Loading...
02/27/2006 - Special Joint Work Session SPECIAL JOINT WORK SESSION CITY COUNCIL - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER February 27, 2006 Present: Frank V. Hibbard Mayor William C. Jonson Vice-Mayor Hoyt P. Hamilton Councilmember Carlen A. Petersen Councilmember John Doran Councilmember David Gildersleeve Chair, CDB Alex Plisko Former CDB Vice-Chair Kathy Milam Board Member J. B. Johnson Board Member Thomas Coates Board Member Dana K. Tallman Board Member Nicholas C. Fritsch Board Member Daniel Dennehy Alternate Board Member Also present: William B. Horne II City Manager Garry Brumback Assistant City Manager Rod Irwin Assistant City Manager Pamela K. Akin City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Gina Grimes Attorney for the CDB Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Michael L. Delk Planning Director Gina Clayton Assistant Planning Director Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Mayor called the meeting to order at 11:01 a.m. at the Main Library. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. 1 – Focus on Improving Quality of Development a. Height AND b. Setbacks AND c. Development Guidelines: Urban Design, View Corridors, etc. AND d. Open Space The Vice-Mayor presented photographs as examples of newer developments with undesirable elements, discussed at the May joint work session, such as narrow setbacks and no landscaping. Special Joint Council - Community Development Board 2006-02-27 1 It was noted complaints regarding developments on Brightwater Drive are that the buildings extend from lot line to lot line with no view corridors between them. Another of the City’s challenges is to address conversion from transient to residential uses. CDB members indicated the two most frequent issues they deal with are setbacks and height. Discussion ensued with suggestions for future projects to include larger setbacks, have more character, more creative architecture, enhanced landscaping, and that increased heights be permitted only with increased setbacks and enhanced landscaping. Planning Director Michael Delk said staff is trying to achieve improved performance with the amendments proposed for the Old Florida District. Discussion ensued regarding the CDB’s recommendation to allow a maximum building height of 75 feet for property in the Old Florida District not subject to other height restrictions, instead of the 65 feet being considered by Council. CDB members said they wanted to provide more flexibility but also felt increased heights should be offset with additional landscaping and setbacks. It was suggested that as creative design can be interpretative, specific standards should be developed prior to granting concessions to developers. It was noted that even with increased building heights in exchange for increased setbacks, owners of small lots may have difficulty achieving quality designs unless they can assemble properties. Discussion ensued regarding Eastshore Drive, with comments that it could be developed as was Brightwater Drive if only two levels over parking is permitted. It was suggested concessions including heights of 100 feet and upwards of 80 to 100 units per acre be allowed for transient uses only. It was reported the City of Jupiter, Florida, requires applicants to provide an escrow account from which the city hires an independent consultant to perform a market analysis of the project. For both residential and commercial projects, their planning council evaluates whether the project is necessary, compatible, fits the character of the community, etc., and if not, the project is denied. The City Attorney said she would be interested in more information regarding how the market analyses are used. She felt the market analyses would be useful information but should not be the only basis for denial of a project. Discussion ensued regarding using setbacks and stepbacks to provide view corridors, access to the water and a pedestrian friendly environment on the beach. Suggestions were made that greater height be allowed in exchange for these amenities. It was suggested that Brightwater Drive developed as anticipated in Beach by Design. It was noted that much of the beach is owned by the City and Beach Walk will provide pedestrian access to it. It was felt the beach should have an environment that encourages visitors to the area with its ambience, makes people feel comfortable, and has quality retail, upscale hotels, etc. and attracts pedestrians. Discussion ensured regarding what guidelines, standards and tools are needed by the CDB. It was noted that the CDB must make decisions based on evidence and testimony at meetings. It was remarked that when staff recommends approval or denial of a project, their professional opinions carry a great deal of weight. The flexibility in the Code is positive in that it provides the flexibility required for development in different areas, however, more specificity could be helpful. It was suggested that some of the open space requirements in the former Code be incorporated into the current Code to address setbacks and enhanced landscaping. It was felt that the way setbacks are measured should be reconsidered. It was suggested Special Joint Council - Community Development Board 2006-02-27 2 development applications include graphic depictions of the development and adjacent projects to put it in context and determine if a project fits in the neighborhood. It was remarked that the CDB has indicated their desire for additional tools to make more informed decisions. It was remarked that good design cannot be judged in terms of attractiveness, but as in the Downtown Guidelines, it can be measured by architectural elements and consistency. The meeting was recessed from 12:10 to 12:18 p.m. CDB Attorney Gina Grimes said the CDB benefits from the information provided in the staff reports and evaluates each case based on the criteria of the Code. She suggested the Code may need to be more specific and the CDB given more specific direction. The City Attorney said the intent of the flexibility in the Code was to allow for high quality projects. However, it appears in some cases more standards are needed to attain the desired results. 2 – Visioning “Threats” Related to Growth, Development, and Planning Discussion ensued regarding “threats” noted by the public during the visioning process, related to growth, development, and planning. Comments generally related to the threats being the result of unrealistic expectations and lack of understanding of certain terms and the code. Mr. Delk said staff plans to clarify language in advertised notices to more clearly articulate the nature of a proposed development. Concern was expressed that the lack of affordable housing is a growing problem nationwide. It was remarked that discussion regarding creating incentives for affordable housing is needed. The City has tried to address affordable housing by exempting affordable housing units from certain requirements. It was remarked the perception that Clearwater has experienced uncontrolled growth is not supported by census figures. Growth has been 3% to 5% a year for the past 30 years. It was felt that education and communication is important with respect to property rights and that the quality of development is an ongoing discussion item. 3 – CDB/Council Discussion on Code Issues Encountered by CDB It was suggested the Code be more specific regarding the allowed color palette and that the next citizen DVD include information regarding party status. In response to a suggestion that annexations go directly to the City Council, Mr. Delk said this will be part of the next Code amendment. In response to a question, Mr. Delk said staff provides the CDB with packets of information as soon as possible prior to meetings. A synopsis of anticipated cases is provided to CDB members approximately 10 days prior to each meeting. He said staff works diligently with applicants to resolve issues and find solutions prior to meetings. Discussion ensued regarding instances when staff recommends denial of an application and an applicant offers conditions of approval at a CDB meeting. It was felt that negotiations should not occur at CDB meetings. Staff should not be expected to draft conditions of approval Special Joint Council - Community Development Board 2006-02-27 3 for cases for which they recommended denial. To ensure enforcement, conditions should be in written format and reviewed by code enforcement and other appropriate staff. It was suggested if the CDB disagrees with staff’s recommendations, the case be continued to review why there is disagreement and possible conditions of approval. 4 – Residential and Comprehensive Infill In response to a question, the majority in attendance indicated they are more comfortable now with how comprehensive infill applications are being processed than before. It was suggested standards for comprehensive infill requests should be tougher than standard development applications and should receive a higher level of scrutiny. Mr. Delk said staff is working on additional criteria in the upcoming round of Code amendments. The City Manager said in Clearwater, there is a high respect for the property owners and their rights. Discussion ensued regarding the need to find the balance between property owners’ rights, public input and how proposed developments comply with the comprehensive plan and code requirements. The Mayor thanked everyone for attending. He encouraged the CDB to contact staff throughout the year regarding their concerns and comments. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 1:18 p.m. Special Joint Council - Community Development Board 2006-02-27 4