05/28/2008
CITIZEN’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EAR-Based Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
HOUSING
MEETING NOTES– Wednesday May 28, 2008
Municipal Services Building (MSB), Conference Room 130
100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756
Time of Meeting: 1:00 – 3:30 p.m.
CAC Members Present: Glenn Bailey, Norma Carlough, Frank Dame, Billy Day, Ron
,
Delp, Elizabeth FranceBarbaraGreen, Bill Murray, Duke Tieman.
Councilmember Present: John Doran.
Staff Present: Planning Department: Gina Clayton, Catherine W. Porter, Michael
Reynolds. Legal Department: Leslie Dougall-Sides. Economic Development and
Housing: Geri Campos-Lopez.
Councilman Doran opened the meeting at 1:02 p.m. by thanking the Committee for
serving. He also underscored how important the issue of housing is to the community.
Gina Clayton welcomed the committee and thanked them for participating.
Mike Reynolds discussed the difference between the Housing Issue of Local Concern and
the Housing Element. He mentioned several issues discussed in the Issue of Local
Concern. He then went over the changes in the draft Housing Element provided to the
Committee at the meeting as compared to the draft sent out last week with the agenda.
These changes were made due to comments and discussions from City staff. Clayton
clarified that the word “attainable” was used because the EAR CAC thought it would be
better and less controversial. Delp said he believes that “affordable” should be used.
Green asked Lopez what they use. Lopez said one state program and 2 federal programs
use the word “affordable”.
France asked in reference to 16.7.5: Is there a limitation on the amount of money that a
person can put into a mobile home? No, there is not. Lopez said that the Housing
Division does not support this policy because they believe mobile homes are unsafe, the
Housing Division is unable to give them funds and they cannot get insurance. Carlough
said that the only way the mobile home owner is protected is if they own the land;
otherwise maintaining them is a waste of money. We should encourage them only if we
can encourage land ownership and she doesn’t know how we can do that. Dame said
why not focus on zoning so that mobile home park owners can only redevelop as
affordable developments? Day and Dougall-Sides said there may be legal issues with
that kind of restriction.
Reynolds then asked for additional questions and comments. Discussion followed.
Murray asked what accessory dwellings are. They are in-law type, over garages, etc.
Clayton pointed out that in the downtown there are areas where accessory dwellings do
not count against density limitations. Would we want to allow accessory dwellings
City-wide if the density for the parcel allowed 2 units? Delp asked whether greater
density engenders greater crime. Consensus is that it does not. Green and Lopez both
support mixed income developments and said that there are studies that show that mixed
income development is good for crime rates, especially as compared to putting all low
income together. Green said good management makes all the difference. Carlough said
some people are running boarding houses in single family dwellings. Clayton said she
and Dougall-Sides are looking at adding a definition of family to the Code to prevent this.
Discussion of whether accessory dwellings will eventually become a boarding house type
use with continuous advertising and new people. Under current code, density would
require 10,000 square feet of lot area in order to have 2 dwelling units, which could
include an accessory unit. Carlough said boarding house should not be a dirty word---we
should allow them but we need to have a method for regulating them if they become a
nuisance.
Clayton suggested that we could move it forward along with specific recommendations
for defining family. Carlough and Delp feel we could do that if we could have a method
of dealing with any problems that may occur. Clayton said Planning could map the areas
of the City where density would allow accessory dwelling units so we have a better idea
of what the impact would be. Bailey noted that deed restrictions may not allow accessory
dwellings even if the lot size would permit it.
Discussion on mobile home parks. Shall we leave 16.7.5. in, shall we be silent or come
up with something else? Delp believes we need to know the extent of the numbers of
mobile home owners that are low income. Unfortunately, that information is not
available; however, 6.75% of dwelling units in the City are mobile homes, according to
the EAR. Dame suggested to give an incentive to allow manufactured housing to replace
mobile homes. Discussion of removing 16.7.5. or remove “the retention and”. Do we
want to encourage the retention of unsafe housing? Murray suggested “The City shall
continue to recognize mobile homes as an attainable housing type.” Day/Murray made it
into a motion. Vote was 8 –1. Further discussion. New motion Day/Murray: Delete the
first sentence of 16.4.6. and all of 16.7.5. Passed unanimously.
Clayton asked for direction regarding housing for the homeless or residential shelters or
transitional housing for those going from homelessness to housing. Green said that
supportive housing means they have case management to help them maintain their
housing and not be a neighborhood nuisance. Lopez said they provide some program
funds for this. Murray said that this is such a large problem that it should be addressed
on the County level. There are several County-wide programs. Lopez said that we need
to at least recognize the problem in the Plan. Clayton said we will look at the County 10-
year Plan for this issue and come back with some suggested language. Discussion of
Habitat for Humanity and of City funds going to this and similar programs.
Delp wanted to know why North Greenwood, Lake Belleview and East Gateway are
called out. Lopez said it is because they are eligible for state, federal and/or special
funding and have their own plan documents.
Discussion of predicted population in Needs Summary.
Lopez brought up that federal programs require that units built for sale to owner-
occupants remain affordable for 20 years, while units built for rental occupancy are
required to remain affordable 30 years, and she would like to see this included. Clayton
said we could do this is in the Code.
Dame said that we need to be consistent in terminology. The EAR used the terminology
“attainable”. Carlough thinks we should use “affordable” because it goes along with
federal funding. Day agreed. Lopez suggested “Workforce Affordable”. Day/Murray
motion to use “affordable” consistently in the Comprehensive Plan. Passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Meeting Notes by Porter