Loading...
11/17/1998 - Land Development CodeCITY COMMISSION SPECIAL WORK SESSION CITY OF CLEARWATER November 17, 1998 Present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Ed Hooper Vice-Mayor/Commissioner J. B. Johnson Commissioner Robert Clark Commissioner Karen Seel Commissioner Also Present: Michael J. Roberto City Manager Richard L. Hedrick Deputy City Manager Pamela K. Akin City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Gwen Legters Board Reporter The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m. at City Hall to discuss the Land Development Code rewrite. The City Manager stated it has become necessary that land development regulations address community needs into the next century, eliminate conflicts in the code, and provide direction for redevelopment and new development. The City has held 27 public discussion meetings since July 1998. Charles Siemon and Wendy Larsen, consultants from Siemon, Larsen & Marsh, reviewed the rewrite, to be called the Community Development Code. The new code is built on several years of significant effort by City staff. Their comments and suggestions have been incorporated to create a document that is important to those familiar with City needs. Many citizen groups, neighborhoods, professional organizations, local engineering, architectural, contractor/builder, and realtor associations have reviewed the document. The new code streamlines the development process and provides predictability and flexibility in a manner that creates adequate safeguards for surrounding properties and neighborhoods. Highlights of the new code were summarized: General benefits are improved organization and simplified language. The document is much bulkier than had been anticipated because, while it consolidates much of the language, repetitions were included where needed to simplify use. Illustrative graphics include drawings, tables and charts. Increased flexibility will facilitate revitalization and redevelopment. A simplified development review process provides for a Community Development Board to consider items that previously were heard by four City regulatory and advisory boards. Benefits to residential neighborhoods include Citywide beautification through tree protection, expanded landscaping, and sign incentives. Improved property maintenance standards clarify ambiguities for more effective enforcement. Redevelopment incentives provide more flexible standards to encourage investment and revitalization. Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD) protect stable neighborhoods or impose special regulations. Enhanced screening requirement improves standards for visually screening mechanical equipment and dumpsters. Home occupation principles are clarified in recognition of expanding professional functions due to technology. Outdoor storage and display, noise controls, outdoor lighting and temporary uses are addressed. Questions were raised and the procedure for creating a neighborhood overlay for a well maintained, upscale neighborhood was discussed. Mr. Siemon recommended care during the creation process because of the formal procedure that would be needed to modify an overlay. In his experience, the device is successful, but not for all areas. The City Manager stressed the City does not have authority to enforce deed restrictions. The ability to create Neighborhood Conservation Districts enables neighborhood consensus for creation of standards that can be enforced legally. Concern was expressed the code does not provide a consensus procedure. Mr. Siemon said ratio of improvement value to land value is a strong indicator of neighborhood strength. The County Tax Assessor’s property value data is used. He felt reaching a consensus outside the City Commission process would be very cumbersome. Benefits to non-residential neighborhoods are increased flexibility for mixed uses, consolidation of use categories, and minimum property maintenance standards. The new code provides for more flexible management non-conformities, shared parking, and sign standards. The following policy issues were presented for Commission consideration: Notification process and neighbor’s right to appeal – The draft code permits appeal to the Community Development Board only by the applicant, with no notice to adjacent property owners. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended sending notice to adjacent properties at the time a Level One application is filed, with neighbors having the right to appeal within 5 days and a consent agenda approach for appeal, in case staff made a mistake. Mr. Siemon referred to a letter to the editor regarding the code reorganization, the concurrency provision, and the appeal process. He said the use of gross densities, as a cap on development, is unnecessary in a concurrency environment. Consensus was to include a right to appeal Level I approvals with notice to adjacent property owners. Front yard masonry walls (courtyards) – Concerns were expressed that building walls prevents neighbor interaction. General consensus was to delay the addition of this provision, to continue allowing where currently allowed, and making it a Level Two approval. Attached residential units in single-family districts -- Clarification was provided regarding how the number of doors per street frontage relates to density requirements. Discussion ensued regarding code requirements for vacant, corner, and existing lots, and the amount of increased value it would take to make attached residential units economically feasible. Discussion ensued regarding the changing nature of society toward extended family households. Consensus was to ensure limitations are carefully drafted. Additional pictures were requested for Thursday. Accessory dwelling units – Concern was expressed with creating space that can be rented later. Mr. Siemon reviewed objections and advantages to “granny flats” in a community. It was agreed this issue has raised considerable debate and may need to be deferred in order to achieve a positive consensus regarding the code. Mr. Siemon stated the new code will be a good and valuable tool if standards are added where gaps exist, authority is reallocated where necessary, and amendments are adopted coherently. The meeting recessed from 11:01 to 11:21 a.m. Article 1 was reviewed regarding consolidation/transition of old/new districts. It was indicated work on beach and downtown provisions is proceeding independently. The 4-acre minimum for rezoning will be replaced by more flexible criteria. Article 2 changes to community residential (group home) density were discussed. Conflicting opinions were expressed with regard to increasing allowable residency from 6 to14 in low-density residential districts. Some felt 14 was excessive, but retaining the standard at 6 residents was inflexible. State licensing provisions, owner-occupancy requirements, operating a for-profit business in a residential neighborhood, and availability of quality caregivers for small and large operations were discussed. Majority opinion was to retain the 6-resident requirement. Article 5 creation of the Community Development Board (CDB), its membership criteria, quorum requirements, chair appointment, and appeal process were discussed. Consensus was to compose the 7-member board of 4 members with industry or professional designations. Staff was requested to add a list of those designations. Discussion ensued regarding transfer of development rights across districts. Planning Director Ralph Stone stated incentives will be created in areas needing to be turned around. Discussion continued regarding Community Development Board terms. The majority agreed to 4-year terms. Commissioner Hooper left the meeting at 12:12 p.m. Majority consensus was to set Community Development Board quorum requirements at 5 of 7 members, with 4 affirmative votes needed to approve an issue, and applicants will be allowed to ask for a continuance if less than a full board is present. Strong disagreement was expressed with restricting the CDB by requiring the City Commission to annually appoint its chairperson. Concerns were expressed regarding changes to alcoholic beverage regulations in Public/Semi-public districts to allow on- premises consumption in Article 2. Discussion ensued regarding flexible approval criteria. Mr. Siemon stated the intent is to avoid preventing golf courses and marinas from having on-premises consumption as a subordinate use. It was noted some alcoholic beverage operations on the beach do not seem to bother anyone, but it may be necessary to develop specific standards in some of the 7 beach districts in the future. Mr. Siemon was commended for creating adult use standards specifically concerning State Road 60 in Article 3. Concern was expressed with the separation distance reduction in relation to square footage. Mr. Siemon responded he worked with the City Attorney’s office to meet, without exceeding, the law regarding the rights of adult use businesses and their reasonable opportunity to develop. Staff was requested to determine the number of adult use business that could develop under the new code. The City Attorney will provide the number and case law references. Discussion ensued regarding rationale for locating soup kitchens and making them Level One approvals. It was questioned why soup kitchens would be allowed to abut offices, retail and residential, but not manufacturing uses, when staff had indicated soup kitchens would be prohibited adjacent to residential uses. Consensus was to change soup kitchens to Level Two applications. A request was made to continue newspaper advertising and mailing notices to surrounding properties within 200 feet of a Level Three application. City Clerk Cyndie Goudeau said her department typically does both, and has a policy to mail notices within a 500-foot radius. Staff was charged with ensuring that newly recruited staff is trained and competent to handle issues regarding the new code. Mr. Stone said Planning and Development Services has had and will continue having 4-hour training sessions. The City Manager affirmed he expects every staff member to become intimately familiar with the new code while continuing to enforce the current code. The special work session adjourned at 12:46 p.m.