CITY OF CLEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STUDYH EALEY CONSULTANT GROUP, INC.
PLANNING • ARCHITECTURE • DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF CLEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STUDY
TASK 1
Existing Permit and Review Procedures,
Informational Practices and
Physical Accommodations
Development Process Study Committee:
Bill Baker, Public Works Director
Floyd Carter, Central Services Director
Vic Chodora, Interim Building Director
Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineering Director
John Richter, Development Code Administrator
Preliminary Draft
August 19, 1985
3040 GULF TO BAY BLVD., SUITE 100 • CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34619 • TELEPHONE (813) 791 -6964
•
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Inventory of Existing Development Procedures 1
Inventory of Existing Information Resources
Inventory of Existing Physical Plant 18
Summary
•
•
•
Interim Memorandum
August 19, 1988
City of Clearwater Development Process Study
Task 1
Introduction
Task 1 Is for the documentation of existing development procedures, information
practices and office space relationships. We have outlined below,. for discussion and
reviev,/, these existind factors.
A brief statement of the purpose, code reference and current practice for each of
fourteen main procedures or facets of the Development Review Process are outlined.
With respect to the description of "Current Practice" for each process, please note
the following three caveats that apply in each case unless otherwise noted:
▪ in practice,. all administrative decisions include the opportunity to petition
the department head responsible for permit issuance for relief or
adjustment of a decision by the particular department personnel charged
with permit authorization responsibilities.
▪ It is the responsibility of the Code Atirn inistra tor , as e-stabiished in the
Land Development Code, to administer, interpret and enforce all provons
of the Development Code. The City Attorney is, authorized to make any
final ruling as to administrative interpretation or determination, ex.cept as
may be appealed to the courts.
• Ail final appeal procedures include provision for recourse to the court of
competent jurisdiction as otherwise provided by law.
Inventory of Existing Development Procedures
1. Clearing and Grubbing Permit:
a) Purpose — To regulate projects that will denude soil or involve
ground alteration or excavation so as to provide for tree protection
and preclude erosion and siltation.
1
•
•
•
b) Code Reference — Title VIII, Public Health and Safety, Chapter 9 8,
Tree Protection, Article III. Section 98.30-98.33, City Code
of Ordinances..
c) Current Practice — Is as follows:
1) Application — An application for "and Clearing and
Grubbing Permit is received and processed by the
Environmental Management Division of the Public Work.
Department, acting as the Public'Nork.s Director's designee.
2) Processing — The application is reviewed by the City's
Water Resources Specialist and Urban Forester and the
permit is acted upon by the Environmental C N'lanager, acting as
the City Manager's designee.
3) Inspection /Enforcement — Inspection and errforcemerrt
responsibilities are assigned to the Environmental Management
Division personnel,
4) Appeal — Appeals from a decision of the Environmental
(`Manager (by Code the City Manager.) are initially to the Development.
Code Adjustment Board and subsequently to the Hearing Officer.
5) Timetable — Typical time.frarnr_ for issuance cif _a Clearing
and Grubbing Permit is 3 -4 working day;, providing SWFN1D
approval is not required and approximately` weeks if it is.
2. Tree Removal Permit:
a) Purpose — To regulate the removal of protected trees, protect
remaining trees during construction and establish replacement
tree requirernent .
b) Code Reference — Title VIII, Public: Health and Safety, Chapter
93, Tree Protection, ,Article I?, Section_, 98.20 — 98.23 City Code
of Ordinances.
•
•
•
c) Current Practice — Is as follows:
1) Application — A Tree Removal Application Form is
reviewed and processed by the Urban Forester in the
Environmental Management Division of the Public Works
Department, acting as the designee of the Public Works
Director.
2) Processing — Applications are received and recorded by the
clerk /receptionist in the Environmental Management Division
and acted upon by the Urban Forester, in his capacity as the
City Manager's designee.
3) Inspection /Enforcement — Field inspection and permit
issuance and enforcement are handled by the Urban
Forester and Environmental Inspector under the immediate
supervision of the Environmental Manager.
4) Appeal — Appeals from a decision of the Urban Forester
(by Code, the City Manager) to deny a permit are first to
the Development Code Adjustment Board and then to the
Hearing Officer.
5) Timetable — Permits are typically issued within 2 -4
working days and frequently are processed concurrently with
a Clearing and Grubbing Permit.
3. Building Permit:
a) Purpose — To regulate the construction and installation of
buildings, structures and systems consistent with the adopted
Standard Building Code.
b) Code Reference — Title XI, Land Development Code. Chapters
138 — 146, City Code of Ordinances.
c) Current Practice — Is as follows:
1) Application — The Building Inspection Department receives
applications for permits for the following:
•
•
•
Building, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Roof, Gas, Driveway
Parking Lot, Screen Enclosures, Garages, Carports, Fence, Tent,
Satellite Dish, Solar Panel, Swimming Pool, Spa, House Move,
Mobile Home, Fire Sprinkler, Lawn Sprinkler and •-`1arine Structures.
2) Processing — All applications are received and processed at
the Building Inspection Department. l lany applications require
circulation to and sign -off by other City departments.
3) Inspection /Enforcement — Handled by the Building
Department personnel under the direction of the Building
Director.
4) Appeal — Appeals from decision, of the Building Director on
matters covered under the Standard Building Code are heard by the
Building Board of Adjustment and Appeal. Zoning matters such as
fences, parking and mobile homes are appealed in the form of variance
requests to the Code Adjustment Board,
5) Timetable — Typical permit issuance time ranges from
immediately (for minor types of permits) to 2-3 working ',lays
(for single— family dwellings) to 10 -15 working days (for a large
commercial project).
4_ Sign Permit:
a) Purpose — To regulate the placement, size, type, alteration
and construction of signs.
b) Code Reference — Title XI, Land Development Code, Chapter- 134,
Sign Regulations, City Code of Ordinances.
c) Current Practice — is as, follows:
1) Application — Application for a sign permit is filed with
the office of the Development Code Administrator it the
Planning and Urban Development Department.
2) Processing — Sign Permit applications are reviewed and
4
•
•
authorized by Development Code Inspectors in the Planning and
Urban Development Department, acting as designees of the Code
Administrator, Coordination with the Building Inspection
Department is required where electric and structural
considerations are involved,
3) Inspection/ Enforcement — By the Development Code Inspectors
under the direction of the Code Administrator and, for permits
requiring review for consistency with the Building Code, by the
Building Inspectors under the direction of the Building OfficiaL
4) Appeal — Appeals from a decision of the Code Administrator
in the form of a request for variance may be considered first by
the Code Adjustment Board and upon further appeat, to the
Hearing Officer.
5) Timetable — Typical tirneframe for a sign permit is 1-8
working days.
5. Impact Fee Collection:
a) Purpose — Impact fees, are designed to offset the capital costs
of expanding the respective systems affected by new development.
impact fees are charged for water, sewer, transportation,
recreation, open space, development, and interim proprietary and
general services.
b) Code Reference — The City's system of impact fees has been
established and amended by the following ordinances:
1) water—Section 50.05(C)
2) Sewer—Ordinance No. 3947-85
3) Transportation—County Ordinance No. 36-93
4) Recreation and Open Space—Sections 116.40-116.51
5) Development—Section 138,08, Chapter 1:38
6) Interim Proprietary and Cieneral Service—Ordinance No,
4125
5
•
c) Current Practice — Impact fees are generally computed by and
paid to the Building Insr'ectiori Department at the time of issuance
of a building or related permit. The exceptions to this are:
1) the open space dedication or fee computed by the Parks and
Recreation Department and paid at the time a site plan is certified;
2) the recreation and open space fees applicable to developed property
upon its annexation; to the City;
3) transportation impact fees computed by Traffic Engineering
and collected prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy/Use
and upon a change in use unrelated to a building permit and usually
in connection with an Occupational License; and
4) the Interim Proprietaryy and General Services impact fee
prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy /Use:
•
6. Certificate of Occupancy /Use:
a) Purpose — To regulate the completion of projects in accord
with the approved plans and permits issued therefor.
b) Code Reference — Title XI, Land Development Code, Chapters
131-145, City Code of Ordinances.
c) Current Practice -- Is as follows:
1) Application — Certificates of Occupancy /Use are issued
by the Building inspection Department upon inspection and
determination of project compliance with thie plans, permits
and applicable City standards.
2) Processing — Individual inspection and sign —off by the Fire
Marshal, Public Works (Engineering and Environmental), Utilities
and Traffic Engineering are required for a project encompassing
these considerations.
3) Inspection/Enforcement — Principal responsibility is with
the Building Department, hut requires inspection and sign —off
by multiple departments depending on the nature of the project.
6
•
•
•
4) Appeal — Generally not applicable, with no specific
provision therefor.
5) Timetable — Typical timeframe for inspection and issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy /Use is 1 -2 working days for a
single—family dwelling and 2 -3 days for a commercial project.
7. Occupational License:
a) Purpose — Occupational Licenses are issued to regulate and
record business enterprises located or doing business in the City.
b) Code Reference — Occupational Licenses are governed by Chapter
71 and section 137.009 of Title XI, Chapter 37, City Code of
Ordinances and by State Statute.
c) Current Practice — Is as follows:
1) Application — Occupational Licenses are issued and
administered by the Occupational License Section of the
Central Services Department. The license fee is paid at
application and the applicant is responsible for completing and
returning the related requirements to obtain the license.
2) Processing — The process is controlled in part by State
Statute which requires renewal annually effective September
1st. Application forms require review by Planning and Urban
Development as to coning requirements, and Traffic Engineering
as to transportation impact fees, as well as Building inspection
if a Certificate of Occupancy /Use is needed, and the Police
Department for occupations requiring a background check.
3) Inspection /Enforcement — by the Occupational License
Section, although Code responsibility rests with the Code
Administrator. Enforcement actions not otherwise resolved
are through the Code Enforcement Board.
4) Appeal -- Generally not applicable, with no specific
provision therefor.
•
•
B. Annexation:
a) Purpose — To govern the process whereby property located in
the unincorporated portions of the County within the City's
service area is brought within the corporate limits of the City.
b) Code Reference — Title XI, Land Development Code, Chapter
132, City Code of Ordinances, pursuant to Chapter 171, F.S.
c) Current Practice — Is as follows:
1) Application — All annexations are voluntary or at the
initiation of the affected property owner(s) and applications are
filed with the Code Administrator's Office.
2) Processing — Applications are processed by the Code
Administration section of the Planning and Urban Development
Department; forwarded to the City Commission for receipt and
referral; considered at public hearing by the Planning and Zoning
Board and City Commission; advertised for four (4) consecutive
weeks as required by State law; and considered for adoption at
second ordinance reading. The City Clerk and City Attorney
participate in the public notice and ordinance preparation steps
of this process.
3) Inspection /Enforcement — Any follow —up measures to
effect the annexation are through the Planning and Urban
Development Department.
4) Appeal — Any appeal from the action of the Commission is
to the courts.
5) Timetable — Typical processing time from application to
adoption of the annexation ordinance is three and one —half
months.
A variation of the annexation process is the annexation
agreement which serves to allow those properties which cannot
legally annex to the City to be served by City sewer. The
agreement essentially binds the property to annex when it is
•
•
•
legally able to do so in return for provision of City sewer
service.
9. Zoning:
a) Purpose — to regulate the permitted use, intensity and related
development parameters on property by zoning district
consistent with the City's Land Use Plan.
b) Code Reference — Title XI, Land Development Code, Chapter
135, Zoning District Regulations, pursuant to municipal home
rule police powers.
c) Current Practice — is as follows:
1) Application — Applications are received by the Code
Administration section of the Planning and Urban Development
Department.
2) Processing — Applications are forwarded to the City
Commission for receipt and referral. The Planning and Zoning
Board and City Commission conduct public hearings. After
notice, a second ordinance reading is conducted and the
ordinance is eligible for adoption by the City Commission.
Property is zoned concurrent with annexation and parallels that
process where .applicable. Rezoning actions are frequently
considered in concert with land use plan amendments which are
discussed below. The City Clerk and City Attorney participate
in the public notice and ordinance preparation steps of this
process.
3) Inspection /Enforcement — Zoning inspections and
enforcement are handled by the Development Code inspectors in
the Planning and Urban Development Department.
4) Appeal — From an action of the City Commission is to
the courts.
5) Timetable — A rezoning application considered by itself
would typically take 50 -75 days.
9
•
•
•
10. Land Use Plan Amendment:
a) Purpose — To establish the designated land use pattern and
characteristics that will serve to guide the overall development
pattern of the City and serve as the foundation for land use
regulations.
b) Code Reference — Ordinance No. 2019, adopted November 1,
1979 as amended, pursuant to Chapter 163, F.S.
c) Current Practice — Is as follows:
1) Application — Applications for Land Use Plan Amendment
are processed by the Code Administration section of the
Planning and Urban Development Department.
2) Processing — Applications are forwarded to the City
Commission for receipt and referral and to the Planning and
Zoning Board for local planning agency review and public
hearing. The City Commission conducts a public hearing and
first ordinance reading after which the proposed ordinance is
forwarded to the Pinellas Planning Council and, when in excess
of the State threshold, to the State Department of Community
Affairs. The City Clerk and City Attorney participate in the
public notice and ordinance preparation steps of this process.
Upon completion of outside agency review, the City
Commission holds a second ordinance reading and adopts the
land use plan amendment ordinance. Subsequent staff notice to
Department of Community Affairs is also required as is the
twice — annual filing of sub — threshold amendments with
accompanying composite assessment.
3) Inspection /Enforcement — Zoning inspections and
enforcement are handled by the Development Code Inspectors in
the Planning and Urban Development Department.
4) Appeal — From an action of the City Commission is to
the courts.
10
•
5) Timetable — The approximate time for a typical
sub — threshold land use plan amendment, assuming Pinellas
Planning Council participation in the process, is 4 -1/2 to 5
months. The above — threshold amendments can be filed only
twice a year with the State, June and December as determined
by the City, and thus may take six months or longer depending
on the exact application and hearing cycle.
11. Site Plans:
a) Purpose — To provide for review and overall consideration of
the arrangement of streets, buildings, parking, access, utilities
and open space in relationship to each other and the physical
characteristics of the site for projects above the designated
threshold.
b) Code Reference — Title XI, Land Development Code, Chapter
137, Administration and Enforcement, Section 137.010, City
Code of Ordinances.
• c) Current Practice — Is as follows:
•
1) Application — Site plan review includes a preliminary and
final submission.
2) Processing — Preliminary site plans are submitted to the
Code Administrator's office and forwarded to the City
Commission for review, acceptance for processing and
determination as to whether the final site plan is required to
be brought back to the Commission for approval.
Final site plans are submitted to the office of the Code
Administrator and distributed to members of the Development
Review Committee. The Development Review Committee
meets to review and act on the final site plan. Such action is
final unless the Commission has specified the final plan be
brought back to the Commission, it involves a transfer of
development rights or is a planned district zoning amendment
— all of which require Commission action.
Approved final site plans are submitted to the Code
Administrator's office for verification and forwarding to the
City Clerk who certifies such final approved plan. Amendments
11
•
are classified by their relative degree of significance and
approved by the designated party — City Manager, Development
Review C;omrnittee or Code Administrator.
3) Inspection /Enforcement — Inspection rests with the
various departments responsible for a particular facet of the
project, e.g., Traffic Engineering, as it relates to the parking
layout.
4) Appeal — There is no specific provision for appeal from a
decision of the Development Review Committee. Appeal from
a decision of the Commission is to the courts.
5) Timetable — Site plan approval typically takes from
45 -60 days depending upon whether it must go to the
Commission for final approval and not including any
extraordinary time it may take the applicant between action on
the preliminary plan and submission of the final plan.
• 12. Subdivision Plat:
•
a) Purpose — To establish a process and standards for the division
of unplatted property, and the redivision or combination of
previously platted property as well as to properly record same.
b) Code Reference — Title XI, Land Development Code, Chapter
133, Subdivision and Condominium Flatting Regulations, City
Code of Ordinances.
c) Current Practice — Is as follows:
1) Application — The subdivision process includes an optional
presubmission conference, filing a preliminary and final plat,
recording the final plat and either making or posting surety for,
the public improvements called for under the terms of plat
approval.
2) Processing — The preliminary plat is submitted to the
Code Administrator and forwarded to the City Commission for
receipt and referral to the Development Review Committee
for action, Approved preliminary plats are submitted to the
Code Administrator for verification and forwarded to the City
12
•
•
Clerk for certification. Amendments to the certified
preliminary plat are categorized as major or minor and
considered by the Development Review Committee or the City
Manager, respectively.
Following certification the applicant may seek an optional
technical design conference and construction plan review
meeting coordinated by the Code Administrator and supervised
by the City Engineer.
A final plat may be submitted following approval of the
subdivision construction plans. The Public Works Department
(Code Administrator per the Code) circulates a copy of the
final plat and each affected department signs off. Upon
determination that the final plat is consistent with the
certified preliminary plat and meets ail conditions of approval,
including site improvements made or financial security
adequate to cover their improvement, the final plat is
forwarded to the City Manager for his signature. The Public
Works Department (again, the Code Administrator per the
Code) arranges for the signed plat to be filed with the County
Clerk for recording,
3) Inspection /Enforcement — Rests primarily with the
Engineering Division of Public Works relative to plat processing
requirements and site improvements.
4) Appeal — There is no specified appeal process — except as
provided by law to the courts.
5) Timetable — The subdivision platting process typically
takes 45 -60 days for the preliminary plat and 5 -15 days for
the final, not including extraordinary time by the applicant
between preliminary and final stages related to construction
drawings and improvements.
13. Variance:
a) Purpose — to provide a process for consideration of
adjustments to the application of the code (where conditions
warrant) based on the criteria set forth in the code for such
variance.
13
•
•
•
b) Code Reference — Title XI, Land Development Code, Chapter
137, Administration and Enforcement: Section 137.012
Variances, City Code of Ordinances.
c) Current Practice — The Development Code Adjustment Board
is empowered to authorize variances to sign, zoning and
uniform development regulations.
1) Application — Application for variance is filed with the
Development Code Administrator.
2) Processing — This application is forwarded to the City
Clerk for advertising and notice. The Code Adjustment Board
typically meets twice per month to consider cases scheduled
for public hearing and renders its decision at the conclusion of
such hearing.
3) Inspection /Enforcement — Responsibility rests primarily
with Development Code inspectors in the Planning and Urban
Development Department.
4) Appeal — Appeals from decisions of the Code Adjustment
Board may be made to an administrative Hearing Officer, the
procedures for which are detailed in Section 137.013 of the
Land Development Code.
5) Timetable — A typical application for variance takes some
21 to 35 days from application to determination by the Board.
14. Conditional Use:
a) Purpose — To establish a process to consider those categories
of use which, given their particular characteristics, require a
case —by —case evaluation of their appropriateness in the
location and manner proposed.
b) Code Reference -- Title XI, Land Development Code, Chapter
137, Administration and Enforcement Section, 137.011
Conditional Uses, City Code of Ordinances.
14
•
•
•
c) Current Practice — Is as follows:
1) Application — Application is filed with the Code
Administrator.
2) Processing — The Cnde Administrator forwards the
completed application to the City Clerk for advertisement and
notice. The application is considered at public hearing by the
Planning and Zoning Board at a scheduled twice— monthly
meeting and the conditional use acted upon at such meeting.
3) Inspection /Enforcement — Responsibility rests primarily
with Development Code Inspectors in the Planning and Urban
Development Department.
4) Appeal — Appeals to decisions of the Planning and Zoning
Board are considered by the Hearing Officer as for the variance
process.
5) Timetable — A typical timefrarne for consideration of a
conditional use is 21 -35 days, not including any appeal.
Inventory of Existing Information Resources
1. Public Information Practices:
a) Services — Public information on the development review and
permitting process is primarily a function of the respective
departments involvement and interface with the public in the
review and permitting process. The current Action Center
under the City Clerk's office is the only centralized public
information referral /response mechanism and is not designed
specifically to handle development review information.
Consequently, there is no organized overall approach or
mechanism for the preparation, distribution and coordination of
information on development review practices for the public.
Each department, correspondent with its functions and
responsibilities within the development and permitting process,
serves as its own public information outlet, primarily through
15
•
•
•
the personnel assigned to the application and processing of
permit or plan requests.
2. Materials — Public information materials range from the application and
Instruction forms for various components of the Development Review
Process to manuals and hand —outs with specific design criteria. Currently
available materials include the following,.
a) Forms for use by the public:
— Application for Land Clearing and Grubbing Permit
— Tree Removal Application Form
— Fill Permit
— No Tree/Removal Verification Statement
— Vacation Request Filing Form and Processing Sheet
— Subdivision Plat Requirements
— Consent to Platting of Lands and Partial Release
of Mortgage
— Final Plat Processing Sheet
— Official Form for Submitting Flat for approval to
Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission
— instructions for Completion of Surety Bond for
Performance of All Subdivision Land Improvements.
(Sample Bond and Letter of Credit)
— Permit to Burn
— Smoking Permit
— Fireworks Perm i t
— Marine Fireworks Display
— Application for Ciccupational License
— Background Information Report Form
— Annexation Agreement — Ins:tr!ictions and Format
— Land Use Plan Amendment — Instrue :ti! +ns and
Application
— Conditional Use Application and instructions
— Conditional Use Application — Alcoholic. Beverage
Sales
— Surety Bond for License Agreement — 'Sign in Easement
— Zoning Atlas Amendment Application
— Variance Instruction and application Form
— Application and Instructions for Subdivision Plat
Review
1€1
•
•
•
— Application and Instructions for Site Plan Review
— Sign Permit Application
— License Agreement
— Building Coverage and Open Space Worksheet
-- Affidavit of Compliance with Landscapirra
Requirements of Code
— Affidavit of Nonconformity
— Building Permit — Site Plan
— Consent of Applicant /Variance and Conditional
Use
— Conditional Release of Residential Building for -
!_l
use as Display Model
— Statement -- Amusement Center/Game Roorrr ( ?)
— Declaration of Nonconforming Leos tv
— Declaration of Unit, of Title
— Temporary Retail Sales Application
— Application for Horne Occupation
— Water Tap — !impact (Water Tap and Service
Connection Application)
— Water — Customer Accounts Application, for
Service and Work Order
— Contractors Tie —in Certification for New Structures
— Roofing Installation List
— (Untitled) Release for Removal of Construction in an
Easement
— Test Application Instructions
— Application for Sideway: Waiver
— Temporary Power Pole Inspection Release Certificate
— Request for Temporary Power Release
— Energy Efficiency Code Forms
— Asbestos Project Notification
— Demolition Permit Procedures
— Building Inspection Department Complaint Form
— Application for Building Permit Extensioin
— Application tor Board of Adjustment and Appeal
— Building /Flood Control
— Building Perrnit Application
— Application for Fence /Wall Perrnit
— Electrical Perrnit Application and Installation List
— Plumbing Perrnit Application and Installation List
— Mechanical Perrnit Applicatioin and Installation List
— Gas Permit Application
•
•
•
— Singe Family Residence Owner /Builder Affadavit
b) Information materials for use by the public:
— Guide to Permitted Land Use
— Zoning Summary
— Permitted and Conditional Use Summary
— Application Subdivision Deadlines
— Fence, Wall and Landscape Diagram's
— Fee Schedule
— Site Plan Review Process Diagram
— Special Living Facility Regulations -- pamphlet
— Erosion and Siltation Control Policy
— Design Criteria -- Storm Drainage
— Energy Comparison of Commonly Used Fuels
�' .t F�
— Open space and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule
These lists may not be exhaustive, but cover the items identified to or
collected by the Consultant through the staff interview process..
The multitude of form have evolved over a period of years in response to
individual permit and review requirements.
The informational hand —outs are largely in response to individual procedures
or permits that have generated sufficient Interest to warrant special
emphasis. There is no overall administrative manual or directory of the
various: facets of the development review process.
Inventory of Existing Physical Plant
1. Location - -- the various departments participating in the
development review process hy location are:
a) City Hall - -- City Clerk, City Attorney, City Manager
b) City Hall Annex — Public Work:;-:, Planning and Urban
Development, Traffic Engineering, Building Inspection,
Central Services, Parks and Recreation, Assistant City
Manager- /r=iper a t i ons.
c) Main Fire Station — Fire Marshal
d) Utilities Building — !_ltilities
1P1
•
•
•
'4pace Utilization and Relationships — The accompanying
diagram illustrates the location and juxtaposition of the individual
departments located in the Annex and involved in the development
review process. A summary of the estimated number of square
feet in each department is tabulated below:
a) Building Inspection 4,373 sq. ft.
b) Planning and Urban Development 5,444 sq. ft.
1) PUD 2420
2) Code Adm. 1782
3) Comm. Relations — 1242
c) Public Works 5,649 sq. ft.
1) Env. Management — 540 •
d) Central Services 5,574 sq. ft.
(including Data Processing)
1) Occupational License — 580
e) Assistant City 1\4anager 1,440 sq. ft.
f) Traffic Engineering 9,041 sq. ft.
g) Parks and Recreation 4,165 sq. ft.
h) Public Service, Employee Credit Union 5,549 sq. ft.
I) Engineering Field Office 1,798 sq. ft.
j) Auditorium 7,875 sq. ft.
Approximate Total Useable Sq. Ft 51,908 sq. ft.
Other departments or functions related to the development review and
permitting process outside the Annex include:
Fire Marshal 972 sq. ft.
Utility Engineer 400 sq. ft.
City Clerk 7,550 sq. ft.
City Attorney '7,550 sq. ft.
The existing floor plan for the Annex will serve as the basis for
consideration of alternative space plans designed to accornodate the proposed
department reorganintioin outlined by the City iManager and a more
efficient development review and permitting procedure.
19
II
Lt AUDITORIUM
tt
I7
KITCHEN STORAGE
PL NNING & REAN
DEVELOPMENT
O'CUPATIONA
LICENSE
DATA PROCESSING
CENTRAL SERVICES
1
BUILDING INSPECTILN
OPY
I
I
p
i
PUBLIC WORKS
ASSISTANT
CITY MANAGER
p
t
TRAFFIC I ENGINE
:RI
LOADING DOCK
LL _ F 1J1 tiTJ
CODE ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY RELATIONS
ITF1TTT1T
M U-
p R
PARKS &RECREATION
r
ENVIRONMENTAL
MAMA EMENT
PL BLIgI SERVICE
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
RADIO
EMPLOYEE'S
CREDIT UNION
Da)qj 1:1
L
ENGINEERING
FIELD OFFICE
504IPLE: G IT'Y or cusARwAreg -
Sol -No. 7443 5-D
7 -75
AT
REVISIONS:
z
u
O
0
CITY OF _CLEARWATER •
0
J
LL
CLEARWATER •
•
•
•
Summary
This first task identifies existing procedures, information practices and
office space relationships.
It has been compiled from eYistinq information made available by staff,
extensive interviews with key departments and from examination of the
existing code and related information materials.
This information wilI, in combination with the input solicited from the
Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County, the Clearwater
Chamber of Commerce, the Planning and Zoning Board and Code. Adjustment
Board, he evaluated and key issues identified in Task 2.
20
•
HEALEY CONSULTANT GROUP, INC.
PLANNING • ARCHITECTURE • DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF CLEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STUDY
TASK II— EVALUATION OF EXISTING PERMIT
AND REVIEW PROCEDURES, INFORMATIONAL
PRACTICES AND PHYSICAL
ACCOMMODATIONS
Development Process Study Committee
Bill Baker, Public Works Director
Floyd Carter, Central Services Director -
Vic Chodora, Interim Building Director
Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineering Director
John Richter, Development Code Administrator
Consultant
Healey Consultant Group, Inc.
Preliminary Draft
September 15, 1988
3040 GULF TO BAY BLVD., SUITE 100 • CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34619 • TELEPHONE (813) 791 -6964
•
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Evaluation Process 1
Interviews i
Chamber of Commerce Task Force 2
Contractors and Builders Association 5
City Boards 7
Other Municipal Example:: .................. 10
Issues 1 :3
Staff, Board and Commission Functions 13
Individual Procedures 14
Time Scheduling Considerations 17
Public Information Practices 18
Physical Resources Considerations 18
Summary ?0
• City of Clearwater Development Process Study
Task II
Introduction
Task II calls for the evaluation of existing development procedures, information
practices and space relationships. This evaluation has included input by and
coordination with the following groups:
• Interviews with key City department or division heads involved in
the development review process — some thirteen in all;
• Clearwater Charnber of Comrnerce — Task Force, including
questionnaire and meetings;
• Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County —
questionnaire mailout;
• City Planning and Zoning Board and Development Code Adjustment
Board — including questionnaire and meetings;
• Other Municipalities — including review of the process and experience
in Pinellas County and Largo.
The highlights of the input and suggestions from each of these sources is identified.
Based on this input and the Consultant's analysis of the existing process and
resources, a series of issues have been set forth. These issues and their evaluation
will serve as the basis for setting forth alternative solutions and specific
recommendat ions.
Evaluation Process
City Staff interviews — Extensive interviews were conducted with the following key
City participants in the developrnent process:
• City Manager, Ron Rabun
• Assistant City Manager /Operations, Elizabeth Haeseker
• Director, Planning and Urban Development, Joseph McFate
• Director, Traffic Engineering, Keith Crawford
• Director, Public Works, Bill Baker
• Director, Parks and Recreation, Ream Wilson
• Director_ Central Services. Floyd Carter
• Director, (interim) Building Inspection, Victor Chodora
• Director, Utilities, Cecil Henderson
• Fire Marshal, Nick. Lewis
• Code Administrator, John Richter
1
• • City Clerk, Cindy Goudeau
•
•
• City Attorney, M. Al Galbraith, Jr.
In addition to the department/division heads. a number of other :staff participated in
the interview process:, and provided follow -up information. The information compiled
from this interview process has served as the basis for the description of existing
procedures, information resources and office space identified under Task 1 and
demotes those issues with current practices and conditions, which are subsequently
outlined in Task II.
Chamber of Commerce Task Force — A special task force of seven persons
comprised of architects, enfiirieer; and contractors who are knowledgeable about and
frequent users of the City's development review process volunteered to as :list in this
evaluation. Task force rnernbers included:
Ray Korzeniowsk:i, Governmental Affairs Director, Chamber of
Commerce
• Arcadia Elonski, Dell Associates, Architects and Planners, P.A.
• Alex Plisko, Myers, Plisko, Ott Architects, P.A.
• Stephen Swanberg, SOS Architects, Inc.
• Thomas George, Prelude Construction Company, Inc.
• Rich Schaefer, Creative Contractors, inc.
• David Nader, Ruteriberq Office Developers, Inc.
• Keith Appenzelier, Apperizeller, Boyd . Zarra Engineers and Surveyor;
The task force met four times over the study period and provided valuable insights
into the positive and negative aspects of the development review process which they
had experienced firsthand.
A questionnaire was used to solicit initial opinion and included the following
principal points:
• Degree of frequency with which individual procedures are used;
• Adequacy of each of these individual procedures;
• Adequacy of physical space and informational materials;
• Principal strengths and weaknesses and relative degree of significance
of each;
• Additional comments and suggestions.
The questionnaire was tabulated and summarized for review with the Task Force. A
synopsis of the principal points gleaned frorn this process is as follows:
• The respondents were about evenly divided between "regular" and
"infrequent" users of the sixteens separate procedures noted — with only
a minority "never" using certain procedures.
2
•
• The most regularly used procaedures :among this, group were the site
plan, clearing and grubbing permit, tree removal permit, building
permit and certificate of occupancyluse. The least used procedures
were annexation and subdivision plat.
▪ The majority of the respondent_; found that most of the procedures
function "adequately ". Of the total responses for all sixteen
procedures :, 13 percent were judged to function "very well ", 62 percent
were judged "adequate" and 25 percent were deemed "inadequate".
Those procedures judged to function best were the certificate of
occupancy/use and occupational license. Those rated least adequate
were the building permit, sign permit rezoning and conditional use.
• As to the physical office and space considerations, the location of the
departments participating in the development review process were
found to be "very convenient" to "adequate ", while the amount of space
and facilities were thought to be "adequate" to "inadequate ".
• Regarding in-formational materials, both handouts or generalized
instructional information and application and instruction form; were
judged to be deficient — more than 50 percent finding them
"inadequate ".
▪ The ranking 01 most sinnificant s•f'_r+: "eSS.0 =, in the process, on a scale
1 to 5 with 1 being the most significant weakness (i.e., the biggest
problem), resulted in the following:
01
Flank. Cirder Average Flanking
i. Conflicting or conflEinq Code requirements
7. Decisions are subjective or arbitrary
3. Instruction guidelines and forms are
unavailable or inadequate
4. Process takes too long
— Code requirements too stringent
-- Lack of access to key staff or department
— Office: and permitting facilities are inadequate
Lack cif access to elected officials:
5.
•
2.0
2 25
t.�
7.28
2.75
heads. 3.0
:.Q
4.33
L
Given an opportunity to identify other weaknesses, the alcoholic
l-severage review process was cited by nearly half of the respondents:
as a critical or most significant weakness.
•
• The ranking of rnost significant strerrgthsirr the process, on a scale of 1
to 5 with 1 being the most significant strength (Le,. the roost. positive
feature), resulted in the following:
Rank Order Average Ranking
1. Staff is knowledgeable and helpful* 1.85
2. Code requirements establish high standards
resulting in better living environment in the City 2.12
3. Appeal of decisions to key staff or department
heads is available 2.37
4. Code requirements are applied uniformly and
fairly 2.50
5. Offices and permitting facilities are conveniently
located and arranged 2,57
6. Access to appeal boards and elected officials is
available 2.71
• 7. Code requirements are clear 2.85
8. Instruction guidelines and forms are available
and useful 3.25
*Note: The Task Force sought to clarify this point by indicating this is a
function of being sufficiently farniliar with the system to know
specifically to whorrr to address what type of inquiry in order to
obtain complete and accurate direction.
•
A summary of the task force evaluation and suggestions to improve certain
areas of the process include the following principal points:
• The development review process as a whole works adequately for those
who work with it frequently and understand how it works and who to
see for various individual procedures. This "working understanding" is
difficult to achieve for first -time and casual users of the system and
points to weaknesses in the formal direction provided and processing
channels.
• Specific weaknesses in the process are attributable to new employees
who are not sufficiently trained or integrated into the system;
overlapping or unclear jurisdiction between staff; inadequate and
unavailable counter staff backup, particularly in the building plan review
•
•
area; lack of specific contact person to monitor review process; and no
specific time parameter for completion of certain procedures.
• Recommendations include consideration of a project or permit manager
assigned to track and facilitate every application; establishment of
specific time parameters for ail application /permit procedures;
integration of computation of traffic impact fee with other impact fee
procedures; improved recognition that even final site plans will
frequently need to be modified in the course of preparing construction
plans; reconsider the alcoholic beverage permitting procedure, in
particular as required for transfer of ownership; improve application
forms including input by those who use them; and revamping the
office /permitting layout at the Annex with professional, outside
assistance.
• The key issue underscored by the task force is one of service — service
to the public that is required to use the process as distinct from the
standards themselves. As is borne -out by the response to the
questionnaire, the substance or high standards of the development
review process is not at issue, but rather applying those standards in the
most efficient and cooperative manner possible.
The above observations and recommendations of the Chamber Task Force
will be integrated with the other components of the evaluation process to
identify specific issues and subsequent recommendations.
Contractors and Builders Associations of Pinellas County — A questionnaire similar
to that completed by the Chamber Task Force was mailed to the Contractors and
Builders Association. The responses are sumrnari:ed below:
• As might be expected, responses from the CBA indicated the procedures
most frequently used are building permit and occupational license.
Those least frequently used are annexation and and use plan amendment.
• The CBA responses generally rate the function of existing procedures
with which they deal favorably. Fully 30 percent of the procedures
rated were judged to function "very well "; 53 percent were "adequate ";
and 17 percent "inadequate ".
• The tree removal, building permit and occupational licensing process
received the best ratings; while sign permits and inspection/
enforcement were among those most frequently used procedures that
were rated inadequate.
• Physical accommodations were rated "very convenient" to "adequate"
and informational materials were rated " adequate".
5
•
•
• The ranking of most significant weaknesses in the process, on a scale of
1 to 5 with 1 being the most significant weakness (i.e., the biggest
problem), resulted in the following:
Rank Order Average Ranking
1. Process takes too long 1.0
2. Code requirements too stringent 1.5
3. — Decisions are subjective or arbitrary 2.0
— Conflicting or confusing code requirements 2.0
4. — Offices and permitting facilities are inadequate 3.0
— Instruction guidelines and forms are
unavailable or inadequate 3.0
5. — Lack of access to key staff or department heads 3.5
— Lack of access to elected officials 3.5
• The ranking of most significant strengths' in the process, on a scale of 1
to 5 with 1 being the most significant strength (i.e., the rr►ost positive
feature), resulted in the following:
Rank Order Average Ranking
1. — Staff is knowledgeable and helpful 1.5
— Appeal of decisions to key staff or department
heads is available 1,5
— Instruction guidelines and forms are
available and useful 1.5
2. — Code requirernents are clear 2.0
— Code requirements are applied uniformly and
fairly 2.0
— Code requirement;: establish high standards
resulting in better living environment in the City 2.0
— Access to appeal boards and elected officials
•
is available 2.0
3. Offices and permitting facilities are conveniently
located and arranged
3.0
Under "Other Comments", a principal point was that the time for permits for small
renovation and remodeling projects shouldn't take more than 2 days compared with
the typical 7 -10 days presently being experienced.
In large measure, the Contractors and Builders Association responded consistent with
that of the Chamber Task Force. They found the process on the whole to function
adequately, but found room for improvement in several areas — most notably sign
permits and the length of time to process permits generally.
City Boards — Questionnaires were prepared for and meetings held with the Planning
and Zoning Board and Development Code Adjustment Board to solicit their input in
this review process. A summary of their respective observations and
recommendations is set forth below.
The Planning and Zoning Board is involved primarily in an advisory capacity to the
City Commission on annexation, land use plan amendment and zoning amendment
applications and in a decisionmaking capacity on conditional use applications.
• Through its involvement in these key land use and planning decisions, the Board is
also exposed to and has an interest in such key related procedures as the building
perrnit, tree permit, site plan review and inspection /enforcement measures.
A brief summary of the Planning and Zoning Board's response to the questionnaire
and related observations is as follows:
•
The vast majority of the Board believes the four main procedures with
which it is involved function "very well ". Those procedures which the
Board perceives to function less than adequately include the building
permit and inspection/enforcement procedures.
▪ The Board considered the physical accommodations for the development
review process to be "inadequate ", were about evenly divided as to the
adequacy of informational materials such as handouts and application
forms and found the staff reports and graphics to be "very useful ".
• Key strengths of the current process with which the Board is involved
included the opportunity for consideration at both Planning and Zoning
Board and City Commission level for annexation, land use plan
amendment and rezoning; the requirement to annex to obtain City
sewer; and the current procedure which provides for careful attention
and consistency with respect to consideration of conditional uses. One
member felt the twice -a -year limitation on applications for land use
7
• plan amendment was a very important safeguard and should be
•
•
preserved.
• Noted weaknesses included the limitations of the annexation process —
in terms of the inability to deal with enclaves on the one hand and the
appearance of forced annexation and zoning to receive City sewer
service on the other; the alcoholic beverage permit process — generally
preferring the way it worked prior to recent code changes; and
interface with the inspection/enforcement process.
The most productive aspects of the Board's role included the mix and
balance of different philosophies and the ability to express them openly;
and the conditional use process and the consistent, factual treatment of
conditional uses.
• The least productive aspects of the Board's role were believed to be its
involvement with "social" issues; and its inability to deal in greater
depth with "environmental" issues.
• Among the suggestions made under "other comments" were the need to
have additional site information (in particular, tree survey /removal
data) in connection with conditional use applications; to revamp the
alcoholic beverage review process but to keep the provision for review
of license transfer; to have impact assessment forms prepared by an
independent source; to give consideration to variances to be acted upon
by the Board in conjuction with conditional uses; and to address
perceived problems that staff is insensitive to the needs and objectives
of the development community.
The Development Code Adjustment Board is involved primarily in hearing
requests for variance from zoning, sign, tree permit and uniform
development regulations. Through its involvement in hearing appeals from
these main components of the Land Development Code, the Board is
exposed to and has an understanding of the other principal steps in the
development review and permitting process.
A brief summary of the Code Adjustment Board's response to the
questionnaire and related observations is as follows:
• Overall, the Board finds the variance process works very well.
• The principal strengths of the variance process include the open and fair
nature of the hearing process; the makeup of the Board, including its
diversified background, expertise and commitment; strong staff support
and lack of interference from elected officials.
8
•
•
• Among the weaknesses noted were the need for improved emphasis and
understanding of the term "unnecessary hardship "; inadequacy and lack
of staffing for follow-up and enforcement procedures; and lack of
consistent input by the Building Inspection Department.
▪ From the specific types of variance considered, the Board noted the
following:
Zoning — the Board's role in considering variances for congregate living
and other conditional use applications are frequently misunderstood.
Signs — new restrictions as to size, number and height make variance
decisions difficult and seemingly unfair vis-a-vis existing signs.
Uniform Development Regulations — again, major changes in the new
code require special consideration when evaluated relative to existing
development pattern.
• The most productive aspects of the Board's role were judged to be the
public, open and fair nature of the hearing forum; that true hardships
are eased; and inequities reduced.
• The least productive aspects of the Board's role were identified as the
inability to follow-up relative to conditions established as a function of
the variance process; and enforcement generally of the Code and
conditions of approval.
Among the additional comments, observations and suggestions the Board
made to improve their role in the development review process were the
following:
1. Workload — The work load of the Board is considerable and makes it
particularly difficult for full -time members of the workforce to devote
the time necessary to membership on this Board. Suggestions to help
alleviate this problem included:
a) Appoint two (2) alternate members who could serve in the absence
or in the event of a conflict by one or two of the five permanent
members;
b) Provide more complete and detailed information as part of the
application process and limit changes to the application before the
Board to reduce the amount of time at public hearing and cause
fewer continuances;
c) Create a separate Board to hear sign variances only;
9
•
•
•
d) Establish an administrative process to dispose of minor as-built and
inadvertant errors in the field to obviate need for Board
consideration.
2. Communications — Communications on several levels need to be
improved. Suggestions included:
a) Additional input from Building and Engineering Departments when
applicable (Traffic Engineering comments, for example, are very
useful);
b) Input to and feedback from City Commission could be improved; and
c) Follow-through and feedback to the Board from staff vis -a -vis
inspection and enforcement issues related to the Board's function
would be useful.
3. Composition and Operations — Several factors noted under this heading
included:
a) The importance of the technical backgrounds required for designated
positions on the Board on the one hand and the difficulty this poses
relative to the workload and potential conflicts on the other hand;
b) The need to revamp and clarify the application form, particularly to
make more straight- forward the basis and justification for hardship
relief;
c) The need for reasonable reimbursement for mileage expenses
incurred by individual Board members who travel to see each site
for each application twice a month; and
d) Potential need for Board - established guidelines relative to applicant
initiated changes to the application at the public hearing which can
cause considerable delay and continuation of the proceeding.
These factors will be considered in the identification of overall issues and
recommended solutions.
Other Municipal Examples — In addition to the in -depth examination of
the City of Clearwater's procedures, the relevant experience of adjoining
and nearby communities was reviewed. Pinellas County, Largo and
Manatee County all had similarities or experience with the issues being
addressed in Clearwater and were commended to the Consultant as worthy
of examination.
10
•
•
•
In Pinellas County site plan review is required for all but one -, two- and
three - family dwelling units on platted lots. The site plan review process is
coordinated through the Zoning Division of the Planning Department.
There is a preliminary and final site plan required and processing time is
five to six weeks for each stage, Site plans do not go to the Board of
County Commissioners and are approved by the County Administrator,
Review includes independent sign-off by five departments and optional
referrals to three others. In addition to the standard site plan review
procedure, there is a direct final submission process and a walk-through
process, both of which are limited in application.
Field review of all preliminary site plans and physical inspection of the
completed project is handled by Environmental Management inspection
personnel. Subdivision plats are processed through the Engineering
Department and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
The central permit /receipt room function at the County's Technical
Services Building on Court Street has several advantageous features. The
functions represented here include zoning, engineering, environmental
management, utilities, and building. Single- family dwellings and other
minor permits can be approved through this centralized permit review —
usually within one to two hours. Other rrrore complicated permit
applications are referred to the respective departments for further review.
Construction plans are typically approved by the Building Department
within ten days to two weeks. One important feature in the successful
operation of the centralized permit function is the adequate primary and
backup staffing of the counter area and the immediate accessibility of
designated problem - resolution personnel in relationship to each function.
Cross-training between functions has been identified as desirable but has
not yet been carried out.
The City of Largo has operated with a combined planning and building
department since 1985, although they remain in separate physical
locations. Largo's Development Code establishes five types or levels of
review — Type I through Type V, each with its own process for review,
notice, hearing, determination and appeal. Each type action requires a
development order to be issued attesting to approval prior to a building
permit being issued.
A single building permit is issued for all building systems — electrical,
plumbing, mechanical and gas, as well as the structure itself. The
inspection process for each permit in the computerized system and the
certificate of occupancy is not issued unless all inspections have been
accounted for in the system.
11
•
Code compliance involves a Code Compliance Supervisor, code technicians
and inspectors. Code compliance personnel have been cross - trained and the
field inspectors assist with plan review. While five inspectors perform all
code inspection functions, the emphasis is on inspection of permitted
activities as distinct from code enforcement. Largo's process has had as
its objective the consolidation of review and permit functions.
Manatee County operates with a Department of Planning and Development
under which there are two divisions — Planning and Development
Management. The Planning Division is in turn organized around Current
Planning and Comprehensive Planning sections, while Development
Management has five sections — Public Service, Plans Examination,
Inspection Coordination, Inspections and Code Enforcement.
Manatee County has prepared an extensive two volume Policies and
Procedures Manual. The Manual details organization, codes and ordinances,
administrative policies, and policies and procedures for each of the two
divisions. It includes extensive detail as to individual procedures, routing
schedules and responsibilities effectively establishing an internal procedure
for every permit.
The administrative manual can be a very useful tool for clarifying and
documenting internal procedures. It is most effective upon the
implementation and refinement of an established process as an ongoing
monitor and reference tool.
Manatee County has also completed a new County Office Building in which
is located its planning and development management functions. This
arrangement will be reviewed relative to the potential improvement of
Clearwater's physical accommodation of the development review process.
Those lessons and examples that have worked well for the communities
examined here will he taken into account in identifying prospective means
of streamlining and improving Clearwater's development review process.
•
•
Issues
Those issues which have been identified in the course of interviews with
each department involved in the development review process and the
foregoing input and evaluation from several outside sources include the
following which are identified for discussion purposes by major heading.
From this identification of issues, alternative solutions will be outlined
and preferred recommendations set forth in Task III.
I. Staff, Board and Commission Functions
A. Staff:
1. Disparities between the delineation of duties under the
Code and in actual practice;
2. Coordination between departments with overlapping or
poorly defined responsibilities;
3. Composition and voting membership of Development
Review Committee relative to issues addressed;
4. Need for Development Review Committee -type
coordination for subthreshold projects;
5. Coordination and responsibilities for inspection
6. Staffing responsibilities and procedures for enforcement.
B. Boards:
1. Planning and Zoning Board and Code Adjustment Board dual
involvement in conditional uses requiring variances;
2. Potential value of Planning and Zoning Board discretion in
considering applications for alcoholic beverage usage and
with environmental or site plan -type considerations as a
function of conditional uses;
3. Planning and Zoning Board and Code Adjustment Board
detachment from and inability to effectuate inspection,
enforcement and follow -up measures relative to conditions
established and decisions made by the respective boards;
13
•
•
4. Code Adjustment Board workload and alternatives
available to reduce number of cases and public hearing
time;
5. Need for streamlined procedures to get cases before the
Code Enforcement Board;
6. Need for independent counsel to serve the Code
Enforcement Board.
C. Commission:
1. Importance and time required for actions requiring receipt
and referral by the City Commission;
2. Requirement that City Commission hear variance requests
from alcoholic beverage permitting procedures as to
separation distance requirements.
II. Individual Procedures
A. Clearing and Grubbing and Tree Removal Permits:
1. Separate provision under Chapter 95 is outside the
framework of the Land Development Code;
2. Appeal process specified in Chapter 90 is inconsistent with
that provided for under Chapter 137.
B. Building Permits:
1. Number and proliferation of types of permits and forms,
2. Lack of specific time parameters on permit processing and
inability to track permits in process;
3. Number of counter staff and available backup assistance;
4. Availability and responsiveness of plan review personnel (in
particular, their availability only between the hours of
2 -4 p.m. as currently posted).
14
•
•
•
C. Certificate of Occupancy /Use:
1. Need for coordination of separate inspections by several
departments.
2. Need for specific provision for sign -off on building permit
placard of landscaping requirements.
D. Sign Regulations:
1. Only non-utility structural permit issued outside Building
Inspection Department;
2. Efficiency of separate sign and building inspection review,
perrnitting and inspection personnel.
E. Occupational License:
1. Application fee is accepted whether or not license is
issued.
2. Physical separation from other review /participating
departments.
F. Impact Fee Collections:
1. Need for Traffic Engineering to compute traffic impact
fees on an as- needed basis for individual permits arid
occupational licenses.
2. Need for Parks and Recreation to compute and administer
recreation and open space impact fees.
G. Annexation:
1. Extensive time required by State-imposed publication
requirements.
15
•
•
•
2. Inability to effectuate consistent policy relative to utility
services based on recent court decision relating to water
service.
H. Site Plans and Subdivision Plats:
1. Distribution and review of Certified Site Plans at time of
application for Building Permit;
2. Need to plat concurrent with site plan overlooked, adding
considerable delay to final approval;
3. Preliminary plan review by staff is perfunctory — need
additional time and information to make meaningful;
4. Provisions for Commission action at receipt arid referral
are inconsistent between site plan and plat procedures;
5. Development Review Committee approves numerous
conditions without good mechanism to insure they are
met;
6. Dumpster location and screening requirements need to be
addressed earlier in the process.
7. Mechanism for coordination of final site plan review/
amendment if required as a result of construction plans.
8. Notice to surrounding property owners /public for site plan/
plat review.
I. Conditional Use:
1. Requirement that transfer of ownership of alcoholic
beverage sales establishment require conditional use
processing;
2. Potential utility of discretionary range of consideration
for certain conditional uses, e.g., alcoholic beverage and
congregate living/group home uses.
3. Potential improved use of site specific details /plans as
part of evaluation process by Planning and Zoning Board.
7b
•
•
J. Variance:
1. The duplication and additional time and effort required in
the event a variance is needed in connection with a use
approved as Conditional Use by Planning and Zoning Board.
K. Code Amendment:
1. Need for routine, systematic review and revision process.
2. Specific code changes to be enumerated vis -a-vis above
outlined issues.
III.Time /Scheduling Considerations
A. Need for receipt and referral by City Commission — adds 2 -3
weeks to process.
B. Preliminary site plans — time for individual department review
and input.
C. Establishment of specific time parameters for action on all
applications.
D. Coordination of outside agency permitting and procedures, e.g.,
SWFMD /DER in site plan review.
E. Change to hold first ordinance reading at time of public hearing
as recently instituted by City Attorney — possible 2-3 weeks
time savings.
F Twice a year limitation on plan amendments (controlled by State
Statute).
G. Coordination between departments changed with separate
inspection functions, e.g., Traffic Engineering and Environmental
Management on parking lot landscaping, at time of Certification
of Occupancy /Use.
H. Extension of lead time required to prepare Commission agenda
memorandum extends lead time or cut -off date for applications.
17
• IV.Public Information Practices
•
•
A. No overall coordinated effort at providing public information as
a separate function.
B. Individual handouts are available for limited, selected components
of the development process.
C. Need for a person and/or system to track and be in a position to
determine the status of all applications in process.
D. Forms are individual to each department or function with little
or no standardization or uniformity.
E. Forms are difficult to understand and some do not elicit the
specific information in a manner most useful to the reviewing
body.
V. Physical Resource Considerations
A. Physical separation of key departments such as City Clerk and
City Attorney in City Hall and Fire Marshal and Utilities in
separate buildings, apart from the Annex.
B. Lack of good directory, signing and clearly marked offices in
Annex as a function of the public finding their destination
conveniently.
C. Lack of good accommodations for public to assist in making
public records available at City Clerk's office and ability to
better serve the public in relation to the development process.
D. Additional space needs for City Clerk, City Attorney and Code
Administration (Zoning).
E. Occupational Licensing — difficult to find and removed from
other departments involved,
F. Code Administration and Environmental — tree permits and sign
permits are out of the mainstream permitting function at
Building Inspection.
G. Location of Fire Marshal and Utilities Engineer in close
prooximity to Building Inspection.
18
•
•
•
H Provision for applicants submitting plans in various departments
— i.e., layout table, space to complete forms, telephone access,
etc.
I, Readily available conference room in close proximity to main
permitting functions to accommodate interdepartmental
coordination of permit problem resolution.
J. Location of all permit application, review and processing
functions in one central and we!!— designed location.
1G
• Summary
•
•
The purpose of this task has been to evaluate existing procedures,
information practices and office space relationships.
The issues which have been identified reflect those areas of concern or
interest for which alternative solutions and recommendations will be
identified in Task III.
20