05/31/2005
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL & CDB WORK SESSION MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
May 31, 2005
Present: Frank Hibbard Mayor
William C. Jonson Vice-Mayor
Hoyt Hamilton Councilmember
Carlen Petersen Councilmember
John Doran Councilmember
David Gildersleeve Chair, Community Development Board
Alex Plisko Vice-Chair, Community Development Board ? arrived 11:05 a.m.
J. B. Johnson Board Member, Community Development Board
Dana K. Tallman Board Member, Community Development Board
Nicholas C. Fritsch Board Member, Community Development Board
Thomas Coates Board Member, Community Development Board
Daniel Dennehy Alternate Board Member, Community Development Board
Absent: Kathy Milam Board Member, Community Development Board
Also present: Bill Horne City Manager
Garry Brumback Assistant City Manager
Pamela K. Akin City Attorney
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk
Michael L. Delk Planning Director
Gina Clayton Assistant Planning Director
Brenda Moses Board Reporter
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 10:34 a.m. at the Main Library.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
The Mayor said the meeting is to discuss issues and possible changes to the
Community Development Code and follow-up on the December 2004 meeting with Consultant
Charlie Siemon.
Planning Director Michael Delk said the PPC?s (Pinellas Planning Council) review of the
Code should be completed in early Fall. An evaluation of that review and today?s discussion will
occur prior to the implementation of any Code changes.
Discussion ensued with comments being made the Community Development Code is
subjective, allows too much leeway and results in inconsistencies. Of particular concern were
the provisions for comprehensive infill allowing unintended consequences. Concerns were also
expressed regarding needing to have a better understanding of how proposed projects fit on the
property and their compatibility with surrounding properties. It was also suggested parking
requirements need to be reviewed. Developers? desire to ?squeeze? as many units as possible
onto a site was seen as a problem. The need for more definitive requirements re open space,
view corridors, design and landscaping was expressed.
Council Special & CDB Work Session 2005-05-31 1
The City Manager said increases in development has created pressures and resulted in
increased staffing needs, developer needs, etc.
Staff was complimented on their reports, plan review, and availability to answer
questions. Suggestions that developers be required to submit more quantifiable information and
the development review process need to be simplified were expressed. A suggestion that staff
reports, recommending denial, include conditions for approval was not considered appropriate.
Comments were made that the current Code works better for large projects than smaller
ones and that processing applications is no longer done in a timely manner. Concern was
expressed regarding possible CDB inconsistencies in Code interpretations and it was
questioned how much control staff should have interpreting the Code. The majority agreed
there should be periodic joint work sessions of the Council and CDB.
Suggested changes to the Code were reviewed: 1) restrict infill, 2) additional parking,
including requirements for service vehicles, fire rescue units, movers, contractors, etc., requiring
adequate ingress/egress for each parking space and 3) submittal of architectural and civil
engineering drawings for small developments during the permitting process, rather than at time
of application.
The meeting recessed from 12:10 to 12:18 p.m.
In response to a concern that residents do not understand the DRC review processes
and quasi-judicial procedures, it was recommended the Neighborhood Services Department
create a guidance group to explain processes and procedures. It was reported the
Neighborhood Coalition will be providing training twice a year and may be willing to take on a
more official role.
It was questioned if rooftop structures or amenities are design amenities or count toward
a building?s height. In response to a question, Mr. Delk said rooftop public spaces are not
considered to be an additional floor unless appurtenances are added. Appurtenances require
compliance with safety issues, egress, etc.
It was stated required amenities to qualify for deviations from Code are not specified.
Mr. Delk said when a project is proposed, staff communicates their professional opinion
regarding quality of design and architecture. The City is hiring an architect to assist in this
regard.
The Mayor summarized key issues: 1) Infill development; 2) Parking requirements,
including spaces per unit plus extra space for visitors, delivery and emergency vehicles, etc.; 3)
relaxing requirement that full engineering plans be submitted with applications and 4) policy
regarding rooftop uses. These issues will be addressed once review of terminating non-
conformities and the ?Old Florida District? study are completed. In response to a question it was
indicated Beach by Design would be the topic of a future work session.
The meeting adjourned at 12:59 p.m.
Council Special & CDB Work Session 2005-05-31 2