07/18/2005 WORK SESSION ONLY ITEMS
~
o
>-
u
Work Session Agenda
Clearwater City Council Work Session - Monday, July 18, 2005 9;00 AM
Presentations
1. Sen Jim Sebesta - End of Session Brief
2. Rep Everett Rice - End of Session Brief
3. Service Awards
4. Supervisory Training Certificates
5. Arts and Cultural Economic Impact Study
6. 3 NACWA Gold Awards
Budget Office
1. Adopt a tentative millage rate of 5.753 mills for fiscal year 2005/06 aAd set Public
Hearings on the Budget for September 1, 2005 and September 15, 2005 to be held no
earlier than 6:00 PM.
Devel/Neighborhood Services
1. Approve request for forgiveness of the interest and penalties, in the amount of
$8,635.60, associated with the demolition and lot clearing liens on the property located
at 1604 N. Fort Harrison Avenue (Legal description: E. A. Marshall's Subdivision, Lot
16); Owners: Daniel and Mary Tmsili, 1605 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue.
2. Approve a reduction of the lot clearing liens, in the total amount of $2,789.20 for the
interesUpenalties associated with the lot clearing liens, on 906 Palmetto Stieet
(Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc., 608 North Garden Avenue,
Clearwater, FL 33755, Representative: Isay Gulley, Executive Director).
Finance
1. Approve settlement of the liability claim of Russell Edney for payment of $75,000 and
authorize the appropriate officials to execute same.
2. Approve agreement for external auditing services for fiscal years ending September
30, 2005 thru 2009 with public accounting firm of Cherry, Bekaert, & Holland, LLP, for a
total cost not to exceed $632,500 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same.
3. Pass on first reading ordinance 7466-05 modifing the investrilent (estrictions for the
Employees Pension Plan and setting the date of March 14, 2006 fer a special election
for approval of the same.
Marine and Aviation
1. Adopt Resolution 05-29, clarifying the change of business transfer fee in commercial
dock permits for storage uf vessels at the Clearwater Municipal Marina.
2. Adopt Resolution 05-31, authorizing Supplemental Agreement #1 to an existing JPA
approved in March 2005 to complete the New Modular Terminal/Fixed Base Operation
Building at Clearwater Airpark, increasing Department and Agency funding by
$66,000.00 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same.
Work Session Agenda 07-18-2005 - Rev 1
Page 1 of 5
Police
1. Approve submission of an application for federal funding in the amount of $101,553 to
the U.S. Department of Justice/Bureau of Justice Assistance (USDOJ/BJA) under the
Edward Byrne Memoria! Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program, and that the
appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
Solid Waste/General Services
1. Increase the Fleet Maintenance Operations Fuel budget by $400,000 and the Vehicle
Parts budget by $200,000 with a transfer of $600,000 from the Garage Fund Retained
Earnings.
Engineering
1. Approve the applicant's request to vacate the drainage and utility easernent that was
retained over a vacated alley formerly located adjacent to the east property lines of
Lots 9 through 13, inclusive, Block 2 of J. H. Rouse subdivision, (a.k.a. 609 Seminole
Street), and pass Ordinance 7462-05 on first reading, (VAC2005-08 South Port
Financial Services, Inc.),
2. Accept a temporary construction easement containing 426 square feet, more or less,
and two perpetual sidewalk easements containing a total of 357 square feet, more or
less, over and across portions of Lots 88, 134 and 135, LLOYD-WHITE-SKINNER
SUBDIVISION conveyed by Divaco, Inc., a Florida corporation, in consideration of
receipt of $1.00 and the benefits to be derived therefrom.
3. Award a contract to TLC Diversified, Inc. of Palmetto, Florida, for the Pumping Station
#12 - Refurbishment project (#01-0058-UT) construction, in the amount of
$341,990.00, which is the lowest responsible bid received in accordance with plans
and specifications, including a 10% contingency, and that the appropriate officials be
authorized to execute same.
4. Award a contract to TLC Diversified, Inc. of Palmetto, Florida, for the Pumping Stations
#15 & #25 - Refurbishment project (#01-0060-UT) construction, in the amount of
$725,370.00, which is the lowest responsible bid received in accordance with plans
and specifications, including a $50,000.00 Contingency, which is 7.40% of the other
line items, and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
5. Award a construction contract to A & l Underground Inc. of Hamptonville, North
Carolina, for the Stevenson Creek Water Main Replacement (04-0037 -UT) in the
amount of $423,031.40, which is the lowest responsible bid received in accordance
with plans and specifications, and that the appropriate officials be authorized to
execute same.
6. Approve issuance of a Purchase Order to VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE in the amount of $28,207.05 for the installation and maintenance of
landscaping in the planters at US 19 and Gulf to Bay Boulevard.
7. Approve a work order to McKim & Creed, P.A., in the amount of $401,000 for
professional engineering design services related to the Wellfield Maximization and
Engineering Technical Services project (05-0030-UT), and that the appropriate officials
be authorized to execute same.
8. Accept a 1 O-foot wide Water Main and Utility Easement conveyed by Peter B. Forret,
Trustee of the Sandaker irrevocable Qualified Trust Agreement dated January 10,
2005, under and across a portion of Lot 10, SUNSET POINT SUBDIVISION REPLA T,
and appurtenant submerged lands being a portion of Lot 1, JEROME B. TENNEY'S
SUBDIVISION, given in consideration of receipt of $15,000 and the benefits to be
derived therefrom and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same.
Work Session Agenda 07-18-2005 - Rev 1
Page 2 of 5
9. Award a contract for the 2005 Street Resurfacing Contract (05-0009-EN) to R.E.
Purcell Construction of Largo, Florida for the sum of $1,685,383.70, which is the lowest
responsible bid received in accordance with the plans and specifications and authorize
the appropriate officials to execute same.
10. Approve the applicant's request to vacate Edenville Avenue from the easterly extension
of the south property line of Lot 55, Block "A", Tropic Hill Unit 4 subdivision, (a.k.a.
2450 Burnice Drive), to the easterly extension of the north property line of said Lot 55,
subject to the retention of a drainage and utility easement over the full width of the
right-of-way to be vacated and subject to removal of existing asphalt and curbs within
six months of approval of this request and pass Ordinace 7463 on first reading,
(VAC2005-09 Allen),
11. Approve the Local Agency Program (LAP) Supplemental Agreement NO.4 with the
Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) for the Clear-vater Beach West
Bridge/Spur Connector, increasing the project CMAQ funding by $575,222 for a new
total project amount of $4,728,984 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same.
Planning
1. Approve the Petition for Future Land Use Plan Amendment from Institutional (INS) to
Residential Medium (RM) and Zoning Atlas Amendment from the Institutional (I) District
to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District for 137 Fernwood Avenue (Lots 3 - 6,
Block F, Eastwood Terrace Third Addition along with the 18 feet to the east of lots 3 -
6); and Pass Ordinances 7459-05 & 7460-05 on first reading.
(LUZ2005-03004 )
2. Approve the Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment from County Residential Low
(RL) to City Residential Low (RL) and Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County R-3,
Single-Family Residential District, to the City Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
District for 2346 Ella Place (Lot 66, Rolling Heights in Section 07, Township 29 South,
Range 16 East); and Pass Ordinances 7450-05,7451-05 & 7452-05 on first reading.
3. Approve the Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment from County Commercial General
(CG) to City Commercial General (CG) and Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County
C-2, General Retail Commercial and Limited Ser,;:ces District, to the City Commercial
(C) District for 2300 Drew Street (Lots A & B, Rolling Heights, and Lot 31, Block A, First
Addition to Temple Terrace, in Section 8, Township 29 South, Range 16 East); and
Pass Ordinances 7453-05,7454-05 & 7455-05 on first reading.
4. Approve the Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment from County Residential Medium
(RM) to City Residential Medium (RM) and Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County
R-3, Single-Family Resideniial District, to the City Medium Density Residential (MDR)
District for 2077 Palmetto Street (Portions of Pinellas Groves Subdivision, in Section
12, Township 29 South, Range 15 East); and Pass Ordinances 7456-05, 7457-05 &
7458-05 on first reading.
Official Rec and Legislative Svc
1. Reappoint two members to the Enterprise Zone Development Agency with the term
expiring on July 31, 2009.
City Attorney
1. Adopt Ordinance 7397-05 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose
post office adress is 3070 Gulf-to Bay Blvd., into the corporate limits of the city, and
redefining the boundary lines of the city to include said addition.
Work Session Agenda 07-18-2005 - Rev 1
Page 3 of 5
2. Adopt Ordinance 7398 on second reading, amending the future land -use plan element
of the Comprehensive Plan of the City, to designate the land use for certain real
property whose post office addiess is 3070 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., upon annexation into the
City of Clearwater, as Commercial General.
3. Adopt Ordinance 7399-05 on second reading, amending the zoning atlas of the city by
zuning certain real property whose post office address is 3070 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., upon
annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Commercial (C).
4. Adopt Ordinance 7430-05 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose
post office address is 1481 Sandy Lane, into the corporate limits of the city, and
redefining the boundary Ines of the city to include said addition.
5. Adopt Ordinance 7431-05 on second reading, amending the future land use plan
element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city, to designate the land use for certain
real property whose post office address is 1481 Sandy Lane, upon annexation into the
City of Clearwater, as Residential Urban.
6. Adopt Ordinance 7432-05 on second reading, amending the zoning atlas of the city by
zoning certain real property, whose post office address is 1481 Sandy Lane, upon
annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
7. Adopt Ordinance 7433-05 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose
post office address is 3001 Lake Vista Drive into the corpomte Iimit5 of the city, and
redefining the boundary lines of the city to include said addition.
8. Adopt Ordinance 7434-05 on second reading, amending the future land use plan
element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city, to designate the land use for certain
real property whose post office address is 3001 Lake Vista Drive, upon annexation into
the City of Clearwater, as Residential Low.
9. Adopt Ordinance 7435-05 on second reading, amending the zoning atias of the city by
zoning certain real property whose post office addres sis 3001 Lake Vista Drive, upon
annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
10. Adopt Ordinance 7436-05 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose
post office address is 100 Baywood Avenue, into the corporate limits of the city, and
redefining the boundary Ines of the city to include said addition.
11. Adopt Ordinance 7437-05 on second reading, amending the future land use plan
element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city, to designate the land use for certain
real property whose post office address is 100 Baywood Avenue, upon annexation into
the City of Clearwater, as Residential Urban.
12. Adopt Ordinance 7438-05 on second reading, amending the zoning atlas of the city by
zoning certain real property whose post office address is 100 Baywood Avenue, upon
annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
13. Adopt Ordinance 7445-05 on second reading, amending the Community Development
Code, Article 6, Non Conformity Provisions, Section 6-109.8, Termination of Status as
a Nonconformity, providing that upon reconstruction of structures which are
nonconforming with respect to density, such reconstruction must maintain the current
use.
14. Adopt Ordinance 7464-05 on second reading, amending the operating budget for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to reflect increases and decreases in revenues
and expenditures for the General Fund, Special Development Fund, Special Program
Fund, Water & Sewer Fund, Stormwater Fund, Solid Waste Fund, Gas Fund,
Recycling Fund, Marine & Aviation Fund, Parking Fund, General Services Fund,
Garage Fund and Central Insurance Fund.
Work Session Agenda 07-18-2005 - Rev 1
Page 4 of 5
15. Adopt Ordinance 7465-05 on second reading, amending the Capital Improvement
Budget for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to reflect a net increase of
$1,736,856.
16. Approve the First Amendment to the Land Transfer Agreement between the City of
Clearwater, Sunspree Green, LLC and DAM Devon regarding property located at 41
Devon Drive, Clearwater, changing the closing date to the earlier of: 45 days after the
developer and affiliate receive written notice from the City requesting closing or the
date a building permit is issued for the construction of improvements for the project.
17. Pass Ordinance 7447-05 on first reading, amending Chapter 2, DiVision 3, the Ethics
Code, to conform with the Florida state Ethics Code.
18. Pass Ordinance 7448-05 on first reading, amending Article VIII, Chapter 2, Code of
Ordinances regarding definitions and requirements for lobbyists, to conform with the
P!nellas County Code.
Other City Attorney Items
City Manager Verbal Reports
Council Discussion Items
1. MPO/PSTA Transportation Issues.
2. Follow-up to CC/CDB Joint Meeting email dated 6/6/05.
3. PPC Votes on Clearwater Cases (Executive Golf Course/Residential Development on Druid
Rd).
4. Policy re eminent domain.
5. Resolution supporting the 5th cent of Tourist Development Tax.
Other Council Action
Adjourn
Presentation(s} for Thursday Night
1. Sen Dennis Jones - 2005 Legislative Summary
2. Rep Kim Berfield - 2005 Legislative Summary
3. Rep Frank Farkas - 2005 Legislative Summary
4. Neighborhood of the Quarter
Work Session Agenda 07-18-2005 - Rev 1
Page 5 of 5
Ll.
o
>-
>-
u
I nteroffice Correspondence Sheet
To:
Mayor and Council members
From:
Cyndie Goudeau, City Clerk di)
Bill Horne, City Manager; Garry Brumback, Asst. City Manager; Pam Akin,
City Attorney
CC:
Date:
July 15, 2005
RE:
Revisions to Agenda Packet for July 18, 2005
The followina chanaes/additions are provided:
. Revised Work Session Agenda - Rev 1 - 07-18-05, replace item.
. CRA Agenda. Item added to agenda and paperwork provided.
. CRA Minutes - 05-31-05 - for approval. Item added to agenda and paperwork provided.
. CRA-1 - Update on status of negotiations with Clearwater Development LLC, "Acqua"
(fka AmSouth). Item added to agenda and paperwork provided.
. Revised Pension Trustees Agenda - 07-18-05, replace item.
. Special Pension Fund Meeting Minutes - 06-02-05 - for approval. Item added to agenda
and paperwork provided.
. MR-2 - Adopt Resolution 05-31, Supplemental Agreement #1, New Modular
Terminal/Fixed Base Operation Building at Clearwater Airpark. Item added to agenda
and paperwork provided.
. ENG-10 - Approve the applicant's request to vacate Edenville Avenue and pass
Ordinance 7463 on first reading, (VAC2005-09 Allen). Item added to agenda and
paperwork provided.
. ENG-11 - Approve the Local Agency Program (LAP) Supplemental Agreement NO.4
with the FDOT for the Clearwater Beach West Bridge/Spur Connector. Item added to
agenda and paperwork provided.
· PLD-4 - Approve the Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning Atlas Amendment for 2077
Palmetto Street, and pass Ordinances 7456-05, 7457-05 & 7458-05 on first reading.
Item added to agenda and paperwork provided.
. CA-17 - Pass Ordinance 7447-05, Ethics Code. Corrected Agenda Cover Memo
provided, please replace.
. CA-18 - Pass Ordinance 7448-05, definitions and requirements for lobbyists. Corrected
Agenda Cover Memo and ordinance provided, please replace entire item.
. CDI-2 - Direction re CC/CDB Joint Special Work Session Minutes. Item removed from
agenda.
Memo to Council for 07-18-05 Work Session - revisions. doc
1 of 2
. CDI-3 - Follow-up to CC/CDB Joint Meeting email dated 6/6/05.
Item renumbered to CDI-2.
. CDI-4 - PPC Votes on Clearwater Cases (Executive Golf Course/Residential
Development on Druid Rd). Item renumbered to CDI-3.
. CDI-4 - City Policy re: Eminent Domain. Item added to agenda and paperwork
provided.
. CDI-5 - Resolution supporting the 5th cent of Tourist Development Tax. Item added to
agenda and paperwork provided.
Memo to Council for 07-18-05 Work Session - revisions.doc
2 of 2
1(1~
CD 'd
T .>
:- ;'') ~ CI'J
o 1;::
~ , ~~
V) :~.,.
3 ,t
Vl
.....
....
<t::
Q)
>-....c::
~ .....
o::l ....
~c2
0..Q)
E ~
~ .";:::
E-< E
Q) E
..s 0
0::
c: Vl
o Q)
';-:' c:
U) "v:)
~~
. '"
:>-....
00'0 ~
c....h
V1 .~ 5 ~
5~E.-5'
:;:; :>- if) U
.a ..0 'C ~"
',p >- +oJ Q
~E~6"
ig~~
~ 8 g; a'
~~ ~.~
umC'O........
U ~ ~ E
f6-:~ci:
t! 5 ~
'" C ClJ
V1 ~ .~
"'~ 150 ~
E ijj i!5
'" .... c
r- ~ .S;
(l) (l)
(l)...c:
;::....
.~ .....
So
:>-,~f.
ro U
~ CJJ
ro CJJ
0.., (l)
S .~
c::l &
'"
o OJ c: t/')
~ .~ ..... t1J
V1 ..... S, C .~ -g ~
if) ~ 0 .S2 ::J '- ClJ
.~ ~ ~ .~ in ~ ~
CJ I- "0 .!:! ::J E Q)
;>.-~-eeV')>
~ u 0. ~ -5 .~ ~
",E.9","OClJCl.
Cl.Ev;'~};~~~
.j..J Q)...... Q) :J l....
~<"O,3:C~~
~ ~ ~ E ~ ",' :R
.............. mE Vl c.-
'+- s... U 0 ''''' ''''' "'0
o 0 ::J U .~ ..c c:
"+-"'OV1..c~t'tS
.9~~CGr-~V1"'
~tj~.5uit:C:
'E'E~~t:~:8
ClJE'';:;~~f)~
t=3~-5-5~.g
~~
.... ....
" "
~ ~
'" a
aU
'"
"'-
E
~
....
"
"
"
cj
....
'f:;
a
'"
~
c
~ .9
~ ~ "'-eo,
~ ~ ~ '"
ClJ 2 e E
~ a.:e ~
..cO!)> OJ
.......Srd-E
~ 0 V1 0
~ ~.~ -g
.j..J OJ QJ ro:
(!)+-J..cQ)
-c~.......c
'" ::J "0 ClJ ClJ
E""2~~Q.
-g~~~2
'.:'~=rcsc.
Vl 0 U ~
~ ~"' ~ 'B 'Z
ClJ on c ClJ '"
.=~~~b
rJ:J
(:l
~O
~..o
'-t.8
.8.~
~ ~
;j rJ:J
U~
u
.~
S rJ:J
o Q)
(:l.S
OOt:)
rJ:J U 0
~~~
~ClJr-..
crn:..c'"
..... = ....... a-
c \C l..., T"""
o "+- 0 C
'Z CO'+-.,....
rei ro OJ lo-
.N"O ClJ.!!!
~.~ .~~~
E'iL E ~ ~
~z.g~~
.- c U c:: ClJ
t5oV) z
C. ~ CD ~ .S
~ :; .~ ~ -0
'+- .....::J OJ
i>j~~~
c CCI ro "'0 ~
ttI c:l 5 ~ :J
'" 1-._ c 0-
raClJro::J~
-o-5C~Q)
ClJ ,ClJ .c
E g; is fl"'-o
OO',+-l....C
L.L..~o<(ra
0..
1--1
1--1
Vl
....
Q)
0..
o
o
U
Q)
Vl
;:l
o
...c:
....
Q)
~
~
Q)
U
'C
0..
ClJ
~ Q) ~ ~ "'
+-' on a.~ ~
.:!! ""2 E c 'C
u(D~~S~~
~ .!:! 0 "<t ClJ ~ 1'0
c...1:~~2dl~
C' ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ E
:J~~a.~m(l)"'aj
~ .S2 0 2 .S! E ~ ~
~~ ~a.u-g > ra
02'3:8.9-1'0:9 E
3era~<lJV'l'5J?
OJ Q.L..N.!: E..o lo...,
~ ~ C ~ [;'~ 0 ~ E
~~cc-5-g~QJ8
lo..., lo.... 0 0 10.... +-J > .
~.!9~~ ~"'~:= e ~
(t:J V'l N :;:::: ._ V'l .J:j Co a.
~. '-">::;:;ClJraE.
ClJ:9c"'cc....._~
.~ 0 ~ -0 :J 'Vi 'Qj "0 ~
C::~o~8E-E~~
b()l'\..
.... '-
;::..!::
.., ~
"' "
.... '"
~~
" ....
I:>., '"
.1:>.,
~ '"
"'.."
0.8
>.W '"
U "
~8
'"
"
~
"
Q:
'"
"0 ClJ
c '"
Q.,lrclC..-
l.... VI 8..-.0
~~if)b
OJ .S ~ ~
.~ ~ ~ e
c: '''- > Q)
:5 C3 '" ~
'Z 0 co 0
VI 'Z "'0 5t
~.a~~
cr'~ C rtS
5:1.= 5 0
0-
~eu'"C
2.a..c~
raE :5 g'(ij
UOU...;
'xoo~c
O+-'....c OJ
o..c:~~~
~~~~~
~
Q)
c
'Vi >-
::J ClJ ....
V'l.o:-;:::, c .~
~ ~~ ~ E
~'u ,~E
~ f5 .~.~ 8
u -2'~ ..0 ct;i
~Q}5~e
aJc"'-e-o
Ci:8 8..'~ s;-
ro~8-~..c
B g ~-5 .~
:; .= :c; 'C c :..~.'
u ClJ ~ 1'0 ~ vi .c:;
~ ~ ~ ~ o.~ W3
2.9 E:;:; ~:~ '"
~ E"""S2 ~ 2 'Z a
<t QJ ;a u .= ~ CJ)
c'o Qj .
:3 ~~.~
ijj ijj ~ 3
~ if) rtl E
"0 5..!:! g
c OJ V'l u
~-5E5
c:>-,O
ClJ..Cl ~ c
5 ~ 'C ':;:
'2 ~ ~ 6
~ ~ ~.~
1... C "" +-'
~ Q) ~ 'Z ~'
Q)<lJ~~V5
.~ ~ m = ~
:JV'l..crc a
.o-e+-':SQ
,-OQ)+-J
b~~a
:>-.
u
;:l
.....
C/)
Q)
..c
E-<
~' "'
'" '"
{i .,g
'- '"
"' "
" '-
d:: 9
.zJ' E
~ ~
-gu
~~
~ t:
"'..,
'" a
iS~
Cl
-~
.c' ;:::
'" "
6 ;:
uS-
"'''
,..:j e
]Cl
ci:; .;,:
.... E
.2 g
" a
::: "
cs>.W
'"
ClJ
.c
.S ~ "0
c~t:~
.E~ro",~i-
~'CE~3
'Z C :::l ~ 0
~ '3: ~ u ~
~-EEe~
~ ~ 0 :.~
~ ~ >..S ll.
I.... I..... +-' E V'l
Q;Q)Q)l....rtS
..c '+- 'C 0 V'l
bb~t~
o~rc~~
C ....c:...c: "' Q.l
.~ ~ ~.~ (tj
Q) "0 V'l I.... !o....
OJ 'C -5 ~ E
~ ~ .~ @, a
~...;
o C ~ C
+-' 0 l.... Q)
...."O.v;oE
c c 'u ~ ~
1'0 '" ClJ ClJ ._
~ ","0 .2:: ~
>QJl....1t;QJ
~ ::J '(ij >"0
+-'~:5gc
Q) > '+- C ctI
~-e~~.~
~ ~ rii ~ ~
QJ :5 CL QJ ~ ~"
~ u ~ .;:::0 "t}
,g 1.')"' ro ~ 0 ~
u E ~ ~ '+- ':u
VI ~ '(0 U OJ'I ..::;
~:J::tn~~
.... E e 0 0
o ,::J E .9
~~~~~
<(:::;ul-ra
ClJ
.c u
~ 'E
ClJ 0
.... C
1'0 0
:5 u
..Cl ClJ
1'0 ClJ
.... .c
"'....
ffi~
8-:-2
o >
U 0 .
~ o..~
::J "0 '"
1?cE
Qj~~
~ ~ Q)
~6~
uCl.Cl.
~ ~.S
5 ~ ~
"t..g ~
~.~ ;:s
CS~""
~cb
"..t:: ~
a
u "';:::
~ 5
kl '"
, '"
80
~2
::: :...
:t:~
" ~
~ '"
"0 "
c5 ~
u
-<
" "
""CCJJ>.
""C'5E
<(00
CJJ ....., 5
"'- c:: U
:::IOLLl
.....,.-
- - >.
:::I == to
U:El:C
djMtO
en . a.
'tNE
<~~
~~
8 g
r;:" 8
,Sl E
~~
r.2 rt
" "
.~ .~
""'"
t >>
"' .
"'"
o .
"" ""
~
f-
ClJ
~~ ~
~ <Ii ~
l-ijj-5
.8 ~ ctl
"0 - Cl.
ClJ e E
~~~
.... ::J C
~ U ......
ro~~u
~~oo
ClJ .3 E
~'> a:; 6
........
~ :5 ~ .s
f'O'+-E..c
~oQ)~
'E ~ -5 ~
~ i::a o.~
u....
~ ~ g,~
a
~ .~
.~ ~
I:>., ,
, :::
a a
tJ .~
u "
a~
....~
E ig
'" "
ocS
'" ~
",cI)
~
....
~ c.
"'5Vl QJC
t; ~ 0 .5 "c
~ ~ Cl. '-E ::JE
u .~ Cl.
u"'::lEE
:::::J :J Vl 0 0
V)..oouu
OJ on +-' ro lr.....
a:; .=: ~ ClJ'" 5
c.>-"'Olr.....C
E ~ ClJ'';:;'_
o ClJ ~
u ClJ c o-.c
o ~ Q} ~ 'C
~~~QJ5
~ ~ ~ "c ~ ~
:.oE5~f ~
~ u ~ E rtl
, 1'0 (lJ 0 ClJ
(1b5 ~5
E-:U"OCC~
~E~-5-5
.~ ~~
C3 a
'" "
a .t:
~ .;!?
~]
:r:~
~
c -g 0>"
.~ ~ ] ~
E- c: ~~
o ~ I1:l Cl... i;2
5 .a ~ QJ '-.!
U "'5 Q) . v
<lJUtl~~~
Q)QJEC.?
'5 E E .~ ;-:; (0
b-g~~~
~~-g~~
Q.+--'re...
_ c V'l ~
~i5E.8
'S: u ~ 'Vi
I1:l -@, g>';;
.~ 5 c. ~
~ (; "'~
.,.... ..Q +oJ U
~ ~ ~ 'C
0:;:: > c
f-I<lJ<lJ
"
~
:::
'!!
~ ~
S'O
:r:: ~.
g; ~
.2 ~
"'9,
::::
~
c
.9
'5
..0
.<::
~
[fJ
(5
Q)
E
o
u
C
>-<
.....
o
<lJ ~
8 ~.g
u E 1tI
.::: Q'l >
~~2
.8 ~ a:;
(l) ~ OJ
'5 .~ L..
'O~g-~
N .... 0
~ 'c: ~ ~
.n ~'<tLl
~5~'E
~(tjE 5
~ S ~ u
'R +-' Q)'" b
e a E III
8:9!~~
<( 'b .:: ~
c
~
'E
M
c:i
"
N
U'>
CfJ
.....
"3
[fJ
Q)
0:::
>-.
u
:l
~
C/)
on
c
'5
c
<lJ
0..
III
....
U
~
o
V'I 00 o~ 2:5
':g~ ~~
~ ~.~ S) ~
> c::J "'" a
15 Ll .:;; ~
c~-J ~o
~ V'l ~ Q.;'"
OJ ~ ~
~ ~ <lJ ~'~
.8..c~vi..8~
-g~~~,:;\5
o V') :s Q) j \S
l....rtlO..cC:r::~
Q.V'lc+J ~
.~ ~ cu "0 ~
oo._Q)C ~
l.... Qj ~ ltI ~
.3:t:"OJZ' ~
~o..c'c .3::
<lJ u <lJ::J ~
a:: .~ :if E
~ 'E~ ~
V"l n:s= u
E
.g ~' ~- ~
OJ gJ .Q 'c
E:2 ':tl ';0
I1:l > "0 E
~:g5~
'" .- .E <lJ
N,gEE
(1)1.....0-0
E'+-~ c:
o ~ ro
~ ~ ~ vi'
:.; vi' vi' c: vi
2Jc:~~~
::J ~ <lJ ~ S
:9 on.::: 0 0
b~~-g~
5<lJLl<lJ<lJ
uEEEE
OJ E 0 0 0
:5~~~E
<5 ~~ ~ ~
c
~
'E
"
N
o
N
U'>
..... -;;;
o Qj
I1:lc~
bro~
+-''''Cb
11:l<lJ.....
"O....,~
'ra ~ ~
0..:::: <lJ III
V'lo..o+-J
cUe c
O"OO~
~ ~ 6 c
'2a;=:~
~ 2 'E g,
ocr:-ro
on',.... ~ u
CCVl-O
.~~-;;;:;;
Q.:-;: c c
'[j E .Q I1:l
',Ci -r-'~ 2
~M:gi9
a..Vl-t'CV'I
-.;
'"
CfJ
~
C
C':l
0...
:9
.....
.....
C':l
p...
>-.
u
:l
~
C/)
i- c -g
'C 0 u rc
~ E 'E c:
VI :J 0 Q)
~~~8~
.~ -g :g ~ ~
'C ro ~ .S: 6;
uZ"l....~"'O
~2gQj~
re~QJc.~
<lJ>C~::J
S:=l1:lcEai
+oJ VI <LI...... E '+-
"'5i...."'O 0=
UQ)'S:Cu,+-
"'O~eQ) ",0
~~0...5~~
>-. V1 .......
;3reQ)~rom
<u~C'~6-
III
III
e
u
I1:l
"0
~ vi
Qj .!!!
.g- ~
"0 <lJ
~ta
<lJ u
:2-;;;
~ c
OJ .S?
........
<lJ I1:l
~ .~
~ ~
~ ~
0..0
:g a:;
.... >
ro~
Q.. <lJ
~~~
-q-O"M~~
N"I"'""~O'O'
"0
<lJ
"0
::J
U
C:E~rs.~~
III ::J .S? ::J ~ ~
.~ QJ ......, e rc '.l:j
o~~on~~
on::;: c ~f- LL..
~ ~~ fj
G o~ a:;
~ .~.~ ~
;;: ::J'-
g- ::;:~
.... :5
::;:
<lJ
.c;
f-
>.,
"'e~ ~
11 :;,
~ ~
:E ~
",tJ
~~
~ <;,
G
>.,'
o
~
~
~-g
._ I1:l
3;:}
E ~
E....
0....,
U I1:l
11:l"O
..... C
o I1:l
.... <lJ
c ::J
~-;;;
o >
0.. III
E .~ ~
o <lJ c
u c <lJ
--'~"'O
~ ~.~
.=::oL..
a ~.5
~~~
I-.c;~
~
.~ e
~~
dQ(J
') i;2'
.....; ,'is
~
~
E
0>
~
'(y
>.,
.2
v
~
Q
.. .;1
5 .~ OJ ~ l
>.o..v;'~ (;;~
.~~~~ ,~;:;.
Sf-Bon -.."
EcU"O -<i~
E~2~ v"
o.8~<lJ ]~
~C:~c. L~-2
I1:l ~ <lJ 0 ,.,.,,,
L.. 0 c: QJ vi ~ ~
.3"'OVlo..QJ~O
""5 '0 ~ '0 ~ -, Q
u ....... 'C Vl ~ t ~
<lJ a:; Ll Qj ';:';; \5 ~
EE"OLl::J ~
.....o..~ELl ~
00 ::J.....
+J"Q):gc:o
:;;>o"O~
0.. OJ "0 <lJ I1:l
E"2ijj:ac
.~ ~ E ~ e
~~~2!iO
~ +-' +-J ''- c..
0'11
~ c tJ~
o I1:l .~ <0 ~
~ ~~.2 ~~
C':l u:: I1:l ..... -%J::;s
Q) <lJ on 0 .~;::
o....c;.:::~ -,s;
C/) .... E <lJ Cl... "'"
[fJ E- 5 E ::;S't3
~ ::J~::J ;::;::
u g,:o..c:>.,s;?c,
C':l ~ :B ~c\!l ;:: ~
~:=....:ti 11:lr:2
rc '5 :: a.
>-,o"OuE
ro L.. c rt:l 1tI
(:Q.gI1:l.t:;f-
c1j~etO.8
o..-~V1V1
8~~Qjo
C':l <lJ u c: .~
E-< ~ 0 ~ .~
~ ~ Vl L E.~ ", '+-
ro r- ~ Qj ......."' QJ t: - \U 0
.~>. [E w-oC: ~ ~~~~ '+- 'B ~
~~5~~~~ g ~~~<lJO ~~c~~~~e c
~~j~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~]
tEP-~c""'" Vl~c: ~ ~~~a.""5e.~c +J'EV')
ro ... ~ :~ ro .- u ~ -5 +-' .9 ~ c; v;. ~ ::e ~ ~ u c.. ~ co 19 .2!l ro
<lJ (D :: ~ Ll "2 ~ ..... E ~ >- 2 0 on ';:';; _.g,c ~ Q) ~ I1:l ~ ~ ~
~~e~~~.g ~~~S+-'~.5 ro~c~o5~~ ~'-EE
Oro::J L..+-, VlVlC "'0 <lJ,,-''-ubc ~o~
QJE+-J~EVl.~ ~~rt:lVlltl~C ~~QJUOVl'_~~ ~>_-c
0. l.... ""5 ~ ... "'D E . ~ I.... U QJ ..c Q)';: .~ u .... <( ~ ro .0 I-
coultlVlco8a.r-'c~+-'ooo..~y,_~V' e8'~~
.g~Qj~~~~~o~~~~~~>~S~.~~2~~ ~~,~~
2~E~~ro~E'~~<e~~~~Z'5'~ ~Ero~~ c~~o
E-o<(::Ju EE ::JEI1:l-@,....~~c-gI1:l~:;;~ .0....Bu
~~ ~~~~roo~~~~.~~~u~m~~~ro~>~2~~on
~ .Vi c >- CD .Qj Vl N Vl ~ 6 a l..- ':;" ~ ..c C .E ~ ~ c ~ ~ E = ,~ m C ~
~~mm~~rom.-~._~ororo~.-oc~~~ 0 ~~"-O
_EIIl~o""~U'>Eu""~E....c -;;;C<lJLlOU~....OLl~-....
~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ .m ,_ Vl 0 C ~ 0 u ~ LJ C QJ III ~ ~ c m 0
o~~~~~~o,~'~G>~~~o~u~~E~c~~~O~~
~>-EEc~::J>-S~~oa:;E'5~~<lJ<lJ~~(D~~u~E~~
c~~~~~~c\!l~~~~~~~~3bE~.g~E~~~~aI
>-.
8
o
c
o
u
~
Q)
...c:
'-'
c.(j
Q)
~
~
"5
u
c
~
'E
M
N
U"l
U'>
<lJ
E
o
u
c
o
o
co
,,-
III
<lJ
-;;;
VI
-;;;
....
o
f-
~
o
f-
V1
Ll
o
....,
Q)
u
C
CIl
U
C
Q)
.....
~
~ ~ ~ ~..:
~ 2 .2 ~ ;;
.~ E .18 ~ :g
.~'x E ~ I1:l
~e-g~E'
~~~"x~
~<~e~
eviQ)~-o
~:~~~~
~cQ}o~
~ g ~ :g: ~
l1:l:;::cE.c;
o..E~"Ou
E"!':tlI1:lE'
~U"l<lJ:B"O
~.. ~ -5 ~ ~
8t:b~~
N 8..~ ...... \-
E~~O~
-;;;
'[j
Q)
0..
VI
<lJ
>
I1:l
.c;
III
....
C III
I1:l I1:l
'G~
~~
11:l.....
0..0
~ ~
.... E
..... 0
o u
* oS:
~~
~Z
~ ~
~ ~ .
._ 08
~n;o_
....::JO
o..co
o..CU"l
<(11:lU'>
q
:l
~
C/)
<lJ
.c;
....
~5~
.... <lJ
vi5.8~
~~QJc:
~ ~ ~ n:s
~~ ,5 ~
c.j..J ......
~11:l5@.
.3 tJ U .Vi
;~~~
g:05~
E .-
E:;;E-g
'3 E 8 11:l_
.j..J ...... >-n; .
~.~ ~ '':; ~
~ E m ~ ~
._ 0 ~.j..J Q)
~6E~u
3 ~ ~ ~ .s
.....
[fJ
C':l
,.....l
Q)
..e
Q)
u
c::
"if)
c.r;
Q)
bI)
c::
C':l
...c:
u
III
III ....
<lJ ....
.... I1:l
.E 6- ~
~="'O~~
~ E ~ ~ .S; ~
XMVl~Q)~
<lJ .,; -g .S? E .8
e V). .1"-\ ~ .~ .~
::lVlQ)Z:=C
~ ~ .S cO .2 .S?
a ~~ 0 c 2
bg2~~~
t 5 ~ ~ "E ~
~~f'o._N"'V).
E _VI 8 ~ ~
__rtl"l""""O"'O
m-aon~~
'0 .C c Q) "to
.j..J ..9 '':: ~ a;
OJLL..HlOc 0
.= 6 a .~ ~.B ~
tl
:5
III
OJ
cr;
>-
"0
::J
....
VI
'l"
o
o
N
"0
C
I1:l
G'
g: '--
<lJ
VI * *
I1:l " N
~
U ~ ~
.:::
'<t M "
o 0 N
o " 0
N N N
U'> U'>
~
~ '" M f'o. 0 N
~g:gg~8~
c "l"""" ~ v;. f'o."' J..
.....
o
c
o
.C
I1:l
0..
E
o
u
on
c
'5
c
<lJ
0.. .
...., VI
U
I1:l
0..
E
....
u
~
o
C':l
~
C':l
Q
-
~
c
.9
.....
C':l
Z
c.(j
:])
.....
C':l
c/l
* ~
'l" '"
~ .,;
~ N
o ~
o ~
co N
,,' ~
<lJ .
E III III
o Ll Q)
U 0 ;;;
c ...., VI
Business Committee /krts
for the UJ
Tampa Bay Business Committee for the Arts
An affiliate of the national Business Committee for the Arts
founded in 1967 by David Rockefeller
Tampa Bay Business Committee for the Arts (BCA) is a not-for-profit
organization that encourages corporate support for the arts. It aims to
educate, motivate, develop and recognize business support of the arts. This is
achieved through business/arts partnerships, volunteerism, in-kind donations and
leadership development.
The most visible event is the annual awards gala, held every fall. This
evening of excitement focuses on those corporations and individuals in
Hillsborough and Pincllas counties who have given in some outstanding way to
arts and cultural institutions. They are recognized for their generosity and
support. Some of our local winners have gone on to win national BCA awards!
Tampa Bay BCA also is actively involved in setting up partnering
relationships between businesses and cultural groups. Such partnerships often
involve a corporation providing in-kind services or supplies to the non-profit or
giving monetary support. An example is the sculpture garden built by King
Engineering at Artists Unlimited several years ago. A partnership may also
include taking a seat on the board of the arts institution.
Another important program is the leadership development seminar,
Get on Board for the Arts. Representatives from the corporate world are
brought together with those from arts organizations for a series of workshops on
how to build an effective board. Issues include the responsibilities of a good
board member, the appropriate relationship between board members and staff
and the legal and fiduciary concerns of non-profit boards.
Of course, one of the outstanding services provided by Tampa Bay BCA
is its periodic publication of economic impact studies. These reports translate
the- very real value of the arts into economic figures, thus speaking the language
of the corporate world and encouraging the business world to see contributions to
the arts as investments rather than gifts.
An additional concern of the BCA is advocacy. Because of the many
issues with government funding of the arts, the development of the cultural arts
district in downtown Tampa and ongoing challenges and opportunities for
cultural institutions, the Tampa Bay BCA recognizes that it bas an important role
in supporting the interests and concerns of arts in the bay area.
In sum, TBBCA addresses many issues of import to the cultural world of
the Tampa Bay area and contributes effectively to the health and welfare of the
arts community.
E(\J6f-b
~~
u~
City Council
=,~_,~genda J;;,,!!~~r Memo~=~,!!,~,!:!,!!L_,.mm'
Tracking Number: 1,411
Actual Date: 07/21/2005
Subject / Recommendation:
Approve issuance of a Purchase Order to VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE in the
amount of $28,207.05 for the installation and maintenance of landscaping in the planters at US
19 and Gulf to Bay Boulevard.
Summary:
In February 2005, the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) removed landscaping from
these planters due to persistent complaints about the poor appearance of these plantings.
In addition, these planters and plantings are scheduled for removal as part of the US 19
widening project, which has been scheduled by FOOT for 2006-2007.
At the request of the Council, Staff negotiated with FOOT to allow the City to reinstall
landscaping in these areas without having to go through the entire Memorandum of Agreement
process. FOOT agreed to this request.
A design was developed, approved by FOOT and three quotes were received to install the
landscape and maintain it for one year.
The Quotes were:
VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE -$25,312.65
FLORIDA ENVIRONMENTALCARE -$28,322.89
SUNSRISE LAWNCARE, INC. - $58,046.93
VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE'S quote includes $18,076.65 for the installation and
$7,236.00 for one years maintenance.
The purchase order will be issued for $28,207.05, which includes a 40% contingency for the
maintenance. The high contingency is predicated on the fact that there is no irrigation available
and supplemental watering or plant replacement may be required.
Plants to be installed include Oleander, Dwarf Facahtchee Grass and Ornamental Sweet Potato.
A third quarter amendment will increase the budget from General Fund Reserves for the Parks &
Recreation operating cost center Landscape/Contracts Team
(0010-01867-530300-572-000-0000) to fund this contract.
Originating: Engineering
Section Consent Agenda
Category: Agreements/Contracts - with cost
Number of Hard Copies attached: N/ A
Public Hearing: No
Financial Information:
~~
u~
City Council
=""'''~". A9~,!:!,!:Ia CoY~,!",~t~",I!'~,!,!,!:!~,~,!!!_"''''''''_'_~'''''m'~'
~ Operating Expenditure
Bid Required? Yes
In Current Year Budget?
Yes
Budget Adjustment:
Yes
Budget Adjustment Comments:
See Summary Section
Current Year Cost:
$28,207.05
Total Cost:
$28,207.05
Appropriation Code(s)
0010-01867-530300-572-000
Amount
$28,207.05
Comments
Review Approval
Glen Bahnick
Michael Quillen
06-24-2005 13 :58:21
06-28-2005 09:49:24
07-05-2005 14:06:05
06-27-2005 11:35:14
06-30-2005 12:03:54
07-05-2005 15:46:24
06-28-2005 09:03:55
07-06-2005 11 :00:45
Tina Wilson
Garry Brumback
Kevin Dunbar
Brvan Ruff
Bill Horne
Cyndie Goudeau
Jonson, William
tIJI - fS I
tvS 7-18 -OS
.rom:
ent:
0:
Cc:
Subject:
Horne, William
Sunday, July 17, 20053:04 PM
Jonson, William
Brink, Carolyn . .
Re: growth management legislation
t th worksession.
VM Jonson, reaction from councilmembers a e
Suggest you get an initial
Bill Horne
Bill Horne
City Manager
0": ~ _. _ ~ r'l..-,,.,.... ........"T~ t- C>.....
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Dudley [mailto:SDudley@flcities.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:03 PM
To: berverly zimmern home; Beverly Zimmern ; Jonson, William; David
Harden; David Santiago; Deborah Martohue; Donald Jacobovitz; Edward
Portner; Ellen Posivach; Elmon Lee Garner; Frances Wittkopf; Gay Gentry;
George Pedlar; Gloria Raso Tate; Jack Douglas, Jr.; Jean Monestime; Joy
Cooper; ken cohen; Kenneth Parker; Lee Feldman; Margaret Bates; Mariette
SaintVil; Matty Mattioli; Mayor Mike Anderson; R. Duke Nelson; Rhonda
Calhoun; Richard Kaplan; Robert Levy; Thomas Wenham; Timothy Holmes;
Tommy McDonald; Vanessa Carusone; William Bill Brooks
Subject: growth management legislation
ar T&UA Members
management legislation adopted by the 2005 Legislature) directs OPPAGA
to conduct a study of the boundaries of WMDs, RPCs and DOT districts to determine if any
changes are needed.
Do any of you have any input or comments on the DOT boundary aspect of their study? Shoud
DOT districts correspond more with MPO boundaries or vice versa? Are there coordination
and communication problems between local gov'ts, DOT districts and MPOs?
I need answers to these questions as quickly as possible and I thank you in advance for
your cooperation.
Please call me if you have questions or need additional information.
Scott
1
C. Scott Dudley
Senior Legislative Advocate
FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES
850-222-9684 (EXT 138)---office
850-570-7296---Cell
.
Wilson, Denise
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jonson, William
Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:41 PM
Horne, William
Brink, Carolyn
FW: growth management legislation
Bill,
This was received directly in my personal mailbox as a member of the FL League's Transportation Policy
Committee.
I wonder if staff has any thoughts relative to the below districts that should be fornrarded to the League? Perhaps I
can ask my fellow council members as well on Monday.
Bill Jonson
~
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Dudley[mailto:SDudley@flcities.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:03 PM
To: berverlyzimmem home; BeverlyZimmem ; Jonson, William; David
Harden; David Santiago; Deborah Martohue; Donald Jacobovitz; Edward
Portner; Ellen Posivach; Elmon Lee Gamer; Frances Wittkopf; Gay Gentry;
George Pedlar; Gloria Raso Tate; Jack Douglas, Jr.; Jean Monestime; Joy
Cooper; ken cohen; Kenneth Parker; Lee Feldman; Margaret Bates; Mariette
Saint Vil; Matty Mattioli; Mayor Mike Anderson; R Duke Nelson; Rhonda
Calhoun; Richard Kaplan; Robert Levy; Thomas Wenham; Timothy Holmes;
Tommy McDonald; Vanessa Carusone; William Bill Brooks
Subject: growth management legislation
Dear T&UA Members
SB 360 (the growth management legislation adopted by the 2005 Legislature) directs OPPAGA to conduct a study
of the boundaries of WMDs, RPCs and DOT districts to determine if any changes are needed.
Do any of you have any input or comments on the DOT boundary aspect of their study? Shoud DOT districts
correspond more with MPO boundaries or vice versa? Are there coordination and communication problems
between local gov'ts, DOT districts and MPOs?
I need answers to these questions as quickly as possible and I thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Please call me if you have questions or need additional information.
Scott
c. Scott Dudley
Senior Legislative Advocate
FLORIDA LEAGUE OF OTIES
850-222-9684 (EXT 138)---office
850- 570-7296--- Cell
1
CDr' J
v\lS'. 7-I8-oS
CDB Council Discussion of Land Development Code Issues
Key Issues Summary
May 31, 2005
1. Merging discussions with the PPC work (p.I Gildersleeve)
2. Infill
a. Especially related to change of use (p.2 Hibbard)
b. Infill to Council? (p.3 Peterson also Jonson on pA))
c. Pinellas Redevelopment Summit best use for land use changes (pA
Fritsch).
d. Proactive zoning survey of existing land uses.(pA Doran)
e. Infill is just as easy as Flexible Development, so everyone goes to infill
(pA Jonson) Should be opportunity of "last resort" - that is what the code
reads not just get more stuff (p.31 Jonson)
f. Do away with infill (p.6 Johnson)
g. I agree that we need to tighten up infill (p.22 Hibbard)
3. Harmony with Adjoining Properties
a. Simulation photograph or drawing needed (p.7 Coates) Asked if there was
consensus on this change - no objections raised (p.30 Jonson)
b. Need to compare to forward environment, not necessarily what is there
now. (p.7 Doran)
c. Applications do not specifically respond to question on impact to
adjoining properties, yet staff and CDB accept them. Are bypassing the
key code requirement for substantial competent evidence (p.I6& 17
Jonson)
d. Quantifying benefits to neighbors is a "good little task" (p.I7 Hibbard)
e. It is a difficult task particularly if area is in transition (p.I7 Coates)
4. Form of Development
a. Scale of Projects (p.7 Fritsch)
b. Side setbacks (p.7 Gildersleeve)
c. Design of structures not just rectangular design (p.8 Gildersleeve).
d. How can the CDB stop bad design (p.8 Peterson)
e. Desire was to have better design (p.8 Hibbard)
f. Number of units and still have better design (p.9 Gildersleeve)
g. The biggest size box is always built, do we want to reduce the size that can
be built. (p.I 0 Hibbard)
h. Taller and skinner or fat and short (p.I 0 Hibbard)
1. Size of box and number of units must be independent (p.ll Jonson)
J. Community was promised better design with more flexibility -
expectations vs. delivery (p.Il Jonson)
k. View corridors, landscaping and structural design - not sure have held true
in decisions. (p.II Gildersleeve)
1. Need Urban Designer on Staff(p.l I Gildersleeve)
m. Biggest flaw is we have no open space requirement. Used to have a strict
open space requirement (p.15 Pliska)
CDB Council Transcript summary 050714 1
Printed 7/18/20058:10 AM
n. If a developer is to maximize development on property sideline to sideline
should say no (p.17 Gildersleeve). I think we have already agreed that that
is our overall policy (p.17 Hibbard)
5. Adjust parking from 1.5 to 2 per unit
a. People buying 2500 sq. ft. condos are going to have 2 cars (p.lO
Hamilton)
b. Big developers are going to provide 2 (p.15 Pliska)
c. Need to address how you get to parking space too with out a 3 or 4 point
turn (p.23 Pliska)
d. How do you get deliveries in tight urban settings, code doesn't address
(p.38 & 39 Coates)
6. Accessibility
a. Concern for access by fire trucks (pol3 Fritsch)
b. Fire access is covered in DRC (p.23 Coates)
7. Setback Definitions
a. To parking or to building are confusing to citizens (p.30 Jonson)
8. Business Friendly Environment
a. Unfriendly history, expectation of change with new code to successful
redevelopment (p.12 Home)
b. Need to balance needs to not let redevelopment projects get away from us.
(p.12 Home)
c. Developers constantly complaining about Planning Directors and codes
(p.13 Home)
d. Developers neeu to provide "a bit" more information to be helpful to staff
and Board (p.13 Dennehy)
9. CDB Attendance
a. Attendance affects decisions (p.12 Home)
b. Need to know code requirement on absences (p.22 Gildersleeve)
10. New Code vs. old code
a. The new process takes longer than the old code (p.14 Pliska)
b. Too much flexibility in the new code, too much gray area, too much staff
control (p.15 Pliska)
II. Small Projects Need Different Approach
a. Too much effort for small projects (p.14 Pliska) Is full engineering
required (p.24 Pliska)
b. Today fairly onerous requirement (p.23 Coates)
c. Code was set up that way to speed development cycle (p.23 Clayton)
d. Let applicant decide fast or slow route (p.23 Hamilton)
12. Staff Support
a. Staff is being asked to make marketing appraisal evaluations without
background (p. 13 Dennehy)
b. You can write papers on adverse economic impact on abutting property _
very difficult for staff to address (p.15 Gildersleeve)
c. Too much subjectivity in the past. (p.13 Johnson)
d. Staff is on target, but need to simplify process to reduce iterations (p.13
Gildersleeve)
CDB Council Transcript summary 050714 2
Printed 7/18/20058:10 AM
e. Staff support is available on weekends (p.14 Dennehy) {Shouldn't be
contacting staff on weekends}
f. DRC is negative negative negative (p.14 Plisko)
g. Big concern is consistency of interpretation as a result of staff changes,
and it takes too long to get interpretation (p.15 Plisko)
13. Standards as a bright line
a. When staff says no, developer calls Councilmember, Councilmember calls
City Manager - every time (p.13 Home)
b. Evaluation of staff complainers identified several professionals that
consistently struggle with competent product - are working with them to
clarify requirements (p.19 Home)
c. Siemons reported the intent was to reward the outcomes you desire, some
of our developers never turn in a finished product (p.28 Jonson)
d. Developer handholding is a combination of holding their feet to the fire to
do the right thing, but this means they can't move as quickly as want.
(p.20 Home)
e. Some development teams couldn't get their stuff done if we were to take a
more hard line stand and quite frankly I don't have a problem with doing
that (p.20 Home)
f. We could identify a harder point, but would the development community
live with those hard points - are they willing to accept some of those
absolutes? (polO Home)
g. What is your tenor? Do we make people really toe the line? Do you want
us to have a forgiving spirit? Those are the kinds of things that our staff
needs to internalize so that we don't shut people out, when you really want
us to give them some room to maneuver, or give them some rope however
you want to define it. (p.20 Home)
h. When give room to maneuver, City should get something back in return
(polO Coates)
14. Staff denial recommendation to CDB - conditions
a. Denial recommendation shouldn't come forward with conditions for
approval (p.18 Gildersleeve)
b. Don't think the board should negotiate conditions (p.19 Plisko)
c. Denial from staff is exactly that. You can't come with mixed message
(p.19 Hamilton)
15. Process for recommending changes
a. Would like workshop (p.23 Dennehy)
b. Twice a year (pol3 Dennehy)
c. Every three months or so (p.23 Coates)
16. Quasi-Judicial process from viewpoint of neighbors
a. Perception of fairness at DRC: developer seems to have higher standing
(pol8 Jonson)
b. Reluctant to change DRC to a public hearing (p.29 Doran) Agree (p.30
Peterson)
COB Council Transcript summary 050714 3
Printed 7/1 8/2005 8: lOAM
c. Citizens don't understand quasi-judicial what counts and what doesn't and
how they can be effective - don't understand Party Status. Should have
Neighborhood Services provide guidance (p.28 Jonson)
d. Very important what neighbors think as they are the surrounding
ambiance. Difficult for average Joe - need user guide (p.28 Coates)
e. Should attach to Notice an explanation of Party Status (p.28 Gildersleeve)
f. Neighborhood Coalition will offer workshops and mentors (p.28 Doran)
17. Staff and COB not following code's policy direction - rooftop stuff
a. 12 Idlewild added an additional story of living space above the official
height limit. The code allows only mechanical equipment to be not
counted in height (P.31 Jonson)
b. I understood the code allowed a lot more than elevator shafts (p.32
Dennehy).
c. Building can be strongly advantaged of making use of access to roof, but
not if a cheap way of getting another story on building (p.32 Coates)
d. I agree rooftop uses are great, but must be counted as height (p.33
Peterson)
e. Policy guidelines are not clearly written and the policy didn't foresee
usage as an amenity (p.33 Coates)
f. Should limit what can do (p.33 Hamilton)
g. Building code, if add appurtenances then are adding structure and should
be in height. Need to deal with means of egress (p.33 Delk)
h. Use should be secondary to appearance that looks like added another floor
(p.34 Gildersleeve)
1. COB's job is to follow code, if something doesn't make sense raise a
policy issue to Council. That is what citizens expect. (p.34 Jonson)
18. Performance based code
a. We keep saying the code is performance based, but the code does not have
criteria that better design is required for more flexibility (P.35 Jonson)
b. New staff architect will address qualitative aspects (p.35 Dennehy)
c. Must be fair and consistent, maybe not always been that way in the past.
(p.35 Delk)
d. We have a great code that is very flexible that allows the development
community, that allows people on the other side of the table a lot of
latitude and a lot of opportunity, same with staff, but maybe in some of
these key areas we are not pleased as a community with how it performs
and so we can go back and take a look at some of these things and try to
make sure that it performs better in some of these key areas. I can tell you
that the department is starting to look at and talk about and consider some
of these things. (p.36 Delk)
e. Now having a staff architect will help us have some level of conversation.
But I just wanted everybody to know that that is not something that has
been received well from some of our customers to have us exercise of the
comments about Brightwater as an example and how you feel about it.
We are certainly willing to do and it is clear what you expect us to do. I
would just ask that when we do that and they come complaining to you
COB Council Transcript summary 050714 4
Printed 7/18/20058:10 AM
that would reinforce our view of following your policy guidance. (p.36
Home)
f. Difficult to control architecture with out a set of guidelines (p.36 Clayton)
g. In 81. Pete and Lakeland they sing the virtues of design guidelines a..$
critical to the success oftheir community (p.36 Jonson)
19. Beach by Design
a. I want a meeting on Beach by Design because that is where most of our
problems have occurred in the past several months (p.38 Johnson)
b. Will set up another workshop in the future (p.39 Hibbard)
20. ACTION PLAN -
a. The CDB heard our opinions on the philosophy of the direction that we
think you aught to make decisions in. (p.37 Hibbard)
b. Infill is definitely an issue, policy on roof top uses, use of alternative
approaches on full engineering plans (p.37 & 38 Hibbard)
c. Follow up on parking policy (p.38 Dennehy)
d. Need a summary of the discussion so group can assign priority for staff to
start on the most critical issues (p.38 Gildersleeve)
e. Infill is a top priority (p.38 Hibbard)
CDB Council Transcript summary 050714 5
Printed 7/18/2005 8: lOAM
f'" J '>--- 'I
j \::> .."."
L_ _-_.......-'
Clearwater City Commission
Agenda Cover Memorandum
.\;\.-d.ft'~-"1):tl~") itr~
.
Meeting Date:
(;/
1\ \9.9-g
Final Agenda Item II
SU BjECT /RECOMMENDATlON:
Approve the Development Code and pass Ordinance No. 6348-98 on first reading.
@ and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
SUMMARY:
The City's consultant, Siemon, Larsen & Marsh has completed the official draft of the City's new Development
Code, to replace the existing Land Development Code. The new code has been reviewed by many citizen
groups, neighborhood and professional organizations, including local engineering, architectural,
contractor/builder and realtor associations. Comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the
proposed official draft.
The new code has been developed to provide land development regulations that address the needs of the
community into the next century and are intended to provide direction for redevelopment and ne~
development. The new code also is intended to streamline the development process and provide
predictability and flexibility in a manner that creates adequate safeguards for surrounding properties and
neighborhoods.
The new code is being reviewed and public hearings were conducted by the City's Planning and Zoning
~oard on November 3, 1998 and November 17, 1998 and the Development Code Adjustment Board on
.ovember 12, 1998. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the City Commission for the meeting on
November 19, 1998.
The proposed official draft of the new code is available for review in the City Clerk's Department.
N/A
~~
-'1' r I")fZ5O S-
~~
IV- tt
>>::tt--- e...DT- L
Budget
I Purchasing
I Risk Mgml
Reviewed. by:
legal M-
N/A
N/A
Info Srvc
Originating Dept:
Planning and e 'elopment
Services
User Dept. I
Plan~ing a~ DeveJo.R~!}t.A
_ ~ervlces ~
N/A Attachments l
---1 Ord. No. 6348-98
o None
N/A
Public Works
DCM/ACM
NJA
Other
Other
. Printed on recycled paper
Rev. 2/98
c:.rn:- d
vJS" 7-18-05
LDR CDB Council Discussion followup 7/181/05
1. Joint meeting on 5/31 was very productive with many issues identified.
a. This followed a workshop for the CDB in February that was most
interesting with a report from Largo and St. Petersburg.
b. The February workshop followed ajoint meeting in December where be
brought Charlie Siemon in. Yet out of none of these meetings did we take
specific action or take a vote to resolve a points of difference.
c. Lance Dehaven Smith when he lead a workshop for us 4 years ago
suggested that in a collegial body, voting was the way to resolve
differences and move on.
2. I thought the minutes generated by the Clerks Office were too brief to be the basis
for policy decisions. Nor did they indicate policy direction - which we couldn't
do at a workshop.
3. I obtained the audiotapes and transcribed the meeting. Although I have since
found several typos, I did want to share the full context of the meeting.
4. I then went back through the transcript to group issues together. Again that was
distributed to you. [COPIES ARE AVAILABLE FOR YOU TODAY]
5. The question for the group is where do we go from here?
a. After the meeting there were four items proposed for follow-up in the
email from Bill Home of 6/1.
1. A more restrictive use of Infill as a form of development
11. Clarification of Roof Top approved appurtenances.
lll. Requirement for full engineering drawings.
IV. Schedule Beach By Design Workshop requested by CDB member
J.B. Johnson.
b. Based on my notes from the meeting I added several other points in an
email of June 6.:
1. Desire for more Open Space and Improved Urban Design
11. Desire to tighten the parking requirements for accessibility and to
more align with the changing nature of larger condo units (perhaps
2 parking spaces per unit)
Ill. Regular Council/CDB meetings (QtrIy.) to discuss
recommendations to improve the code.
IV. Requiring additional information from the applicant to facilitate
impact analysis on adjoining properties.
v. Involve the Coalition of Homeowners in neighborhood education
and improve access to info about quasi-judicial process
VI. Take information coming out of Old Florida process and fold into
process.
c. Question 1: What is in process?
i. Know are working with the Coalition on neighborhood education.
ii. When will we see other items coming to us?
d. Question 2: How do we drive to the ground the other issues f1ying about?
i. Go over them today?
ii. Do Thursday at a meeting where decisions can be made?
LDR CDB Council di:,cus~;ion !(lJlowup 0.5071 ()
Printed 7/ 18/2005 8:08 l\~/I
111. Hold a special meeting on this subject where votes can be taken?
6. Comments and Observations on specific issues:
a. Infill
1. In the Mayor's summary at the meeting, he said that infill was our
highest priority
11. But do we agree on what changes we want to make to infill?
1. J.B. Johnson wanted to do away with it entirely
2. Mayor said wanted to tighten up.
3. I want to make it come to the Council so that it is a "fail
safe device" for special circumstances. I remind you that
this is what Mr. Siemon reported was the intent back in
December - a "fail safe device".
4. [HOW DO WE RESOLVE THIS?]
b. Harmony of adjoining properties
i. I believe the code is clear that the impact on adjoining properties is
supposed to be a big part of the consideration of approving
flexibility.
ll. I believe the intent of the code is clear - A review of the agenda
item when the redevelopment code was passed includes the
statement: "in a manner that creates adequate safeguards for
surrounding properties"
111. Yet since the CDB is not addressing these issues, I am proposing
that we add additional clarity to the code requirements with the
following additions:
1. Applications for level 2 flexibility to dimensional aspects
of height or setback shall be considered incomplete, if the
application does not present documented comparisons to
adjoining properties. Adjoining properties are defined as
properties sharing a common property line with the
proposed development.
2. When evaluating the criteria contained in Sec. 3-913 A.I
the following shall be considered:
a. Likelihood of redevelopment of the adjoining
property.
b. Conformity of the adjoining property
c. Zoning of the adjoining property.
IV. We don't need another Skiff Point to divide the community. I
consider this a high priority and therefore want to ask for your vote
on these proposed changes on Thursday.
c. Form of Development
LDR ('DB Council discussion f()[lowup 050718 ')
PrinV:d 7/18/2005 8:08 j\ tv!
1. I sense that there was general agreement that we didn't like what
we were getting.
II. That we needed Urban Design Assistance.
lll. But I don't have specific wording on a change. How do we
proceed?
d. Parking
i. Again sense general agreement that a change is needed - where are
we?
e. Accessibility
i. Didn't seem to rise to an issue of needed change
f. Setback
i. Confusing to citizens - is there interest on the council to change
this?
g. Business Friendly environment
i. This is tied to Standards as a bright line below.
h. CDB Attendance
i. This is in process
1. New Code vs. Old Code
i. This is not so much a choice between codes, but rather what do we
do now?
J. Small Projects Need Different Approach
i. This is the issue of full engineering drawings that is under
advisement by staff.
ii. Status?
k. Standards as a bright line:
i. This is really a questions of "room to maneuver"
11. The staff apparently has an opportunity to be more consistent with
in terpretati 0 ns
111. Some developers have an opportunity to be more complete and
conforming - City is doing training with them
IV. But when we get back to QUOTE room to maneuver UNQUOTE,
how do you avoid creeping limits. Each new developer gets what
the last guy got and then asks for a little more.
v. The suggestion was made that the development community may
not be willing to accept hard limits. In my opinion, the code is all
about LIMITS.
VI. This reminds me about Software Engineering Institute standards
that were being implemented at Honeywell. It consisted of small
modules that could be assembled with great flexibility, but were
fully standardized in themselves.
V11. I sat in the back of the room at the June CDB meeting. Two
developers talked to me. Neither were happy with the uncertainly
of the meeting. Would you want to make a significant investment
that might or might not get approved?
VlIl. This ties into the later discussion of performance based code.
IX. I want to ask you Thursday about establishing bright lines.
LDR CDS Councii C1iScllssion f()llowup 0507 j 8
-,
.,
Printed 'Ill 8/2005 8:08 AM
1. Staff denial recommendation to CDB - conditions
i. I heard consensus that it was inappropriate to propose conditions
for approval on a project that is being recommended for denial.
m. Process for recommending changes
i. I heard general agreement for regular meetings - but was it 6
months or 3 months?
n. Quasi-judicial
i. I heard general agreement that would work with the Coalition and
Neighborhood Services
ii. Did we agree to provide more information with notices?
o. Rooftop stuff - following the code
i. This relates to the bright line
ii. I heard general agreement that we should limit amenities on a roof
that would not be counted in height.
111. Is Staff going to make a proposal for us to consider?
IV. I suggest any electrical, pluming, or permanent structural amenities
on a roof related to rooftop occupant use would be counted in the
height of the building.
v. If there is a better suggestion, lets bring it forward, but I don't want
to delay this issue. Decide Thursday.
vi. Is there agreement?
p. Performance Based Code:
1. We say the code is performance based with various levels of
flexibility, yet everyone goes to the max. The purpose of the code
(agenda item 11/19/98: "Intended to streamline the development
process and provide PREDICTABILITY and flexibility in a
manner that creates adequate safeguards for surrpunding properties
and neighborhoods." This is a huge issue.
11. Key element of the code was that with more flexibility would
benefit the community more.
111. Weare not meeting the commitment that was made to the
community when the code was adopted?
iv. What are we going to do about that?
q. Beach by Design
i. There was a suggestion that we needed to address Beach by Design
as this was where most ofthe problems are.
11. My personal inclination is that the issues are more related to the
code rather than Beach By Design except of course Old Florida
District.
111. What is your reading?
r. ACTION PLAN:
1. We have been talking about some of these issues for a year. Yet
for some reason, we never reach resolution. Lance Dehaven Smith
when he lead a workshop for us 4 years ago suggested that in a
collegial body, voting was the way to resolve differences and move
on.
LDR CDB Council discussion t()llowup 050718 4
Printed 7/ I X/200S 8:08 AM
11. These are POLICY issues. Our JOB is POLICY. My suggestion
is to identifY those immediate issues and schedule for first reading
on August 4.
111. Others should be prioritized.
s. View Corridor from low density residential
i. This came up at Skiff Point
ii. It is a point of confusion
1. Current wording in MHDR 2-403 B.2.b "The increased
height will not reduce the vertical component of the view
from a parcel of land which is designated as low density
residential in the Zoning Atlas."
2. There is very little "LRD" in the zoning atlas. Del Oro,
North ofCaroluel Yacht Club, a few in the Countryside
area, and near Camp Soule.
111. This wording isn't used in the LMDR, just in MDR, MHDR, and
HDR.
IV. Either we should change wording to say "lower" density
residential, should specifY LDR zoning even better say LDR or
LMDR.
v. Another aspect should probably restrict it to adiacent LDR or
LMDR.
LDR COB Council discussion f<Ji lowup 050718 5
Printed 7/18/2005 8:08 AM
Phillips, Sue
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
C1r:-~
ws 7-18-GS
Brink, Carolyn
Friday, July 15, 2005 8:46 AM
GtyCouncil; Goudeau, Cyndie; Reporter; Phillips, Sue; Harriger, Sandy
FW: mB Council Discussion of Land Development Code Issues
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonson, William
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 6:16 AM
To: Brink, Carolyn
Cc: Horne, William; Akin, Pam; 'Courtney Orr'; Doug Williams (E-mail)
Subject: CDB Council Discussion of Land Development Code Issues
Fellow Council Members,
This week I distributed a copy of the transcript of our 5/31 meeting with the COB. Since that time I have found several
typos in that document, for which I wish to apologize.
More importantly, I have spent additional time trying to identify and organize the issues that were identified in that meeting,
I am enclosing a summary document of those issues. In this document I have referenced the page and the source for the
comments in the full transcript. Please note I have tried to extract the ESSENCE of what people said relating to these
issues - not necessarily direct quotes. I hope this information is helpful as you consider our next steps.
Bill Jonson
~
CDB Council
'ranscript summary,
/'
1
CDB Council Discussion of Land Development Code Issues
Key Issues Summary
May 31, 2005
1. Merging discussions with the PPC work (p.l Gildersleeve)
2. Infill
a. Especially related to change of use (p.2 Hibbard)
b. Infill to Council? (p.3 Peterson also Jonson on p.4))
c. Pinellas Redevelopment Summit best use for land use changes (p.4
Fritsch).
d. Proactive zoning survey of existing land uses.(p.4 Doran)
e. Infill is just as easy as Flexible Development, so everyone goes to infill
(p.4 Jonson) Should be opportunity of "last resort" - that is what the code
reads not just get more stuff (p.31 Jonson)
f. Do away with infill (p.6 Johnson)
g. I agree that we need to tighten up infill (p.22 Hibbard)
3. Harmony with Adjoining Properties
a. Simulation photograph or drawing needed (p.7 Coates) Asked if there was
consensus on this change - no objections raised (p.30 Jonson)
b. Need to compare to forward environment, not necessarily what is there
now. (p.7 Doran)
c. Applications do not specifically respond to question on impact to
adjoining properties, yet staff and CDB accept them. Are bypassing the
key code requirement for substantial competent evidence (p.16& 17
Jonson)
d. Quantifying benefits to neighbors is a "good little task" (p.17 Hibbard)
e. It is a difficult task particularly if area is in transition (p.17 Coates)
4. Form of Development
a. Scale of Projects (p.7 Fritsch)
b. Side setbacks (p.7 Gildersleeve)
c. Design of structures not just rectangular design (p. 8 Gildersleeve).
d. How can the CDB stop bad design (p.8 Peterson)
e. Desire was to have better design (p.8 Hibbard)
f. Number of units and still have better design (p.9 Gildersleeve)
g. The biggest size box is always built, do we want to reduce the size that can
be built. (p.IO Hibbard)
h. Taller and skinner or fat and short (p.10 Hibbard)
1. Size of box and number of units must be independent (p.ll Jonson)
J. Community was promised better design with more flexibility -
expectations vs. delivery (p.ll Jonson)
k. View corridors, landscaping and structural design - not sure have held true
in decisions. (p.ll Gildersleeve)
1. Need Urban Designer on Staff (p.ll Gildersleeve)
m. Biggest flaw is we have no open space requirement. Used to have a strict
open space requirement (p.15 Plisko)
CDB Council Transcript summary 050714 1
Printed 7/1512005 9:33 AM
n. If a developer is to maximize development on property sideline to sideline
should say no (p.17 Gildersleeve). I think we have already agreed that that
is our overall policy (p.l 7 Hibbard)
5. Adjust parking from 1.5 to 2 per unit
a. People buying 2500 sq. ft. condos are going to have 2 cars (p.lO
Hamilton)
b. Big developers are going to provide 2 (p.15 Plisko)
c. Need to address how you get to parking space too with out a 3 or 4 point
turn (pol3 Plisko)
d. How do you get deliveries in tight urban settings, code doesn't address
(p.38 & 39 Coates)
6. Accessibility
a. Concern for access by fire trucks (pol3 Fritsch)
b. Fire access is covered in DRC (pol3 Coates)
7. Setback Definitions
a. To parking or to building are confusing to citizens (p.30 Jonson)
8. Business Friendly Environment
a. Unfriendly history, expectation of change with new code to successful
redevelopment (p.12 Home)
b. Need to balance needs to not let redevelopment projects get away from us.
(p.12 Home)
c. Developers constantly complaining about Planning Directors and codes
(p.13 Home)
d. Developers need to provide "a bit" more information to be helpful to staff
and Board (p.13 Dennehy)
9. CDB Attendance
a. Attendance affects decisions (p.12 Home)
b. Need to know code requirement on absences (pol2 Gildersleeve)
10. New Code vs. old code
a. The new process takes longer than the old code (p.14 Plisko)
b. Too much flexibility in the new code, too much gray area, too much staff
control (p.15 Plisko)
11. Small Projects Need Different Approach
a. Too much effort for small projects (p.14 Plisko) Is full engineering
required (p.24 Plisko)
b. Today fairly onerous requirement (pol3 Coates)
c. Code was set up that way to speed development cycle (pol3 Clayton)
d. Let applicant decide fast or slow route (p.23 Hamilton)
12. Staff Support
a. Staff is being asked to make marketing appraisal evaluations without
background (p. 13 Dennehy)
b. You can write papers on adverse economic impact on abutting property-
very difficult for staff to address (p.15 Gildersleeve)
c. Too much subjectivity in the past. (p.13 Johnson)
d. Staff is on target, but need to simplify process to reduce iterations (p.13
Gildersleeve)
CDB Council Transcript summary 050714 2
Printed 7/15120059:33 AM
e. Staff support is available on weekends (p.14 Dennehy) {Shouldn't be
contacting staff on weekends}
f. DRC is negative negative negative (p.14 Plisko)
g. Big concern is consistency of interpretation as a result of staff changes,
and it takes too long to get interpretation (p.15 Plisko)
13. Standards as a bright line
a. When staff says no, developer calls Councilmember, Councilmember calls
City Manager - every time (p.13 Home)
b. Evaluation of staff complainers identified several professionals that
consistently struggle with competent product - are working with them to
clarify requirements (p.19 Home)
c. Siemons reported the intent was to reward the outcomes you desire, some
of our developers never turn in a finished product (p.28 Jonson)
d. Developer handholding is a combination of holding their feet to the fire to
do the right thing, but this means they can't move as quickly as want.
(p.20 Home)
e. Some development teams couldn't get their stuff done if we were to take a
more hard line stand and quite frankly I don't have a problem with doing
that (p.20 Home)
f. We could identify a harder point, but would the development community
live with those hard points - are they willing to accept some of those
absolutes? (p.20 Home)
g. What is your tenor? Do we make people really toe the line? Do you want
us to have a forgiving spirit? Those are the kinds of things that our staff
needs to internalize so that we don't shut people out, when you really want
us to give them some room to maneuver, or give them some rope however
you want to define it. (p.20 Home)
h. When give room to maneuver, City should get something back in return
(p.20 Coates)
14. Staff denial recommendation to CDB - conditions
a. Denial recommendation shouldn't come forward with conditions for
approval (p.18 Gildersleeve)
b. Don't think the board should negotiate conditions (p.19 Plisko)
c. Denial from staff is exactly that. You can't come with mixed message
(p.19 Hamilton)
15. Process for recommending changes
a. Would like workshop (p.23 Dennehy)
b. Twice a year (p.23 Dennehy)
c. Every three months or so (p.23 Coates)
16. Quasi-Judicial process from viewpoint of neighbors
a. Perception of fairness at DRC: developer seems to have higher standing
(p.28 Jonson)
b. Reluctant to change DRC to a public hearing (p.29 Doran) Agree (p.30
Peterson)
CDB Council Transcript summary 050714 3
Printed 7/15120059:33 AM
--------r------
c. Citizens don't understand quasi-judicial what counts and what doesn't and
how they can be effective - don't understand Party Status. Should have
Neighborhood Services provide guidance (pol8 Jonson)
d. Very important what neighbors think as they are the surrounding
ambiance. Difficult for average Joe - need user guide (pol8 Coates)
e. Should attach to Notice an explanation of Party Status (pol8 Gildersleeve)
f. Neighborhood Coalition will offer workshops and mentors (p.28 Doran)
17. Staff and CDB not following code's policy direction - rooftop stuff
a. 12 Idlewild added an additional story ofliving space above the official
height limit. The code allows only mechanical equipment to be not
counted in height (p.31 Jonson)
b. I understood the code allowed a lot more than elevator shafts (p.32
Dennehy).
c. Building can be strongly advantaged of making use of access to roof, but
not if a cheap way of getting another story on building (p.32 Coates)
d. I agree rooftop uses are great, but must be counted as height (p.33
Peterson)
e. Policy guidelines are not clearly written and the policy didn't foresee
usage as an amenity (p.33 Coates)
f. Should limit what can do (p.33 Hamilton)
g. Building code, if add appurtenances then are adding structure and should
be in height. Need to deal with means of egress (p.33 Delk)
h. Use should be secondary to appearance that looks like added another floor
(p.34 Gildersleeve)
1. CDB's job is to follow code, if something doesn't make sense raise a
policy issue to Council. That is what citizens expect. (p.34 Jonson)
18. Performance based code
a. We keep saying the code is performance based, but the code does not have
criteria that better design is required for more flexibility (p.35 Jonson)
b. New staff architect will address qualitative aspects (p.35 Dennehy)
c. Must be fair and consistent, maybe not always been that way in the past.
(p.35 Delk)
d. We have a great code that is very flexible that allows the development
community, that allows people on the other side of the table a lot of
latitude and a lot of opportunity, same with staff, but maybe in some of
these key areas we are not pleased as a community with how it performs
and so we can go back and take a look at some of these things and try to
make sure that it performs better in some of these key areas. I can tell you
that the department is starting to look at and talk about and consider some
of these things. (p.36 Delk)
e. Now having a staff architect will help us have some level of conversation.
But I just wanted everybody to know that that is not something that has
been received well from some of our customers to have us exercise of the
comments about Brightwater as an example and how you feel about it.
We are certainly willing to do and it is clear what you expect us to do. I
would just ask that when we do that and they come complaining to you
CDB Council Transcript summary 050714 4
Printed 7/15/2005 9:33 AM
that would reinforce our view of following your policy guidance. (p.36
Home)
f. Difficult to control architecture with out a set of guidelines (p.36 Clayton)
g. In St. Pete and Lakeland they sing the virtues of design guidelines a
critical to the success oftheir community (p.36 Jonson)
19. Beach by Design
a. I want a meeting on Beach by Design because that is where most of our
problems have occurred in the past several months (p.38 Johnson)
b. Will set up another workshop in the future (p.39 Hibbard)
20. ACTION PLAN -
a. The CDB heard our opinions on the philosophy of the direction that we
think you aught to make decisions in. (p.37 Hibbard)
b. Infill is definitely an issue, policy on rooftop uses, use of alternative
approaches on full engineering plans (p.37 & 38 Hibbard)
c. Follow up on parking policy (p.38 Dennehy)
d. Need a summary ofthe discussion so group can assign priority for staffto
start on the most critical issues (p.38 Gildersleeve)
e. Infill is a top priority (p.3 8 Hibbard)
CDB Council Transcript summary 050714 5
Printed 7/15/2005 9:33 AM
CDB Council Discussion of Land Development Code Issues
May 31, 2005
[000] 1
Mayor: Why don't we start by introducing ourselves for the record? Why don't you start
Vice Mayor?
Vice Mayor Jonson: Bill Jonson
Gildersleeve: Dave Gildersleeve, CDB Board
Dennehy: Dan Dennehy, Alternate
J. B. Johnson: J.B. Johnson, CDB
Coates: Thomas Coates, CDB
Fritsch: Nick Fritsch, CDB
Mayor Hibbard: Frank Hibbard, City Council
Doran: John Doran, City Council
Petersen: Carlen Petersen, City Council
Hamilton: Hoyt Hamilton, City Council
Tallman: Dana Tallman, CDB
Mayor Hibbard: We have two members missing from the CDB. Mr. Plisko and Ms.
Milam.
Dennehy: OK who called this meeting?
Mayor Hibbard: We did. It is more or less to discuss different issues that we have with
the code, problems that you see, changes that we think need to be made and to discuss
those issues and why we think they need to occur. I will ask that we bring up some of the
issues that we have from our prospective and then get your feedback on any area that you
feel uncomfortable with as far as decisions that you maybe think that the City Council
aught to have. I think that one of the things that we need to keep in mind in this
conversation is the fact that the CDB brought to it professionals that have a background
that the City Council may not have and also limit the political influence that was going to
be on the City Council. I think that is one of the contexts that we need to keep all this
wi thin.
Gildersleeve: One of the things that is going on simultaneously is that the PPC is going
to do a review and evaluation as well. How does the timing of what they are doing and
what we are doing? How do those dovetail? I think it is August.
??: I think they will be finishing their work late August or September.
Gildersleeve: So would the goal be to take the results of this discussion and that
discussion and bring them together and move forward with the changes as opposed to
doing something right now.
I Transcription machine counter number
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
I
Printed
Mayor Hibbard: Well I remember back, and I think Carlen and John, back when I was on
the CDB not for as long as either ofthem, but periodically the CDB came forward with
changes that they saw to the code. The code obviously when a change became much
more flexible because we realized that we were in a redevelopment mode vs. a greenfield
mode. And that required a much more flexible code to give incentives and the ability for
some of these projects to be economically feasible. At the same time it is so subjective
that our citizens are not always pleased with the end result nor are some of our public
officials, nor the CDB for that matter. Whereas some ofthose areas that are a little bit
gray we can make your job easier by firming up the code so there isn't so much leeway.
Does that all make sense?
Dennehy: I think that the PPC is looking at the process of the whole permitting process.
This is obviously more fundamental, what should the code be?
Mayor Hibbard: This is also a follow-up to Charlie Siemon's talking about the code
several months ago. There are some areas that everyone has thought about. One of the
examples that has bothered me is probably the Ross Yacht decision should have come to
us.
J. B. Johnson: Which one?
Mayor Hibbard: The Ross Yacht.
Dennehy: On Island Estates.
Mayor Hibbard: That is something that we changed from Commercial and went to a
fully residential project. That is one ofthose loopholes in the code that needs to be
addressed. Because it has had affects...
Clayton?: The decision is one that staff had recommended against for a standalone
residential project. And the way that it got there was the use of infill. Comp Infill allows
you to do a use that is not normally allowed in the zoning district providing it is allowed
by the underlying future land use category. So we had asked the applicant to go for the
rezoning or to go to the property owners of the area to do wholesale rezoning of the area
rather than use comp infill.
Dennehy: You think the Council should be responsible for that decision?
Mayor Hibbard: I think there were far reaching ramifications of that decision that has
more to do than just plan use.
Hamilton: I think that Ross Yacht is an example of one of those things where we as a
city should have been more visionary of the future. I am not talking about the last five
years. I am talking about the last ten or fifteen years ago. Much like San Diego does.
Where we created an environment on our beach and our waterfront property that we
didn't address as it was coming. . .30 or 40 years waterfront property wasn't that big of
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
2
Printed
a deal, people didn't value it the way they do now. San Diego understood we are a beach
community, we are a waterfront community and what waterfront comes boat usage and
water usage of that waterway. We have to maintain the ability to use that waterway by
boats need to be fixed. We need a boat yard to fix those boats. They designated areas on
their waterway district that this area will always be a commercial boat yard, and because
of that you get specific tax considerations. Your property is not going to appreciate at the
level that residential is, but you are not going to penalized taxwise because of the
surrounding area increase in value. You are still going to be able to economically
maintain and operate a boatyard facility. Ross Yacht didn't have that opportunity
because of the escalating value of land. It got to the point that operating a boat yard
facility was not a profitable enterprise. And that is why it went on the market for sale. It
got bought and people now want to build condos there. Had we been more visionary and
had a comprehensive water management plan. That is the kind of thing that would
designate and allow certain things to happen. But you have to give consideration. We
can't allow that kind of necessary use to get priced out existence because of other
surrounding uses. Again that horse is out ofthe barn as well. Don't know how to get
back to it. But that is what we face with Ross Yacht. It could have come to us. I am not
sure that if it came to us would have been any different than the decision that you guys
made because given the constraints and the economics and everything else. I am not sure
where else that could have gone. I can't in clear conscience look at any business and say
that they have to maintain your business, you have to run what you have now if it is not a
profitable enterprise.
Mayor Hibbard: Councilmember
Petersen: I guess my questions is more why we are here today and the Mayor's point. It
did not come to us it went to comp infill. Is that what you want to tighten up in total? Is
that what you want. Should we change the code and do you envision doing that by size
of property magnitude of the project. How do you envision doing that?
Mayor Hibbard: I have to defer. . .
[87]
Akin: Infill where you can otherwise (uncertain). So that would. . . still have a fence
around it.
[90]
Doran: And the unintended consequences of that might be?
Akin(?): Well actually there are. We talked about this. . . One of the concerns is there is
uncertainly. . . (unintelligible) One that had commercial and one that allowed
residential. They used comp infill to get a use that would otherwise not be allowed on
that commercial site. So in that circumstances, it worked. We thought that was an
appropriate use of that site.
Petersen: Could they have gone for a rezoning?
Akin: They could have gone for rezoning.
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
3
Printed
Clayton: The difference in that case was that it was already occupied by residential users.
So we felt that it was more appropriate. . comprehensive infill whereas in Ross Yacht, it
was going to a totally different use.
Mayor Hibbard: So there is still an opportunity of them. . .
Akin: There are always an opportunity
Fritsch: One of issues that has been brought up at the Pinellas Summitt that has occurred
several times over the last couple of years is the highest use of land. Economically
industrial and commercial are your highest use of your land in terms of generating jobs.
We lost some jobs at Ross Yacht and that has a greater impact on our community and our
economic vitality than does more condos. So we probably need to look it it goes beyond
the beach land, it really goes throughout the city I would suggest. Based on the
economist that has done this where he beats the drum on that issue over and over.
Doran: Philosophically the code as respect to rezoning is a reactive code. In general the
city staffhas more on it plate already than any normal people can handle. So these are
above normal people that are handling it. But the fact is that when someone comes in,
generally the only time you rezone, is where someone comes in and says that we want
you to rezone something. Councilmember Hamilton's point is that if you were proactive,
some of the issues of the residents who say at the last minute "Wait a minute this
shouldn't have been zoned this way it should have been zoned another way". But they
don't live with the zoning that is there. But in a proactive mode you would have perhaps
rezoned already. The neighborhood actually favored the rezoning, I think from
everything I have gathered on Ross Yacht. In a proactive mode we would be looking at
these things and figuring out is the zoning accurate for the City. But we have so many
other things to do that I am not sure that we can handle trying to adopt a more proactive
stance. And so tightening up the reactive stance to say we will react, but we will reserve
a little more control over it is probably an appropriate thing to do. I don't think it is
appropriate to think about hiring enough people to rezone the city.
Vice Mayor Jonson: One of the things that Mr. Siemon said back on December 10th was
that there was an expectation that after the code was in place for a while that such a
radically different kind of code that you would evaluate what you seeing and what you
are getting and make some adjustments to it. And it is in that framework that I thought
was appropriate to come forward with one of the struggles that is on my list is infill and
how most of the applications that are coming to you folks are infill rather than the
flexible development standards. It seems to me that infill needs to have a higher level of
effort or additional review to the Council rather than just to the CDB. Maybe we need to
take some ofthe infill stuff and push it down to the CDB level and push some ofthe
others up to the Council. We you had the discussion in February, I remember hearing
how St. Petersburg talked about how they allow an appeal from their CDB decisions to
the City Council. The question was asked, how many go to the City Council. The
answer was only one or two a year because there is a great deal of consistency and
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
4
Printed
structure. I don't see us having the consistency. Infill is on my list of items to talk about.
I have shared some photos with some of the other council members at one of our
meetings. I brought those same photos in when ever you want me to I can show them.
Mayor Hibbard: Why don't you go ahead and see if they stimulate conversation.
Hamilton: Let me ask one question. Bill you say the appeal process in St. Pete - who
has the ability to appeal? If it is denied at the CDB level do you appeal to the City
Council? Or ifit is approved at the CDB level does anybody have the right to say I don't
agree with that and I want a council review. Only on denials or if approved, who has the
authority to appeal to a higher level.
Akin: Do you know Gina?
Gildersleeve: I believe they use what they call an Environmental Development
Commission. It is a board similar to ours. I believe that anyone who establishes standing
in that process would have the ability to appeal. So it could be the applicant and I suspect
the City could appeal as well.
[160]
VICE MAYOR JONSON begins Power Point Presentation:
These are simply some photos that were taken recently of areas on the beach of some of
the recent developments.
One of the things we pointed out was the separation between projects sometimes is quite
small.
There are some completed projects.
Adjoining properties
N arrow spacing between properties
This property I believe is five feet off the property line with small windows on it.
Assuming that there would be something built next door.
Again, small side setbacks.
This is 145 Brightwater with a five-foot setback to lot line.
140 Brightwater with a 5.4-foot setback that was approved on October of '03. The other
side of that property has a 5.3-foot setback. The project on the right, 150 Brightwater
appears to have built directly up to the lot line.
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
5
Printed
This property at 125 Brightwater has a 3.8-foot setback to the lot line. On the other side
has a 3.8-foot setback.
Going over to Bayway, the building on the right has a five-foot setback. I believe all of
these were approved as infill.
This one has the benefit of the property to the left that has more side setback so you get a
little more open space between the buildings.
Here you have 7 feet to lot line and five feet to the other. This also shows some
difference in design of the building, the detail on the building, and also the landscaping
on the buildings.
This is another shot of it showing the relative stark nature of the landscape on the right to
the one on the left where there is landscaping at each door.
Another shot of the one on the right there is a small landscaped area along the sidewalk
but otherwise is all pavers.
Just as a comparison of architectural detail, this is Belle Harbor.
[201]
J. B. Johnson: The conversation seems to be really talking about infill. Frankly, since I
have been on this board, I think it is the biggest crutch we have had in the Land
Development Code. I just think it has been misused. I think just because you have an
odd shape of property doesn't mean that you can build a giant building on it just to fulfill
the needs of the developer. Money is the name of the game. I just think we would all be
better off, the City would be better off, the Code would be better off, the Board would be
better off, if the City Council would do away with infill. Find some other way to put
something on that piece of property that fits the pattern, not just because it is infill and I
want to do this and I want to do that. Get rid of it.
Petersen: I don't think we can get rid of it. I think there are pieces of property that are
undevelopable.
J. B. Johnson: Well we don't upset people. .
Petersen: But maybe make, which I think the Vice Mayor is going, the restrictions a little
more tougher. It is pretty ease to get there. There are other steps in terms that they have
to jump through. But perhaps the structure needs to take, but I think that to get rid of
infill altogether we would have money (unintelligible).
Coates: Perhaps I could say something here. I know one problem, sometimes when a
person puts in his plan, it looks pretty reasonable. You look at the plan and there is this
building on it. It looks ok. But you have to go out there and look at the site yourself and
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
6
Printed
create that building in your head to see what the ones next to it look like as to say does
this fit. Hell no. Or yea, yea it is ok. So I think one of the demands, and having
presented drawings to the city myself, I know what goes into the process. One thing that
could possibly be added to the requirements of the developer is to do a drawing or to take
a photograph, a panoramic photograph, of the existing street and perhaps whats across the
road from it and drop into that photograph an elevation or 3-dimensional drawing ofthe
building they are proposing. Once you have done that, you will be able to see the results
and the problems like have occurred on Brightwater specifically: buildings being too
close to each other, too high, or totally out of scale with the neighborhood. I think one of
the problems we have had on the CDB is being presented a lot of data, and sometimes we
have to go to a lot of work to get that data in context to see what is going on around it and
see what the rest of the neighborhood looks like, and guess where the neighborhood is
going to. So will this fit into now and will it fit into what the neighborhood will be in a
years time. Something like Ross Yacht would have been picked up in that process. [239]
You would have been able to say great good building looks fine, hang on a second what
is going to happen to the boats in this area. Where are people going to repair their boats?
It is just something, which I think is actually needed for the City to require from
developers. They must present exactly what this thing is going to look like in context
when it is finished.
[245]
Doran: Can I follow-up on that? One ofthe questions for me is do we want them to
show how it compares with what is there today, or what could be there? Because in
many of our areas with LMDR zoning are single story single-family houses. But the
code allows, particularly on island Estates, 30 over parking, 30 over FEMA. So it is true,
they are all single story now, but everybody that is out there, can tear their house down
and rebuild a new house, theoretically with all the other things being given. Different
than what. . .
Coates: That can certainly be used as an argument for what could be put there.
Obviously the development (unintelligible) would be responsible for what is next to him.
So yea, that is something that actually could be configured into drawing like that.
Fritsch: Another thing on just scale, I have gotten with staff a couple of times teaser have
we done any geometric modeling of cubing out a medium residential property with an
eleven foot ceiling on the beach where you have the FEMA thing. Then you start looking
at side setbacks, 10,25, 15, can we really get that amount of units, that number of units,
in that kind of space. So just taking some cub age and stacking them up and allowing 15-
20% overflow for aisles and stairs and things like that whatever it is. And that might give
us some real valuable information, data, to look at the code itself.
[266]
Gildersleeve: For a couple of years, I have had a concern with the form of development
was taking on Brightwater. And I think I have expressed it a number oftimes in
meetings. My concern was: are we really getting what we want out there? I think the
issue on Brightwater is probably two fold. One is the side setbacks, to remedy that
situation, I think we need to define what is the minimum side setback that would occur in
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
7
Printed
that type of environment. I think we can do that. The other issue is just the definition and
design of the structures themselves. Rectangular structures, for example, squeezed onto a
lot with that depth and that width is very difficult to end up with a product that had the
look that we want to achieve out there. So I think those two issues would help to remedy
the situation that Councilman Jonson has raised. I am not convinced that we need to get
rid of infill. I think we are in redevelopment mode and we need to make it flexible. We
just need to make it reasonable.
Mayor Hibbard: Council Member Petersen.
[279]
Petersen: I agree with Mr. Gildersleeve. Having sat on the CDB when a lot of
Brightwater came forward. One of the things that we said is that it met the code
definitions, but we didn't like what was there. But that really isn't our job, that is DRC.
So that is a blind there that the CDB must have to contend with because technically, we
are not supposed to go looking at style. So, I think ,don't know, that CDB needs to get
more involved in. But absolutely some of those Brightwater boxes that went up are all
kind of (unintelligible) when we saw what we are getting. But yet at the CDB level we
couldn't stop it.
[286]
Hamilton: But I think if you look at what Brightwater was 10 years ago -little Mom and
Pop's. Those probably, no more setbacks between buildings than there is today. These
are just taller. Those were built as close together or closer together than what exists
today. But what is there today is a different product, we are getting more people moving
into our market that come from much more densely urban areas and they are comfortable
with that product on Brightwater, because every one of those units are sold. And the
people that bought it are comfortable with what they paid for it and they are comfortable
with the associated taxes that come along with it. So there is a dynamic there too the new
homeowners, the new property owners, they aren't uncomfortable with it. If they were
uncomfortable with those small setbacks, they wouldn't have bought the product. So,
what one person doesn't like, doesn't mean that everybody doesn't like it, because every
one of those units has sold. So, but the old again the old Mom and Pop product that was
there were just as close together as what you see today and even though they were only
one story tall, you couldn't see between them and you couldn't see the bay on the other
side. So if! couldn't see them over one story, I am not uncomfortable not being able to
see it over a two or three level town home.
[306]
Mayor Hibbard: You may be right about the setbacks between those old Mom and Pops.
But I think the desire always was that when we had this redevelopment that we were
going to have better design.
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
8
Printed
Hamilton: Again, I would contend that design is just like personal taste. It is in the eye
of the beholder. You may not like the design. You may not like the look. I may not like
it. Or I may like something that you don't and you may like something that I don't.
The bottom line is enough people like it to buy those units. It is what it is. They are not
offensive in the color that they have been painted. Maybe the architecture isn't
necessarily what I would want on some of them, some of them I think are very nice. But
this isn't a 55 and over planned community where every track home looks exactly the
same. That is not what we want to be doing.
Mayor Hibbard: And I can also argue that they are not buying for the design, but the
location.
Mayor Hibbard: Let the record show that Mr. Plisko has joined us.
Gildersleeve: I think the issue is how many units can you squeeze onto that piece of
property. That is what it boils down to. That is the issue. Is it four? Is it six? There is a
reasonable number of units that one can still make a profit on, but still achieve what I
consider to be a finer design.
Mayor Hibbard: Mr. Dennehy.
[324]
Dennehy: Let me just retrace for a second the reason for the flexible code and comp
infill concept was introduced here. It was to kick off redevelopment. And boy did it do
that! It has succeeded. It kicked off redevelopment. And everything we are talking
about here in these examples we are seeing - what we are talking about- is done. The
beach is not going to go through anymore redevelopment. There is just nothing else out
there with the exception of two small districts. I think the amount applications that the
DRC has in front of them now we are pretty much done on the beach. And that
redevelopment effort is going to keep going. It is going to start moving inland now. It is
going to move onto Island Estates. It will move into downtown. And downtown has a
very strong set of guidelines. Design guidelines, which incorporate aesthetes, scale, and
incorporates all the things we are talking about. Should we be talking about the
Downtown plan now and get ready for how (unintelligible) would not fit within the
current code. Or how it does fit within the current code. Because the conversation that
we are having now should have been had a year or two years ago. And you can't do that.
You can't look back.
[340]
Hamilton: To what Dave said can you fit four or six units on this lot? I think a lot of it
comes down to, you know, you design, for lack of a better term, a box, and then you
decide how many pieces you are going cut that box up into. If you are going to build
12,000 square feet, are you going to divide that 12,000 sq ft up into four 3,000 ft units or
six 2,000 units. It is still the same amount of square footage. We need to be defining
probably; maybe, I think a great example was at your last meeting, the condo
development that you all had to continue because it was a 3-3 vote. If people are buying
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
9
Printed
2500 sq ft condos, they are not going to have one car per unit. They are going to have
two cars for every unit. People that are buying that size are going to have more than one
car. Maybe we need to be looking at our parking requirements and things of that nature
that may have as big or bigger effect on what is being designed and built. Because if we
said you have to have, you know, if you are building a unit ofless than 1700 sq ft. it is
one and one-half parking spaces per unit. But if you are building over 1700 sq ft, then
you must have two full spaces per unit something of that nature. I think those are little
adjustments that in the end can produce big results.
Doran: On the other hand, what we are told by almost everybody is that, particularly on
the beach, these new big condominiums are only 30% occupied. So you only have 30%
occupying them so even if they have four cars apiece there is still excess parking.
Coates: I think the answer is that if the 30% that is occupying them is usually all at the
same time of the winter season.
Doran: And they always won't always come, occupy them. I was doing a devil's
advocate.
Coats: OK.
Mayor Hibbard: But I think going back to boxes, I think one of the problems that we are
seeing here is that the biggest box is always build. It doesn't matter what the project is.
It is always the biggest box they can fit on a piece of property. I think one ofthe things
that we need to consider is do we want to reduce the size of the box that can be
accommodated on each (unintelligible).
Hamilton: And that is . . .
Mayor Hibbard: Also we need to talk about do we want it taller and skinner or fat and
short.
Hamilton: That is same argument, as I said speaking earlier, that can also go to
residential. Does everybody with residential waterfront property, everybody is building
the biggest box that they can build on their property. It applies as well to residential as
well as commercial. What are we willing to do?
Vice Mayor Jonson: Let me make a couple of points. The first is that the size ofthe box
is independent of the number of units. I recall that we heard at one time that one
community got rid of their unit count and just bought into the cubic footage of the
project. The other issue is that it isn't a range. The code was designed as a range of
options. If you wanted to build quickly you could in with the small range of the code and
get through that quickly. But if you do that with infill, it is just as fast. I did want to go
back to something that Mr. Dennehy spoke about. He said that the purpose of this current
code was to encourage redevelopment. [396] I think that was one of the articulated
purposes, but the other articulated purpose that I heard back in 1999 was "Its not what
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
10
Printed
you do, but how you do it." There was a perception in the community that the product
was going to be higher quality product. The designs were going to be more interesting. I
think Charlie Siemon said he would have expected more diversity in mass and scale of
development. I don't think that the code was intended to get any redevelopment. There
was an expectation that additional redevelopment especially in the area of rebuilding
within the existing community and respecting the historical patterns of that neighborhood
in the past. But not that we were going to redevelop everywhere. I think that if that is the
case or perspective of the (unintelligible). The expectations vs. what is delivered.
Dennehy: I think the big part of what Charlie said at the meeting seminar that he held for
us was that no one expected how quickly land values went up. This changed the ability
to amass large pieces ofland and redevelop them according to the flexible codes. It
never happened, because you paid an enormous amount of money for that
(unintelligible).
Gildersleeve: I think the solution to the issue is still pretty straight forward. It is a
policy decision perhaps by Council: how important is open space and view corridors,
how important is landscaping, and how important is structural design. If we could get
our arms around those three issues, the rest of it takes care of itself. Right now the
actions of the Board would lead you to believe that open space between buildings is not
important. I think it is very very important. And I think we have the problem we have
today in large part today because of that. The other question is how much landscaping.
The whole code was built around the notion that it is a trade off. If you do a better
quality project perhaps with more landscaping than you would otherwise. But I am not
sure that we have held true to that in some of the decisions we have made.
Mayor Hibbard: Well we have increased the amount of landscaping on some of the
projects and then later we have an increasing amount oflousy looking landscaping.
Gildersleeve: But again it goes back to staff. Staff reviews bonus hopefully from the eye
hopefully of Urban Design. I think one of the issues until just recently was that we
didn't have that on the staff - a true urban designer. If you look at these buildings in two
dimensional way you don't get a feeling of just what that is going to look like. I don't
know that anybody on the Board has that expertise.
Mayor Hibbard: Does Staffhave any input? Because I want you all to come away with
something. Is there additional information that you need to be hearing from us? You
need to be up to the table, Gina.
Home: I know you all have copies of what Vice Mayor Jonson had indicated he wanted
as agenda topics. I want to start there from the perspective of the staff. And that is the
perspective that I am going to give you.
A lot of how this partnership works [463] between the staff the CDB and the Council.
We get a lot of the end product of that partnership. We try to balance how well we are
supporting the CDB and how well we are supporting the Council, how well we are
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
11
Printed
supporting the community who goes back to time that board member Johnson was a
Commissioner.
This community had a reputation of not being very business friendly. And when that
code was created in 1999 one of the outcomes of that was going to be to do a better job of
interfacing with the very business oriented community that was going to have to
redevelop the city. And so the expectation was that things were actually going to get
better. So what I have done is that I have tried to assess just over the past few days
essentially how has the partnership worked between the staff, the CDB and the Council.
What I see unfortunately as the City Manager is that I have the privilege of having tenure
which hasn't always been the case in the City of Clearwater as you know. So when I go
back to when this code was created, winds of change have been blowing very hard. They
have been blowing very hard at the Council, commission. They have been blowing very
hard at the staff and as the CDB has come into its own, the winds of change have been
blowing very hard at you all as well. The end result of all this is that we have all been
trying to accommodate what I think was the end goal and that was successful
redevelopment.
And it has created some very interesting pressures on all of us as we have tried to make
this thing work. When the commission approved it, they said leave the code alone for
one year. Do you remember that? And then we started trying to have half-year reviews.
As you pointed out, the property values went nuts, development really kicked up and we
just found ourselves trying to keep pace with this growing demand for redevelopment
projects. And we found ourselves having to be sensitive to Council needs in terms of not
letting redevelopment projects get away from us. And in trying to deal with staff needs
who saw some things coming and wanted us to try to anticipate some of these issues, but
we couldn't quite get to them.
Things started evolving into a lot of focus on the Community Development Board as it
tries to weigh things out. Concerns about CDB member attendance surfaced on with
some members having to recuse themselves because they were so active in some of the
redevelopment activities here in the community. So we have all kind of struggled with
our roles and the way we interact.
[510]
One of the things, Mayor Hibbard, that I would like us to accomplish this morning is for
us to talk about all the elements in the room. Things that I have heard and lets just try to
get them put to bed.
One was attendance issues: And the expectation that there is some concern that if the
members aren't there especially during major issues, major projects that come forward,
there is some feeling that the board isn't really on its best footing to address some of
these more controversial projects that can ultimately get to the Council.
There is certainly some concern about the staff support that you might have received.
When I got here is 1998 we had a new Planning Director then. And then a year later we
had a new Planning Director. I had developers constantly complaining to me about
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
12
Printed
Planning Directors and about the Codes. Well I would like to hear from you before we
leave here this morning is what are some of your thoughts and concerns about the staff
support that you are getting. I think that is important. I want the staff to support the
CDB and the Council as best we can. But I also know that you have business owners and
developers that talk to you all about the code as well. Every time that phone call is made,
I get a phone call asking to revisit what is in the code. This is understandable, but this
takes a lot oftime and energy. We want the public to feel like whatever their concerns
are, that they are being addressed.
[542] I am not saying that that is ever going to go away, but I want us to understand the
kind of interaction that is taking place involving a document that we feel does provide
reasonable guidance to those who have to use it. I am going to leave it here, but since
you wanted more staff input I am going to give everybody a chance to do it.
[548]
Mayor Hibbard: There are three entities here.
Home: Oh by the way this is not meant to be critical of anybody or anything. I just want
to talk about our concerns.
Dennehy: Let me just share my opinion on staff support. I think the reports that we get
right now are excellent. I think the staff does a great job of reviewing the plans in detail.
Sure there is always an occasional detail that might be missed or skipped over because I
have seen the desks out there and you can't see the desks. I think they do a great job in
the reporting. I would grade staff very highly on that. I have offered this before that
the developers should be required to provide a little bit more information that
would be helpful to us and to staff. As an example when often there is a need to
determine sufficiency, that often becomes a subjective issue. That a staff member has
very little appraisal background, no appraisal background at all, is sometimes asked to
make decisions regarding market value and things like that.
[578]
J. B. Johnson: I would like to speak up and say that as of right now I think that you have
a wonderful staff. For the first year that I was on the board, I had the distinct feeling that
there was too much subjectivity on some agenda items. And there were differences of
opinion CDB vs. staff. But you mentioned the winds change, and I think the winds have
changed and I commend the staff as of right now. I think you are going to see a change
in what comes forward. I think overall it will be a much better situation for the
developers, the City, the CDB and for Staff. I think there will be an improvement. I look
forward to it.
Gildersleeve: I think that the support that the staff gives to the Council and to CDB is
excellent in terms of its reports. I work for a lot of local governments and there is not a
planning department that provides a clearer report on a project than ours. I think what we
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
13
Printed
don't see is all the effort that we don't see that goes on behind the scenes that it takes to
get there. There are multiple meetings with the applicant or developer. That support is
phenomenal because I know how long the discussions it takes to get to that report. So I
think that in response, Bill, to yours, the staff is on target. I don't know a whole lot more
that we can do to expect for them. But I think if we can simplify the process when that
application comes in the door to when the report is written, and I don't know the answer
to that. I think that would help the staff immensely. Probably would get us off the
feeling that we are always understaffed. Because of our processes, it is a very very
iterative process. That is not necessarily a bad thing, because in the end I think that in the
end we do get better projects. No question in my mind that we have to have a lot of
discussion to get good projects. Because honestly some developers want to do it their
way and I suspect those are the ones [tape ends at 625]
[000]
Home: Vice Mayor Jonson just analyzed one of our staff reports not too long ago and
compared the staff report to the development application that was turned in to what the
code says and raised questions about how specific, how the development application
maybe even with regard to the way the report was written did not necessarily provide the
specific kind of information that the code required. Now there are a couple of different
ways of looking at that. Some of us require rather detailed information. If the question is
this, then I want to see the answer written in the report. Others of us are a little more
general and as long as the information gets addressed in the CDB meeting and the
questions are asked in the codes comply with then it checks that square. My question to
you is do you feel like the staff reports, based on your use of them, are adequately
addressing the code requirements that ultimately have to be factored into your decision
making when you make a decision?
Dennehy: No piece of paper alone answers every question. But this staff is available,
including Wayne Wells especially, on the weekend and at night. I will call the case
manager and say well I read this and I read that. Help me out with this. Walk me
through this process. They are available to us. So again no summary report is ever going
to answer all the questions, but people who wrote it have it. They have it in their DRC
minutes, the have it in their DRC notes, they have it in their head, they have it
everywhere they need it. When they bring it to us it is in summary form. But they are
available to us and are a great resource. I encourage everybody on the CDB to contact
them with any questions.
Home: Alex with you comment on that since you have been on the board for a while?
Plisko: I am sorry, I apologize for being late. I was told the wrong time. As since I
wasn't here during the first half hour, I am (unintelligible).
I will give you a little bit of history of how the new code works. Originally the old code,
the way we did it, we went to a variance board and then we went to a Planning and
Zoning Board and they never really interfaced. The length of time was critical to the
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
14
Printed
developers and it was taking too long. So it we decided to come up with a new code and
one super board that was going to handle everything so that we could do things in a more
timely manner. Well as we progressed, the timely manner has disappeared. We
originally started with a two-month process to get thru DCR, we didn't have enough staff
that could handle it. And now we are at a three-month process. I have practiced in
Clearwater since 1972, and I could have gone to the two other boards and got through the
process a lot quicker than with the new board and the way we have to handle things. I
have a different opinion of staff. I think staff can be very helpful and I think staff can be
very unhelpful.
I moved forward with the last small scale projects in the City of Clearwater which I have
talked to Bill and I have stated I don't think the ordinance really works for small projects.
It may work for big projects, but when you are dealing with small projects and you come
to a DRC meeting and you literally just get. . . its not an enjoyable event. I have had
several clients that say: forget it; I'm not even going to bother. Why should we have to
sit here and everything is negative, negative, negative instead of some positive way to get
this small project to work on a small piece of property.
And I think that the biggest flaw, I think we have in it, is open space. We have no. . . the
only way we are controlling open space now is by setbacks and if you get, and we can
burry it on the infill on both residential and commercial. You almost eliminate open
space. I think that if you go out to the beach or even in houses that I am doing.
Everybody is correct. They want to build the biggest box on that piece of property that
they can do and we are going to negate having open space. So I think that the City of
Clearwater which used to have a very strict open space requirement underneath the old
code, not has no open space requirement. I have done projects, and I can point them out
to you, that have only a little piece of landscape. That is the only open space in that piece
of property.
I think that parking is another issue. I think that most of your big developers are going to
put two parking spaces in. But then these guys that want to just go in and develop a piece
of property and sell it and walk away. They could care less. Our code does need to
address parking [047] a lot better. Because we are going to end up with people parking in
neighborhoods, parking on streets, and going to have the same problem we have always
had.
[049]
My biggest concern is consistency interpreting the code. I can go down one day and see
that we are going to interpret the code this way and then I will go down a week later and
it is interpreted that way. I have raised this at the board meetings that there does not
seem to be consistency.
This staff, I have been working with the code since inception and I know exactly what it
reads. I can send a client down or a contractor down to get a permit, to give you an
example of how things go, to get a permit which I know I have been done before and it is
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
15
Printed
in the code. It took one month for me to get an interpretation of the code that we have
been using for five years. I asked staff at the time: "Why is it taking this long?" Staff
has changed so much, they didn't have the history on this one item. That is the difficulty
of working more on small and medium sized projects not the big condo projects out on
the beach. I have clients that come in the door and I say you are better off going to
another city. I say I will never get this project through. And that is kind of tough as a
practicing architect that could advise people that want something to do.
We have this flexibility and we have built too much flexibility. We have built too much
gray area and too much staff control. That is my opinion.
Home: On the issue of staff control are there some specific areas where staff should not
control it.
Plisko: I think of my word of "control" is that they interpret the code. And the code is so
gray. And that is very difficult. I don't know how to get past that one.
Gildersleeve: Going back to Bill's earlier question about the reports. I think that there
are criteria in the code that is very difficult for staff to address, maybe in the level of
detail that some may want. I will use the example of: "Will the project have an adverse
economic impact on the abutting a developed property? Now that is a tough one to get
your arms around. You can write papers on that one for ever. And so at least from my
perspective the response that we get from staff is based upon their professional judgment
with out a whole host of resource. We don't have time to do that research? But I think
that there are some particularly interested citizens who say we don't agree with the staff
we think have an adverse economic impact. This is one of those things that we can study
it to death and hire a consultant to do everything. How detailed do we have to be in that
process? I am comfortable with staff saying yes it will have a negative impact or no it is
not going to have a negative.
Mayor Hibbard: Vice Mayor.
[0770]
Vice Mayor Jonson: The two areas that I see most challenge are a little less subjective
than the economic impact. They are the harmony with density, mass, character ofthe
adjoining properties and then the character ofthe surrounding community. That is two
things that are required of everything. What Bill has talked about and what I showed him
is that the infill application specifically asks for the applicant to provide information on
those criteria. In several of the applications that I have reviewed, the responses are
instead of responding with specifics, they are more of a general discussion of the area and
they all flow together. Mr. Coates has talked about this specifically on showing impact. I
would think that if I was on the board that I would like to have some quantitative data
submitted in the form of a panoramic picture or some specific information about the
property to the east, the property to north, the property across the street. Here is the
existing character, and it was built in fifteen years ago vs. here is its character and it was
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
16
Printed
built years ago and is the only single family unit in that whole area to get at that
quantitative question. I think that as I read the code it says that the developer or the
applicant must provide substantial competent evidence to justifY the deviation or the
application their making. And unless staff and the CDB enforce that requirement, we are
loosing a big component of our code. So if you don't have any of that information, how
can you say, they haven't really submitted that as required, but it is kind of ok. I don't
think that is the community's expectation. I don't see that being difficult because as Mr.
Plisko says it seems like our code was supposed to maker it quicker to get through the
process. And now all the flexibility has made it longer. I have had a couple of people tell
me that they would rather less flexibility, but give me an answer quicker.
Mayor Hibbard: QuantifYing the benefits to the surrounding areas is still, that is a good
little task.
Coates: It is also a difficult task particularly if the area is in transition and it is changing
and you are the first project in the area that is going to change that area. Well that can be
a good thing or it can be a bad thing. I can show you two examples of either one of those
where you can see a project going in an area and you know that this will be the end of
this area (where Brightwater was two years ago). I can see projects going to areas where
thank heavens something good is going to happen to the area. So I think that there has to
be a component of the presentation, and this is crystal ball gazing, and I am not quite sure
how to do it, but looking where the area is going and seeing where the what this project
that is being put in there whether forwarding something that is positive and the developer
will never admit that what he is doing is negative. But you may be able to tell by the fact
that he hasn't talked about. Or just by looking at the neighborhood yourself and seeing
what is there and what is coming in. It not going to work or .. yes thank heavens this is
going to work. I think that that needs to be a factor as well is what is the future of this
neighborhood going to be and does this new project add something good or not.
[ 126]
Gildersleeve: One other thought or comment, when we sit on the board and we have an
application that comes through that is good. It stands out. And I will use an example of
the JMC communities. When you look at the package that they put together that comes
through the door and the design that they provide. I think the last two cases that got to us
we didn't have any questions. They were good projects they were big projects. I think it
goes back to the quality of the application package that comes in through the door.
Where do we find that balance? If we make it too onerous, there are going to
(unintelligible) certainty is lost. I think it goes back to in large part who is actually doing
the development and what is the goal of that developer. Is it to maximize that piece of
property? If it is to maximize development on that piece of property side line to sideline,
then I think we need a policy decision that says "no we don't agree with that." What we
want is this, this and this.
Mayor Hibbard: I think we have already agreed that that is our overall policy. Do you
agree? It just is that we have not that we have put that into the code so you can't enforce
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
17
Printed
it. I have another question for you - one of the complaints that I have heard a lot about is
an applicant comes in with a project staff is going to recommend denial but we don't
have any conditions if in fact you and the Board approve. So they have to come back a
month later. Would you like to see those?
[148]
J. B. Johnson: I thought we brought that up one time.
Gildersleeve: I will give you my personal observation on that one. Staffhas written a
report recommending denial, I don't think that should come to the table with conditions
for approval.
Fritsch(?): I think it has got to go back.
Gildersleeve: The only process that I know in this state that allows that is the DRI
process, where you tell a developer that you are going to deny it and you have to this,
this, and this to correct. But I don't think that is appropriate for this board. It would
make it a little more timely, but staffhas got to go back and rethink this - we just can't
do that. Not having any input from the Board.
Dennehy: I know that there is a recent case where the applicant brought forth a set of
potential conditions and I think the Board asked the staff if they were comfortable with
those, had seen them and approved them.
Vice Mayor Jonson: I didn't hear that.
Dennehy: The applicant introduced a set of potential conditions. Presented it and the
board asked staff if they had actually seen the conditions and they had. Were they
comfortable with them and they were. And the conditions were then put into the
approval.
[159]
Mayor Hibbard: What else?
Plisko: I don't think we should negotiate at the Board. I agree with David. It is going to
come and they are denying it and then we have all these other conditions so that we can
pass it or somebody comes up like a developer that has come up several times and he is
bringing his list to the table right then while we are sitting there. And he says, well now
I can do this and do this and staffhasn't seen it. We have postponed a few of those.
Finally we have a board that is strong enough we say well if we don't have the
information we send them back. A year and a half ago - two years ago we did not have a
board that felt that way and they would hear them and a lot of things got passed that were
negotiated right there at the podium. I think we have got to give staff to at least make a
judgment call is there just one fine item that maybe that they are denying this on or is this
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
18
Printed
a group of items. If it is a group of items then I think the code should say until you work
it out with staff it doesn't come to the board for a vote.
Hamilton: I think a denial from staff is exactly that. If there is conditions in which there
are conditions in which is willing to approve a project, then it should come forward for
approval based on those conditions. If the board agrees with those conditions and the
applicant agrees with those conditions, then we have an approval. But if it is a denial,
then it is a denial. But if there is an opportunity for approval, but there are specific
conditions that are to be attached to it, I think that is how it should come forward.
Approval based on these conditions and then let the Board work it out from there.
Dennehy: I think in the past . . .
Hamilton: But your can't come with a mixed message. Denial BBUUTT. . .. It has to
be one or the other.
Dennehy: It does fly in the face oflogic that a denial would have a set of conditions if
you get overturned. I think in the past what occurred was the fact that applicants were
not feeling like they had a partner with the staff in terms of getting projects negotiated
along and finished to the point that everything that came through was, you know, was an
approved, or recommendation for approval. An applicant felt like they had a Board
where they could go and make their case directly to the Board. I think what I am hearing
lately is that they feel that there is much more partnership. Meaning that they don't walk
into a DRC meeting and feel like no, no, no. They are saying well that doesn't make
sense, but have you thought about this. Ideas like that are coming across the table so now
there is discussion happening in the past 30,60 days that didn't happen before. I think if
you continue along that same kind oflevel of partnership you won't find cases coming
forward with denial with applicants trying to make their own separate case.
Home: Just so that no one thinks gets the impression that we have had a sudden
epiphany on staff. Let me just say a couple of things. One we have gotten pimped by
owners. We have gotten pimped by contractors. We have gotten pimped by members of
the professional community. I heard so many complaints about staffthat I asked staff
give me an analysis of what you think is going on. I had a huge memo from staff and
they are consistent comment was: we can tell you my name some ofthe professional
organizations that submit applications to us that struggle greatly in giving a competent
product.
[200]
Now how do you deal with that? You don't want to go out and give that to the St. Pete
Times and say hey these companies, especially when they are people that are constantly
in front the CDB. So what we decided to do was to sit down with some of these folks
and talk about how we can be more successful. But part of the challenge was that we are
not getting paid to do a developer's job. They are getting paid to do their job. We get
paid to do our job. So we have struggled with trying to figure out where that balance is.
And I think that we have perhaps had a little more success as of lately. You all need to
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
19
Printed
know that when you set a JMC Communities aside and you set aside some ofthe other
more successful large projects. The clear difference has been in the quality of the
professional services that that project owner is getting in their interaction with us.
Everybody else is a hand holding affair. It is a high maintenance affair. And what
happens sometimes is that we get these comments about what staff isn't doing or is doing
or we are not friendly. Well part of it is that staff is holding their feet to the fire and they
aren't able to move as quickly as they should.
I appreciate Alex's comments about small project sensitivity. There may be a nuance
there that we can take a look at just like we discovered that some of the signage areas in
strip malls and some of the small businesses may not have been as well served by our
sign code. That sort of thing has been helpful to us to begin to re-Iook and revisit. I
wanted to share that with you about our actual experience of working with development
teams.
Ifwe were to hold to a ridged standard of either you get it or you didn't do it then they
would ship us all away. Because quite frankly some ofthese development teams couldn't
get their stuff done if we were to take a more hard line stand and quite frankly I don't
have a problem doing that. I really don't have a problem doing that. I really don't have a
problem because the culture I came from clearly had a set of guidelines and you followed
them. If there is a deviation we all agree on what the deviation would be. But in the
local government arena that we are in and the business communities that we work with,
they can't survive with that kind of standard. Going back to the comments made about
flexibility and subjectivity and those kinds ofthings, we have always said we could
identify a little harder point. But then, the question is does the development community
and the business community, are they willing to live with those hard points. Are they
willing to accept some of those absolutes?
[233]
Now I have noticed in some of the CDB meetings, because I have watched some of your
meetings. Some of you take them to task, because you have got the professional
qualifications. I don't think anybody is going to get shoddy architecture past a couple of
you because you won't put up with it. We are going to hire a staff architect so that we
can help the staffhave a little bit more expertise. But then again keep in mind for us it is
a balance as to how much we require people to toe the line. And that is one of the other
things Mayor that I would like to get from you. What is your tenor? Do we make people
really toe the line? Do you want us to have a forgiving spirit? Those are the kinds of
things that our staff needs to internalize so that we don't shut people out, when you really
want us to give them some room to maneuver, or give them some rope however you want
to define it. Those are the realities for us.
[243]
Coates: One quick comment about what you said about room to maneuver. I love that
concept, but the only thing I would request is that when something is given by the city,
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
20
Printed
the City gets something back in return. So you want to have some extra units, ok so we
do some more landscaping - there needs to be a quid pro quo - something for something
always. And in that flexibility and that spirit of negotiations and (unintelligible).
Home: Support me at the CDB when we do that. Developers will generally say: well
you are asking too much. Right?
Mayor Hibbard: Councilmember Petersen.
Petersen: I just had a question only because I have been to a foot doctor who has just
gone through a project with the city and the end product is a beautiful and they did a good
job. But I asked him about the process. He was very unhappy dealing with the City. In
specific his complaint was, and this was with the DRC, when a developer comes in he felt
like when they came in with a plan and we said NO and left the room. Do we give them.
. . I know that we don't do their job for them, but do we give them options and help them
maybe find out what we are saying no to and here is what you can do instead?
Home: Do you want to address that Niel?
Neil: If it gets to that point in the DRC, then I think I have failed. I need to communicate
with them often and early in the process so they know when they come in, they know a
week before the DRC media, what was (unintelligible) specifically that then can come in
to that meeting and address those. I would spend some quality time in the negotiation at
that point.
Petersen: Do you give them the criticism? You can't do this way, but. (unintelligible)
It is not a flat our no, but well here is what you could do. Here is how we could help you.
Neil: That is the collaborative spirit that I think everyone should use. Maybe someone
else has a perspective where we haven't done that and I am sure we have failed in the
past. I think the atmosphere that we are trying to create in that room is a one stop
shopping center and spending this quality time with these people isn't because we like to
spend time with these people, it is because we are trying to help these people.
Petersen: I'll get this down to the very end of the project, he was in trouble because he
hadn't put in four two inch trees. His question was why didn't they tell me that when
they reviewed the land use plan. That was the minutia that was driving him nuts.
Mayor Hibbard: Vs the hotel next door that is ugly.
Petersen: I know. Well that is the other thing that he was really upset about because he
has been really been pushed about his color pallet. And he went very neutral, but then
there is what they did next door. I just want to make sure that we do work in a real
positive way.
Neil: (unintelligible)
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
21
Printed
Dennehy: And you do now, there is a culture of empowerment and partnership that exists
in the staff now.
[281 ]
Gildersleeve: Going back to one of Bill's topics that you wanted to come out of the
meeting with some direction and that was attendance of board members. I think about
half of the board are full time employees and occasionally we miss a meeting. What
would be helpful to us, ifit is from the Council's position, is there a minimum number of
meetings in a year that you feel that we can miss. I am not sure that it is in the code.
? (perhaps Ms. Goudeau): I think it is more than three in a twelve month period.
Coates: Is that missing or a recusal?
? (perhaps Ms. Goudeau): It depends on how the board meets.
Coates: Do recusals count as missing
?:No.
Petersen: That is the whole reason that we added a the alternate position. Because we
found that, when I was on the board, that we were ending up without a quorum. And to
some degree it helped to relieve the problem.
Hamilton: That also the other reason for alternates it wasn't just for absences it was with
recusal it wasn't just a matter of a quorum. It was we feel the applicant's right for lack of
a better term to have a full seven member board hear their items. So if there is a recusal,
we have an alternate to take that spot. If there is an absence we also have the alternate.
Now if we have more than one absence or an absence and a recusal we only have a six
member panel hearing the item. But the applicant has the right to postpone it until he or
she has a full board to hear it if they so desire. Our intent was to create and provide a full
seven member panel for as absolutely as many items as possible.
Mayor Hibbard: What process do you want to recommend changes? Is that something
that you want to bring up as they come to you or do you want to have every six months
opportunity to say we need to twike this perhaps?
J. B. Johnson: I would like to see some tighten up on the infill personally.
Mayor Hibbard: And I understand that and agree with that. But ongoing when you see
issues that have unintended consequences perhaps and you think that they need changed
in the code. Do you want to bring them up randomly as they are identified, or do you
want to have a meeting every six or twelve months in which you brainstorm and say that
we have a list of four things that need to be considered by the Council to change the
ordinance.
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
22
Printed
Dennehy: Yea, I would like to do a workshop session.
J. B. Johnson: Twice a year.
Dennehy: A workshop session where that happens and the ability as things come up
between those workshop sessions to be able to as a group to discuss and bring forward to
the Council.
Coates: I suggest those workshops happen every three months or so, so that if something
doesn't sit and fester and get out of hand.
[324]
Petersen: So do you want those routinely scheduled?
Coates: Yea.
Dennehy: I think if it is then most of the members of the board would think that we have
to go to the workshop and bring something to it. It will actually start to bring it to the
forefront instead of just have it kind of lay there.
Vice Mayor Jonson: I suspect to that is easier on staff to be able to do more at once.
Coates: We can predict your schedule.
Clayton: Oh yea, we always keep an ongoing list have about 80 pages of things for us to
look at.
?: Totaling over 100 I think. We are presently working on 20 or 30.
Mayor Hibbard: What else?
Fritsch: While we are on that topic, I will chip in with the two or three that I have
already suggested. One is parking not only as Councilmember Hamilton talked about
two per acre based on square footage of units or some kind of rule of thumb but also for
service vehicles, moving contractor, delivery in some of the high rises, also the fire
access thing. Very few of the high rises built since the mid 80's built in the city have
sufficient access for the snorkel trucks in terms of concrete support, parking level
supports on the front end. So I think that that is an issue that needs to be developed. That
is it.
Coates: Well my experience on the vehicle access, particularly the loading and off
loading trucks and the fire snorkel truck is something that is put up at DRC, as I know,
feature ofthe DRC's requirements. So the City is actually, from the DRC viewpoint,
putting those in play.
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
23
Printed
Fritsch: Understand, but the delivery of that for 20 years has failed.
Mayor Hibbard: Alex.
Plisko: One thing I would like to see adjusted is the parking requirements in relationship
to how you get into a parking space. The engineering staff now says if you have a 19 x 9
foot space allocated to park a car then you have met the intent of the code. One meeting
we had well you should be able to get your car into that without having to do a three or
four point turn. That is what is happening in these small condo projects where you have
just four units on the top. Oh of course it have six parking spaces, but there is no way in
get into the one parking space. So I think that we need to say that you have got to
physically be able to get into the parking space.
[363]
The other thing on smaller projects, is it necessarily that we have to have full
engineering?
Vice Mayor Jonson: Tell me what you mean by that?
Clayton: Well one of the things that we are having the PPC look at is whether some of
our requirements like full civil engineering drawings be required and at what point. We
are looking at that.
Plisko: So you are, because for a small project somebody that is gambling do a
development piece of property, they know that it will be difficult to do it. To go our and
pay for full services of an architect and civil engineer, a lot oftimes they don't want to do
that, and so they go through this whole process of paying for this civil engineer and then
they have to make major modifications to get it through Planning because Planning and
Engineering don't quite see, you know, they are not quite together there because they are
two different fields. So what we have is that they have to pay to have it all re-engineered.
Ifthey are willing to gamble that this project is going to work, that they can work out the
engineering then I don't think it should be an obligation ofthat small developer to have
full engineered site plan. I don't know ifit is all that important on large projects, as long
as they have a competent team and we are going to go through a building permit process
after they are get their approvals anyway. Why can't we do that during permitting
process?
Coates: I can speak to that as well. It is a fairly onerous requirement. 80% of your civil
drawing is done by the time you hit the CDB. If they turn you down, well that where you
are going to have to make the changes even at the DRC level, that is a significant cost
impact on any project and small projects I am sure will take (unintelligible) and big
projects just as well. You are spending $100,000. Woops sorry, you can't do that you
have to change it. I think if you have a competent engineer, a recognized engineer, who
shows that it can be done, partial drawings may be satisfactory.
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
24
Printed
[399]
Plisko: Yea, ifhe can't do it at the end, it is their responsibility; they were the ones that
goofed.
Akin: Even on infill projects?
Plisko: I would say on any project that is going through DRC, I really don't understand
why we have to have fully engineered civil package submittals. It just doesn't, I don't
think it is fair to the developers. I will give you one that Figurski did out here. He spent
all that civil engineering and we turned it down. They ate all that cost. We have had that
happen several times.
Clayton: One of the reasons I think Charlie set up the code that way was to give best
people, as soon as they get their project site plan approved, because once you have site
plan approved, once you have your full engineered site plan approved, you are vested for
whatever time period you are allowed in your DO. So there is a great benefit from that
perspective to have the full-engineered drawings done.
Plisko: Well I think that the option should be on the table. If you want to speed up the
project, you can do that, but if you are just concerned about seeing ifthe City will let us
develop this piece of property, we still want to go through the process of more willing to
gamble that we can make the civil engineering work during the building permit process
then I think we should let the applicant do that. I think you would see development of
more smaller projects where you would have like a couple oflots get consolidated and
then you have to go through all that civil engineering and they are willing to sit there and
say we will invest all the money into this property and now we have to spend all the
money into civil engineering, architect to get this thing going. I think it would help in the
development of the City of Clearwater. You will get a lot better projects because we will
have a lot more flexibility.
Hamilton: Let the applicant decide, if you want the fast track you will pay all this stuff
up front to fast track it, but if you willing to go the slow process, sometimes the slow
dime is better than a fast nickel. If the applicant is willing to go the slow route there is
nothing wrong with that.
[423]
Akin: Does that affect the design in quality of the product? Does it give information that
may affect approval?
Plisko: No I am not saying that should be no disregard for civil engineering. If you have
a competent civil engineer he can say I can put a retention area here, in a vault, or in this
section right here. I can meet the outfall to the city here. I am competent that I can meet
SWFWMD. He is putting enough information on there to say we can make this project
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
25
Printed
work if you approve this layer. Then what that does is that he gets to go through the
whole process, he gets to see staff reviews it, they got everything approved to meet all the
appropriate requirements height, setbacks, and everything. And then if that developer all
of a sudden decides well maybe I don't want to go, or I do want to go, he hasn't
expended all those $100,000's that some ofthese projects are involved in. I think that
competent civil engineer should be able to do that and give us an upper dimension. They
are gambling and they are the ones that will have to make it work at the end.
Gildersleeve: I think (unintelligible) engineering firms that that is the case. And I think
that Hoyt is right on target. If someone wants to move through the process fast and spend
the money for detailed engineering and spend the money, well have at it. It is rather
onerous and a bit unusual, I think, for applicants to provide that at this level. I understand
Charlie's mindset and the reason to do that when you can come out ofthe process with
something more definitive what is effectively a site plan. It is (unintelligible) I will tell
you between that meeting and when you do your final construction plans something will
change, storm water for example. Something will change.
Hamilton: So you have got to go back and review it again.
Gildersleeve: I think given the option. .
Akin: Do the jurisdictions that do that don't they actually have a two step process where
you do have final site plan approval?
Gildersleeve: Yes many times
Akin: That is what we used to do. We used to have a final (unintelligible)
Hamilton: So we are not requiring construction plans to pull projects at this level right
now?
Akin: No
Gildersleeve: They are going to come back with detailed construction plans. Where I
think is the appropriate time to bring the detailed storm water back. I think you can go in
there with the 30% concept plan for storm water and do what we need to do for this
process. The options (unintelligible)
Plisko: It would be the best change that we can make to the code.
Hamilton: With the small projects, some of the things you might think about doing in the
big picture would be considered a small project. There are basically going the first time
through the building process. Sometimes they just want to find out if it is something that
they can make happen. And ifthe decision is that I have got to spend $100,000 just to
find out ifI can make it happen or not, that is bigger than my budget to (unintelligible),
we are not even to attempt it. And it might be a hell of a project. We don't know, and yet
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
26
Printed
a small property owner project can't absorb that kind of expense up front unless they
know that the project is going come to fruition.
Dennehy: Would the City's views stay the same in a circumstances like that? With the
applicant spending less money would the City take advantage and charge a higher fee?
You still have the applicant spending less money overall, but is there an upside for the
City?
Niel(?): The City from an administrative standpoint we are still going to go through the
same administrative process. Gina talked about that vesting, so if you assume that is a
line, so basically you are moving the line towards the more conceptual end of the
spectrum with the developer. So they get that advantage and the burden on them. It cuts
both ways. I think that is what you were getting to. It lets them for that period of time to
have a green light; they can do this project as long as they bring something back to the
City for permitting that is within whatever these parameters that we define for them in
terms of the conceptual approval vestment. But when those drawings come in, not
withstanding what they show for storm water, they are not going to be exempt from
permitting no matter what the city approves conceptually. They still have to have it
permitted by the Water Management District and so will still have to meet the same
criteria. So it is defining that what you do is you kind of shift from the City standpoint
our burden is in where we have to have those same kind of issues with developers and are
going to shift it to the permitting process. They are going to have the DRC, they are
going to have the benefit of knowing that they can build this project. Getting it permitted
we are going to have the obligation and burden to make sure that what we permit is
consistent with what was approved conceptually that they are hanging their hat on. So
they will still have a process in its entirety won't change. It is going to shift it
conceptually, but you will shift that burden
[Recording of tape ends at 508 and is blank until 621]
[Beginning tape 2 side one]
Mayor Hibbard: . . . well then we can continue to proceed forward. They are running a
little late getting that set up. Why don't we take five minutes? How much longer do you
have?
Vice Mayor Jonson: I need a half hour.
Mayor Hibbard: Let's take five minutes and go ahead and grab lunch and kick it back off
at 20 after 12.
[005]
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
27
Printed
Mayor Hibbard: Within the next halfhour or so, if we don't get done in a half hour there
will be a more limited audience. Go ahead.
Vice Mayor Jonson: I have already talked just briefly about the intent of the code and
what Charlie was talking about the intent of the code being not what you do, but how you
do it. The result of what is being built vary greatly in the quality and we have kind of
talked about that.
I think we have also talked about comments that he made that we need to make the
process reward the outcomes that you desire. If you go around the county and talk other
people that deal with some of our developers, there are certain developers that no never
have a finished package put together when they bring it in. I am glad that we are doing
the training of those folks.
The second major area of interest that I have is the appearance offaimess of in the quasi-
judicial process of impacted neighbors. This happens at the DRC where the neighbors
can submit written comments, they can come to the meeting and observe the meeting, but
they can not make any comments, they can not provide any evidence at that point in time.
It is a public meeting, but it is not a public hearing. They see the developer sitting at the
table and having this interactive conversation with staff. I think there is an opportunity of
perception. Also the neighbors can appeal, but only ifthey submitted written objections
in advance. Until you go to a meeting and where you see the gist of the meeting is, you
may not know if you will want to object or not.
The other category of that the average citizens just don't understand is the quasi-judicial
process. I noticed that the board's procedures have changed to explain a lot more at the
meeting, explaining about party status and allowing the opportunity to ask for it. I have
suggested that we create a sort of a guidance group in Neighborhood Services to help a
neighborhood come in and understand what the quasi-judicial process is - not to
represent them in front of the board, but to just to provide that kind of understanding of
what it means to have party status, what does it mean to interact and to question the staff.
I don't know what kind of response members of the board have to that kind of
suggestion.
Coates: To me it is very important what the neighbors think of a project coming into
their area. It is important that they may be made aware of it before it occurs. It is
(unintelligible) I don't know how true it is and how much it is based upon
(unintelligible), but they just aren't aware of projects from the beginning when they are
going to be coming to their area. There are technical difficulties with that; it is just
something that has come up. Which is very important what the neighbors think because
they are, even more than the group structures, they are the surrounding ambiance into
which the project is going to go. Their input is very important and there is a tendency to
listen very strongly to that. It is something that should be encouraged and certainly not
discouraged. I think that right now it is a little bit difficult for the average Joe who hears a
week before that sees the signs offering condos are for sale next door to his house to
actually come in and realize what he has to do. There needs to be some sort of user guide
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
28
Printed
that allows a person to be able to determine what he can do and his rights and liabilities
are.
Vice Mayor Jonson: And the way he presents that information is different. For example
ifhe comes in and says "I don't like the look ofthat"; that is not quasi-judicial evidence
that you can use. But if he comes in and says, 1 have lived here for 10 years and every
spring during peak season, this road is always jammed and you are not going to be able to
get more cars on that road. That is evidence that can be considered. 1 don't think people
really understand what is and what isn't.
[050]
Gildersleeve: My thought on that may be a way to address that is when we send out a
notice to an affected property owner just attach to that notice just very briefly on one
sheet of paper, you can probably do it, what it means to establish party status. When they
have questions they can call and ask. 1 think that citizens have a responsibility just as the
applicant has to, if they are real concerned about it, is to present substantial competent
evidence to us. That is the real dilemma ifthey don't understand the process. 1 am not
sure that we will ever get the citizens to that level of understanding. 1 think we can put
them on notice that you have the option to come to the meeting if you want to request
standing or party status, then this is what it affords you the opportunity to do. That is
about all I can say.
Doran: I think there is a good chance that the Neighborhoods Coalition will at a
minimum start offering periodic workshops on the process: What is DRC. What is
BPRC. What's QRT. What is CDB, Who gets notice, who doesn't, who gets standing,
how do you get standing, what is party status. 1 think that at a minimum Coalition may
start offering that twice a year or whatever. There is also a possibility that the Coalition
might be willing to accept some sort of more official role, as opposed to dumping it off
on Neighborhood Services or on the planning department. To try to get the Coalition
more involved in it. Not just workshops, but to have a standing committee of people who
would be a ready reference for people when this comes up. Unfortunately it does seem to
be a surprise to people although the notices - 1 know that we send hundreds of notices out
and they go somewhere. But people always say that they didn't get a notice.
Dennehy: And the notices go out to a much larger radius than is required by law.
Doran: 1 would like to address the part about the DRC. My vision of the DRC is that
that is the opportunity to for staff and the applicant to work things out. I would be
reluctant to make want to make it yet another public hearing. 1 could be wrong, and the
staffwill correct me in am but 1 don't think that even though a neighbor doesn't have the
opportunity to speak or ask to be part of the deliberative process at the DRC, the staff is
open to their comments before and after and their questions?
?: Correct.
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
29
Printed
Doran: It is part of the process, it is just not an additional level of a public hearing.
?: Correct.
Petersen: When are they made aware of how they can serve their issue in writing?
Clayton: It says on the notice.
Petersen: It says on the notice, so they are aware of that before. I agree with you, I don't
think we want to turn the DRC into another public hearing.
Dennehy: The public is given a chance in this and every other municipality to participate
in the process. They just have to become more organized representation. That to me
should be more of a grassroots organization than one that is offered to them unsolicited as
we are discussing now.
Vice Mayor Jonson: I guess we have already covered my next point which was: I don't
see the CDB visibly challenging missing data on applications relating to adjoining
properties. We have already talked about trying to change that so that the applicant
presents a photographic rendering or a drawing rendering with some additional
information to the regular application. If that is kind of the consensus then I am ok on
that.
I consider that very critical for the job of the CDB to ensure that the applicant has met the
burden of proof. They are the ones to submit the substantial competent evidence that
they are entitled to the approval requested.
I think one of the things in the code that is confusing in the code is setbacks. Because our
setback is to structure which could be parking rather than to building and I am not sure
that - one of you asked a question of Charlie when he was here and you said "Why is
there zero setbacks in the tourist district?' His answer was that to simply to allow
parking. Not that there was ever an expectation that the building would have necessarily
zero setback. That is a thing that I know our notices that go out to setback to parking or
setback to building. But if it is setback to parking (or sidewalk) and building is going to
be the three feet the other side of the sidewalk. Do you say both?
Clayton: We usually go with the most restrictive - the closest. We started clarifying in
the notice letter to parking or building because neighbors would show up at public
hearing and think that the building was going to be 10 feet off the property line.
Vice Mayor Jonson: Do we say both, so for instance the setback to sidewalk that is going
between buildings might be three feet, but the building is going to be 15 feet from my lot
line - I would not have as much of a problem.
Clayton: I think it depends on what is specifically requested. If the building also needed
a reduction, we would probably say both. I don't know if Neil has more.
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
30
Printed
Neil: But that figure is more is always going to be to a property line and not necessarily
to a sidewalk.
Vice Mayor Jonson: I am thinking of sidewalks that are going around the building. I
consider that to be confusing. I don't know what the answer is, but perhaps you can
consider that.
[11 7]
Vice Mayor Jonson: We have already talked about the range of flexibility in the code
and how that is frustrating to applicants and burdensome to the staff.
We talked about residential infil1. I really think that infill should be a last resort for the
some. Actually the definition of residential infill says: "the development approved
pursuant to flexibility criteria would allow properties which due to unique conditions or
historical patterns of development or ownership could not otherwise be developed." To
me that wording says 'last resort' not just normal to get something else. I think I agree
with JB Johnson on the need to really tighten up on infil1.
I don't understand the apparent CDB not following the policy guidance in the code. Let
me explain using rooftop living space. The code for these decks or Jacuzzis or health
clubs on the top of roof. I asked the fire department do we have to put a stairwell to go
up to the roof for every stairway has to have a full doorway up there. I think it was 12
Idlewild where they had two stairways going up to the roof, they had a terrace area and a
Jacuzzi area and I think Mr. Fritsch was saying that most of the roof is now 16 feet
above. I don't see anything in the code that says that that is permitted! I don't
understand. I guess I need some guidance from you: what kind of policy guidance -
either that stuff is permitted or not permitted. It looks like it is not permitted in the code.
It looks like elevator shafts are ok up to 16 feet, but only if you have elevator stuff in
them not just that you can have another 16 feet on the top of the building. That is a
concern that I have. I don't know if anybody else shares that concern I would throw that
out for discussion.
Doran: Are there any examples where the staffhas given 16 feet for anything but
elevators shafts?
Akin: 12 Idlewild
Coates: 12 Idlewild
?: They had an atrium thing on
?: A gazebo thing.
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
31
Printed
Gildersleeve: My view is that it is not so much what is up there, as how much ofthe
width of the building is constructed so that it appears like another story of the building.
That was raised in our last meeting. It was 60% of the that "floor" was occupied by some
structure. You are going to have elevator shafts and going to have stairwells and
probably (unintelligible) on some buildings, some decorative features above, I don't
know what.
Hamilton: I would like to think the code necessarily tells you can and can't and maybe
we need to define how much of it can. But sir, on beachfront property and even on any
property that (unintelligible) the rooftop. Look at our library. Offers a breathtaking
panoramic view to not utilize that as a property owner or a developer is an under
utilization of your asset.
Petersen: But then (unintelligible). .
Hamilton: (interrupting) but doesn't need to be counted in height. It depends on how
much roof you are putting over it. For instance my hotel that my brothers and I own has
a rooftop terrace that a lot of people like to use at night and even during the day. It is a
beautiful view from there and it is on the roof. Now we don't have a cover over it. But if
we wanted to put decorative roof over part of it, to offer an even more usable space and
even possibly in some inclement weather, you could still be up there. It isn't that big of a
deal, if it is not livable space. Somebody is not going to camp out up there, that is not
permissible. But for owners and occupants of that building to utilize that space for
temporary use, I think it is perfectly sensible and good planning to have that kind of
access and use of a space that offers a unique opportunity that (unintelligible). I don't see
it as being a negative. I think it is a great amenity.
[178]
Dennehy: Could I ask for staff to just do a review of that? Because I understood the
code to be a lot more allowing than elevator shafts. Don't do it now.
Clayton: You are allowed 30-inch parapet and you are allowed 16 feet for above the
height for your mechanical equipment.
Coates: I think that this big (unintelligible), although that is what the code says, says that
the building can be strongly advantaged by making use of the access to the roof and
putting something up there so people can enjoy the view. Where I think that the problem
comes about, is where it becomes a cheap way of getting another story on a building that
nobody knows about. I think that is where I have a problem and from a design point of
view very often you want to put something up there to dolly up the top the thing. If you
can use that so much the better, but where it becomes a habitable structure, enclosed
structure, something that is totally permanent occupying more than a certain percentage
of the roof, I think we can probably draw a line and should draw a line.
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
32
Printed
Hamilton: I know, but the rooftop terrace on this building here (Main Library) is a great
example. I think it is a super amenity for this building and it is a temporary use it is not
something that anybody, we are not going to allow Joffrey's to put up a coffee shop up on
the roof.
Petersen: Temporary is where a lot of times you have a current structure. You are in
essence adding another floor. I agree that rooftop uses are great, but I think it has got to
be counted against their height when you start adding . . .
Coates: Well that depends, if it is waterproof and a door on it and you have put another
floor. If it is just a temporary shade structure, or a vine growing over it, it could add to
the beauty and the value of the building. It is a point at which a line needs to be drawn
and the line is not drawn today.
? But this is a case where, I don't know what the vote was, but wasn't this a close vote.
Coates: It was 12 Idelwild.
?: Four - two.
Home: So what are we to conclude from this? Are we to conclude that perhaps we
errored in our recommendation to the Board? Or it is just that the Board has some
dissenting of opinion, but ultimately approved it?
Coates: I think that the policy guidelines are not very clearly written and it tends to be,
there is a gap there that the policy didn't foresee of roof usage beyond merely mechanical
and structural thing where the roof becomes an amenity of the building. I think a policy
needs to be written based on best usage of the building.
Home: So which way to we go then? Do we error toward giving people that opportunity
to use that space that done pleasing to the board, or do we want to take the more
conservative view that it is only to house mechanical equipment and that is it?
Coates: I am biased but you want to amenitize your roof and put something nice up there
that you can use. Oh if you have a big flat roof. . .
Hamilton: If you roof deck, you put your tar down and so that the roof doesn't leak. And
then you want to construct a deck up there. The argument is that you can put a hot tub,
you can put Jacuzzi up there, you can put a deck and everything else. The problem is
when you roof over it, now all of a sudden you have created. . . It is the same usage, you
still have a deck up that that people can use, but if you put a roof over it you have
technically for whatever reason created an additional floor. I am not sure that, maybe
you say, you are not really creating, I don't see this creating an additional floor myself,
but I do say there maybe a limit to how much of that you can allow.
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
33
Printed
Coates: I think it should be (unintelligible) certain. Two fold, where it becomes
waterproof you have another floor, and there is no doubt in my mind about it. We have a
shade structure, it is kind of undetermined.
Delk: My recollection of the building code is that to allow public space up there would
not constitute certainly another floor. But when you start adding appurtenances, to
accommodate the public space, what you are doing is increasing, and that becomes a part
of the structure and that is building height issue. So we have a couple of things here, we
are often dealing with these issues when we are looking a development approvals out
there and we need to get a better handle and direction on whether it is a matter of public
policy we want to allow these roof tops public spaces, because from a building code and
permitting standpoint it turns into a lot more than just a deck over the roof. You have to
have means of egress and there are a lot of issues to keep the public safe once you allow
them to go up there and occupy that space. The second part of that is where staff is going
to be faced with questions from whoever is going to be proposing that scenario as to what
kind of a purposes can they put up there. So if you allow the public space on the one
hand, but you don't allow the appurtenances that people would see as necessary and
(unintelligible) on the other hand and then you have a little bit of an internal problem.
Hamilton: I think it is more important to define the appurtenances upon which we are
going to allow, because if you don't allow the permanent roof over an area like that for
say, but somebody is going to find a way to go and have an awing company just like that
side awing that falls off the side of an RV. And they are going to put the framing up
there and it will be collapsible and whatever when you want to open it you telescope it
out and lay it out to the side. It is just not going to look as good probably as a permanent
structure. So I think it is more of an exercise of defining what appurtenances were are
going to allow and go from there.
Fritsch: Have you ever observed those beach things that people put out on the beach?
There is very little part of the day that the sun is directly blocked to the hot tub beneath it.
So it is really not an effective shade cover for 90% ofthe day, so what is the reason to put
a shade cover up where it doesn't shade?
Hamilton: For that little bit of shade that it does offer, plus the. . if you want to be up
there on a night where there might be a light rain falling, but you can be up there and still
be dry, it is still a beautiful place to sit up and smoke a cigar or just have a nice
conversation in the rain whatever. There is one purpose that it serves.
Gildersleeve: It seems to me that the use of up there is secondary to the appearance of
the roof. If you have a building that is 100 feet wide and 60 feet of that is in structure up
there, I think we have added another floor. That is where I come from. I think the uses
can be controlled - what you do up there -lay in the sun. It is just the appearance of the
building that is where the discussion comes.
Neil (?): What is the reasonable amount that you would cover?
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
34
Printed
[Tape seems to be missing a segment of discussion]
[263 ]
Vice Mayor Jonson: Let me close this offby encouraging members of the board. I
consider your job to follow the code. And ifthe code doesn't allow something that
makes sense to allow, please bring it forward and have a policy discussion jointly with
you so that we can codify to apply to everyone forward instead of just to those people
that want to push and get through that depends on who is at the CDB meeting or not.
That would be my message. I think that citizens expect that of us.
The thing that came up by Charlie and we have talked a little about before is that if you
do something, a deviation, you should have better design or quality building materials.
We keep talking that, but when I look at the code, Ms. Akin has sort of helped me with is,
that we don't say anything about that in there; if you do this you can have more. It relates
to landscaping and other things that we have talked about today. How do we get that in
there? How do we deal with that? Or are we just going to say. .
Hamilton: Are you just talking aesthetics, landscape, building material wise sounds one
developer who will remain nameless, who has blue tarps over his Island Estates project at
the present time. I don't think you have everything that has to be to the hurricane code or
anything else. I don't think there is a really a substandard materials that are being used in
the actual structure. But is it architectural details. You are referring to architectural
detail and landscaping vs. or are you saying you need to use granite counter tops as an
amenity inside. I am not sure that that makes any difference.
Vice Mayor Jonson: I am looking at the outside appearance ofthe building. That is
going to be how it fits in. When you look at Belle Harbor, and see the outside of the
design of that is a step higher than no matter what is next to it. So no matter what is next
to it, it will enhance the quality of the
Dennehy: If I may interrupt, if I am not mistaken, the staffhas already said that they are
already making plans to bring on a staff architect who should be concerned with
aesthetics - the qualitative aspects.
Vice Mayor Jonson: So that person could come up with some code changes, or do we
have in our code today the provisions that will allow that person to make the
recommendations that will deliver what we said when the code was adopted?
[305]
Delk: I think the code allows staff some latitude to make some of these kinds of
improvements. Being a performance based code, I think it gives us a lot of opportunity
and I think our burden with that opportunity of implementing a performance-based code
is that we always seem to be trying to do our best to be seen as being fair and consistent.
I have heard comments around the table today that we are not always perceived that way.
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
35
Printed
I think that is a burden that we accept when we implement a performance-based code.
Because it is sometimes difficult for people to understand why we recommend things that
we do. It may be very very clear us as to why we support certain things or don't support
other things. It is not always as easy for the public to understand that. But there are two
things that I would like to very briefly comment on, and I have very really enjoyed
listening to everybody's comments around the table - about themes, about the
Department that I think that we have been talking about internally in the Department that
I think are very consistent with a couple of things. These are not our only things, but
there are two things that stand out in my mind.
One is "What does it take to make things work?" Our opportunity to sit down with
people and find our how to get things done because I think that ultimately we are
measured by that. Not with standing that it is important how we regulate and that is part
of what we do. I think that is not to underestimate that at the end of the day how the
department gets things done is something that I have talked to staff to keep in mind every
day, remind our folks of every day from the zoning counter to my desk. Neil has done, I
think, a great job reorienting our philosophy to sit down with folks and try to figure out
what it is that they can do and then for us to try to help them do it.
The second thing is we have talked a lot about internally with this performance based
code that frankly there are just times when we don't think it performs as well as we might
like. And that to me is a major part of what we have talked about today. We have a great
code that is very flexible that allows the development community, that allows people on
the other side ofthe table a lot oflatitude and a lot of opportunity, same with staff, but
maybe in some of these key areas we are not pleased as a community with how it
performs and so we can go back and take a look at some of these things and try to make
sure that it performs better in some of these key areas. I can tell you that the department
is starting to look at and talk about and consider some of these things. Because they
have come to us out of the Old Florida Studies, they have come to us on a daily basis
when people are walking up to our counter and now they are coming to us with some of
the comments that you have stated today.
[341 ]
Home: In the past when we expressed attitudes and perspectives about design of
structures we have been strongly criticized by the development community. In fact the
comment was often made, well what is your qualification to be able to make this kind of
judgment about what it is that my architects have drawn here in this kind of design? Now
having a staff architect will help us have some level of conversation. But I just wanted
everybody to know that that is not something that has been received well from some of
our customers to have us exercise of the comments about Brightwater as an example and
how you feel about it. Weare certainly willing to do and it is clear what you expect us to
do. I would just ask that when we do that and they come complaining to you that would
reinforce our view of following your policy guidance. That is that we will share an
opinion, professional opinion, about the quality of the design and architecture that is
being prepared. So that they won't think that we are just winging it.
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
36
Printed
Clayton: If I could just add one thing to that. It is a little difficult also to control
architecture throughout the City without a specific set of design guidelines. So
(unintelligible) the fact that the code is somewhat gray when there is criteria to talk about
improved design, really we are just having to work with what we think is going to look
better for the community and make a better quality building because we don't have real
specific guidelines like we do for, say, Downtown. And even with those design
guidelines developers are reluctant to adhere to that or they challenge us on what that
really means and how we apply it to their building. It is always a struggle.
[368]
Vice Mayor Jonson: I just heard two people, Rick Baker for one in St. Pete talking about
how in their city it is so important that they conform to their design guidelines for the
benefit of their city. When we went over to Lakeland we heard the same thing there.
They considered that to be crucial to the success oftheir City.
I am just trying to close this out by saying what is the next step? I don't feel like I know
were we are going on that or a bunch of these other issues. I have some people ask me,
what is the next step from what we do today. Are we going to some up with a summary
of what staff thinks they heard and an action plan?
Home: Well where do you want us to go. We have heard a lot and we have already been
incorporating some of the feedback that we have gotten from all partners. I am not sure
that we are going to turn this into some master plan of action item A, B, C, D, E and F. I
am not sure that that is what we are going to come forward with. We have heard a lot
and there is a lot of stuff that we are going to have to investigate further. I think you will
see some of what was discussed show up in some of the changes that we have in the
works. We have a lot of stuff in the works. So to carve this out as a separate entity from
stuff that is already on going, for example like we talked about the PPC is doing a process
review. I think we have got a lot of feedback here that we can incorporate. We took a lot
of notes, but I am not sure. I am willing to take guidance Mayor, but I am not sure that
this is going to be separate and distinct from kind of the ongoing efforts. Our
understanding was that this was going to be really a conversation between all of the
stakeholders.
Mayor Hibbard: Well I think the CDB has heard our opinions on the philosophy of the
direction that we think you aught to make decisions in.
I think that we identified that infill is definitely an issue that we want to talk about. That
needs to be on the agenda at some point in the future. Right now we are saddled with
termination of nonconformity and the Old Florida District. So you have your plate full
for the next month or so.
Once we get through that, then I think that the infill needs to be looked at. I think we
need a policy decision perhaps on roof top uses. That one seems to be unclear as to the
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
37
Printed
direction that we want to go on that. I think Mike has clearly laid the process he will
follow and the philosophy of the Planning Department working with all of our
developers. I think the conversation was important on full engineering plans and I think
you all need to make some decisions there. Whether we will require those up front or
after there has been an approval.
Dennehy: In addition to the rooftop access. . .
Home: There will be a code change.
Mayor Hibbard: Right
Dennehy: We will follow up on the parking policy.
Gildersleeve: In order to define the relative importance of all these that you guys need to
do, I wonder if it would make sense to do minutes, a kind of a summary of the disussion
with the right hand side of the page will put a priority in terms of where this group feels
that particular issue falls in priority.
Mayor Hibbard: Well would you agree that infill seems to be the top priority? I don't
think that there is any debate about that.
Gildersleeve: Well there was a whole lot of things that we discussed today. Staff needs
direction in terms of where we begin to address these to start on the most critical issues
first.
Hamilton: I am going to ask a question in regard to the parking. I hate to show my
ignorance, but it won't be the first time. The parking requirements of 1.5 spaces per unit
vs. 2. Do our parking requirements for condominiums or developments. Does it also
require additional spaces for visitors who are non-residents or when you go to the larger
ones and they have designated space for visitors. That is just because they were able to
have those.
Clayton: They don't have any of the sheltered. . .
Coates: They used to develop to allow those.
Hamilton: That is why I think that if you have 14 units and two of the 14 want to
entertain guests at the same time, you have got zero parking. You have got no parking
available for guests to come in. I think increased parking requirements for that type of
thing would definitely address some of the questions that came up at skiff. There is
nowhere to park except on the cul-de-sac and it becomes a real traffic nightmare.
Clayton: Those are the things that we have been at least addressing at DRC meetings,
like how do you get your deliveries, how do people move into a building in these tight
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
38
Printed
urban settings? How do you get your FedEx packages delivered? Unfortunately we
don't have anything in the code, but we do at least work out.
Coates: I think you will find that a responsible developer will be sensitive to those things
because it is his own interest for people to be able to deliver stuff to the building and
guests can park.
Hamilton: As you pointed out before that is where we have the biggest problem. Now
everybody that owns property is a developer. There are people that have done it and are
responsible and professional about it. Then there are people that are just buying cause
they just want to make money. They are not a developer and they don't give proper
thought to those things. That is why we or the CDB or the City Council has to be looking
out because ofthat. Now everybody that owns property thinks that they are a developer.
Coates: I think that is where the City becomes the catch holder where something must be
approved because they look at the law but it doesn't fully comply with the intent of the
law. The CDB has the opportunity to keep that from happening.
J. B. Johnson: I know that practically all here want to go home, or go someplace, but we
haven't mentioned Beach by Design. I was just wondering if we could have a meeting
later on that subject. It seems like that is where most of our problems have occurred in
the past several months.
Hamilton: That is part of what our Old Florida exercise was and does. Whether or not it
is successful or not.
J. B. Johnson: I was hoping to talk about this later.
Mayor Hibbard: We can set up another workshop in the future and discuss that. I want
to thank everybody for coming today. I know every one has different schedules.
Hopefully it has been productive.
[END of MEETING 476]
LDR CDB Council 5-31-05 meeting transcript 050713.doc
39
Printed
1---------
Item for discussion regarding City Council Policy.
It is a policy of the City Council to meet the following prior to approving eminent
domain:
. Hold a noticed public hearing.
. Taking is not for private gain.
. Require super majority approval.
GDI-Y
CDI - 5
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE MUNICIPALITIES IN PINELLAS
COUNTY SUPPORTING THE LEVY OF THE 5TH CENT
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX DEDICATED
EXCLUSIVELY TO PROMOTING AND ADVERTISING
TOURISM.
WHEREAS, the tourism industry plays a critical role in the economy of Pinellas County,
Florida and in 2004 there were in excess of 5,000,000 overnight visitors that had a total
economic impact on the Pinellas County economy of more than $5.6 billion; and
WHEREAS, promoting and advertising tourism in Florida, nationally, and internationally
is critical to the continued growth and viability of the tourism industry in Pinellas County; and
WHEREAS, Section 125.0104(3)(n), Florida Statues, authorizes the imposition of a fifth
cent tourism development tax by a majority plus one vote of the Board of County
Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the Pinellas County Tourist Development Council has prepared and
recommended an amendment to the tourist development plan providing for the levy of the fifth
cent to be used exclusively for promoting and advertising tourism in the State of Florida,
nationally and internationally, and recommended that the Board of County Commissioners levy
the fifth cent tourist development tax.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the municipalities within Pinellas County
approving this Resolution request the Board of County Commissioners to approve the levy of the
fifth cent Tourism Development Tax dedicated exclusively to promotion and advertising tourism.
This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.