Loading...
11/17/1992 - Joint Worksession CC & P&Z City Commission/Planning & Zoning Board Joint Work Session November 17, 1992 Members Present: Mayor Garvey, Commissioner Berfield, Commissioner Deegan, Commissioner Regulski, Mr. Mazur, Mr. Bickerstaffe, Mr. Carassas, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Merriam, Mr. Savage, and Mrs. Martin Also Present: David P. Healey, Executive Director, Pinellas Planning Council Michael Wright, City Manager Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney Cyndie Goudeau, City Clerk James M. Polatty, Jr., Director of Planning & Development Scott Shuford, Planning Manager Doreen Feldhaus, Staff Assistant II, Recording Secretary Mayor Garvey welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked the Planning and Zoning Board members for taking extra time for this meeting. Mr. Polatty gave the history of the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC). He explained that the PPC is responsible for the development of Countywide comprehensive land use plan and Countywide management growth perspective, and the development of rules, standards and objectives that implement the plan. Mayor Garvey introduced Dave Healey, Executive Director of the Pinellas Planning Council. Mr. Wright stated that Pinellas County and Broward County are the only two counties in the State who have a circumstance like this, and that the other 65 counties operate differently. Mr. Polatty discussed the PPC rules and their relationship with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Comprehensive Plan. He discussed changes necessary to meet the PPC Consistency Program requirements. Mr. Wright discussed the differences between land use plan categories and zoning districts. Mr. Shuford explained that staff is proposing to adopt 22 of the 29 categories that would be included in the Countywide Plan. He stated that the reason for so many is because if we adopted only the minimal number to accommodate our uses and needs, there are a number of properties in the County abutting the City that we would not be able to bring into the City for annexation without going through the LUP amendment plan process. Mr. Shuford added that, for example, if we were expected to annex subdivisions of commercial property, why not include in our list of land use classifications a larger number so that we can bring those properties in under the Interlocal Agreement we have with Pinellas County without having to go through the LUP amendment process. Mr. Polatty stated that the major issue for the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission is the loss of local control over what you want your City to be. Mr. Wright discussed the issue of the City and the Countywide Planning Agency (County Commission). He noted that in 1989 when they passed the local act it made us different from the majority of the counties in the state, and are now working out the details. Mr. Wright felt that we have relinquished certain major functions including land use, that the final decision is not made a city level, it is made at the county level. He added that in those cases, the City Commission has to act almost like a Planning and Zoning Board to the County Commission through the PPC. In response to a question by Mr. Merriam, Mr. Polatty discussed why Broward and Pinellas are different from the rest of the counties. Mr. Wright added that Pinellas County has 24 municipalities and is the most densely populated county in the State, the second most densely populated being Dade County. Mr. Savage stated that there is obviously a lot of inconsistency with all the municipalities or we wouldn't be going through this now. Mr. Healey stated that since 1973 there were 27 categories originally and have only added 2, therefore there are now 29. He added that the plan had 27 categories we've got to prepare a plan that will allow all the cities to fit under it. Ms. Garvey stated that it is difficult to fit 24 cities to fit under one umbrella when each city has their own wants and needs. Mr. Healey stated they had visited with Planners Advisory Council and addressed the issue with them, and outlined three or four major alternatives and the pluses and minuses. He added that everyone felt more comfortable with the original 27 categories, or a variation of them with the two added categories as opposed to reinventing the whole plan. Mr. Polatty stated he felt the issue is not how many categories we have, it is having to use all these categories and when we want to make a change we have to use one of these categories in the future. Mr. Healey stated that the difficulty comes if you have a single commercial category and making an amendment to an area that might be very well suited to a low intensity commercial use, as opposed to commercial general. If you make a change using only the single category, when we review it at the PPC level, we've got to assume the worst case. If it is amended to general commercial, even if your intention to do less and you don't select the lesser category, we are forced to assume the worst case scenario. He explained that this is why it is better to have a larger amount of categories to choose from. Mr. Polatty discussed the issue of assuming the worst case scenario. He felt using thresholds is critical rather than assume the most intense use. He felt that using thresholds like the state established should be considered, and that would be anything below a certain threshold would not have to go through this process. Mr. Healey stated that one of the things PPC struggled with in writing the rules is the issue of thresholds. Input was obtained from many sources from chambers of commerce, development groups, to the communities themselves. We have in the rule a system of thresholds that range from one acre up to an unlimited amount of area if it is placed in the less intensive categories. If a property is now classified residential and going to changed to open space it doesn't matter if its 10 acres or 100 acres that can go through this expediting process. We had estimated that between 35-40% of all amendments would fit into this sub-threshold classification, but it is actually running at approximately 50% over the last 8 or 9 months. Mr. Wright stated that the bottom line of the point Mr. Polatty is making is that everything goes through PPC. Mr. Healey responded that everything, any LUP amendment would need to go through the process. There is a separate timetable for the subthreshold amendments, and a separate level of evaluation. In response to a question by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Healey stated that there is no application fee, there is a cost to the City to send it over and a cost to us to process and advertise it, which is part of our budget. Discussion ensued regard the time frame for land use plan change requests to be completed. Mr. Shuford stated the City sends land use plan amendments to the state, but in a summary format. Discussion ensued regarding properties that abut the City of Clearwater and County jurisdictions. Discussion ensued regarding the impervious surface ratio situation in the Beach Commercial districts. Mr. Polatty stated that Mr. Healey and staff proposed we use variances to resolve nonconforming uses on a case by case basis. Another solution would be to use the activity center approach. In response to a question by Mr. Wright, Mr. Healey stated that variances can be granted to impervious surface ratios on a case by case basis, however the Planning and Zoning Board has advised that you cannot do that in Clearwater. He added that in the Countywide Rules they would allow you to do that if you choose to do so. Mr. Galbraith stated that the code does not give that kind of authority to your board because it is equivalent to rezoning with a higher density. If you want to give the board that authority there should be a limit since the board cannot increase the FAR more than 8%. Mr. Polatty stated that in the Public/Semi-Public classifications there is a current 1.0 FAR and that this FAR is a problem for Morton Plant Hospital. Ms. Garvey stated that in regard to variances it is the consensus of the City Commission not to create laws that encourage variances. Mr. Shuford stated that if the variance approach is used for FAR it could be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan as an allowable range for that classification. He added that it should have a cap or specific limit. Mr. Healey stated they are not recommending using variances to resolve Morton Plant Hospital's problems. He felt Mr. Polatty has mixed together the issue of impervious surface ratio on the beach where variances are a potential solution for isolating properties that are now not conforming. Mr. Healey stated that it is not a solution for FAR at all. Mr. Healey added that Clearwater has already decided not to use it for that and supports that decision. Discussion ensued regarding FAR variances, and the review process for these variances. Mr. Healey stated these are not subject to PPC review, but it would constitute an amendment to the comprehensive plan and therefore probably to be reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs. Mr. Polatty stated this is becoming more like a zoning code, that it is too detailed and regulatory. He felt the impervious surface ratio (ISR) requirement is good but there are several steps in this process we have argued all along that should not be taken. He added a system should be established that would regulate land use and protect the county where the county needed protection, but not overprotect and not by taking property rights and local control should be left in local hands. Mr. Mazur stated he felt the activity center approach is the better idea. Mr. Polatty explained in detail the activity center concept. Mr. Healey explained the basic two levels of the activity center classifications and that he felt the that a Community Redevelopment District would be a better solution for Morton Plant Hospital. Discussion ensued regarding the potential for Morton Plant to have to identify their future expansion plans and provide a master plan concept. Ms. Garvey expressed opposition to this because what they might like to do may decide not to do. She felt we should leave the local decisions to the local jurisdictions and as things develop make decisions along the way. Mr. Healey stated he has many alternatives available specifically for Morton Plant and discussed them in detail, which included: Activity Center, Community Redevelopment District, local variance process, local nonconforming provisions and Countywide Rules amendment. Discussion ensued regarding the public hearing schedule and scheduling another joint meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m. _______________________________________ James M. Polatty, Jr. Director of Planning and Development