, these are unique to Clearwater – that is history. Use these as basis: orange/fruit groves, Gladiola farm, water, etc. Green: And Baseball – the Bombers softball team should be mentioned. Clayton explained that the art down Cleveland is temporary art – not being commissioned by Clearwater. F:\CAC 2008\070208CAC Notes.doc - 2 - Carlough: It should be permanent and reflect what Clearwater is and she also feels we should close Cleveland Street to traffic. Dame: The City should take an approach like Sand Pearl and incorporate the history into it – such as Old Clearwater hotel features, etc. Commission an artist to bring back history to Clearwater. Preserve historical nature. Green: Downtown Board – do they do anything for this? Clayton: No. Do you want to add a GOP to incorporate historical elements into the Art Program? Carlough: I am not sure that this is the right forum. Green: Create signature landmarks such as the Gateway – policy says to do it there. Delp: Goal 5: Identify the elements, then incorporate into what we want to move forward. Porter: The map does show some of these as a starting point, but doesn’t identify history. Melges: Yellow points are neighborhood? Clayton and Thatte: List shows it. Ones on map that are yellow we can say these have a particular character – special character of its own. Like Skycrest with planet/stars street names or the University names neighborhood. Delk: Cleveland Street Corridor has unique features, neighborhood features that identify neighborhoods. Porter: History needs more study than within the scope of the current comp plan project – not typically in comp plan. Carlough: Needs to be somewhere – historic community was talked about in Lakeland, but what about St. Pete – how do they do this? th Melges: Kevin Brody, sculptor, made panels on the bridge on 4 Street in St. Pete. One was of an African American who later became the city’s first postmaster. We should consider this for display. Green: Other important historical facts are: freshwater spring in water behind MPH, Roebling who developed in Harbor Oaks, started his vehicle for Army here. Dame: We need to identify historical elements in the design attempt to preserve certain corridors in the city and incorporate it into the neighborhoods. F:\CAC 2008\070208CAC Notes.doc - 3 - Vrana: Modern architecture is in some communities such as the Gateway – it (modern arch.) should also be embraced and incorporated into the plan. Clayton: Objective 5.5 Promote… Add to 5.5.2 or a new policy to incorporate historical elements into the plan. Carlough: Give examples, too vague…like sports teams, Gladiolus farm, orange groves, sea creatures, etc. Melges: Codicil to 5.6, we should incorporate things to show what Clearwater is known for. Clayton: Is there a consensus on when to expand to add a new policy? Carlough: No need to re-create Clearwater and she thinks that is what they are trying to do. Melges: New elements – we should not be just preserving old structures but we need to show history, celebrate the past in creating new. Carlough: Creating what is unique to Clearwater – rather than re-inventing the City – the latter is her fear. Delp: We need to: (1) identify what we have that is unique, and then (2) freshly present it. Clayton, Porter: Any comments in policy in #5 to address bullets in black also found in the Issues of Local Concern? Objective 5.2 identifying the linkages and how to use this is in 5.3. Porter then summarized the “issue report” and how it all works together. Carlough: Regarding 5.3, Belleair Road is not all in Clearwater and why did staff use the word “support” here? What about the [tree] canopy in Belleair Road, is it in the City or County? Clayton: These areas are within our Planning Area and we are planning for them (upon annexation). Delk: The tree canopy is in both jurisdictions. This is something unique that we want you to take a look at (this is what we want in our GOP’s). There has been a lot of staff time spent in preparing these simple sentences. Countryside Mall – is this an opportunity for infill there? Maybe look at emphasis on transit here, multi-modal opportunities there. Vrana: Policy 5.4.1 – regarding S. Martin Luther King Blvd., this is an area of non- conforming uses that are valuable such as the David & Goliath recent expansion of facility – sensitive industrial uses that are compatible with the neighborhood. Will they F:\CAC 2008\070208CAC Notes.doc - 4 - be encouraged to stay or be redeveloped over time? She said she was concerned about this. Clayton: We will take a look at it and redefine it if necessary. Delk: This is high on my personal list. Morton Plant Hospital area is another one. We need to look at it in a holistic manner. Protect the neighborhoods at the same time as allowing uses to continue. Jonson: 5.3 Objective and 5.3.9 policy speak to the scenic or new corridors – should be scenic? Memorial Campbell Causeway is a Florida Historic Designated (FDOT) Highway – has it been addressed in the comp plan amendments? And including the GOP’s as required by the program? Herman, Clayton: Yes, it has been addressed in the amendments and we will look at it again to make sure the FDOT program GOP’s have been addressed properly. Delk: Affordable housing / mixed use development probably hearing a lot about this – we tried to lay ground work in here to make it happen in appropriate locations (corridors). Vrana: Density bonus? Clayton: In housing. Carlough: Cleveland Street – isn’t it an entrance to Gateway? Part of Activity Center/Downtown was staff answer. Vrana: Designate the City’s redevelopment areas as what they are such as East Gateway – corridor doesn’t extend all the way into downtown. The entry point is the 5 point intersection at Court – it is a “Gateway” within the City. Clayton: Gateways into the City is what we used, not gateways within the City to other areas within. P. 30 defines gateways as used here. How does the CAC want to define them? Thatte: Used community character / activity centers in some cases - whole downtown area should be listed as an activity center Vrana: Goes to Highland Ave. – just reflect CRA boundary for the redevelopment corridor – all the way downtown (Cleveland St. as approaching downtown). Should extend to Court - Ft. Harrison goes to Chestnut / Court and go north to Cleveland Street. Clayton explained the Downtown Plan area. Vrana discussed adding Cleveland at San Remo west of Highland looking west to downtown as a scenic corridor. F:\CAC 2008\070208CAC Notes.doc - 5 - Delk said from Lake to water is a nice view also. Vrana asked to add Jack Russell Stadium and drop shopping and add centers, however, Porter said this was not a landmark anymore. Chesney asked about the Armory and Vrana said it could be a source of a future design theme. Green said that the JR Stadium stood out more. Clayton suggested that this was more of a neighborhood feature / character feature. Green said that this neighborhood wants to be involved a lot in decisions there. Porter: Does it all start to make more sense now on how it all fits together? We struggled with how to put it together. Carlough: Redevelopment has to define community character rather than other way around (don’t recreate our uniqueness). Clayton: In some areas we want to redefine ourselves. Dame: But do we want to redefine it? Incorporate historical aspects – must be involved. Clayton: Design guidelines will be made. Chesney: Left out of corridors are Stephenson’s Creek (estuary at Clearwater Harbor) and Glen Oaks stormwater project that goes right through the downtown as a “Blue” corridor. It fits into almost all corridors. Clayton: For this project, we defined corridors more in terms of land corridors. Chesney: We can’t ignore these though for redevelopment. Carlough: Why point out Church of Scientology? nd Clayton: Because it is the 2 largest property owner in Clearwater and a destination point. Porter added that it is identified as a campus. Clayton said a legend is to be added to go with it. She said also unique places like the cemetery near Clearwater are to be defined. Vrana said the JR Stadium is a significant redevelopment area. Porter said that the intention of the Gateways (5.2.1) is as defined in the FLUE to be the gateways to the City of Clearwater. It was discussed among the group to consider delineating interior gateways such as entrances to neighborhoods, Clearwater Beach or the Northeast Gateway, however, these are specifically identified in plans such as the downtown plan or as neighborhood features. Porter referred everyone to the map. F:\CAC 2008\070208CAC Notes.doc - 6 - Porter then went over the new Goal 6 and bullets on report page 34. She went over the reorganization of the FLUE Goals and pointed out the new policies based on the bullets of the EAR Issues of Local Concern. One in particular is 6.2.6, the new CPTED principles added, for lighting, sidewalks, and basically providing the means for more “eyes” on properties. In response to Carlough’s questions about the use of words “idled” and “grayfield” in 6.2.4, grayfield was defined as a property that is vacant, not contaminated or as dirty as a Brownfield site. Idled is a vacant property that is not abandoned, still being keep up. Clayton said we would look further into the use of the words here. Vrana recommended to also refer to “problematic” uses here. Vrana said to add something generic like Economic Development organizations and agencies to 6.1.6. Attention was given to 6.3.4 p.3.1-38 – this is a major policy shift – tool for neighborhoods in transition to help stabilize them. Clayton spoke on these neighborhoods on the edge and that we feel we need a tool to do solid planning to keep them on track, to stay competitive in region. She gave an example of Country Club Addition. She said there are CRT problems, rental problems, etc. Needs to be an effort to help stabilize the area (an NCOD – people in this area are interested in doing this). Develop a plan of action for their neighborhood to empower them. Delp asked for the signs. Clayton said one is a decline in homestead properties. Carlough and Dame both expressed their concerns about NCOD’s – that they don’t work as they are hard to enforce the regulations – that the neighborhoods really don’t have any power and they are forced to enforce a higher level of restrictions than community code. They still must go through CRT. They don’t see how to do this in a neighborhood such as N. Greenwood – don’t see how to make a NCOD work there. Dame and Carlough both asked if there was a different approach than a NCOD. Carlough said the letters from CRT threatening board action work better. Clayton threw out the idea of a policy to do neighborhood planning in these neighborhoods rather than a NCOD. Delp said though that the City would still have to enforce it. He feels it should be a proactive approach. Green said Economic Development has done a great job in N. Greenwood. Clayton said that was because it was a partnership with the City and others that made it successful. Delp said some people just don’t care and therefore they cause the problems. Carlough feels it works to get it to the code enforcement board to get something to change – work together with the City taking more aggressive action. Clayton said there should be planning efforts in the transition zones, and Carlough said to have the Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition getting the information out, such as how they have done on rental properties. Clayton asked what the CAC wanted to do with 6.3.4 and the group voted to eliminate the NCOD approach and go with neighborhood planning and getting information out to the residents especially by the coalition for residents to work with the City. Carlough said to do it like the City is doing with Northeast Gateway area – if it can work there it will work anywhere. Brief break was taken. F:\CAC 2008\070208CAC Notes.doc - 7 - V. ISSUE OF LOCAL CONCERN: Redevelopment – Catherine Porter, AICP Porter discussed the Coastal Management and FLUE coordination and new CPTED policy 6.2.6. An “aging population” item in a bullet on p. 3.1-39 has been addressed in R/OS under 27.8 and 27.8.1. Bullets for activity centers and livable neighborhoods are addressed under new objective and policies 6.8, 6.8.1 thru 6.8.9. Porter said that Thatte had done a lot of work on these recommendations. Delp brought up the subject of sustainability. Delk said it is a “buzz” word for a whole lot of other terms such as walkable community, rail corridors, human scale development – depending on road width, height of buildings. Delk said “Think Green” being energy efficiency, mixed uses, discouraging reliance on road traffic. Dame said redevelopment and community character are near and dear to him on Island Estates. Delk: The problem is with code that allows disconnectivity like at Skiff Point – it was redevelopment and flexibility of code that allowed this to happen. Permitted now is conversion of a former 1 story ranch home to an 8,000 square foot house built property line to property line. Velocity zones require higher structures to be built. We need to find a way to keep the character of a neighborhood while allowing flexibility. Clayton said that it can be achieved with NCOD’s however some want it to stay as is and others want bigger (such as the 8,000 square foot new house example). Delk said that conflicts in the area are huge. He said our current code is a performance-oriented code but conflicts on some issues no matter what the code is (Euclidian zoning is when you have variances that go to the board). He said it is a challenging issue – Island Estates may not want to re-visit their NCOD or they may decide to expand it to include more properties. Clayton said the multiple family properties are included in their NCOD but no real issues were identified. Dame said the City’s code (CDC) is very complicated to the layman. Delk: There is more flexibility the higher up the ladder it goes – Level 3 approvals / statutory in nature go to the CC. Jonson spoke of his TBARTA tours in other cities and discussions from the tours including more mixed use / compact housing chosen along corridors that fed off transit. He said to look at transit land use development side to allow these to happen and protect the adjacent single-family neighborhoods. He said “you are on the right track”. Vrana: Existing and projected transit lines including TBARTA should be included. Stations should be for transit-oriented development (increase density in these areas or along lines). Delk: In Dallas, there are expressways with hubs – we aren’t there yet. Intensities / densities increase along corridors with higher density residential along corridors – hope to do – coordinate with PSTA, etc. for Drew St. Corridor, Missouri, Belcher. Would feed to more transit opportunities not just transit in place now. F:\CAC 2008\070208CAC Notes.doc - 8 - The discussion turned to environmental. Clayton asked to revise Policy 6.9.2 by taking “developer” out. Anna Fusari, Chair, EAB: Make the city more sustainable and reduce gases, etc. Take a holistic approach in this document. Delk asked Chesney about the USF study – where it is administratively. Chesney said he has made a presentation to the City Council and is waiting for more direction from them on this project. Delk advised on the training that staff has received in recent past on LEED. Chesney would like to see more tools and incentives in our regulations. Delk said more building side employees such as plans reviewers are being certified than planning for LEED. Chesney advised that this could be a burden right now to put in. Vrana said that “platinum” is too high to put as a requirement – she said these are rare (only 2 in US now) so that would be too high of a bar. Points are taken away for traditional parking materials (asphalt – heat asphalt effect) and number of spaces. The group discussed at length about the LEED level to strive for in the comp plan. Gold level was an achievable level however Chesney thought we should set the goal to be at Silver. The group questioned TCEA’s and other alternatives to concurrency. Delk explained that concurrency is a requirement as per Growth Management Legislation of the 1980’s to prevent sprawl. State started providing the tools to use and to accept a certain amount of traffic congestion to encourage redevelopment. Most of Tampa is a large TCEA – huge amount of economic development under-utilized areas there to promote infill development and transit. But this doesn’t apply to the Beach, Downtown, possibly it might on US 19. Herman explained that there are other alternatives such as MMTD’s. She said she would provide the group with a comparison chart of the alternatives that she had prepared. Delk said plans are there short on political will and financing. City of Clearwater is the only city to get it moving forward with the Guideway Program. Carlough said we should have done less with US19 and done light rail there. We would have been ahead of it now. Porter said that Planning and Engineering regularly attend county MPO committee meetings for coordinated efforts. VI. ISSUE OF LOCAL CONCERN: Annexation – Gina Clayton Clayton: Since our last discussion on Annexation, the courts invalidated Ordinance 00-63 that governed voluntary annexation in Pinellas County and also Amendment 1 was passed. She tried to indicate in her memo the things that have changed as a result of State Legislation. Regarding questions on expanding the tax base, Clayton said generally we only have annexations that modestly expand it. She said we want to have the opportunity to be more proactive. She referred to 7.1.2 and 7.2 for priorities and new things added. First, you had a lot of discussion previously on whether the City should pay for incentives to annex but since the passage of Amendment 1, we didn’t think you would want this. Delp: Only goal is to expand the City’s tax base. F:\CAC 2008\070208CAC Notes.doc - 9 - Carlough: And to get rid of the enclaves. Delp: Streamline our infrastructure for consistency and improve quality of life for people in enclaves. Have a timeframe to set up the standards and criteria – with a cost benefit analysis. If City shares in the cost, does it slow down, speed up or keep it as is? Clayton: Costs us more money to annex single family than we take in for taxes on these. A cost benefit analysis is more beneficial for commercial. The city conducted studies a few years ago and found that it would be extremely high cost to run sewer lines through single family subdivisions and it would take many years to recoup the costs, if at all. Clayton: We are proposing GOP’s in an effort to guide us while we pursue annexation. Delp: We need a timeline. Dame: Reviewing criteria should help to prioritize. Clayton: Shift in City Council to go to more aggressive approach would be helpful. We are laying it out to get more discussion going with the County (10 acres or less as per state statutes). Delp: Should be criteria: Tax base, quality of life, and efficiency. Show benefits to them and the City. Clayton: We have a priority list of 4 areas from previous studies done by Engineering including the Allen’s Creek area. Delp: We must get more aggressive. Carlough: Why is it not aggressive now? Delk: There is a competitive interaction between the City and the County and service delivery issues – urban services vs. realty issues. Clayton: And the City Council does not want to force them to annex. They have been aggressive in places like Largo and Pinellas Park but they “ruffled feathers” in the process. There was general discussion on the PPC comparison table (County vs. City) and noted that it is a bigger financial increase for non-residential. Many people don’t want to be annexed, they like it the way it is in the County, even though there might be less code enforcement and they don’t have as good of services such as Solid Waste (while some folks annex for this reason in addition to getting rid of their septic systems and hooking up to the City’s sanitary sewer system). Delk: The very things that most people are proud of in the City, the people in the unincorporated areas don’t want. And some properties in F:\CAC 2008\070208CAC Notes.doc - 10 - the County are getting comparative services. Herman: We have found that some unincorporated residents don’t want more code enforcement – such as, they like being able to park their cars all over their front yards. Clayton: It is not cost efficient for the City to build the sewer system (to annex). Clayton: The City had conducted a program a few years ago to provide incentives to annex 1 acre or less sites and it was minimally accepted as only a few property owners took advantage of it. Carlough: Where should it come from to get the City Council attention? Clayton: We have articulated it in our proposed GOP’s. Delk: That the CAC wants them to become more aggressive. VII. Approve FLUE Melges moved for the CAC to approve the FLUE as recommended by Staff and modified today. Carlough seconded it and all were in favor. VIII. Porter went over the next steps in the timeline: Staff comments due from other departments July 11 Next CAC meeting July 30 to go over entire document If desired, you may attend the Public Hearings: Community Development Board - August 19 City Council - August 21 Review by Department of Community Affairs: August 22-October 22 Corrections to document by staff, based on DCA Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report: October 22-December, date To Be Determined Adoption Hearing in December, date To Be Determined IX: Meeting was adjourned about 4:30 pm. Notes taken and prepared by S. Herman F:\CAC 2008\070208CAC Notes.doc - 11 -