Loading...
05/09/2011 2011 Business Task Force Meeting Minutes CITY OF CLEARWATER May 9, 2011 Present: David Albritton, President of David Albritton, Building Contractor Inc. Brian Aungst, Jr. (Chair) & Attorney at MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen Alan Bornstein, Creative Contractors Inc. Joe Burdette, Construction program manager w/various projects in city. Katie Cole, Attorney at Johnson &Pope Alan Ebbert, Frenchy's restaurants Operation Manager Steve Engelhardt, Hallmark Development Inc. Steve Fowler, Architect, Fowler Associates Architects, Inc. Gene Gillespie, President of Sand Key Civic Assoc. & Gillespie & Assoc. Mark Klein, Klein & Hutchens Real Estate Jeff Kronschnabl, Instructor with St. Petersburg College (retired from city) Shelley Kuroghlian, President of Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Robert Pergolizzi, Principal at Gulf Coast Consulting, civil engineers, etc. Alex Plisko, (Vice-Chair) Architect in Clearwater since 1978 Duane Schultz, Code Enforcement Board P.J.Shah, Cumbey and Fair, Inc. Also Present: Pam K. Akin, City Attorney Absent: Robert Longnecker, Manager of Clearwater Jolley Trolley AMENDED MINUTES Chair Aungst called the meeting to order and told the members that Member Longnecker (absent) emailed him with changes to the last meetings minutes. Chair Aungst read a section of the email as follows: "I would like to correct the minutes as to what has been reported from our last meeting. I do believe there are inconsistencies in the approval process; but it does not/has not affected my view. My comment with the comparison of Clearwater and Dunedin was not a legal or process issue, but rather with what I call PEP...remaining Positive, Enthusiastic and Persistent; yes, I believe that counts in government too. It is an attitude that something, nearly everything, can be accomplished by determined people." Business Task Force 2011-05-09 Amended 7/26/11 1 The Chair asked for a motion to approve the minutes, Member Gillespie spoke up and asked for another change to the last full paragraph to add a sentence that says "Members Kuroghlian and Gillespie dissenting". (This was hand written into the minutes) The minutes were approved with the above changes. City Attorney Pam Akin was asked to address the members as to emails among members. She clarified the fact that they can send out memorandum but what you cannot do is respond to them. Once at the meeting you can discuss them, no emails back and forth to each other. It is a violation of the open meeting law. A member asked about calling someone to ask questions, if it is a member the question needs to wait until the meeting. If you need help on something, you can call the City Clerk's Office and they will help you or direct you to someone else to help you. Chair Aungst thanked City Attorney Pam Akin for coming and speaking to the group. He then told the members that he had met with Mike Delk since the last meeting and Mr. Delk was open to change. He also had some opinions but hoped this group would find areas for improvement. Community Development Code Discussion Chair Aungst asked Member Kronschnabl and Member Cole to start off the discussion. Member Kronschnabl stated that the code is nothing more than a guideline with which you can be comfortable in the area you live. These guidelines should be reviewed on a regular basis. He went on to give an example of roosters and chickens in New Jersey. Behaviors change and codes change. Blight doesn't just mean high grass, it may mean problem businesses, strip clubs, pawn shops, tattoo parlors, etc. Member Kronschnabl showed a picture of Gulf to Bay Boulevard from the 1980s, and stated that the group should take incremental steps on where to go on an issue and ask the stakeholders what they think. Education is a cornerstone. Sign issues are the same, businesses owners would paint a sign on an old piece of plywood. Please put in place standards. He will be teaching on Monday nights for summer session so will not be able to come to meetings on Mondays. Member Kronschnabl also stated that the county copied our development code for boats and RV's. Dunedin came over and copied our permitting process, the steps. Research has shown that a 4' x 6' sign is the best across the country. Member Bornstein stated that over a period of time we have stripped away common sense. A book called "The Death of Common Sense" is a very good read, not long. The greater good should be served. Now everything is scrutinized. Consultants have to be called. Chair Aungst stated that he had talked to Mike Delk and he said that he didn't want his Level 1 Planners to have the discretion to deviate from the Code because he has to personally be able justify every decision to City Manager Bill Horne. Business Task Force 2011-05-09 Amended 7/26/11 2 Member Kuroghlian asked Member Kronschnabl if he was going to stay with the task force or resign and become a resource. Member Kronschnabl didn't know and Chair Aungst said he needs to talk to Pam Akin. The Chair also suggested that members can schedule meeting with other staff Also to change the meeting day to a Wednesday or as suggested a Tuesday. The Chair passed around a copy of a Flexible Application for everyone to see what is required at the beginning of the permitting process and also a copy of the department schedule for the 78 day process toward final approval. Member Cole then stated that she thought the Clearwater Code was designed as a performance based code. She thinks the intent of the Code was to give options to people, if certain items are met you can have the permit. There are no variances, but ranges that determine what application is required. The Code was intended to be a redevelopment Code for new projects, it is biased against existing projects. Change of use requires a Level 2 approval in which you must go before the Community Development Board, even if there's no structure change. Member Cole also stated that there is supposed to be give and take, asking the staff to use common sense and they need to have the power to do that. She talked about the overlay districts (downtown, the beach and neighborhoods) which create issues for homeowners. These districts are based on character, goals and policies which are conflicted with interpretation. Long range planning should have a balance of what staff wants the city to look like in 20 years versus what is practical. Compared with other communities in Florida we are unique. Member Kuroghlian stated she thought the city looked good, and the neighborhoods still have to live with it long after the developers are gone. Member Albritton made a statement that it was hard to do long range planning because of the economy. Other members talked about the variance procedure being an issue. Member Cole stated there is application called a Comprehensive Redevelopment Application that basically is a variance of everything. Member Bornstein spoke about the Mayor approaching him to be on the panel. The Mayor told him that this task force was to make Clearwater more business friendly. He says he did not sign on to be on a review committee for the development code. Chair Aungst stated that the Council left no specific mission statement or agenda for this task force but to make Clearwater more business friendly, and that they only wanted our feedback. He also said that the Mayor told him the permitting process was broken, and something we can make better. We have also been asked to look at the Sign Code, also code enforcement and maybe zoning. Chair Aungst thinks that the task force can make at least ten recommendations for each topic. He hopes to meet every 2 to 3 weeks for two hours and complete the work in only five or six meetings. Business Task Force 2011-05-09 Amended 7/26/11 3 Member Bornstein brought up the high cost of getting permits, which require $50,000 to $75,000 in getting plans. There are four failed projects downtown and staff makes it very, very difficult. (Station Square, Water's Edge, 1100 building, MLK building) Chair Aungst started a white board listing of bullet points of suggestions (attachment at end of minutes). Permitting and CDB Process Discussion Application and Review Process Member Pergolizzi stated that it was not staff problems but the code which ties their hands. Clearwater requires too much before an up or down vote from the CDB. The code required a client of his to prepare a survey of the property, full engineering plan, a full storm water calculation, fire flow which cost thousands of dollars. He was denied twice and after a few years finally got approved after spending $50,000 to $60,000. He now goes the site planning process and it will take another two to four weeks. He passed around the Flexible Development Application and highlighted the areas he believes should be required by the City. (see attachment) Member Fowler asked how we compare with other communities. Member Pergolizzi cited Pinellas Park, Largo and Clearwater. Pinellas Park charges about 24% in the 1st phase (preliminary), 69% in site permit requirements and 7% in construction phase. Largo charges about 30% in the 1st phase, 55% in the 2nd phase, and 15% in the last phase. Clearwater charges about 64% in the 1st phase, 26% in the 2nd phase and 10% in the last phase. Member Kuroghlian asked how long it takes in the different communities. Member Pergolizzi says there is no guarantee in any place how it takes to get the project in place. Member Cole cited Section 11 in the code regarding the time allotment. Clearwater is the only one that requires a full site plan. Member Pergolizzi talked about a traffic assessment instead of a detailed traffic study. A full storm water study should be left until the final site plan, a narrative should be sufficient. There are duplication problems. Flexibility, item 46, architecture needs should be a narrative. An electronic ability to file would help. Traffic studies should be a one paragraph assessment, maybe not on the beach or tourist area. Member Kuroghlian stated that a study wasn't needed everywhere. Member Bornstein stated that downtown or beach traffic studies weren't needed. He is very frustrated with what the committee is doing, and thinks that they are getting too deeply involved in the Code. They should only be looking at make it easier to get permitting done. Member Kuroghlian stated that maybe no traffic study unless a trigger point is reached. Business Task Force 2011-05-09 Amended 7/26/11 4 A discussion ensued about the traffic study and it was said that a detailed traffic study is only needed at the final plan. Member Pergolizzi stated that staff is more conservative with parking needs. Member Kronschnabl stated that staff wasn't bad, just working within their parameters. Member Cole stated that staff should acknowledge the range of acceptability. Member Pergolizzi stated that there is an ITE Parking Generation software program that has been used for projects. Chair Aungst asked for comments on the DRC and the BRC process. The DRC is mandatory; the BRC has been helpful but applicants need the DRC comments earlier. Need to use your time to better advantage. A member went into the Building Department office and asked for a checklist, they had nothing to help people through the process. Discussion ensued regarding online help, a checklist, a video, and other educational materials. Also a cross reference regarding building codes. Member Gillespie asked about doing away with the parking studies. There is a parking code so studies are not needed. Chair Aungst stated that members wanted to insert a range. Member Gillespie asked if the members are suggesting they eliminate parts of the application that currently go to the CDB and leave those things to the staff and applicant to discuss after CDB approval? Chair Aungst stated referenced the earlier discussion and said in instances where staff had concerns there would be more detail required prior to CDB approval. Parking would have a range and that would provide guidance to the staff Member Gillespie asked about how that would impact, say the Cabana Club. Member Gillespie talked about the fact that they okayed a restaurant and hotel and it had enough parking, but only when they were combined. Member Kuroghlian stated that she thought we should do as the other communities mentioned. Another member asked about setbacks, parking, a paragraph will not be enough. Small projects or large projects will require more work. Staff is only concerned with the Code. Member Burdette stated he was not going to go through this process and he will not be here for six months, they are getting off track and he is not going to go through the Code. He cares nothing about the Sign Code or code enforcement. Level 1 vs. Level 2 Approvals Discussion ensued regarding the problem that pavement is regarded as a structure. Some structures require Level 2 Approvals. If property has a setback with parking it requires Level 2. Parking garages (Hyatt) at sidewalk, right turn lane goes into the garage. More staff discretion at Level 2. Business Task Force 2011-05-09 Amended 7/26/11 5 Changes of Use Member Burdette said that there is a permitted use. Member Cole stated that there are two issues: nonconforming structures and changes of use within nonconforming structures. A member stated the City is trying to get everyone to bring their buildings up to Code. Member Cole says that parking and landscaping has to conform and the Code says to the maximum extent practical. Chair Aungst asked if the members want to add "as much as practical" to the 6 month rule language. He told members that he would put out a draft agenda for the next meeting to members. He wants the next meeting to be Monday, May 23rd at 5:00 p.m. Member Kuroghlian suggested the next meeting be on a Tuesday so member Kronschnabl can attend. Chair Aungst asked if anyone had a problem with the next meeting being held on Tuesday May 24th at 5:00 p.m. and there was no objection. The Chair asked if the members would like to take public comment at a future meeting. Members Burdette and Pergolizzi do not think the task force requires public comment. Chair Aungst encouraged the members to send a memorandum their suggestions to the City Clerk Rosemarie Call for distribution to the other members as member Burdette had done. Meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Business Task Force 2011-05-09 Amended 7/26/11 6 WHITEBOARD POINTS (Application and Review Process) Eliminate: Tree Inventory (only w/final site plan) Storm Water 46 on plan (architect detail, verbal description, no color) Electronic filing Traffic studies (1 paragraph assessment) Parking surveys (create a range) DRC (all comments 3 days before meeting) Education (an online guide w/videos and a checklist) and cross reference building codes Charter vesting (Level 1 vs. Level 2 Approvals) Eliminate: Pavement as a structure (Changes of Use) Changes w/multi use Business Task Force 2011-05-09 Amended 7/26/11 7