ANALYSIS OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
Analysis of Community
Development Code
City of Clearwater
DRAFT - Prepared by:
the Pinellas Planning Council Staff
December 2005
Analysis of Community
Development Code
City Council
Mayor Frank Hibbard
Vice-Mayor Bill Jonson
Hoyt Hamilton
Carlen A. Petersen
John Doran
Community Development Board
David Gildersleeve - Chair
Alex Plisko – Vice-Chair
Kathy Milam
Daniel Dennehy
J. B. Johnson
Dana K. Tallman
Thomas Coates
Nicholas C. Fritsch
Michael Delk, Planning Director
Prepared by the Pinellas Planning Council Staff
Analysis of Community
Development Code
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary...................................................................................................1
I. Introduction.....................................................................................................3
II. Code Analysis..................................................................................................5
A. The Code’s Development Review Process.........................................6
1. Development Approval Steps........................................................6
2. Concurrent Review of Applications..............................................8
B. The Code’s Requirements....................................................................8
1. Development Application Requirements......................................8
2. Requirements for Subdivision Plats...............................................9
C. The Code’s Format and Organization...............................................10
1. Uses Permitted, Standards, and Approval Processes................10
2. Organization of the Requirements in Article 3...........................19
3. Cross-Referencing..........................................................................20
4. References to Approving Entity...................................................20
D. Other Code Issues...............................................................................21
1. Miscellaneous Minor Issues Affecting the Flow of the Code....21
III. Survey of Frequent Users..............................................................................25
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
i
IV. Comparison with Other Communities........................................................35
A. Gainesville, Florida.............................................................................35
B. Sarasota, Florida..................................................................................39
C. Portage, Michigan...............................................................................42
D. Clark County, Washington................................................................43
E. Pinellas County, Florida.....................................................................47
V. Summary and Recommendations................................................................53
VI. Illustrative Implementation Schedule.........................................................59
Appendix – Frequent User’s Survey......................................................................61
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
ii
Executive Summary
The study included an assessment of the City of Clearwater’s Community
Development Code (Code), a survey of frequent users, and a comparison
of the City’s development review process with other jurisdictions in the
state and across the country. The analysis of the overall development
review process for Clearwater suggests that it is designed as a relatively
streamlined process, as compared to other codes examined, involving few
steps between submission and approval. It relies heavily on staff to review
and approve many development applications, and on the Community
Development Board (CDB) to review more complex applications.
However, while streamlined in terms of the number of steps involved, the
Code does not do a good job of explaining how the City’s review process
works or what the various requirements are for each development
application. Also, this streamlined process causes the applicant to expend
considerable time and effort on detailed design aspects of a project prior to
determining whether the use requested will be approved or not. Lastly,
there were numerous terminology issues and other minor issues
discovered that affect the general flow and understandability of the Code.
The study did not include a review of how the Code is applied and makes
no judgment about the qualitative aspects of the Code’s standards or the
decisions made based on these standards. It also did not include an
assessment of staffing levels.
The major conclusions in the report include:
Code Process:
??
Shift some of the requirements for fully engineered site plans
o
to the construction drawing/building permit stage and allow
conceptual or schematic plans to be submitted at
Development Review Committee or CDB approval instead.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
1
Code Requirements:
??
Review development application requirements to eliminate
o
redundant or repetitive requirements, clarify requirements
that are not specific, and eliminate unnecessary items;
Reorganize Article 3 so that exact requirements can be located
o
easily; and
Add more specific and consistent cross-referencing.
o
Code Terminology:
??
Replace the variety of terms used to describe uses allowed,
o
associated standards and criteria, and approval processes;
Use only “Levels 1, 2, and 3” to describe Minimum Standard,
o
Flexible Standard, and Flexible Development; and
Eliminate current use of term “Level Three Approval” and
o
replace with “Legislative Actions.”
Code Management:
??
Evaluate development review process applications relative to
o
timing and staffing levels – i.e., application submission
overlap;
Ensure staff comments are received in a timely manner and
o
reduce secondary comments after resubmission;
Coordinate comments and responses to reduce visits to City
o
Hall, including “walk-ins”; and
Consider posting of Code as PDF online.
o
Other Items
??
Correct miscellaneous minor issues affecting flow of and
o
ability to understand the Code;
Implement best practices from other communities; and
o
Consider changes to website that will better inform users.
o
It should be noted that, with minor exception, during our analysis there
were positive statements provided concerning the process itself and staff’s
handling of the development review process. Also, some of the exceptions
noted have been addressed by staff since the start of this analysis.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
2
I. Introduction
The purpose of this project is to assist the City of Clearwater in assessing
their development review process, as set forth in the Community
Development Code (Code). A review of the Code was conducted to assess
its clarity, user-friendliness, complexity, organization, and general flow
relative to the development approval process. This review is not intended
to result in minimizing necessary review or in reducing development
standards, but rather to identify problematic procedural issues and
recommend changes that may mitigate those problems that are identified.
The Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) was asked to assist in this assessment
of the development review process within the Code itself, including a
survey of frequent users, and comparisons with other jurisdictions to
identify the best practices employed by other communities that might be
relevant to Clearwater. The study also touches on the various ways that
the City has contact with the public that enter the development review
process.
The study did not include a review of how the Code is applied and makes
no judgment about the qualitative aspects of the Code’s standards or the
decisions based on these standards.
Hopefully, the recommendations in this report will help the City further
improve their existing development review process.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
3
II. Code Analysis
The analysis of the overall development review process for Clearwater
suggests that it is designed as a relatively streamlined process, involving
few steps between submission and approval. It relies heavily on staff to
review and approve many development applications, and on the
Community Development Board to review more complex applications.
Once approval of the requested use is received from either the staff or the
Community Development Board, the final step involves obtaining
building permits, including construction drawing approval. Also, even
though they are referenced in the Code relative to “Level 3” approval, the
City Council is not involved with development review applications, only
legislative actions including rezonings or Future Land Use map
amendments.
However, while streamlined in terms of the number of steps involved, the
Code does not do a good job of explaining how the City’s review process
works or what the various requirements are for each development
application. Also, this streamlined process causes the applicant to expend
considerable time and effort on detailed design aspects of the project prior
to determining whether the use requested will be approved or not.
The following section of this report will outline and discuss issues with the
clarity and complexity of the development review/approval process, the
Code’s requirements, the Code in its written form, and minor issues that
were discovered during the analysis.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
5
A. The Code’s Development Review Process
1. Development Approval Steps
Article 4 of the Code outlines the requirements for development
review and relies on the “levels” of approval discussed in Section
I.C.1 of this report. The development approval process is designed
to have as few steps as possible, and has even eliminated the need
for application to a Board of Adjustment for variances to the Code
by allowing these to be granted by the Development Review
Committee (DRC) and Community Development Board (CDB)
during the overall approval process. Also, unlike many local
1
governments there is no requirement that uses receive final approval
from the City Council.
The development review process provides for either
review/approval from the DRC that is made up of staff members, or
the DRC (with recommendation by the Community Development
Coordinator) coupled with review/approval by the CDB. For most
applications reviewed by the DRC, and all applications reviewed by
the CDB, a fully engineered site plan is required. The next step
2
involves applying for a building permit, which includes a final
“construction drawing” approval, whereby very detailed drawings
are developed and reviewed by the technical staff of the City.
The one, or in some cases, two-step use review/approval process,
that often includes an engineered site plan, is a simple process to
follow, however the City may wish to reconsider the requirements
that are needed on, or that go along with, fully engineered site plans
that are needed for some development applications.
Since the City’s development approval process doubles as a process
to approve particular uses allowed in each zoning category, it is
1
Applications that meet certain criteria are “granted” more flexibility in meeting requirements for such
things as setbacks and height limitations.
2
A “fully engineered site plan” includes 31 items as required by Section 4-202.A.11 and 12, such as a
stormwater drainage plan, tree survey, landscaping plans, elevations, utilities, etc.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
6
possible that a site plan will be completed for a use that is ultimately
not approved. Or that because so much time, effort, and cost has
been expended by the applicant, decision makers may feel pressured
to approve a use or particular use configuration (buildings, parking
areas, etc.). The applicant will have gone through considerable time
and effort to produce engineered plans that would be used to
construct the buildings, alter the site, and tie such improvements
into the public utility systems. Instead of requiring all items to be
submitted on the first site plan during the initial approval process,
the review/approval of a fully engineered site plan can be conducted
by the DRC after the initial approval process is completed. This can
be prior to application for building permit or as part of the
“construction drawing” review that is a current requirement. In the
place of a fully engineered site plan, a conceptual, or in some
instances a schematic, site plan can be submitted.
Further, with all due respect to the members of the Community
Development Board, much of the information included with a fully
engineered site plan is not needed to determine whether or not a
particular use should be approved for a given parcel, or even for the
approval of “variances” to particular Code requirements (e.g.,
flexibility with respect to setbacks, parking spaces, height, etc.).
Recommendations
Allow the submission of a more conceptual or schematic site
??
plan for the items that are normally included in a fully
engineered site plan.
Delay fully engineered site plan submission until after
??
approval by the DRC or CDB is received (prior to applying for
building permit). The fully engineered site plan can be
reviewed/approved by staff after initial approval.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
7
2. Concurrent Review of Applications
The City has established specific time periods for each type of
review process (as required by Section 4-207), has included them in
a development review handbook, but they should also be made
available on the City’s website. However, what should be taken into
consideration with these time frames is the fact that staff can at times
be handling three months worth of submissions, all at the same time.
The submission deadline for new development applications
overlaps the same period of time used for staff preparation of
applications to be reviewed by the DRC, and the same time that
other development applications are being prepared for review by
the CDB. This places a great deal of strain on the staff and can lead
to applications not receiving the proper amount of review (it should
be noted that we did not observe this, nor was this problem reported
to us during this analysis, and according to Community
Development staff, 98% of the applications submitted to the City are
reviewed and approved within the described one or two-step
process).
Recommendation
For each development application it is important to
??
understand how the established time frames for
review/approval impact the potential for overlap with other
applications.
B. The Code’s Requirements
1. Development Application Requirements
Section 4-202 starting on page CD4:5 includes numerous
requirements for different types of development in the city.
However, some of these requirements may not be needed, especially
for the less involved or less complex development applications. For
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
8
example, in order to obtain an approval for a home occupation an
applicant is required to submit, among other items, a signed and
sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land
surveyor.
Additionally, the outline and numbering system is not correct for
“basic information required for all
this section. Section 4-202.A. reads
applications”
and then includes items 1 through 25 and subsets in
lower case letters under some of these 25 items. This statement
makes it appear as though all applications must address all 25 items;
however it appears as though the intent of the Code is to provide a
break between each type of development application and their
requisite submission requirements. Without a clear break, and if the
section were read literally, each and every requirement listed in this
section would apply to each and every application for development
approval.
Recommendations
Eliminate all application requirements that are not necessary
??
and that do not correspond with the level of development
intensity or use.
Rewrite the section to include clearer breaks describing the
??
requirements for each development application. It will be
necessary to repeat some of the requirements, however this
will allow the user to go only to the section they are
interested in, as opposed to having to read the entire
division to determine what is required.
2. Requirements for Subdivision Plats
“Required Approvals,”
Section 4-702 on page CD4:33 is titled but
“if plat approval is required,”
starts out by stating which gives the
impression that an approval may not be required in some instances.
It should be clearly stated here, or another section referenced, so that
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
9
the need for a plat approval is clear and the requirements that apply
are clear.
“the approval process is
The section referenced above also states
ministerial.”
The term “ministerial” is not defined in the Code and it
would appear that the intent is to relate that the approval process
instead is “perfunctory” in nature. In addition, this same paragraph
“City Code”
uses the term when other sections reference the
“Community Development Code” (note: some sections of the Code
use the shortened term “Development Code”).
Lastly, there is no reference from this section to Division 19 in
“Subdivision Design
Article 3 containing the requirements for
Standards.”
Also, this same division in Article 3 is not cross-
referenced to the approval requirements of this section.
Recommendations
It should be clearly stated in this section, or another section
??
referenced, that the need for a plat approval is required and
the requirements that apply are clear.
The reference to a “ministerial” approval should be changed
??
or eliminated.
Consistently use the term “Community Development Code”
??
throughout the Code.
Division 7 in Article 4 and Division 19 in Article 3 should be
??
cross-referenced.
C. The Code’s Format and Organization
1. Uses Permitted, Standards, and Approval Processes
Many zoning codes typically provide for a list of uses under the
“permitted use” or “conditional use” headings, and then describe
the standards that apply to them in a separate code section, and
finally the required approval steps (i.e., staff, planning board,
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
10
commission, board of adjustment or other board) in another separate
section. In contrast, the City’s Code was amended in 1999 to
provide for simplified terms and review/approval processes,
combining:
Uses allowed;
??
Their minimum and maximum requirements;
??
The standards they must meet before approval (requiring the
??
submission of a site plan for many uses); and
Their review/approval processes - all combined into a few
??
new terms or concepts (shown in the table on page 10).
Second, a number of review/approval steps were eliminated by
requiring approval for development-related applications by only the
DRC (i.e., staff) and/or the CDB. However, this new treatment of the
uses allowed and their related development review/approval
processes is confusing, as it can be difficult to determine what the
requirements are for a particular use and what the required steps to
obtain approval are.
In the Code, the uses permitted in each zoning district, and their
various requirements, standards and criteria, and approval
processes are combined into use categories, or what are actually
three different levels of uses and their corresponding approval
processes:
Minimum Standard Development;
??
Flexible Standard Development; and
??
Flexible Development.
??
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
11
Terms and Processes for Uses, Criteria and Standards, and
Development Review/Approval
Term used to describe:
Term used to describe:
uses allowed, their
uses allowed and their Final Approving
corresponding criteria and
corresponding criteria Entity
standards, and their final
and standards
approving entity
Minimum Standard Staff (for
Permitted Uses: Level One
Development Building Permit)
Flexible Standard
Permitted Uses: Level One DRC (Staff)
Development
Community
Flexible Development Permitted Uses: Level Two Development
Board
None Level Three Approvals City Council
What results in confusion is that:
Some of the six terms shown in the first two columns are often
??
used interchangeably in the Code and by staff (e.g., Flexible
Standard Development and Permitted Uses: Level One);
Both “Minimum Standard” and “Flexible Standard
??
Development” are referred to with the same level of approval
in the Code: “Permitted Uses: Level One,” and even though
these two terms are for permitted uses they follow different
approval processes; and
The term “Level Three Approvals,” that pertains to legislative
??
actions involving the passing of an ordinance (i.e., zoning text
amendments, annexations, historic designations, etc.), does
not actually involve a development application.
Again, the intent of creating these new terms and processes was to
simplify development approval and to break away from old and
outdated processes and terminology. This simplification has not
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
12
occurred in the written Code, but with some revision may result in
successfully improving the development approval process.
To illustrate the mixed and interchanged or improper use of terms,
Article 2. Zoning Districts, uses the terms pertaining to the three
development types, their associated standards and criteria, and their
corresponding approval processes interchangeably. The terms in
the list are used frequently throughout the Code, and are of course
used by the staff in their communications with the public. However,
those unfamiliar with the City’s review processes are often left
confused. Also, the inconsistent treatment of capitalization further
confuses the public, and possibly some staff (note: capitalization is
as it appears in the Code and may just be errors attributable to
Municipal Code Corporation). The terms in the example are given
only for the “Level One” uses, but the same confusion basically
holds true for the Level Two and Level Three terms used.
Terms Used to Refer to “Permitted Uses: Level One”
Minimum standard development (Section 2-102, page CD2:7)
??
Level One permitted uses (Section 2-102, CD2:7)
??
Minimum development (Table 2-102, page CD2:7)
??
Flexible standard development (Section 2-103, page2:9)
??
Flexible development standards (Table 2-104, CD2:10)
??
Level One (flexible standard development) approval (Section 3-
??
201.B.8., page CD3:8)
Level One-Flexible Standard (Section 3-201.C.2.a., page CD3:9)
??
Level One flexible standard development (Section 3-903.H.2., page
??
CD3:30)
Level One (minimum standard development) (Section 4-202.C.2.,
??
page 4:9)
Level One (standard) approval (Section 6-106.B., page CD6:5)
??
level one (flexible standard) approval (Section 6-106.B., page CD6:5)
??
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
13
The confusion that is apparent in the list above is also evident on the
City’s website that describes the development review process
3
(clearwater-fl.com/gov/depts/planning/divisions/devreview/
index.asp):
“Three levels of review are provided in each district, outlining permitted
land uses, dimensional requirements and specific criteria that must be
met.”
This excerpt above shows where part of the confusion stems from,
three levels of review
that is that the sentence refers to “” and at the
outlining permitted land uses.”
same time says, “ The levels of review
don’t in fact outline permitted land uses. Rather, the Minimum
Standard, Flexible Standard, and Flexible Development include lists
of uses, and that each use included in these development groups
must undergo one of three levels of review: 1) Minimum Standard =
3
The additional excerpts listed from the City’s website below show more of the
confusing mixing of terms that describe the three development types and allowed uses,
standards and criteria associated with them, and the review processes associated with
them.
Confusing Use of Terms on the City’s Website (underlining added for emphasis)
“The first level of review, Minimum Standard Development (also called Level One
development)…”
“The second level of review is called Flexible Standard Development (also considered Level One
development).”
“The third level of review, called Flexible Development, is also known as Level Two development.”
the second level of review is called
As can be seen, the second sentence starts by stating “
Flexible Standard Development
,” when this term (i.e., Flexible Standard Development)
actually pertains to a second tier of uses in that zoning district and the various standards
they must meet, and not simply a “review” process. Even more confusing is that this
second level of reviewLevel One development
“” is then called “.” Further, the last sentence
“third level of review”
refers to a which is not the same as, but could easily be confused
with, the Level Three legislative approval process before the City Council, but then says
is also known as Level Two development.”
that this third level of review “
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
14
staff/Building Permit application; 2) Flexible Standard = DRC (staff);
and 3) Flexible = DRC then CDB.
A recommended solution to this problem lies in the creation of new
terms that will encompass all the terms in the table on page 10. As
can be seen in that table, the term “Level Three” used to describe the
legislative actions reviewed by the City Council is not
recommended. That process should simply be referred to as
“Legislative Actions” to help separate and differentiate those actions
from the development approval process.
Terms as Recommended for the Code
Recommended
Existing Terms (to be replaced)
Terms
Term used to
Term used to
Term used to describe:
Final
describe:
describe: uses allowed,
Approving
uses allowed, their
uses allowed their
Entity (no
corresponding
and their corresponding
change)
criteria and
corresponding
criteria and
standards, and
criteria and standards, and
their final
standards their final
approving entity
approving entity
Minimum Staff (for
Permitted Uses:
Standard Level One Uses Building
Level One
Development Permit)
Flexible
Permitted Uses:
Standard Level Two Uses DRC (Staff)
Level One
Development
Flexible Permitted Uses:
Level Three Uses CDB
Development Level Two
Level Three City
None Legislative Actions
Approvals Council
A “Level One Use” would hereafter refer to the most basic uses
listed in the Code, and their standards and review/approval
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
15
processes. “Level Two” would involve the next, more “involved”
level of uses, and “Level Three Uses” would include uses with the
highest level of intensity/density and the most complexity, the
standards and criteria they must meet, and their review/approval
processes and steps. “Legislative Actions” would no longer be
confused with the processes involving an application for
development review/approval.
One final note: further complicating this issue is that the terms that
have been discussed in this section are not described or explained
until much later in the Code.
Recommendations
Use the recommended terms in the previous table to replace
??
the current terms used in the Code.
Use consistent capitalization of all terms throughout the
??
Code (note: this may be the result of codification by
Municipal Code Corporation and corrections may need to be
coordinated with them).
The following section, as well as other sections written
??
similarly, should be reworded to help eliminate confusion
in the Code relative to review levels and permitted uses:
To illustrate as written (shading added for emphasis)
Section 2-102. Minimum standard development.
The following uses are Level One permitted uses in the LDR
District subject to the minimum standards set out in this
Section and other applicable provisions of Article 3.
Shown with removed and added text:
Section 2-102. Level One Uses Minimum standard development.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
16
The following uses are Level One permitted uses in the LDR
District subject to the minimum standards set out in this
Section and other in Table 1-102 below and the applicable
provisions of Article 3.
As recommended
Section 2-102. Level One Uses.
The following uses are permitted subject to the minimum standards
in Table 1-102 below and to the applicable provisions in Article 3.
Add the following table after Chart 2-100 on page CD2:4
??
(using the LDR Zoning District as an example):
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
17
Level of
Review/
Zoning Districts Use Uses
Approval
(see Article 2) (see (see Article 2)
(see Article 4)
Article 2)
Low Density
Residential
“Level One Uses”
(note: will replace the current Community Staff (for
??
terms “Minimum Standard Residential Homes Building
Development” and Detached Dwellings Permit)
??
“Permitted Uses: Level One”)
“Level Two Uses” Detached Dwellings
??
(note: will replace the current Residential Infill
??
terms Flexible Standard Projects DRC (Staff)
Development” and Utility/Infrastructure
??
“Permitted Uses: Level One”) Facilities
Attached Dwellings
??
“Level Three Uses” Overnight
??
(note: will replace the current Accommodations Community
terms “Flexible Parks and Recreation Development
??
Development” and Facilities Board
“Permitted Uses: Level Two”) Residential Infill
??
Schools
??
Article 2 refers to the three groups of uses and three levels of
??
approval (Minimum Standard Development – Permitted Uses:
Level One; Flexible Standard Development – Permitted Uses:
Level One; and Flexible Development – Permitted Uses: Level
Two), but they are not described or explained until much
later in the Code. It is recommended that the three groups
of uses and their associated criteria, standards, and review
processes be briefly explained at the beginning of each
zoning district section.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
18
2. Organization of the Requirements in Article 3
For each of the three groups of uses in each of the zoning districts
other applicable
included in Article 2 there is a further reference to “
provisions of Article 3other applicable provisions
.” These “” pertain to
additional requirements for the uses that may apply above and
beyond the requirements included in Article 2.
The problem that arises in this case is that the reader is not directed
to specific or applicable provisions included in Article 3. The phrase
other applicable provisions
“” is nebulous. Article 3 is 90 pages long,
contains 23 Divisions, and 121 Sections ranging from Access
Management Standards to Residential Rentals. This vast section full
of standards and requirements pertaining to a variety of uses, and
the unclear reference to it from Article 2 not only confuses the
reader, but places undue pressure on staff to interpret what is
applicable to a particular use and what is not.
In a best-case scenario, this requires frequent coordination among
staff in order to ensure that the various interpretations made are
consistent from week to week and project to project. However, in a
worst-case scenario when staff is required to make such judgment
calls, inconsistent use of the Code and inconsistent application of the
requirements can lead to complaints from applicants about arbitrary
decisions, and staff frustration in their attempts to be consistent and
apply common sense.
In summary, large sections of the Code left to an interpretation by
the public and more than one staff person does three things: 1)
leaves staff with no clear direction; 2) can be abused, and at a
minimum will lead to inconsistent outcomes; and 3) does not offer
or provide the applicant with clear direction or predictability.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
19
Recommendation
Determine the specific requirements in Article 3 that apply
??
to each use in each zoning district. It can be accomplished
by:
Citing in Article 2 the specific portions of Article 3 that
o
apply;
Including in Article 2 the specific requirements for each
o
zoning category and use; and/or
By reorganizing Article 3 altogether.
o
The reorganization can exchange the existing alphabetical
listing of requirements in Article 3 with requirements
grouped with the uses they apply to from Article 2. This
regrouping may lead to some provisions being repeated in
the Code, however, in return it will provide much improved
clarity and ease of use.
3. Cross-Referencing
The Code, especially Article 3, is inconsistent in cross-referencing
other parts of the Code. Occasionally, the reference is to an entire
“article” or “division,” while other times a more specific reference is
made to a “section.”
Recommendation
Change all cross-references to be as specific as possible in
??
order to direct the user to the specific requirement or
information.
4. References to Approving Entity
community development coordinator
Section 4-302 states that the “”
approves applications when both the flow chart on the previous
page and the diagram on page CD4:5 state the DRC. At a minimum,
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
20
this should be clarified, and if appropriate, given this lowest level of
development application, not require that these applications be
reviewed by the DRC. This will reduce time, cost, and complexity
for these items. It should also be noted that the organizational chart
Community Development
of City staff does not include a “
Coordinator,”
even though one is referenced in the Code.
Recommendations
The approval process and the appropriate reviewing entity
??
should be clarified, and if appropriate, given this lowest
level of development application, not require that these
applications be reviewed by the DRC.
D. Other Code Issues
1. Miscellaneous Minor Issues Affecting the Flow of the Code
There are a significant number of less important issues that were
discovered while reviewing the Code that do not warrant a separate
discussion on each, but taken as a whole serve to confuse the reader.
Correction of these issues will improve the Code’s readability and
flow. They are provided in the list on the next page:
Corrections and Modifications
All Articles
Page numbers should be added to the directory of divisions
??
and sections that appear at the beginning of each article. At
present, the reader is required to search for an article or
section page by page.
Article 2. Zoning Districts
The title of Chart 2-100 on page CD2:4 is incorrectly titled
??
Permitted Uses
“.” No such term exists in the article that
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
21
follows. It is suggested that the title be changed to “Use
Matrix.”
The numbering used to refer to the notes following Table 2-
??
Residential Infill Projects
103 on page CD2:9 for “” and
Utility/Infrastructure Facilities
“” are reversed.
The term “Residential Infill” in table 2-104 on page CD2:10
??
Residential Infill Project
should read “” to be consistent with
other sections of the Code and the notes included after the
table.
land use plan
The note after Table 2-702 on page CD2:47 says “
??
map amendment to institutional”
when it should correctly read
future land use map amendment to Institutional.”
“
Notes 1 and 2 appearing after Table 2-703 on page CD2:48 can
??
be combined.
“Flexibility standards”
The term used on page CD2:84 should
??
“Flexibility criteria.”
read
Article 3. Development Standards
minor amendment,
Section 3-1401.B.3.a. references a “” but does
??
not explain what would constitute such an amendment.
Conversely, no other part of this section references a “major
amendment.” This section should cross-reference Section 4-
406. A.
The chart on page CD3:51 does not include a chart number as
??
is the case in other sections.
Section 3-1404.D. uses a lower case letter for the term
??
“division,”
where Section 3-1404.E. uses upper case. This
inconsistency occurs frequently and can confuse the reader.
The table on page CD3:53 is not numbered or labeled.
??
Additionally, the text in Section 3-1405 appears on page
“uses which are listed below”“listed in the
CD3:53 and states and
Table below”
when the table is actually on the previous page
(CD3:52).
minimum sign standards”
The term “ is used in Section 3-
??
1807.A.2. on page CD3:70.6 and later in the same section the
“minimum standard signage”
term is used (on page CD3:70.7).
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
22
The illustrations in this section are not numbered, nor are they
??
included in the Table of Contents.
”development review,”
Section 3-1806 references a but it is not
??
clear what that review entails. Also, in Section 3-1806.A.1.a. it
“unless otherwise approved by the community
is stated
development coordinator,”
but there is no reference to where the
community development coordinator might have authority to
approve such a sign.
“comprehensive sign program
Section 3-1806.B. uses the phrase
??
application,”
but does not reference the section where a
description of this process can be found.
Section 3-1807.C.1.a. and C.4. uses inconsistent capitalization
??
“comprehensive sign program”
for the term (page CD3:70.7).
“thoroughfare
Section 3-1904.A. on page CD3:70.9 references a
??
element”
of the comprehensive plan, however the City’s plan
only has a Transportation element.
The Table on page CD3:70.10 continues onto to the next page,
??
but should remain on page CD3:70.10.
“to ensure that
Section 3-2101 on page CD3:80 uses the phrase
??
such uses are compatible with adjacent land uses and consistent
with the city’s goals and objectives.”“adjacent land
The term
uses”
should be amended to either “adjacent existing uses of
land” or “adjacent future land use designations,” whichever is
the intent. Additionally, a specific reference should be added
“city’s goals and
that will indicate where one can find the
objectives”
referenced in this section.
The Code uses a number of terms that are either unexplained
??
in Section 3-1807 or that does not include a cross-reference.
“Comprehensive sign program”
The terms include: (Section 3-
“Minimum sign standards and minimum
1807, page CD3:70.6);
standard signage” “subject
(Section 3-1807.A.2., page CD3:70.6);
to flexibility criteria” “A
(Section 3-1807.A.3., page CD3:70.7);
comprehensive sign program shall be approved as part of a Level
One or Level Two approval, as the case may be”
((Section 3-
“an integrated architectural
1807B.1., page CD3:70.7); and
vocabulary”
((Section 3-1807.C.1.a., page CD3:70.7).
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
23
Include a description or explanation of items such as
??
“comprehensive sign program” and “integrated architectural
vocabulary.”
Instead of stating “as the case may be” (in Section 3-1807.B.1.),
??
be more specific with reference to the approval required for
the comprehensive sign program.
Use consistent terms to describe sign standards.
??
Article 4. Development Review and Other Procedures
“Community
Section 4-207.A. on page CD4:15 capitalizes
??
Development Coordinator”
while Section 4-207.C. does not.
The chart on page 4:16 should provide a clear separation of
??
the process on the left (i.e., staff/building permit review and
approval) from the process on the right (Development Review
Committee review and approval). Two separate charts may
be necessary.
The second box on the flow-chart on page CD4:21 includes the
??
Application for Development Approval
phrase “.” A more
accurate phrase would be “Requested Action” since many of
the items reviewed by the City Council are not submitted
exclusively by an “applicant” and instead involve zoning and
comprehensive plan text amendments, as well as Zoning Atlas
and Future Land Use Plan map amendments initiated by the
City.
Level One Approvals
The phrase “” appears with the flow-chart
??
Level Two Approvals
on page CD4:16 and the phrase “” appears
on page CD4:19 twice. The phrase “Level Three Approvals”
appears on page CD4:21 three times. After these terms are
amended as recommended in the previous discussions in this
report, all repetitive and excessive use of these phrases should
be eliminated.
The flow charts referenced in the previous bullets are helpful
??
in explaining the process involved in each level of review.
However, they should be preceded by a written explanation,
especially given that they appear immediately following the
division title.
_________
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
24
III. Survey of Frequent Users
To help in identifying what procedures work well and which are thought
to be unnecessarily complex, burdensome, or time-consuming, a survey of
frequent users, including the development industry and City staff, was
conducted. This survey was also employed to help determine which
development review approvals and procedures they use or are familiar
with, as well as to garner suggestions for improvement if the development
review process was perceived to be problematic.
A copy of the survey is attached to this report (see Appendix) and was
responded to by six of the thirty-three persons or firms that were sent a
survey. Once the survey response deadline passed, PPC staff called or
contacted each of the remaining persons listed in an attempt to improve
the response rate. It should be noted that although this response rate
represents a high percentage, the total number of responses should not be
deemed statistically significant. In other words, although the responses
may be helpful and accurate, the results may not represent the opinions of
all the Code’s users.
The questions and their summarized responses are as follows:
Q1. Rate each process you have used for how well you feel each
is working to meet your overall development needs.
The survey respondents rated the “Minimum Standard”
development approval higher than both the “Flexible Standard” and
the “Flexible Development” approval. Of course this is expected
since these processes gradually become more complex moving from
Minimum Standard up to Flexible Development. City Council
approval (Level 3 approval for rezonings, annexations, development
agreements, etc.) was rated very well, with “excellent” to “good”
responses only. Also, a respondent stated that the process for
approval of development agreements (Level 3 approval) was
excellent.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
25
It can be concluded from the responses to this question that the more
complex processes involving site plan approval are where problems
too many engineering issues “bog down” the
arise. Comments such as “
processtoo much paper workmany
” and “.” It was also stated that “
questions on [the] application are repetitive and lengthy
” and that
…multiple planners reviewing the case and making additional comments
“
after initial and sometimes second comments have been addressed
” is a
although the flex. process works well for large-scale
problem and that “
developments, such as Clearwater Beach development, it is too cumbersome
(and expensive) for small business owners. For example, requiring full
landscape plans, drainage, survey, etc. is overkill for a change in use of a
small business which may need a 2’ setback variance or a reduction of 2
parking spaces
.”
Q2. Rate each process you have used for its ease of
understanding, relative to obtaining final development approval,
including understanding the necessary steps between submission
and final approval.
The survey respondents rated the “Minimum Standard”
development approval higher than both the “Flexible Standard” and
the “Flexible Development” approval. Again, City Council approval
was rated very high, with only “excellent” to “good” responses
received. Also, a respondent stated that the process for approval of
development agreements (City Council approval) was excellent.
The comments gleaned from the respondents to this question
very complicated and convoluted [and] too
include that the process is “
many steps including completeness review and sufficiency review at DRC
[resulting in] continuances of CDB meeting based on DRC comments
.”
steps of processing
On the other hand, one respondent stated that the “
[are] very easy to understand
.” A middle-ground comment was that
we now have “ease of understanding” due to familiarity with the Code
“
and experience. For newcomers to Clearwater, it is too difficult to
understand
.”
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
26
Q3. Rate each process you have used with respect to the
appropriate level of submission requirements (e.g., applications,
affidavits, surveys, site plans, studies, etc).
The survey respondents rated the level of submission requirements
for the “Minimum Standard” development approval higher than
both the “Flexible Standard” and the “Flexible Development”
approval. Again, City Council approval was rated very high, with
mostly “excellent” and two “good” responses received.
However, some of the written comments received from the
respondents rating this item in the “fair” to “poor” columns were
too much information [is needed] on plans – full construction plans,
that “
arborist report, parking study, etc.”
This respondent went on to say
15 copies of everything with each submittal is ridiculous.”
“They felt that
schematics would meet the need. Another respondent said that
too much information required – too many sets
there was “.” A similar
comment from the previous question was written regarding the
Flexible Development approval process in that the submission
appropriate for large-scale redevelopment, [but that}
requirements were “
too much is required for smaller projects
.”
Q4. Rate each approval process you have used with respect to
the timeliness of development approval.
The survey respondents did not appear to be as satisfied with the
timeliness of the development approval process. Even though one
respondent was very happy with the City Council approval process,
there were many more responses in the “fair” category for all three
types of approval, with one “poor” for the Flexible Development
process.
The written comments received for this question are helpful in
explaining the responses discussed above. One respondent stated
the submission/DRC/CDB timeline is appropriate; however we have
that “
in the past had problems with not receiving all comments at one time or had
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
27
advertising problems that resulted in delays. As for flex. standard, the
process takes too long because it does not adhere to the regular schedule
since there are no precise deadlines
.”
Q5. Provide an estimation of the number of staff persons and
departments you are in contact with for each process, as well as
how many meetings (both with the staff and various boards) you
or your development team must attend, and the number of
required visits to City Hall.
As expected for this question, the responses were that more staff
was interacted with for the more complex Flexible Standard and
Flexible Development applications, from as few as four to as many
as ten. This was in conjunction with what seemed to be an excessive
number of six to eight visits by one respondent, including 2 or 3
meetings on each application at the staff level before going to the
CDB meeting.
the submittal
Some good written comments were received such as “
process has been improved by bringing in the applications and giving
approximately one week to complete them if incomplete
.” Also, another
it is great having staff available
stated, “.” The last written response
[too] many individuals [are] involved in DRC process
was that “.”
Q6. If you answered Q5, rate the quality of the service or
assistance you received.
Staff responsiveness, accuracy, professionalism, knowledge, and
helpfulness were rated “excellent” to “good” by the majority of
respondents to this question. Only one “poor” was registered for
responsiveness.
they
Only one written comment was received and that was that “
[staff] are always in meetings. Some tend to be obstructionist with their
interpretation of the Code
.” This same respondent rated staff for their
“helpfulness” as “fair” and their “responsiveness” as “poor.”
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
28
Q7. Rate each approval process application for its overall level of
complexity.
This question required that the respondent write in the type of
application form they were familiar with. From the responses it
appeared as though the Flexible Standard, and Comprehensive Infill
applications were the most complex with them being rated no better
than “fair.” Annexations, comprehensive plan amendments, and
rezonings (all reviewed by the City Council) were rated at “excellent
(easy to understand).”
applications are too lengthy
Written comments received state that the “
and require too much informationsome of the questions are too
” that “
convoluted and are not specific as to detailstoo many
” and that there are “
different application forms [and that] they are all similar and all require too
much information
.”
Q8. List the title of the article or section of the Community
Development Code that you use most often and then rate its
complexity.
Only three of the surveys received showed responses to this
question. Article 2 and 3 of the Code were rated as “fair” relative to
their complexity. One respondent stated that they used the whole
the lay-out…is easy to use. The specific
Code and that “
requirements/categories of each district – minimum/standard/flex – are
difficult for most people to understand. Even after Code review, we often
need staff’s interpretation
.”
Q9. Next to the form of contact below, please give the percentage
of time you use each and then rate the response you received (i.e.,
how well each of these forms of contact met your needs or
answered your questions). Use N/A if this does not apply to you.
The responses to this question ranged from “good” for walk-ins,
telephone, and email contact to three “excellent” marks for the
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
29
website. Telephone contact did however receive two “fairs” and one
“poor.”
the wait is sometimes long on walk-in
Written comments included that “
visits. Phone response has improved in the last few months. Phone
response is excellent by the planners. Zoning desk call-back usually takes
too long
.”
Q10. Rate the timeliness of the response using each form of
contact. Use N/A if this does not apply to you.
Most responses to this question rated the City’s timeliness of
response as “good”, however three were in the “poor (extensive
delay)” category for telephone contact.
Written comments further emphasize the problem with telephone
mostly engineering and sometimes planners not returning
response: “
phone calls (sometimes at all)” “they are in meetings too often and
and
short of staff
.”
Q11. Have you ever accessed the MyClearwater.com web site?
Q12. If you answered “yes” to Q11, rate the characteristics of the
web site relative to development approval (e.g., obtaining
development approval information and Code requirements).
All survey respondents said that they have accessed the City’s
website and they rated the site “good,” with five responses in the
“excellent” column, and two “fair” responses, one rating how
helpful the links are and one the site’s ease of navigation.
one of the best – have
The only written comment was that the site was “
used many city webs – this site contains all the right information
.”
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
30
Q13. Are there different ways to communicate with you
concerning development approval processes, development status,
and other information that would be more beneficial or
convenient to you?
Posting
There were only two responses to this question. One stated, “
everything on-line is great [and that they] love the e-mails
.” The second
suggested that an e-mail or letter response would be beneficial.
Q14. Are there any suggestions that you have concerning how the
process can be improved with respect to clarity, ease of use,
process steps, level of complexity or any other areas that you may
feel would benefit the development approval process (attach extra
sheets if necessary)?
Suggestions to benefit the development approval process included:
“Reduce the number of copies, redevelop the applications [since they are]
too long, [add] more planners to answer questions, [and there is a need for
a] longer turn-around time for resubmittals;”
“Streamline the required items on the applications (particularly for CDB
items). They do not need (nor understand) full engineering drawings to
approve a height variance, or parking variance. After CDB approval the
applicant can submit full construction drawings if the variance was
approved….”
“With any process, people make it happen. Making sure people return
phone calls in a timely manner; are qualified to give you answers the first
time and not go back to change their minds; understand the Code top to
bottom; give each meeting (BPRC, DRC, CDB, etc.) the equal amount of
attention – don’t push people out of a BPRC (Building Plans Review
Committee) meeting just because their 15 minutes are up (this process
needs the most improvement and attention).”
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
31
“Downloadable PDF files of [the] Code would suit me better than
Municode.com. Submittal of PDF drawings in lieu of paper would be nice.
(My credentials are available on the state website, and checking there may
be better than relying on signing and sealing) Review comments could be
posted as PDF too.”
“Revise the Code to allow for administrative review of minor “variances”
so that small business owners or homeowners do not have to go through the
Comp. Infill process. Assign one staff member to Comp. Sign applications
and separate that process from Comp. Infill development review process.
More planning staff are needed to accommodate the current volume of
applications.”
Q15. Please let us know what parts of the development approval
process work well, or that need small adjustments to work well, so
as to ultimately meet your needs (attach extra sheets if necessary).
Identification of which parts of the process work well, as well as
additional comments that would benefit the development approval
process included:
“BPRC meetings are great, but should be longer. DRC meetings should
have all appropriate staff members attend.”
“Get staff comments to applicant two days prior to DRC so we could
respond at DRC while everyone is at the meeting.”
“Assigning one planner to a project and having that planner review the
application for completeness, then notifying the applicant and giving an
opportunity to complete the application is working well. However, some of
the requirements are too inflexible and should be judged on a case-by-case
basis.”
These responses are informative, and used by themselves, can in fact be
considered recommendations that the City can consider, where
appropriate. The study conducted does not determine whether or not the
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
32
problems identified are valid, but they do provide, in combination with
the other components of this evaluation, a sense of where and how the
review process can be improved.
_________
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
33
IV. Comparison with Other Communities
As part of the assessment of Clearwater’s development review process we
were tasked with conducting a comparison of the process with others in
the area and around the country. The local governments that we studied
include:
Gainesville, FL
??
Sarasota, FL
??
Pinellas County, FL
??
Portage, MI
??
Clark County, WA
??
We will briefly discuss each of these communities’ processes in the
sections to follow, with the intent of identifying the best practices
employed by other communities and their potential application to
Clearwater.
A. Gainesville, Florida
Their Process – The length and steps involved in City of
Gainesville’s development review process varies according to the
proposed development’s intensity or amount of the parcel proposed
to be improved. Regardless of the level of review, the process
requires that the applicant attend a “pre-application conference,”
also referred to on the City’s website as the “First Step.” The First
convenient, one-stop location where business
Step Center is set up as a “
owners, developers, and other interested person receive development and
permitting information from several city departments at one time
.”
The second stage of the review process involves a determination of
the level of review that will be applied to the development request,
based on criteria in the Code. This determination will result in an
application being subject to one of the following:
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
35
Rapid Review;
??
Minor Review;
??
Intermediate Review; or
??
Major Review.
??
Rapid and Minor Review applications are reviewed and approved
by staff and do not require neighborhood meetings or notice to the
public. Again, they do require a First Step Center appointment (pre-
application conference).
An optional “Concept Plan Review” fits in-between the second stage
provided in order for the applicant to
and third in the process. This is “
receive public input and staff comments on a concept for development prior
to the preparation of detailed plans and data.
” Major Reviews are
Intermediate developments
encouraged to go through this step, while “
need not be submitted to concept review, but…may be used at the option of
the developer.
” Further, both the staff and the Development Review
Board are designated to comment at this Concept Review.
The higher-level Intermediate and Major Reviews require both a
“Preliminary” and a “Final” development plan approval. The
Preliminary approval must be reviewed by the “Technical Review
Committee” made of various members of the city staff, and then
must be heard by the “Development Review Board,” which
conducts a quasi-judicial style hearing. Only a subdivision plat goes
on to the City Council after this step.
The following flow charts summarize the City of Gainesville’s
development review process. It should be noted that staff review in
Step 2 of the Rapid Review process does not appear in the City’s
Code, but is assumed to be the approval stage. Also, the
neighborhood workshop listed in Step 2 for the Intermediate and
Major Review was included on the City’s website, but does not
appear as a requirement in their Code.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
36
Rapid and Minor Reviews Intermediate and Major Reviews
Step 1 Step 1
“First Step” “First Step”
(Pre-Application Conference) (Pre-Application Conference)
early, informal staff input early, informal staff input
I I
Step 2 Step 2
Staff Review Neighborhood Workshop
formal staff approval/denial early, informed citizen input
I
Step 3
Staff Review
formal, staff recommendations
I
Step 4
Development Review Board
(Preliminary Development Plan)
Quasi-judicial hearing
I
Step 5
Staff Review
(Final Development Plan)
formal, staff approval
What’s Useful – The City of Gainesville’s “First Step Process” may
benefit Clearwater’s development community, especially those that
are new to the process. This step allows all applicants to garner
important information from knowledgeable staff members at one
place and time, as opposed to attempting to contact each affected
department individually to obtain necessary information on nearby
utilities, drainage issues, or other issues that may affect the
proposed development. As seen later in this report, Pinellas County
offers a similar (optional) service that has proven beneficial to the
public.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
37
The City of Clearwater has a similar process called the Building
Plans Review Committee, or BPRC, but this is not a required step,
nor is it website oriented or tied to website information as is the case
for Gainesville.
Second, Gainesville’s process has a preliminary and final site plan
approval process whereby Clearwater does not. As suggested in
section A.1 of this report the City may benefit from bifurcating the
site plan submission requirements, with some of the more detailed
plan items being submitted to the building permit or construction
drawing stage of the process as opposed to the Development Review
Committee or Community Development Board approval stages.
Other items from the City of Gainesville’s process that could benefit
the City of Clearwater are not necessarily found in their Code, but
are informational items that are based on their Code and that appear
on the City’s website at http://cityofgainesville.org/comdev/plan/
currplan.shtml. These include easily accessed development process
information (“Guide to the Development Review Process”), contact
information (“Contact the Current Planning Staff”), a flow chart for
the steps involved (“Flow chart”), and application forms (“Online
Forms”) via the web.
Otherwise, a comparison of the two processes reveals that the City
of Clearwater’s has fewer steps involved. The City of Clearwater
requires many uses to be reviewed only by staff, and under a worst-
case scenario (most number of steps) a review could involve staff
and the Community Development Board, with two steps total. Also,
the City of Clearwater bases the level of review on the nature of the
use involved rather than intensity of development or the amount of
improvements proposed on the parcel.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
38
B. Sarasota, Florida
Their Process – Similar to the City of Gainesville, the length and
steps involved in City’s development review process varies
according to the type of application involved. Regardless of the
level of review, the process recommends that the applicant attend a
“pre-application conference.” For the purposes of this report we
concentrate on site plans, conditional use approvals, and variances,
all of which are covered in the City of Clearwater’s Level One and
Level Two approval processes and the three tiers of uses allowed in
each zoning category.
The Development Review Committee, made up of staff members,
reviews each application (with the exception of certain site plans
and variances), and makes a recommendation to the Planning Board.
Then, either the Planning Board makes a final decision, or the City
Council makes a final decision based upon the Planning Board’s
recommendation, depending on the type of development requested.
The Board of Adjustment reviews variance applications, and site
plans in the downtown district are approved by the Planning and
Redevelopment Department.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
39
The process for the listed development applications is as follows:
Minor Conditional Uses Major Conditional Uses
Site Plan Site Plan (G Zone)
Step 1 Step 1
“Development Review Committee” “Development Review Committee”
recommendation prepared for recommendation prepared for
Planning Board Planning Board
I I
Step 2 Step 2
for Minor Conditional Uses for Major Conditional Uses
“Neighborhood Workshop” “Neighborhood Workshop”
inform neighborhood of proposal inform neighborhood of proposal
I I
Step 2 for Site Plans Step 2 for Site Plans (G Zone)
Step 3 for Minor Conditional Uses Step 3 for Major Conditional Uses
“Planning Board” “Planning Board”
Quasi-judicial hearing, approval or Quasi-judicial hearing and
denial recommendation
I
Step 3 for Site Plans
Step 4 for Major Conditional Uses
“City Commission”
approval or denial
I
Step 4 for Site Plans
Step 5 for Major Conditional Uses
Construction Drawings
formal, staff approval of detailed plans
Similar to the City of Clearwater, the City of Sarasota’s Code allows
administrative approval of site plans for a number of items, some of
which could be deemed minor in nature. The City of Clearwater
also allows administrative approval of certain site plans that are
significant in nature.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
40
What’s Useful – The City of Sarasota’s Codebook sections
pertaining to development review procedures are geared to the
particular use requested or the type of approval required. This
format could be used in the reorganization of Article 3 in
Clearwater’s Code. Additionally, although a minor feature,
Sarasota’s Codebook includes the starting section number in a
header on left hand pages and the final section on the page in the
header on the right hand page. This is similar to what might be
found in a dictionary and helps the reader locate sections easier.
Otherwise, a comparison of the two processes reveals that the City
of Clearwater’s has fewer steps involved, requiring many uses to be
reviewed only by staff, and under a worst-case scenario a review
could involve staff and the Community Development Board, with
two steps total. Also, the City of Clearwater has eliminated the
process for variances before a Board of Adjustment, with the
Flexible Standard Development and Flexible Development
applications having to meet performance based criteria, or specific
guidelines, to earn flexibility with respect to setbacks, height, etc., as
opposed to having to prove “hardship” with variance applications.
Other items from the City of Sarasota’s process that could benefit the
City of Clearwater are not necessarily found in their Code, but are
4
informational items that are based on their Code and that appear on
the City’s website at www.sarasotagov.com/Planning/Planning
Home/PlanningHP.html. These include:
Contacting staff
??
Organizational chart
??
Planning Department description
??
Advisory Boards
??
Downtown Code
??
Zoning Information
??
Development Review
??
4
Note that some of these items can be found on the City of Clearwater’s website, but are not at all easy to
find.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
41
This list does not fully represent what is available on their website,
which includes many more resources. What is especially helpful is
the link called “Front Counter” that accesses all needed information
- no need to open numerous pages in the hope of getting the
information you need.
C. Portage, Michigan
An International City Manager’s Association (ICMA) study
“Streamlining Development and Building Permitting” included the
City of Portage, Michigan, as a case study. The ICMA study stated:
when government permitting takes too long or is too cumbersome and
”
complex, the developers and builders predictably lodge complaints with
elected officials on city councils or county boards, who, in turn, pressure
professional staffs to reform and restructure the process.
” It reviewed the
processes employed in nine communities across the country with
successful track records in reforming their permitting processes.
Their Process – It was concluded that the City of Portage’s
development review process, relative to the steps and reviewing
entities involved, is not remarkable, however they receive praise for
their “one-stop system.” This revised process focused all
applications and communications on one office, as opposed to the
former system of requiring the developer to obtain approvals from
various separate departments. Portage is also praised for adding a
pre-application meeting available to all developers. They found that
these meetings helped cut down on wasted time and effort.
Although the ICMA study cites Portage’s website as featuring online
information about permits covering electrical, plumbing,
mechanical, and residential and commercial buildings, a review of
the site finds that much of the information is hard to find and
somewhat incomplete. They do have a “permits” page, but no
information regarding their review process, boards, or types of
approvals needed for residential or non-residential development.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
42
It’s only inadvertently, through a review of their fee schedule, that
one can determine what types of applications are necessary.
These comments are not intended as a criticism of Portage, but
rather to highlight the differences between the City of Clearwater’s
process, including information available to the public, and the
processes of other communities.
What’s Useful – Portage has installed an online system for making
building permit payments by credit card
(http://www.portagemi.com/government/online_payments.asp).
This has eased time pressures on city staff and would appear to
make it much easier for the development community to pay for
permits by not requiring them to appear at City Hall to carry out
this task. Although this system is for building permits as opposed to
development applications, there may be some use of this service
with development applications.
Also, as stated previously, their “one-stop system” of development
review is of note and deserves merit.
D. Clark County, Washington
Their Process – Clark County’s code was not available for purchase
or review on-line as it was in the process of re-codification. The only
available on-line version was the former code that did not contain
new provisions that could benefit this study. However, a good
summary of their process is included in the ICMA report referenced
earlier. This summary has been used for this report on Clearwater’s
development review process.
After a performance audit conducted by the Clark County
Department of Community Development, with the assistance a
private consultant, Citygate Associates, a list of ideas to improve
their development review process was developed. The program for
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
43
included several ideas that seemed in some instances to be simple,
change “
but have proved to be highly effective:”
Calls to be returned within 24 hours
??
An end to file loss
??
Analysis and change in the cost and fee structure
??
Establishment of an ombudsman
??
Increased use of appropriate technology
??
Staff education about the needs of the private sector
??
A point of sale permit system for small-scale applications
??
The work completed by the PPC for the City of Clearwater does not
delve into file management, costs or fee structures, or payment
systems, but the other four items are relevant and should be part of
the discussion in this report.
Returning Calls – A strict policy of returning phone calls from
??
developers or permit applicants within 24 hours was put into
place in Clark County. Staff members were to keep detailed
phone logs so they could be held accountable. They
experienced 95% compliance within 1 year, and 97% by the
year 2005.
While problems with respect to returning phone calls was an
issue brought up in the Frequent Users Survey conducted as
part of this analysis, it’s important to note that this report does
not make a recommendation regarding holding employees
“accountable” through the use of phone logs. Rather,
instituting the 24-hour returned phone call policy is a great
idea, but it should be coupled with the keeping of a log in
order to ensure that consistent information is offered to
applicants, and to recreate conversations at a later date, if
necessary.
Ombudsman – While the City has one staff member from the
??
Community Development Department responsible for an
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
44
individual application for development approval, these
applications are still required to be reviewed by a number of
staff from various departments, as well as the Community
Development Board in some instances. During this complex
review process an ombudsman can prove helpful.
The City of Clearwater assigns one staff member from the
Community Development department to handle each case,
however they are not tasked with addressing questions or
relaying information that pertains to other departments (e.g.,
Engineering, Public Works, or Traffic Operations). If
problems arise from these other departments the applicant
must deal directly with the objecting department, as opposed
to contacting their designated Community Development staff
person to resolve the issue.
Clark County hired the ombudsman as a full time staff
member, working on behalf of permit applicants and, as it
later evolved, on behalf of neighborhoods. This person was
given the power to intercede in the permitting process to help
“
rectify any specific problems, and if the ombudsman identified any
recurring pattern or problems over several cases”
they were
to try to find a permanent solution.
authorized “”
The position of ombudsman may prove helpful to the City,
but it is cautioned that this position should not be created, nor
should it evolve to be a position that argues against standards
and requirements on behalf of the applicant. The direction
given to the person in this position should be very clear and
should include ensuring that the applicant understands the
review process, steps, and requirements, and also ensuring
that the application moves through the process as intended.
Any inadvertent breaks or disruptions in the schedule can be
identified quickly by the person in this position and resolved
well in advance of a major problem being created for the
applicant that would generate complaints.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
45
Use of the Internet has probably had the most
Technology Use – “
??
impact [on Clark County], however, because a range of interested
parties – developers, realtors, attorneys, contractors, and title
companies – can now access vital information online. Any of these
parties can log on and find out exactly where applications are and
who is handling them at what stage. Not only is this a step forward
for the applicants and those who support them, but this use of
technology saves innumerable work hours for the department staff
since they no longer have to field call after call requiring them to
dispense the same information over and over.
”
As seen in the discussion regarding the cities of Gainesville,
Portage, and Sarasota, the websites used offer a similar wide
array of information to the user. Even though one survey
respondent was pleased with Clearwater’s site, the City of
Clearwater’s website does not offer enough information in an
organized and easily obtained manner. Contact information
5
is hard to find and when it is discovered it is too general.
There is no way to track the status of an application for
development approval (note: one can access information
regarding individual building permits). A list of forms and
applications can be accessed, but without any explanation to
guide the user to the right one to use, this page is less useful.
5
The City of Clearwater’s website offers email contact with staff, but due to a “contact error” that
continues to appear (note: this error has been present for the analysis period) you cannot
accomplish this. A “citizen’s feedback form” is also offered, but no direct email contact with the
staff of the Community Development Department is offered here either. Also, there is not a list of
staff available on the website, either listing phone numbers or email addresses.
On the City of Clearwater’s website there are almost 90 items that are available on the page that is
titled “Applications and Forms” however they are not organized in a way that guides the user.
Some of the items on this page are not in fact forms or applications, but rather include other
information that could be included in other website pages. Also, many building permit items are
included on this page mixed in with development approval application requirements and
information. Since there are so many available options and the building permit process is so
different than the development review process, these should be on a different page. In all cases, an
explanation of how to use each form or application or what they are used for should be included.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
46
Staff Education – Clark County found it beneficial to involve
??
staff members in regularly attending seminars taught by
residential builders, commercial developers, engineers,
The people from the private side
bankers, and architects. “
explained their roles in detail to the departmental staff, with the goal
of sensitizing them to the concerns of private enterprise in the
permitting process.
”
This is not to say that the City’s staff is insensitive to the needs of
their applicant’s, but only to suggest that they may benefit from
regular interaction with them at a minimum. It may also help
them gain an appreciation and understanding of the needs and
concerns of the private sector.
E. Pinellas County, Florida
Their Process – Pinellas County approves site plans
administratively, unless they are associated with a Special Exception
or Conditional Use, both of which involve the approval of a use that
requires more scrutiny or discussion by either the Board of
Adjustment or the Board of County Commissioners. It should be
noted however, that the site plans accompanying Special Exceptions
and Conditional Uses are not required to be as detailed as those that
are used to receive approval to commence actual site construction.
In other words, schematic or conceptual plans can be used to explain
to the respective boards what is proposed or to address concerns
that are associated with getting a particular use approved. More
detailed plans used to gain a final building permit, whether
associated with a Special Exception, Conditional Use, or not must be
approved by the County’s technical staff, with final signature
received from the County Administrator.
In contrast, the City of Clearwater requires that very detailed and
fully engineered site plans be submitted for site development,
regardless of the use involved and regardless of the use being
approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC) or the
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
47
DRC and the Community Development Board. That being said, the
diagram on the page 50 shows the County’s development approval
process for detailed, administratively approved site plans on the left,
and in the center and right, the processes used for Special Exceptions
and Conditional Uses, with administrative approval of detailed site
plans, if required, occurring at the end of the board approval
process.
There are two main reasons the County only requires a schematic or
conceptual site plan for these two use approval processes. First, the
boards involved require only enough information to ensure that the
impacts associated with the use will be addressed. They are not
tasked with ensuring compliance with site development regulations
such as stormwater drainage or sanitary sewage disposal
requirements, but must look at development in a broader manner by
ensuring for example that surrounding uses and areas are properly
buffered from the proposed use or that parking areas are adequately
provided and situated. Second, should the requested Special
Exception or Conditional Use be denied, the applicant has not
expended the considerable time, effort, and cost associated with the
completion of a site plan that is fully engineered and that addresses
all development regulations.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
48
Site Plan Approval Special Exceptions Conditional Uses
Step 1
Step 1 Step 1
Pre-Application
(only step) Examiner’s
Conference
Board of Adjustment Hearing
(optional)
information gathering Quasi-judicial hearing
administrative
session for applicant with and recommendation for
staff’s formal review
all staff present approval or denial
I I
Step 2
Step 2
Preliminary Site Plan
Board of County
Review
Commissioners
(optional)
review by staff with
approval or denial
option to modify
I
Step 3
Administrative
Direct Final Site Plan
Review
approval or denial (with
option to modify)
I
Step 4
Administrative
Construction Drawing
Review
approval or denial (with
option to modify)
What’s Useful – There are a number of features to the County’s
process that could benefit the City of Clearwater. They have
completed an extensive evaluation of their development review
process, including peer and development industry input and the
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
49
practices put in place have been working well for a number of years
now, with adjustments being made as necessary.
Process Evaluation - One of the important features of the
??
County’s process is the constant evaluation of the
performance of their system. Regular reviews of data
regarding such things as average time of site plan approval
(25 days) are undertaken to ensure that the process is running
smoothly.
Single Point of Contact - Another feature that the County
??
employs, similar to Clark County, WA, is to have one point of
contact for the development community. This staff person
handles all calls and follow-up comments from other
departments for development applications. It requires a staff
member familiar with all the various disciplines involved
from the County, and someone that can properly express the
comments from other departments to the applicant.
Pre-Application Meeting – This feature of the County’s
??
process appears to be very helpful to the development
community, but it is optional. Every Tuesday and Thursday
appointments at one-hour intervals are scheduled for
potential development approval applicants. At these
meetings, held in the Development Review Conference Room,
a representative from each department in the County involved
in site development review is in attendance. In addition, a
staff member from the Southwest Florida Water Management
District is in attendance to offer information and technical
assistance with respect to stormwater drainage requirements.
All County professional staff involved meets with applicants
to give input and guidance concerning the various specific
requirements of each department, and as the requirements
apply to the site in question. Also, available to and very
handy to all involved, is the County’s graphic information
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
50
system, Property Appraiser’s database, and other site and area
data – all displayed on a large screen in the conference room.
This process allows the developer to gather data and
preliminary comments early in the development process, may
help to avoid costly mistakes in engineering site plans, and
informs the applicant of other requirements that must be met
before they can move forward. For example, the desired
development might not be in the proper zoning category or it
may need a Special Exception or Conditional Use approval
before site plan approval.
Schematic or Conceptual Site Plans – The County will accept
??
schematic or conceptual site plans as part of their Special
Exception or Conditional Use process. If the use is ultimately
approved by the Board of Adjustment (Special Exceptions) or
the Board of County Commissioners (Conditional Uses) then a
detailed site plan can be submitted and reviewed by staff (see
column one). This feature of their process allows applicants to
avoid costly investments in engineered site plans that may
eventually need major modification, or if the use were not
approved, that would have been a waste of time, money, and
effort.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
51
V. Summary and Recommendations
The thorough analysis of the City of Clearwater’s Code has not identified
any highly problematic issues, but has found a few significant problems, as
well as numerous issues that lack clarity and precision in the development
review process and can result in unnecessary confusion, delay, and cost.
Following the recommendations provided, coupled with the useful
techniques and provisions that are employed by the five other local
governments reviewed, the City may improve their process. Additionally,
the survey of frequent users was helpful in identifying areas in the Code as
well as processes surrounding the Code that could be improved upon.
This surveying process could be expanded to more individuals and
conducted on a regular basis to garner more input and to allow the
development community to express their ideas and concerns.
Finally, it should be noted that during our analysis, with minor exceptions,
there were positive statements provided concerning the City of Clearwater
staff’s handling of the development review process, as well positive
comments on the process itself. Given the right tools, adequate staffing
levels, and improved processes, staff can be counted on to ensure that the
process runs smoothly, is efficient, and is administered fairly. One item
that is alluded to in the previous sentence, was written about in the
frequent user’s survey, and was heard throughout our work with the City,
was that present staffing levels should be reviewed to assure that staffing
levels and expertise is adequate given the amount of development activity
in the city and the complexity of the development review process.
However, the scope of work for this study did not include the evaluation
of staffing levels.
A summary of the major conclusions is as follows. For additional
information on each item, please refer to three sections in the body of this
report.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
53
Code Process
??
Reduce the requirement for fully engineered site plans be
o
submitted to gain approval from the Development Review
Committee and Community Development Board and defer
the submission of those more detailed site plan items to a step
that would occur after approval (either with the building
permit or construction drawing). In the place of a fully
engineered site plan consider allowing conceptual or
schematic plans to be submitted.
Establish time frames for review/approval that consider the
o
potential for overlap with other applications.
Code Requirements
??
Organize Article 3 in a way that allows the development
o
community and staff to locate the exact requirements that
pertain to a particular development application.
Provide cross-references that are more specific and that are
o
used in a consistent fashion throughout the Code.
Reorganize Article 4 so that the requirements for development
o
applications are made clear.
Eliminate unnecessary application requirements (both as
o
listed in the Code and on the attachments to development
application forms), especially those that are not matched to
the level of development intensity or use. Eliminate
redundant or repetitive requirements, clarify requirements
that are not specific, and eliminate unnecessary items.
Review each use relative to where they fit in the three
o
development applications (Minimum Standard, Flexible
Standard, and Flexible) based on their level of intensity or
impact upon an area and determine if any of the uses can be
categorized into a lower level review process.
Review the requirement that 15 sets of each submission
o
package be provided by the applicant at three separate stages
associated with most of the review/approval processes
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
54
(resulting in 45 copies of the submission package being
provided by the applicant).
Clarify the requirements relative to subdivision platting.
o
Code Terminology
??
Replace the variety of terms that are used to refer to uses
o
allowed, their associated standards and criteria, and approval
processes (e.g., Flexible Standard Development and Permitted
Uses: Level One).
Eliminate the current use of the term “Level Three Approvals”
o
to describe what are actually legislative actions by the City
Council and are distinct from the development approval
applications and processes.
Clarify terminology and referencing to the proper approval
o
entity.
Code Management
??
Publish specific time periods for the review and approval
o
process and place these in a development handbook available
on line.
Evaluate the timing involved in development application
o
review periods relative to the burden this places on staff
workload.
Ensure that all staff comments are received by the applicant in
o
a timely manner and attempt to reduce the number of
comments that are received after the applicant has addressed
initial or secondary comments.
Attempt to coordinate staff comments and review processes in
o
such a way as to reduce the number of visits an applicant
must make to City Hall.
Improve responses via telephone and email so that some visits
o
to City Hall, including “walk-ins,” are less necessary.
Consider posting the Code on line in PDF format, or other
o
easily used format, as opposed to having to rely on the more
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
55
difficult to use version of the Code available on Municode’s
website.
Other Items
??
Correct the miscellaneous minor issues identified that have a
o
negative affect on the flow of the Code.
Review the summary of responses and individual comments
o
in the Frequent User’s Survey provided to determine which of
these can be acted upon (as summarized below):
Reduce the number of engineering issues required for
??
initial approval;
Eliminate repetitive application requirements and re-
??
evaluate the overall number of different applications;
Review the “completeness” and “review” steps in the
??
DRC process to determine if two separate steps are
necessary;
Re-evaluate the number of copies needed for
??
development application packages;
Improve zoning desk call-back response and ensure that
??
all calls are returned in a timely manner;
Continue using email to communicate with applicants;
??
Evaluate the need for a longer turn-around time for
??
resubmissions;
Consider allowing submission of some drawings/plans
??
as PDFs via email to reduce the need for visits to City
Hall;
Consider getting staff comments to the applicant prior
??
to DRC meetings; and
Ensure that all appropriate DRC members are in
??
attendance at BPRC meetings. Also, consider
lengthening the BPRC meeting time.
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
56
Continue the regular process by which to evaluate the Code
o
from the user’s perspective (e.g., the City’s Frequent Users
Group).
Review the “What’s Useful” sections of this report for each
o
community evaluated and implement them as appropriate (as
summarized below):
Gainesville
??
“First Step Process”
??
Highly informative and useful website
??
Sarasota
??
Organization of their development application
??
requirements that are geared towards a particular
use requested
Page numbering and header format
??
Excellent website with its link to their “Front
??
Counter”
Portage, Michigan
??
Online payment system
??
Clark County, Washington
??
Procedures adopted for return phone calls (can be
??
used for email too)
Staff position of “ombudsman”
??
Helpful and easy to navigate website
??
Staff attendance at seminars given by the
??
development community, with interaction that
benefits all
Pinellas County
??
Regular evaluation of the performance of their
??
development approval process
Single point of contact for the development
??
community (for individual development
applications)
Innovative way that they conduct their pre-
??
application meeting
Acceptance of schematic or conceptual site plans
??
_________
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
57
VI. Illustrative Implementation Schedule
Phase I Phase II Phase III
January-June ‘06
May-December ‘06
November ‘06-April
‘07
Major Tasks
A. Review Responses C. Revise Application G. Clarify
and Comments in the (Submission) Terminology
Frequent User’s Survey Requirements Re: Level 1, 2, and 3
Re: Determine Which Consistent with Level Uses and Legislative
Can Be Acted Upon for 1, 2, and 3 Uses, Actions
Including Adjustment
B. Update Code H. Organize Article 3
of Site Plan Submission
Education/Assistance Requirements
Requirements, as
Tools Re: Specific
Determined
- Website Applicability
Appropriate
- Handbook
- Code Posting Online
as PDF
D. Differentiate I. Adjust Level 1, 2,
Between Plan and 3 Uses as
Requirements at DRC Determined
and Construction Appropriate
Drawing/Building
Permit Stage
E. Miscellaneous J. Implement Best
Edit/Format Revisions Code Management
Practices
- Ombudsman
F. Establish Regular
- Tracking
Process to Evaluate
- Phone/Email Contact
Code From User’s
- Staff Education
Perspective
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
59
Note that the items in Phase I, II, and III are each projected to take
approximately 6 months – 4 months to prepare/revise and 2 months to
effectuate. For example, Code amendments initiated in Phase II will
require public input and hearings that are projected to conclude by
December 2006, while Phase III would get underway during the same time
that the public hearing/adoption process for Phase II is being carried out.
Therefore, Phases II and III are expected to be initiated when the previous
Phase its being finalized.
_________
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
60
Appendix
Frequent User’s Survey
Analysis of Community Development Code City of Clearwater
61