Loading...
04/01/2002 >, ' .' ~ . '.,. " . PRELIMINARY (WS) AGENDA MEETING 04/01/02 ~/71 . '."~'^"''','''l'''':;o~''':;''..'''.-:.:-<;f''('":',:.J.''..."''"",,:'..,'. , ,.;, ...'".'. " . ':,,'I,..\......'~.,',.. 'c,'.',~,., .' ' '"...,~:.~.~.~'.;".,,;;.;. ~ Clearwater o Interoffice Correspondence Sheet To: Mayor and Commissioners From: Cyndie Goudeau, City Clerk CC: Bill Horne, City Manager; Garry Brumback, Asst. City Manager; Ralph Stone, Asst. City Manager; Pam Akin, City Attorney Date: March 29, 2002 RE: Revisions to Agenda Packet for April 1, 2002 The following changes/additions are provided: . Revised Preliminary Agenda (Revision 1: 03/29/02) . Added CRA - Item #3 - Approve $30,000 to fund eRA portion of a design services contract... (item attached) . Added ED - Item #1 - Approve $30,000' to fund City portion of a design services contract... (item attached) . FN #2 - Settle Worker's Compensation Claim - replace with corrected item changing the amount of settlement. (item attached) .PR #3 - Property purchase from Home Depot USA... (item attached) . PW #1- Added Presentation - Water Demand Management with Disinfection WSO (slide handout attached) Public Works section should be renumbered 2 through 5. . CLK #4 - Community Development Board - appointment applications attached . Presentations for Thursday Night - Deleted #5 Water Demand Management with Disinfection and moved to Public Works. memo to com for 04-01-02 WS revs & adds.doc 1 PRELIMINARY AGENDA Clearwater City Commission Work Session - 9:00 A.M. - Monday - Apri/1, 2002 Convene as Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA): 1 . Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes: 03/18/02 3. Approve $30,000 to fund CRA portion of a design and transportation planning services contract to update the Downtown Redevelopment Plan and to add the Gateway area to the Downtown Plan. 6. Executive Director (Assistant City Manager) Verbal Reports 7. Other Business 8. Adjourn Reconvene Work Session PUR PURCHASING 01. Purchase four (4) Flygt pumps for $82,649 from E K Phelps & Company. (PUIWPC) 02. Purchase contract renewal for gas materials-meters & regulators during contract period May 2, 2002 through April 30, 20030f 2001 bid for $150,000 from M T Deason Company Inc. (CGS) 03. Purchase to replace five (5) 2002 Taro Z Master riding mowers with attachments and three (3) 2002 Toro 3280 Groundsmaster riding mowers for $82,378.47 from Wesco Turf Supply. (GSS/FLEET) 04. Service contract Cellular digital packet data service during the contract period March 1, 2002 through march 31, 2004 for $120,000 from Allte!. (PD) 05. Service contract relocation of library furniture and materials for $67,500 from Professional Movers, Inc. (LIB) 04.01-02 WorksBssion Agenda.doc 1 Revision 1: 3/29/02 DS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 01. . First reading Ord #6918-02, revising Appendix A, 501<> increase in Occupational License Fees, Code of Ordinances. ED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 01. Approve $30,000 to fund City portion of a design and transportation planning services contract for the Gateway area, as the corridor to downtown, in the Downtown plan. Consent FN FINANCE 01. Approve the use of a City bank account, with signature authority to HDR Engineering in the amount of $5,000 for the day to day operations of Friendly Village of Kapok Mobile Home Park upon purchase of the park by'the City. Consent 02. Authority to settle the worker's compensation claim of Claimant, Alan Mazurowski in its entirety to include medical, indemnity and attorney fees for the sum of $135,000. Consent 03. Authorize lease purchase of capital items that cost $50,000 and under without a separate authorization from the City Commission as long as they meet the lease purchase requirements, purchasing standards, and are approved in the budget. Consent 04. Approve the second and final one-year extension to the Agreement with Bane of America Securities, LLC to serve as the City.s financial advisor. Consent CGS CLEARWATER GAS SYSTEM 01. First Reading Ord # 6984-02 approving new gas utility rates to become effective for all billings on or after May 1 , 2002. GSS GENERAL SUPPORT SERVICES 01. Award contract to Heavy Duty Lift & Equipment, Inc. in Buford, GA. for the purchase of two(2) surface mounted 75,000 pound capacity Omar Vega 340 portable lifts at a cost of $121,000 and authorize financing under the City's Master Lease/Purchase Financing Agreement, in accordance with Sec. 2.564(1}(d}, City of Saint Petersburg bid #7511. Consent MR MARINE AND AVIATION 01. Authorization to institute legal action against a private slip tenant, LeBron Free at Island Estates slip #140, to recover past due rent and remove boat from slip. Consent PD POLICE 04-01-02 Worksession Agenda.doc 2 Revision 1: 3/29/02 01. Res #02-21 authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the Clearwater Police Department, to execute the "Tampa Bay Regional Domestic Security Task Force Combined Voluntary Cooperation and Operational Assistance Mutual Aid Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding" allowing voluntary cooperation and assistance of a routine law enforcement nature across jurisdictional lines and operational assistance by and among participating law enforcement agencies within the State of Florida to promote domestic security. 02. Res #02-22 authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the Clearwater Police Department, to execute the "Statewide Mutual Aid Agreementll allowing for reciprocal emergency aid and assistance in case of emergencies too extensive to be dealt with unassisted. PR PARKS AND RECREATION 01. Approve the expenditure of $90,000 from Recreafion Facility Impact Fees for the construction of a dog park at Crest Lake Park. Consent 02. Approve a contract to purchase real property legally described as Lot 1, The Clearwater Collection Second Replat, according to the plat thereof, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, commonly known as 21870 U.S. Highway 19, from Home Depot U.S.A. for $3,925,000, authorize acceptance of the deed. Consent PLD PLANNING' 01. Discussion regarding Proposed Code Amendments. WSO PW PUBLIC WORKS 01 Presentation - Water Demand Management with Disinfection. WSO 02. Approve contract, Wolverine Property Investment Limited Partnership, a Delaware Limited Partnership, to purchase a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of section 8-29S-16E, a/kJa Friendly Village of Kapok Mobile Home Park for $7,200,000 plus estimated environmental site assessment costs of $5,000, a current boundary survey at $2,500, estimated 2002 property and personal property taxes of $39,500, title insurance and other closing expenses of $76,500, for total estimated transaction costs of $7,323,500. Consent 03. Approve Work Order for $132,840 to Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc. (TBE) to conduct site assessment and remediation activities at the II Former Clearwater Seafoodll site located at 37 Causeway Boulevard. Consent 04. Approve Work Order with Parsons Engineering Science, inc. of Tampa, an Engineer of Record, for the design and permitting for the Kapok Wetland and Floodplain. Restoration Project in the amount of $315,136. Consent 05. Approve Work Order to Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. to provide engineering design and permitting services for the Palmetto Street Improvements Project for the sum of $126,989. Consent ClK CITY CLERK 01. Two (2) Brownsfields Advisory Board Vacant Appointments (no applicants) 02. Two (2) Parks & Recreation Board Vacant Appointments 03. Appoint Commission members as representatives on the Regional and Miscellaneous Boards. 04. Appointment to Community Development Board - Alternate Position 05. Scheduling initial Budget Workshop CA lEGAL DEPARTMENT Second Reading Ordinances . 01 . Ord # 6932-02 Residential Rentals, creating Article 3, Division 23, Community Development Code for applicability and restrictions, and amending Appendix A, regarding occupational license fees, code of ordinances; and approval of a new Residential Rental Compliance Notice Requirements for Minimum Applicable Standards form to be filed at the time of occupational licensing. 02. Ord #6937-02 - Annexation Amendments for 1328 Woodbine Street (lot 17, Block B of Pine Ridge in Section 10-29S-15E) (Liberian A. Miles) ANX 01-12-30 (To be Continued) 03. Ord# 6938-02 - land Use Plan Amendments for 1328 Woodbine Street (Lot 17, Block B of Pine Ridge in Section 10-29S-15E) (Liberian A. Miles) lUP 01-12-30 (To be Continued) 04. Ord# 6939-02 -Zoning Atlas Amendments for 1328 Woodbine Street (Lot 17, Block B of Pine Ridge in Section 10-29S-15E) (Liberian A. Miles) LUZ 01-12-30 (To be Continued) . 05. Ord #6940-02, - Annexation Amendments for 2119 Pleasant Parkway (Lot 5, Pleasant Ridge Estates Subdivision in Section 24-29S-15E) (John L. and Linda W. Blechschmidt) ANX 01-12-31 04-0 '-02 Worksession Agenda.doc 3 Revision 1: 3/29/02 06. Ord # 6941-02 - Land Use Plan Amendments for 2119 Pleasant Parkway (Lot 5, Pleasant Ridge Estates Subdivision in Section 24:-29S-15E) (John L. and Linda W. Blechschmidt) LUP 01-12-31 07. Ord # 6942-02 -Zoning Atlas Amendments for 2119 Pleasant Parkway (Lot 5, Pleasant Ridge Estates Subdivision in Section 24-29S-15E) (John L. and Linda W. Blechschmidt) LUZ 01-12-31 08. Ord #6943-02 - Annexation Amendments for 1725 West Manor Avenue (Lot 36, Clearwater Manor in Section 06-29S-16E) (Robert and Marilynne Van Scoyoc) ANX 01-12-32 09. Ord #6944-02 - Land Use Plan Amendments for 1725 West Manor Avenue (Lot 36, Clearwater Manor in Section 06-29S-16E) (Robert and Marilynne Van Scoyoc) lUP 01-12-32 10. Ord #6945-02 - Zoning Atlas Amendments for 1725 West Manor Avenue (Lot 36, Clearwater Manor in Section 06-29S-16E) (Robert and Marilynne Van Scoyoc) lUZ 01-12-32 11. Ord #6946-02 - land Use Plan Amendment for property at 565 Sky Harbor Drive from Residential Office/General to Institutional (Parcel of land lying within the SW1/4 of Section 17 -29S-16E) (Excel Realty Trust) LUP 01-12-09 12. Ord ## 6947-02 - Rezoning for property at 565 Sky Harbor Drive from Residential Office/General to Institutional (Parcel of land lying within the SW1/4 of Section 17-29S- 16E) (Excel Realty Trust) LUZ 01-12-09 13. Ord #6948-02 - land Use Plan Amendment property at 520 Sky Harbor Drive from Institutional to Commercial General (Portion of Tract 1, a Resub of Baskin's Replat in Section 17-29S-16E) (Clearwater Mall LLC) LUP 01-12-10 14. Ord #6949-02 - Rezoning for property at 520 Sky Harbor Drive from Institutional to Commercial General (Portion of Tract 1, a Resub of Baskin's Replat in Section 17-29S- 16E) (Clearwater Mall LLC) LUZ 01-12-10 15. Ord #6956-02 - amending the operating budget for fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, to reflect increases and decreases in revenues and expenditures for the General Fund, Special Development Fund, Special Program Fund, Water & Sewer Fund, Stormwater Fund, Gas Fund, Solid Waste Fund, Recycling Fund, Parking Fund, Administrative Services Fund, Garage Fund and Central Insurance Fund, as provided herein; providing an effective date. 16. Ord #6957-02 - amending the Capital Improvement Budget for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, to reflect a net increase of $162,633 providing an effective date. 04-01-02 Worksession Agenda.doc 4 Revision 1: 3/29/02 First Reading Ordinances Resolutions Agreements, Deeds and Easements 01. Grant of Easement, The Grand Belagio at Baywa~ch, LTD., section 20-29-16E, sanitary lift station easement. Consent Other City Attorney Items 01. Authorize City Officials to execute and deliver a Termination and Release of Reverter regarding potential City of Clearwater (the "City") interest in the Oak Cove and Oak Bluff buildings. Consent . . . . ' . , . .' '.' '. . .. ~ , City Manager Verbal Reports Commission Discussion Items 01. Courtney Campbell Causeway Traffic Light (Jonson) 02. State Billboard Legislation (Jonson) Presentation(s) for Thursday Night 01. Proclamation - Fair Housing .02. Proclamation - Neighborhoods Week 03. Presentation -Celebrate Neighborhoods. 04. Beautification Committee to present award to Autoway Other Commission Action Adjourn 04-01-02 Worksession Agenda.doc 5 Revision 1: 3/29/02 . ".' .' .' '. . . " . , . .: . 1. < .' . . It . . _ ..- pLD , , < Clearwater Sign Size Worksheet ~ CLW CLW CLW CLW Pinellas 1985 1992 Current Proposed Co, Current Maior Commercial Zoning: Highway Highway All Non- All Non- C-2 and C-3 Commercial Commercial Residential Residential fronting on and others arterial [shopping highways centers] Free Standing Signage Number per lot 1 1 1 no change 1 Auxiliary signs Not allowed yes if 500' of Not allowed no change yes if 500' of frontage and frontage and 300' from 300' from another another Max (each side) 192 sq. ft. 112 sq, ft' 64 sq. ft. (128 sq, no change 150 sq. ft. (+ Size main & 56 ft, w/Comp) 8 sq, ft. if sq,ft, aux. used for address) Max size Condition if over 200K 1 sq. ft, per 2 ft, no change 1 sq. ft. for of leaseable of street footage each 1 ft. of sq, ft. or 1 sq. ft, per linear lot 100 sq. ft. of frontage building fayade Min Size none none none 20 sq ft. none r) Height 24' 20' main 12' 14' (height can't no change 25' '. aux. be more than 1.5 "'1;,.,.:,. X the width) Attached Signage Size based on Business Business Business fa(fade no change Business building building square footage building frontage frontage frontage (width) (width) (width) Multiplier 1,5 sq. ft. for 1,5 sq. ft. for 1% of the total 5% of the total 1.75 sq. ft. each 1 lineal each 1 lineal fayade in sq. ft. fayade in sq, ft, for each 1 ft. ft, lineal ft, Minimum size allowed No min. Nomin, 10 sq, ft, 20 sq, ft No min. Maximum size base Basic business (see below) 150 sq, ft, 24 sq. ft, (48 sq. ????????????? 150 sq, ft. ft, w/Comp) Major tenants 128 sq. ft. Minor tenant 48 sq, ft. Max size w/Setback Bonus No Yes No no change No 100' to 200' x ,25 (187) 200' to 300' x ,75 (262) > 300' x 1.25 (337) ~< Max Number (split sq. ft.) 5 1 no change Any Sign size matrix 020331 Printed 3/31/20029:01 PM , . f. ,'. . ". It' . ' ,', "" , .'" .' . . . .'~ .'. I , , pt.-o { ~ Clearwater (j To: Bill Home, City Manager From: Cyndi Tarapani, Director of Planning Date: March 25, 2002 RE: Code Amendments Update The City Commission reviewed proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (Ordinance No. 6928-02) on February 21, 2002, and deferred action 'until additional information could be provided on several proposed provisions in the ordinance. Specifically, the Commission made recommendations on the following three issues: . Portable storage units and length of time that they would be allowed to placed on property during emergency repairs; . Signs at elevated intersections; and, . Vending machines. Additionally, the Commission requested that the Planning Department provide the Commission with a comparison of the 1992, 1999 and proposed sign regulations. The Commission also requested graphics to illustrate proposed changes to the .sign ordinance, as well as a listing of comments received from citizens/board members during the public input process. The Planning Department has prepared three revisions to proposed Ordinance No. 6928-02 to address concerns raised by the City Commission. 1. Portable Storage Units In order to prevent portable storage units from being placed on properties for significant amounts of time during emergency situations, the Planning Department is proposing to limit that time peliod to 15 days with the ability to get an additional 15-day extension if needed. 1 . ~., I: " .... . j; ,': ',t,., "', 't. .' .... '.' r' ." ' . ,- . 0 .:, ,;' , , ' .... . \' . '. .j,. . " ' '} . ': ~ 2. Signs at Elevated Intersections The Planning Department is proposing to revise the, provision regulating signs at elevated intersections to clarify that properties located along elevated intersections will be 14 feet above the highest point of the road regardless of where the business is located along the elevated roadway. Specifically the provisions provides that signs will be permitted at 14 feet above the highest point of the elevated road within the property lines that are perpendicular and adjacent to the elevated roadway, excluding frontage and service roads. 3. Vending Machine Signage At the direction of the City Commission, the Planning Department is revising the ordinance to limit the amount of signage allowed on the front of vending machines to 35% of the front of the machine, includin~ the selection buttons. The previously proposed amendment ex.cluded the selection buttons. The Planning Department has developed a comparison chart of the 1992, 1999 and proposed sign regulations and it is attached for your review. Also attached please find a list of comments compiled from Board members, business representatives and citizens. The Department has also been working with Public Communications and Graphics to develop graphics to illustrate the proposed sign regulations. To date, photographs have been taken of approximately 25 sites. Sample sites include Sam's Club, Countryside Mall, Barnes and Noble, Bed, Bath and Beyond, Burlington Coat Factory, A+ Karate on Drew Street, Dunkin Donuts and Crispy Creme. The necessary data has been collected for each site e.g. site frontage, building fa~ade size, existing sign size, sign permit date, determination if variance was granted for sign or comprehensive sign program was approved, permitted amount of signage under current code and permitted amount of signage allowed under proposed code. For each site photographed, a series of graphics is being developed to illustrate the ex.isting sign, a graphic illustrating what the existing sign might look like if it met the current comprehensive sign program requirements and what that sign might look like if it complied with the proposed comprehensive sign program requirements. The graphics associated with each site will be copied on an 11" x 17" paper and provided to the Commission in a booklet format. Due to the time it has taken to compile all the necessary information and actually manipulate the photographs, only several examples will be complete by next week. At the March 19, 2002 Community Development Board meeting, the Planning Department will present approximately five examples for the Board's review. The information distributed to the Board will also be available for the City Commission on Tuesday. When all of the examples have been finalized, the Planning Department will forward them to the City Commission. If you need any additional information, please let me know. cc: Gina L. Clayton, Long Range Planning Department Richard Kephart. Senior Planner 2 t1 . , . , '.' I' , . ~, . , '. ",' . ' ,'.,' l, ", .' " . I '". . t .' . 6 . .. ' pLD ( CDB Meeting Date: March 19.2002 Case: T A 02-01-01 Agenda Item: D-l CITY OF CLEARW A TER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION STAFF REPORT TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code - Ordinance No. 6928-02 INITIA TED BY: City of Clearwater City Commission and Planning Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the February 19, 2002 meeting, the Community Development Board deferred action on the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (Ordinance No. 6928-02) so the Planning Department could research several issues raised by the Board. The City Commission also reviewed this proposed ordinance on February 21, 2002, and deferred action until additional information could be provided on several proposed provisions in the ordinance. Listed below are the issues that were identified through the meetings with the Community Development Board, the City Commissi<;>n, as well as Planning Department review. Community Development Board issues are listed first, followed by City Commission issues and finally Planning Department revisions. Each section identifies the issues and the analysis section identifies what revisions were made. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD ISSUES The Community Development Board discussed and requested further information or Inade specific requests on the following five issues: ' . Final plat approval and issuance of building permits; . Evidence presented during an Appeal Hearing; . Setback measurements for non-vertical structures; u Parking demand study requirements; and . Roof overhang into required building setback. 1 03-8-02 ANAL YSIS: After conducting the necessary research, the Planning Department is recommending several revisions to proposed Ordinance No. 6928-02 to address the Board's concerns, Several changes discussed by the Board, however, are not recommended by the Planning Department and have not been included in this ordinance. Please find below a discussion of each issue. 1. Final Plat Approval and Issuance of Building Permits (Section 108, Section 109, Page 45 of proposed ordinance.) The Planning Department is recommending to revise Code Section 4-702, which regulates subdivision plats, to eliminate inconsistencies between Code Sections 4-702 and 4-708.C. regarding when a building permit can be issued for property involving a subdivision plat. In response to concerns raised by the Board, the Planning Department is also proposing to revise Code Section 4-708.C. which requires the recording of a final plat prior to issuing any building permits. The revision proposes to give authority to the Community Development Coordinator to allow the issuance of certain types of permits such as demolition, site and utility after final plat approval but prior to final plat recordation. The Planning Staff researched 12 local jurisdictions in developing this reVISIOn. Those 12 jurisdictions included Pinellas County, Dunedin, Gulfport, Largo, Oldsmar, St. Petersburg, St. Pete Beach, Treasure Island, Hillsborough County, Tampa, Bradenton, and Boca Raton. Of the 12 local jurisdictions surveyed, only Largo allows building permits to be issued before the final plat is recorded. See attachment for each jurisdiction's requirement. 2. Evidence Presented during Hearing Appeal (Section 105, Page 44 of proposed ordinance.) The Board requested that no new evidence be allowed to be presented during an appeal hearing so that the appeal would be based on the record and not be a new hearing. Preventing new evidence in the appeal hearing is the same type of appeal hearing that is conducted by the court system. The philosophy of the current code allows two appeals from each level of approval. By requiring a hearing officer to petfonn the same review of the record petformed by the court, there is no need to have the hearing officer appeal. Making this change would leave only one appeal and change the philosophy of the Code. 2 03-8-02 ." tI~,,"'t.. ,... 1'" ~,'.. " '" ..' '.~ .I..~',,'" ....,...:'., '~"I 'l.;.....~...", ...': '.. The Planning and Legal Departments recommend that the original proposed ordinance language not be revised so that the appeal process is maintained at the local level and the philosophy of the code is upheld. 3. Setback Measurements for Non- Vertical Structures (Not within proposed ordinance) The Community Development Board discussed the issue of how setbacks are measured for non-vertical structures (such as brick pavers and parking lots). Concern was raised that pavement, pool decks, etc. must comply with building and/or accessory structure setbacks and this is too restrictive. The Board suggested in the alternative to establish a percentage of the setback that must be landscaping. This issue was not addressed in the original proposed Ordinance No. 6929-02. The Planning Department recommends maintaining the current method for measuring setbacks. As the City continues to redevelop, this method will ensure a consistent width of landscaping and open space within' the required setbacks. This is particularly important in a redeveloping community because it will create a predictable vista along the roadways, which will enhance community aesthetics and it will also provide adjacent properties with a predictable area of open and green space. To avoid any possible confusion to the public, the Planning Department has already revised its notices to surrounding property owners distinguishing between a setback reduction for a building and for a setback reduction for paving/parking . . 4. Parking Demand Study (Section 62, Page 35 of proposed ordinance.) The Community Development Board noted it was not clear who is required to conduct a parking demand study and when such study is required. The Planning Department has revised proposed Code Section 3-1401.C clarifying that the Community Development Coordinator may.require an applicant to prepare a parking demand study in conjunction with a request for deviations to the required parking standards. 5. Roof Overhang (Section 49, Page 31 of the proposed ordinance.) Based on concerns raised by the Board that a 30" roof overhang is too limiting and did not relate to existing and previous code requirements, the Planning Department is proposing to identify roof overhangs and eaves within Section 3-908.A. that allows for building projections to extend 40% into the required setback or 10 feet whichever is less. In the "e", "T" and "D" districts building projections are allowed to extend 10 feet into required setback. This change will make roof overhangs and eaves consistent with existing and previous code requirements. 3 03~8-02 , I . ~'. . . . . > ," . " . " , , ~' ' ~ ,. , ~ '. ' CITY COMMISSION ISSUES The City Commission discussed and made recommendations on three issues found in the proposed Ordinance No. 6928-02 at the February 18, 2002 Commission workshop and the February 21, 2002 public meeting. Those issues included the following: . Portable storage units and length of time that they would be allowed to placed on property during emergency repairs; . Signs at elevated intersections; and, . Vending machines; Additionally, the Commission requested that the Planning Department provide the Commission with graphics to illustrate proposed changes to the sign ordinance. ANAL YSIS The Planning Department is recommending three changes to proposed Ordinance No. 6928-02 to address concerns raised by the City Coml~ission. 1. Portable Storage Units (Section 94, Page 42 of proposed ordinance.) The Planning Department is proposing to limit a portable storage unit to a time period of 15 days for emergency home repairs, with the possible extension of an additional 15 days if needed to complete emergency repairs. The Planning Department revised this section to uddress the Commission's concerns regarding the length of time a portable storage unit could be on a property for emergency repaIrs. 2. Signs at Elevated Intersections (Section 86, Page 39 of the proposed ordinance.) The Planning Department is proposing that signs at elevated intersections be permitted at 14 feet above the highest point of the elevated road within the property lines that are perpendicular and adjacent to the elevated roadway, excluding frontage and service roads. This modification addresses the Commission's concern that properties located along elevated intersections would all be 14 feet above the highest point of the road regardless of where the business is located along the elevated roadway. 3. Vending Machine Signage (Section 52, Page 32 of the proposed ordinance.) At the direction of the City Commission, the Planning Department is proposing to limit the amount of signage allowed on the front of vending machines to 350/0 of the front of the machine, including the selection buttons. The previously proposed amendment excluded the selection buttons. 4 03-8-02 PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVISIONS In addition to the amendments discussed above, the Planning Department has made five more revisions to the proposed ordinance since the Community Development Board and City Commission meetings. These revisions address the following: . Maintenance of seawalls; . Transfer of Development Rights; · Address signage allowed in addition to total square footage of signage; . Competent substantial evidence in appeal hearings; and, . Fences on attached dwelling lots ANAL YSIS 1. Maintenance of Seawalls (Section 75, Page 37 of proposed ordinance.) At the direction of legal council, the seawall maintenance provision has been modified to specify that seawalls shaH be maintained in a structurally sound condition and shall comply with applicable building and coastal construction codes. The original proposal did not identify who would be responsible for inspecting the seawalls and what criteria would be used for that inspection. This revision also addresses concerns raised by the Marine Advisory Board. 2. Transfer of Development Rights (Section 113, Pages 46-47, Section 114, Pages 47- 48, and Section 115, Page 48 of proposed ordinance.) Based on input from the Pinellas Planning Council, the Planning Department is proposing to make several minor editorial changes to the Transfer of Development Rights regulations. Code Section 4-1402 is being revised to better identify the criteria necessary to use Transfer of Development Rights. The proposed revision requires such transfers to be in compliance with subsections 1, 2, 3 of the provision and specifies that they are permitted only in circumstances outlined in either subsection 4 or 5. Proposed Code Section 4-1403.E is being revised to further identify that development rights transferred from a Community Development District, Central Business District, or other designated redevelopment area may be transferred only to property located within the same designated redevelopment area. Proposed Code Section 4-1403.C specifies that when reviewing height increases for projects using transfer of development rights that compatibility with the surrounding area and the viability of the project should be considered. The Planning Department is recommending to replace "viability" with "feasibility" so it is clear that the criteria is project feasibility and not solely economic viability. 5 03-8-02 3. Address Signage Allowed in Addition to Total Square Footage of Signage (Section 81, Page 38 of proposed ordinance.) The Planning Department is proposing an amendment to the sign ordinance to clan fy that address signage is allowed in addition to the total permitted sign area. 4. Competent Substantial Evidence in Appeal Hearings (Section 102, Page 43 of proposed ordinance.) The Planning Department is proposing to revise Code Section 4-502.A to identify that an appeal of a level one approval by an applicant or property owner must present competent substantial evidence in the Levell review. 5. Fences on Attached Dwelling Units. (Section 45a, Page 30a Insert to proposed ordinance. ) The current fence ordinance restricts fences on attached dwelling lots to four feet, except along the boundary of the property. Based on the fact that many such properties have existing six feet high fences, the Planning Department is proposing this amendment to accommodate existing development and to allow pri vacy fences within this type of development. . . CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS: Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. Any code amendment must comply with the following. 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below please find a selected list of goals, policies, objectives from the Clearwater Comprehensi ve Plan that are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code: . Goal 2 - The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development. . Policy 2.1.1 - Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate, by providing development incentives such as density bonuses for significant lot consolidation and/or catalytic projects, as well as the use of transfer of developments rights pursuant to approved special area plans and redevelopment plan. o 6 03-8-02 ".,t'.:) · Policy 2.1.2 - Renewal of the beach tourist district shall be encouraged through the establishment of distinct districts within Clearwater Beach, the establishment of a limited density pool of additional hotel rooms to be used in specified geographic areas of Clearwater Beach, enhancement of public rights-of-way, the vacation of public rights-of-way when appropriate, transportation improvements, inter-beach and intra-beach transit, transfer of development rights and the use of design guidelines, pursuant to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Cleanvater Beach and Design Guidelines. · Policy 2.1.3 - The area governed by Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for ClealWater Beach and Design Guidelines shall be recognized on the Countywide Future Land Use map as a Community Redevelopment District. This area is bounded on the north by the line dividing the block between Acacia Street and Somerset Street, the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east and the Sand Key Bridge on the south, excluding Devon A venue and Bayside Drive. Beachfront and public property located adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico and the Intracoastal Waterway with a Future Land Use designation of Recreation/Open Space shall be excluded from the Community Redevelopment District. 7 03-8-02 · Policy 2.3.3 - The City of Clearwater shall continue to implement the Design Guidelines, adopted in 1995, for all development within the Downtown District. · Policy 3.2.1 - Land Uses on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map shall generally be interpreted as indicated in the following table. The intensity standards listed in the table (FAR - floor area ratio; ISR - impervious surface ratio) are the maximum allowed for each plan category, except where otherwise permitted by special area plans or redevelopment plan approved by the City Commission. Consequently, individual zoning district, as established in the City's Community Development Code, may have more stringent intensity standards than those listed in the table but will not exceed the maximum allowable intensity of the plan category, unless otherwise permitted by approved special area plans or redevelopment. · Objective 4.1 - All signage with the City of Clearwater shall be consistent with the Clearwater sign code, as found in the Community Development Code, and all proposed signs shall be evalu&ted to determine their effectiveness in reducing visual clutter and in enhancing safety and attractiveness of the streetscape. · Policy 4.1.1 - Commercial signs in Clearwater shall be restricted to discourage the proliferation of visual clutter, promote community aesthetics, provide for highway safety and to allow the identification of business locations. . Objective 4.2 - All development and redevelopment initiatives within the City of Clearwater shall meet the minimum landscaping/tree protection standards of the Community Development Code in order to prom<;>te the preservation of existing tree canopies, the expansion of that canopy, and the overall quality of development within the City. · Policy 22.2.7 -. Transfer of development rights should be implemented to provide alternatives to development and degradation of wetlands and other natural resources. 2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed text amendments include a broad range of regulations ranging from permitted uses, numerical standards, flexibility criteria, procedures, enforcement and definitions. The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of Section 1- 103 that lists the purposes of the Code. . SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code. They also further the original redevelopment goals that established the Code. The amendments permit certain uses in a wider range of zoning districts. They also provide more appropriate development standards regarding marinas, signage and tree replacement requirements. They also strive to improve community aesthetics through the additional regulation of sign design and the limitation of the number of vending machines allowed outside of a building. In many instances the propos~d amendments promote more site- specific solutions. These solutions ultimately promote economic development and maintain high standards for development, which are essential in a community undergoing . redevelopment. 8 03-8-02 The Planning Department Staff recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 6928-02 which makes revisions to the Community Development Code. Prepared by: Richard Kephart ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No. 6928-02. List of Community Development Code Issues (Revised Draft 3/07/02) Final Plat Research Comparison Chart of Sign Code Tree Information from Alan Mayberry Citizen/Board Comments .' \,' , . ~ '- '",' '. Avercig~ .WaterDemand ,"~ij'~.~~pp:~m~'.~:::.:;..;;:_".". ,,':: .' '..-.",....;,...... '~15l~~~~7'~<.c .' . . 1'0;~ , . ' .. . ' " : <~ .,' .~ . '..'.~":.~-;:..: ',' I ~...- , '.l.:....'~ (,'.'~: ,;i:'''(<:ic...;;~<):;H''\:'d;~'' . 5f '.' '. .' '. '~'""'ll- .....o;i:~.'~.~~~.,~i.~1~.;:; ". l,_.... 'f~:.~~j'~~~.:~-:-~~-~':".'~~ ~ ~. ... ' " (-) UJ ( ~~nual Rainfall;:. "', m'sir'67.9 ....'. ....',. ,-'I ',.r,'. . " ~ '55.3' . '. . ~ 60.' ~ j : .~J,,';. ;.:. ~ 3'7 1 '.' ~ .. . :3'9'--8~ j ~,:' . . ~ 40 /J: : ~:t..i ":'_'::~'~~'!')~~I' '.'1 1<:' . ,;'~ . . ..... ,,'~l : '"j" .~:.:-:- I.\t.~~...~~t;'.=~;.. , ~. \ "j ~ '. ft. "1:" ..~ :. ;:.; .-p.:' :;7':~r""'~: ~.~-:, ;,,::,; .'~' , " .' 20! ",., ., ,~- ,'''- ."..... ", ',~, "1 ..,1 . 0 gL::....~~; .Y',:~= <::2~ .,;~~'. ::;~~ ^:~:..;'.".., , . ,. ... -.. - , -.. - ~: , . ,...~ '97 -'98"'9'9" '{)O 'O'l":'~. ' ; ,........ ..; .:, '.. .,c,. ,. d," .', j ..... .":',' ',. ,., ....-..... ...... ~ , " "'''............1 . ':. : .~,-.".:. <.:'. _L"::~~:':~~('.f:';: :~i,,~:..":~: ,::. . ,;~z;,~:,: .' . . , . EnforcemeDt.. . .~ .Oct. '01 ::: Mar. '02 .' . , ,. , \, . '.Inspections " . .r".229' ..:'..Warning'"s:'lssued"'. ..~. . ::14~~ ., ;, _-::.., ,1 " " \,' '">>....,.. . .. ::'~Citation'S ..::..... ". . ':':..0',,;.'.: '.A.nonymoti~Tips . :. ~" . '48..... . . ~ <>;" . . , ~'. .." '. '~f "': ,;"". - " J .......Phone Calls...-,". ...., ..' ..,;~266 ""j " . . , .,...7 . "'; , , . ~"'_--:"'.. .~.' , "f.~r .. . _ .' ':.._;; _ ._.........l~._'....,;:,.;;:.__ . ,. ..,.., ,_ " ," . '.; ,,': ..:,,:. .~~ , . . .,', '., , .- . , , .' , . ,:W.hV.Ch a rig e'?.:. ~:.~~~.. . . .... .' :....iamp~:8ay:WaterChangihg..,<./.. ...i .,' Drinkin gvJater'?ourG~$.. .'. :,.' <' , '.'N.ew. E'PAReg'.ul~tibh~' ,.:'.:::', ..-'.<.. '. " ..'~ Re,gulation~' A'dd'ress.Alfow@h'~:':.,_, ..:..... '.: : :" ,'. L.evets ofDisinfecti9~By~prpducts"~,,' " ". .' ' ~'~ " , , ',' .,' ". . . '-' ',~ , ~. ' . . ,.:, '.. "'t,, . . .: ,. .' , .' ~ ~ \' ,.:.'.:, . .. :" :. .,' " .'"..' , . '_.;;./ . ",. .;: ';; , ':" "~!i~/~:,, , . ,\ .~: : " ' ~,,"" ,,-' -',:.. ..'fioals'. ....::. q,.. :' "., -:.'~ ToProviQ~: a High-.Quality,:Safe .: Supply '. . ". '.' . ',' . , '" ' . - ' .....To Meet C~~r,ging Ddriking"Wa~~T.,~:.' ,R~gulations. "', .." "" , ,.'. . . .' " '''~.'' . : :..:{,. (. ". :- . .' ". ",J.. ' .~~~~~ " . .' :".;':/ ,~ .. . .. < '~"-':":"":~" -~~,~" ~:...,. ~ .., >; .' " . :-"'., .-.. '-'..,,' "........., " ,'-:- ::.~;'.:.: . . . ./.'.. ,~,. ' , ' _ ...,,__..........._..u__...' , , -,,'. . .., ' , ,'-~; , " ,8,enefits." '. ..,...~.. ...)~S:2,j _ _<Mee..f~~WH.'egU.I~ttP~S ..' .'. _':"~2....,-: ''''S' f.....:.... '.' ...,.. ....,., I . .a e : '. .....~ ". ;'. .:'.. ....' . . .... '. . '. '. I . " ,"....... .' ,,'." "'.' " :'.. . ~.' . 1 :":. '~'The Le'ast' ~xp'ens!.veOptio.tl ..:..'::.2>....1 '" ",.',."."" :" ~. -"~:~",., ""~-'.. .'...'..,...,',...." ,:.";;;r:."," ? .tong e'f.Iasthi'gp r6fecti on; '.' . '<.:;'. ,.r':.:,".::, 7~".' y,,::;,', :''''. . ' " -. "'-:"':,.'::'1 , ' .. ~~', ....:' \.:' :~:.. .:;:=.:..: - " ," ': :_:~~:..~~.':' ~,I': ....r:~..:.:<;;.~,;:;;~.:.J~~'1~' '.:: '.', ' ~ .,. .~ . ,.~. . " ;'" ..<,';:.:;S~~ '-" .';: i";,~,:.::;:,;;;T~".~~ '.~, :. '.' ,'. . ,'. Ii. ...../ .(J H..ea IthC.ommunitY..Concerns".. . - .Chlorin'e and Chlora'mines Must Be .' '.R.emovedfrom W.ater Used for Kidney . "Oial~.sjs" .' .' . d" .:.' . . .'. -~ot~a Ne\vConcept for.Patierit~& .' "'.' :- 'Careglvers,'~. .', '", - . '>~, ,'~.;. ' . " ,t ~. \ , . ' , . ", ~ '-, .; "i,.:-Dialysis Genters&HospitalsAre '., ,. ',: Info'rmed, :.", ". '.d . .' '. . ".~~H6ri,e'Patient's . ""I' . ' " '" ,~ ;:,:' '! :~-:";.., . ' , .' " ',:. ;.':;,". : " ...'., . . ....Publiclnformati.on, . ". :'; ~Cit~,ISW~bSite:'" .'" ." '. .... . ..' : . ,'::'Cbns~m~i.BrOGhur~':.'. .' .' "',~. . ',.:Suns.hin'e Lines....,'.. .'. . .'. ~..p.ef..St~~e.Pb~f.e{s< :';' .....~ Cle~rwater Go-alitibriOr:> . :. . 'Homeowners: :,,: .... . ,u . ", ' ,',: ..; ".... :' '.,...~- : '::..., . '" ft.;' . .. . ...'. ..-." : Impacts.. .,'. Slight TasteIOd.orOffference .' , ' ' " .' ,." . ." n,', . ~ ,. .~PossibleTemporary "Dirty'; Water:.. : ":..Co.mplaints'" .' '>. ""', " . . . . 'I" : l '!' , -.Increased Flushing 'of WaterMai,ns. " ,. .' -.' . , . " ,. ." .~. :... ': -, . ' ~.;' <. .' ,~ J' .' ~ . '. ",:'..' ~ ,.,:',: "~" ,';, ..;, ';,' ',"""" ',". . .' ., . ~ ~ . _~.. ", ..,.... -~. "',~' :'f ':," .\. ..... ..... ' .,', f'l '.t t. ',.. .....:..., '.", "~' ':~ '. 't"', "'~. l,~ -l '" '"' ,;~' r, j" ~':, . '. :" ~... o-fJ1C1 C-A :r:-tern -I Clearwater City Commission Agenda Cover Memorandum Final Agenda Item #.-=.p..a€e~~-- Meeting Date: q, - L\ - D 2- SUBJECT/RECOMMENDA liON: Authorize City Officials to execute and deliver a Termination and Release of Reverter regarding potential City of Clearwater (the "City") interest in the Oak Cove and Oak Bluff buildings. o and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. SUMMARY: · In April, 1989, the City participated as a secondary lender in a pool loan program sponsored by the City of Gulf Breeze, Florida (the "Sponsor"), which was funded with the proceeds of the Sponsor's $100,000,000 Local Government Loan Program Floating Rate Demand Revenue Bonds, Series 1985C (the "Gulf Breeze Bonds"). A portion of the proceeds of the Gulf Breeze Bonds was loaned to the City, who through a Series C Secondary Loan Agreement dated as of April 1, 1989 (the "Secondary Loan Agreement") loaned such proceeds to two (2) Florida not-for-profit corporations, namely Oaks of Clearwater, Inc, and Baptist Estates of Florida, Inc. · Pursuant to the terms of the Secondary Loan Agreement, the City made a loan to Oaks of Clearwater, Inc. and Baptist Estates of Florida, Inc. in the initial aggregate principal amount of $27,275,000, with each loan represented by separate notes secured by FHA insured mortgages. The loan to the Oaks of Clearwater, Inc. was referred to in the Secondary Loan Agreement as the "Mortgage Loan" and the loan to Baptist Estates of Florida, Inc. was referred to as the "Nursing Home Loan", · As part of the consideration for such loans, the Secondary Loan Agreement granted to the City the right to require the transfer and conveyance of the refinanced projects, consisting of the Oak Cove and Oak Bluff buildings to the City. As a condition to this transfer, the City would first have to pay the applicable "purchase option price," which equaled the principal and interest then due and accrued on the Gulf Breeze Bonds allocable to the loan, the Mortgage Loan, the Nursing Home Loan and any amounts due under the letter of credit agreements securing the Gulf Breeze Bonds, . The Oak Cove and Oak Bluff buildings were each subject to a condominium regime wherein the second floor of each building was owned by Baptist Estates of Florida, Inc. and operated as a licensed skilled nursing home facility, and the remaining floors in each building were owned by the Oaks of Clearwater, Inc. who operated such floors as an assisted living facility. In June of 1991, the Circuit Court for Pinel/as County in Case No. 89-19429-07, issued an Order declaring that the properties owned by Baptist Estates of Florida, Inc. and the Oaks of Clearwater, Inc., namely the Oak Cove and Oak Bluff buildings, were not subject to ad Reviewed bY~ If J lega I 1JfJf.:- Budget NA Purchasing Risk Mgmt Finance . NA NA Originati CI D pt: I Legal 't User Dept. UrlA Costs Info Tech Public Works DCMlACM Other Total Funding Source: Capirol Irnprovl'fTlenl Current Fiscal Year NA Attachments Operating Other Appropriation Code: ;;; o None Rev. 2/96 '; :. ..' ~ " " .~". ': l. .~~:' ~ j ~..'" ~', .," ",' p.' . :", ; ... .: ".. ,.... .:.... :. "...' ~ 1, '....,', ", '''.'' '_~ .' . .'..' : ,. ", .....:,. : ",' :': valorem taxation since these properties were deemed to have been acquired and held by Baptist Estates of Florida, Inc. and Oaks of Clearwater, Inc, on behalf of the City in accordance with an agreement by which the properties would revert to the City. Although the Court may have misconstrued the terms of the agreement in reaching its conclusions, the agreement referred to by the Court in its Order was the Secondary Loan Agreement. · In the early 1990's, both the Mortgage Loan and the Nursing Home Loan went into default, and since such loans were insured through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA), the principal and accrued interest on the loans were prepaid with the proceeds of the GNMA mortgage insurance to the Trustee for the Gulf Breeze Bonds. As a result, the Gulf Breeze Bonds relating to the City's loan pursuant to the Secondary Loan Agreement were paid and redeemed in the early 1990's. · Notwithstanding the payment of the Gulf Breeze Bonds, the underlying FHA insured mortgages remained outstanding and unpaid. Through the mid-1990's, the City and its counsel cooperated with FHA in various attempts to work out the loan defaults. Unfortunately, such work out programs were not successful. . In the late 1990's, FHA sold the underlying Mortgage Loan and Nursing Home Loan and their corresponding mortgages within a pool of other FHA insured defaulted loans in an auction sale Beale Bank, Dallas, Texas. In 1998 and 1999, the City participated with BEF, Inc., the successor by merger to both Oaks of Clearwater, Inc, and Baptist Estates of Florida, Inc., in its efforts to refinance the Oak Cove and Oak Bluff buildings and satisfy the underlying FHA mortgages now owned by Beale Bank. The tax exempt refinancing efforts ceased at the end of 1999, but BEF and its financial advisors continued to seek a conventional refinancing throughout 2000 and 2001. These efforts resulted in a sale of the Oak Cove building to the Church of Scientology in late December 2001. As part of that sale transaction, BEF and Beale Bank first consolidated both the Mortgage Loan and Nursing Home Loan into a single consolidated mortgage loan, and then bifurcated that mortgage into two mortgages, one secured by the Oak Bluff building which is still owned by BEF and one secured by the Oak Cove building which was then sold to the Church of Scientology. As part of the sale of the Oak Cove building, the buyer paid off and satisfied the restated consolidated mortgage debt to Beale Bank, which encumbered the Oak Cove building. In conjunction with the sale of the Oak Cove building to the Church of Scientology, the BEF consolidated mortgage note to Beale Bank was again restated resulting in a $10,000,000 first mortgage note to Beale Bank with a $25,000,000 second mortgage note to a private individual. . The reverter rights granted by the Secondary Loan Agreement to the City entitled the City to acquire ownership of the properties owned by BEF (the successor to Baptist Estates of Florida, Inc. and Oaks of Clearwater, Inc.), upon the payment in full of the original outstanding FHA insured mortgage debt. Since the FHA insured mortgage debt has been in default since the early 90's, it has continued to accrue interest which has generally remained unpaid over the years resulting in a total debt on these properties far in excess of their fair market value. . With the sale of the Oak Cove building to the Church and a release and satisfaction of the 2 , . . ' , '. . . . . ~ -' \. . . , ... .' .'. . .' . 1 ' . " FHA mortgage note in conjunction with such sale, the City's rights to exercise its reverter in relationship to the Oak Cove building effectively terminated in December 2001. However, a cloud on the title may still exist as a result of the final judgment entered in 1991 by the Circuit Court in Pinellas County. · The City's reversionary rights to the Oak Bluff building mayor may not remain viable and enforceable following the various restatements of the original FHA mortgage. Even if such reverter rights currently exist, the cost of exercising that right (at a minimum of $35,000,000) far exceeds the appraised value on the Oak Bluff building. . Although the City does not have a current appraisal on the Oak Bluff building, the appraisals done in 1999 in conjunction with the refinancing reflected an approximate range in fair market value of the Oak Bluff building of between $7,000,000 and $12,000,000. In order to remove a potential cloud on the titles to both the Oak Cove and Oak Bluff buildings, and to remove the final vestiges of the City's involvement with these properties, it is necessary to terminate and release any remaining rights of the City to cause a reversion of either building to City ownership. . Authorizing the execution and delivery of the Termination and Release of Reverter would completely remove the City's involvement in the two buildings. Although the Oak Cove building has been placed back on the tax rolls as a result of the sale to the Church and satisfaction of the underlying mortgages, it is uncertain whether the Oak Bluff building remains exempt from local ad valorem taxation. Removing the City's right of reverter would eliminate the historical basis for exemption of that property from the ad valorem tax rolls. " ti: r ,. 3 ,""