Loading...
04/06/1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER April 6, 1999 Present: Gerald Figurski Board Member David Gildersleeve Board Member William Johnson Board Member Edward Mazur, Jr. Board Member Shirley Moran Board Member Carlen A. Petersen Board Member Alex Plisko Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Ralph Stone Planning Director Cynthia Hardin Assistant Planning Director Antonia Gerli Planning Manager Brenda Moses Board Reporter The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. at the Municipal Services Building. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM 1 – Adoption of Rules of Order & Procedures Planning Director Ralph Stone stated the proposed rules of order and procedures for the CDB (Community Development Board) meet the requirements of the Community Development Code. Article III, Section 4 – Staff and Legal Advisor to the Board In response to a question, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said either the City Attorney’s office or outside counsel will represent the CDB. She anticipates outside counsel will handle the task. Article IV, Section 2 – Quorum and Vote Consensus was to continue an item automatically if a 3:2 vote occurs. Article IV, Section 3 – Conflict of Interest Ms. Dougall-Sides said the code states that no board member shall engage in any ex-partee communications. Investigations and site visits related to quasi-judicial matters are permitted if disclosed at a public hearing and made part of the record. It was stated language in the code related to conflict of interest disclosure needs to be amended. It was recommended a statement be added to the agenda indicating board members intend to conduct investigations and site visits when quasi-judicial matters are to be considered. It was suggested the board adopt that as its policy. Consensus was for staff to develop a disclosure form that includes a space for board members to check if they had conducted any site visits. Article IV, Section 4 – Order of Meeting It was suggested allowing additional time under “Requests for Continuances.” Discussion ensued regarding how much time should be afforded the applicant. It was remarked as each case will differ, it is difficult to identify time constraints prior to each hearing. Consensus was to provide applicants instructions when they file their application. If an applicant should require additional time to present their case, they should notify staff in advance when possible. The board will determine how much time is sufficient. Staff also will include these instructions in Article V, Sections 1 and 2. In response to a question, Assistant Planning Director Cynthia Hardin said “Board and Staff Reports/Comments” refers to staff submittal of special studies, updates, and status reports to provide board members information that does not fit in a formal application. Consensus was to move “Board and Staff Reports/Comments” after “Appeals.” Article V, Sections 1 & 2 – Legislative Hearings & Quasi-Judicial Hearings In response to a question, staff felt they should be provided the final opportunity to speak in order to clarify any applicant misstatements. The policy will indicate the board will not consider new information reported during summary remarks. In response to a suggestion to add “opposing” to “cross examination of expert witnesses by applicant,” the majority agreed staff suggested language is sufficient. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said it is intended for staff to act as expert witnesses. The board will review staff resumes today. It will not be necessary to tender their qualifications at each meeting. Consensus was to limit group presentations to 10 minutes. It was agreed a sentence be added indicating additional time can be granted for presentations if board members do not oppose the request. Should a member object, a vote to allow additional time will be required. Article V, Section 3 – Appeals In response to a question, Mr. Stone said this section includes standards regarding Level One Development Orders. It was suggested a statement be added to the agenda stating if the board does not pull a Consent Agenda item, the staff decision stands. Discussion ensued regarding the location of quasi-judicial hearings for items pulled from the agenda. It was felt as applicants prefer the process be expedited rather than prolonged, they will be prepared at the hearing to provide all pertinent evidence, necessary representation, and expert testimony. It was suggested the board conduct quasi-judicial hearings when the Consent Agenda item is announced, rather than at the end of the meeting. Consensus was to review Consent Agenda items, then appeals pulled from the Consent Agenda. Article V, Section 4 – Continuances Ms. Dougall-Sides said the Code states applicants can request and obtain a continuance if any board members are absent. She suggested the board limit consideration of requests for continuance to applicable requirements. It was recommended the applicant be required to request a continuance prior to the scheduled hearing. It was suggested continuance requests be announced and considered at the beginning of each board meeting. Consensus was for the Chair to ask all applicants in attendance at the beginning of each meeting to announce requests for continuance. Applicants arriving late also will have the opportunity to request a continuance prior the application being heard. Article VI, Section 2 – Time Limits on Approval It was requested sentence one read, “An application for a building permit shall be made within one year…” It was stated this section intends to require that applicants apply for permits and begin the project within a reasonable amount of time. Article VI, Section 3 – Reconsideration or Rehearing In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said anyone can request a reconsideration or rehearing of a board decision, and it will be heard at the next meeting. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said anyone can request an amendment to the Community Development Code. Consensus was to adopt the changes as indicated above. ITEM 2 – Election of Officers Member Gildersleeve moved to appoint Member Figurski as Chair. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Johnson moved to appoint Member Mazur as Vice-Chair. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The importance of not interrupting each other during discussions was noted. The Chair’s role was discussed. ITEM 3 – Review and Confirmation of City Staff as expert Witnesses Mr. Stone reviewed staff credentials that qualify them as expert witnesses. In response to a question, he said Mark Parry is not a registered landscape architect. He stated a caveat in the Code allows staff with bachelor degrees to review applications and code regulations. While Mr. Parry will not sign and seal architectural plans, he will make recommendations and review information with landscape architecture experts. Member Gildersleeve moved to accept Ralph Stone as an expert witness in the areas of planning in general, comprehensive planning, redevelopment planning, historic preservation, environmental planning, and transportation-related issues. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Petersen moved to accept Cynthia Hardin as an expert witness in the areas of urban planning and historic preservation. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Johnson moved to accept Mark Parry as an expert witness in the areas of environmental planning design and site plan review. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Gildersleeve moved to accept Sinta McCall as an expert witness in the areas of land use and zoning, site plan review, neighborhood planning, housing, economic development, and parks and recreation planning and zoning. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said Ms. McCall is not a registered landscape architect. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Plisko moved to accept Antonia Gerli as an expert witness in the areas of site planning, development planning, parks planning, and development review. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Plisko moved to accept Michael Gust as an expert witness in the areas of traffic operations and traffic studies. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Gildersleeve moved to accept Michael Quillen as an expert witness in the areas of water resources, civil engineering, and hydraulic engineering. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Consensus was for staff to provide the board with resumes of staff who may appear before the board to provide expert testimony on behalf of the City. ITEM 4 – Board and Staff Comments It was requested staff provide board members with standard language for the Chair’s introductory comments, motions, appeals, and recommendations. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said staff reports to the board will include enhanced graphics, aerial and site location maps, information on pertinent regulations, background, and staff’s rationale for recommendations. It was noted the previous Planning and Zoning Board had requested staff use language indicating “it appears the applicant has met all standards..,” rather than “applicant has met the standards…” Mr. Stone said staff will state if an applicant meets all standards. In some cases, the applicant may meet only part of the criteria. Staff tries to reflect this status in the way the recommendation is stated. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said CDB meetings will be scheduled once a month. If the case load increases substantially, the schedule can be modified. Discussion ensued regarding conflicts of interest. Consensus was for the affected board member to leave the meeting room whenever a conflict of interest occurs. It was stated in those instances, the applicant will not be afforded the option to request a continuance because all board members are not present. It was requested the agenda state no beepers, cell phones, etc. are permitted at board meetings. Mr. Stone said some glitches have been discovered in the new Code. Revisions will be presented to the CDB for input. Member Petersen reported she will be absent for the June meeting. Member Gildersleeve reported he will be absent for the April 20, 1999, meeting. ITEM 5 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:56 p.m.