Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04/21/1994 (2)
gg 'i1[r, ,.GJ ?.. DA'T 1 OMMIsstoou City Commission Ai l c'? t s9 r ACTION AGENDA - CLEARWATER CITY COMMISSION MEETING - April 21, 1994 (6:00 P.M.) Welcome. We are glad to have you join us. If you wish to speak please wait to be recognized, then state your name and address. Persons speaking before the City Commission on other than Public Hearing items shall be limited to 3 minutes. No person shall speak more than once on the same subject unless granted permission by the City Commission. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, SHOULD CALL 813/462-6684. 1 . Pledge of Allegiance 2. Invocation 3. Service Awards 4. Introductions and Awards 5. Presentations: a) Final Report - Homeless Task Force 6. Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of 3/21/94, Regular Meetings of 3/17/94 & 4/7/94 7. Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda (maximum of 10 speakers pre- registered with City Clerk) 1. Mayor. 2. William C. Baker, Assistant City Manager. 3. 1 award presented; Employee of the Month for April, 1994 - Marjorie Doucette, Administrative Services Department. 4. Proclamations: Secretaries Week - 4/24-30/94 Victims' Rights Week - 4/24-30/94 Nursing Home Week - 5/8-14/94 Epsilon Sigma Alpha International Days - 5/1-15/94 5. a) Final Report presented; volunteers and Task Force members recognized. 6. Approved 3/21/94 & 4/7/94 as submitted; 3/17/94 as corrected. 7. Joseph Cascio spoke in favor of Economic Development Plan for Infill Commercial zone. David Little requested the public events pavilion on the beach be considered separately from and more quickly than plan for foot of Pier 60. Staff was directed to bring forward information re impact of Coastal Construction Control Line on what will be involved to proceed. Otto Schlack & Bob Henion, representing Sand Key Civic Association, expressed concern re the possibility of a convention center on the beach. Diane McCollum stated a lot of people are interested in the Economic Development Plan for the Infill Commercial area. Q-`*211/94- 1 Not Before 6:00 P.M. - Schedule Public Hearings (1) Presentation of issues by City staff. (2) Statement of case by applicant or representative (5 minutes). (3) Commission questions. (4) Comments in support and in opposition, whether as an individual or as a spokesperson for a group (3 minutes). (5) Commission questions. (6) Final rebuttal by applicant or representative (5 minutes). (7) Commission motion to determine disposition PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5593- 8. Approved. Ord. #5593-94 passed 1 st 94 - Vacating 5' utility easement lying reading. along the easterly line of Lots 1-5, Blk 39, Mandalay Sub. (Nixon, et al, V94-03)(PW) 9. Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5594- 9. Approved. Ord. #5594-94 passed 1 st 94 - Vacating westerly 5' of the drainage & reading. utility easement lying along the easterly line of Lot 49, Cypress Bend of Countryside Unit One less the northerly & southerly 5' (Maran, V94-04)(PW) 10. Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. 10. Approved. Ords. #5565-94, #5566-94 & #5565-94, #5566-94 & #5567-94 - #5567-94 passed 1 st reading. Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban and RS-8 Zoning for property located at 3123 John's Parkway, John's Parkway Sub., Lot 4, 0.23 acres m.o.l. (Enright, A94-04, LUP94-04)(CP) 11. Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. 11. Approved. Ords. #5568-94, #5569-94 & #5568-94, #5569-94 & #5570-94 - #5570-94 passed 1 st reading. Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and RPD-D Zoning for property located at 2370 Dora Dr., Rolling Heights, Lot 68, 0.21 acres m.o.i. (Vernon, A94-03, LUP94-03)(CP) 12. Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. 12. Approved. Ords. #5572-94, #5573-94 & #5572-94, #5573-94 & #5574-94 - #5574-94 passed 1 st reading. Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment for Parcel A to Industrial General & Parcel B to Industrial Limited and IL Zoning for property located at 1770 Hercules Ave., Sec. 1-29- 15, M&B 34.32, 0.73 acres m.o.l. (Instrument Transformers, A94-01, LUP94- 01)(CP) '''.4/21 /94 2 Ir , 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5575-94, #5576-94 & #5577-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Suburban and RS-2 Zoning for property located at 2671 Third Ave., N., Chautauqua, Sec. A, Unit 1, Blk 44, Lots 1- 6, part of 7 & 20 and 21-26, 1.40 acres rn.o.l. (Carter, A94-06, LUP94-06)(CP) Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5578-94, #5579-94 & #5580-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1920 Skyline Dr., E., Skyline Groves, Lot 58, 0.20 acres rn.o.1. (Sather, A94-02, LUP94-02)(CP) Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5581-94, #5582-94 & #5583-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and RPD-D Zoning for property located at 601 Dora Dr-, Rolling Heights, Lot 21, 0.22 acres m.o.l. (Antoniello, A94-05, LUP94-05)(CP) Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5584- 94 - RIVI-16 Zoning for property located at 2855 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Baskins Replat Resub., part of Lot 2, 33.44 acres rn.o.l. (Morton Plant Life Services, (Bayview Gardens) Z94-02)(CP) Public Hearing & First Reading Drd. #5563- 94 - Amending Sec. 35.1 1 , to create definitions for collector, local, minor arterial and major arterial streets; amending Sec. 40.104, to provide for Level I Group Care Facilities as a conditional use in the RS-8 district; amending Sec. 41.053, to establish supplementary conditional use standards for Level I Group Care Facilities in the RS-8 district (LDCA 94-03)(CP) Public Hearing - Declare surplus for conveyance by deeds to FDOT for r-o-w purposes, parcels 121 and 135, lying along S.R.55 (US 19), between S.R.60 and the CSX Transportation r-o-w north of Drew Street; Res. #94-19 - authorizing city officials to execute deeds of conveyance to FDOT (PW) 13. Approved. Ords. #5575-94, #5576-94 & #5577-94 passed 1 st reading. 14. Approved. Ords. #5578-94, #5579-94, & 45580-94 passed 1 st reading. 15. Approved. Ords. #5581-94, #5582-94 & #5583-94 passed 1 st reading. 16. Approved. Ord. #5584-94 passed 1 st reading. 17. Approved. Ord. #5563-94 passed 1st reading. ~.' 4/21/94 18. Declared surplus. Res. #94-19 adopted. 3 19. Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5562- 94 - Amending Sec. 35.11, to create a definition for utility facilities; amending various sections within Ch. 40, to provide for utility facilities as permitted uses in IL and P/SP districts and as a conditional use in all other zoning districts; amending Sec. 41 .053, to establish supplementary conditional use standards for utility facilities (LDCA 93-23)(CP) - To be Cont. to 5/5/94 20. Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5590-94 & #5591-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General and CG Zoning for property located at 509 Bayview Ave. & 508 Meadow Lark Lane, McMullen's Bayview, Blk 3, Lots 1 & 2 and south 1 /2 of r-o-w to north (R. Roy Meador, TRE, LUP93-43, Z93-54)(CP) - To be Cont. to 5/19/94 19. Continued to 5/5/94. 20. Continued to 5/19/94. Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances 21. Ord. #5536-94 - Amending Sec. 42.26, to 21. Ord. #5536-94 adopted as amended. establish maintenance standards for fences and walls (LDCA 93-20) ?k 22. Ord. #5554-94 - Land Use Plan 22. Ord. #5554-94 adopted. Amendment to Commercial General for property located at 1201-1215 Drew St., Padgett's Sub., Lot 1 (Uhrich, LUP93-19) 23. Ord. #5555-94 - CPD Zoning for property 23. Ord. #5555-94 adopted. located at 1201-1215 Drew St., Padgett's Sub., Lot 1 (Uhrich, Z93-08) 24. Ord. #5560-94 - RM-8 Zoning for property 24. Ord. #5560-94 adopted. Staff directed to located at 1551, 1555 & 1559 Druid Rd., provide notification to additional Druid Groves, Blk A, Lots 1, 2 & part of 3 surrounding property owners republic together with vacated r-o-w (Shimer & hearing for additional lots on Druid Road. Drapkin, Z94-01) 25. Ord. #5585-94 - Amending Sec. 29.58 to 25. Ord. #5585-94 adopted. delete occupational license requirement for family care facilities and revise occupational license requirement for group care facilities 26. Ord. #5586-94 - Amending purchasing 26. Ord. #5586-94 adopted. code 27. - Special Items of widespread public interest - None. ` 4/21194 4 28• Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda Dennis Henegar presented information re police reports on criminal activity in downtown. He stated downtown is not receiving police protection. Torn Selhorst encouraged more community involvement in the Economic Development Plan for the Infill Commercial area. Scott Suits & Raymond Herie spoke in support of Economic Development Plan for Infill Commercial area. CITY MANAGER REPORTS 29. Receipt/Referral - LDCA re accessory dwellings in the Infill Commercial zoning district (LDCA 94-09) (CP) 30. Preliminary Site Plan for Builders Square (Sorin Realty Corp., PSP94-06)(CP) ;;; 31 . Preliminary Site Plan and Receipt/Referral RPD-C zoning for Landmark Manors, Sec. 21-28-16, M&Bs 23.04, 23.05, 23.06, 23.08 & 23.13, 17.3 acres m.o.l. (accept fee instead of land to meet open space/land dedication requirement) (McCullough, 294- 04, PSP 94-05)(CP) - Request to Continue 32. Modification to Pelican Walk certified final site plan located on the east and west side of Mandalay Ave., between San Marco St. and Poinsettia Ave. (B.J.E., Inc.)(CP) 33. Report from Tropical Seascape Theme Committee; direction requested (CP) 34. Preliminary Report re Clearwater Beach Redevelopment Plan; direction requested (CP) 35. First Reading Ord. #5588-94 - Relating to stormwater systems within the city; creating a new Article X of Ch. 32, consisting of Secs. 32,391-32.399 (PW) 36. First Reading Ord. #5558-94 - Relating to Flood Damage Prevention; amending Sec. 51 ,32 to clarify when certain electrical, plumbing, or other utility connections are allowed below the base flood elevation (CP) 4/21 /94 29. Received & Referred. 30. Authorized DRC to approve a final site plan subject to conditions; approved payment in lieu of land dedication to satisfy Open Space Land Dedication ordinance requirements. 31. Continued. 32. Continued to 5/5/94. 33. Staff to come back with information re options & costs to complete the design package and cost to implement the theme with pros and cons re the alternatives. 34. Staff to bring forward options for redevelopment of East Shore commercial area; proceed with residential area component. 35. Approved. Ord. #5588-94 passed 1st reading. 36. Approved. Ord. #5558-94 passed 1st reading. 5 37. Other Pending Matters 37. a) Appointed John Hubbard, Julius Zschau a) City Attorney selection committee & Steve Seibert to serve with Interim City Attorney. b) Ice House discussion b) Status report given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS 38. Resolutions a) Res. #94-30 - Demolition lien for 603 Railroad Avenue b) Res. #94-31 - Adding Rule 19 to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, requiring the Mayor provide notice to the Vice-Mayor indicating when she or he will be absent 39. Other City Attorney Items 38. a) Res. #94-30 adopted. b) Res. #94-31 adopted. 39. None. 40. City Manager Verbal Reports 40. Approved agreement with Alan Zimmet to act as Interim City Attorney. Set closed attorney/client session for approximately noon on 4/27/94. Deputy City Manager reported plans for receiving citizen input re foot of Pier 60 development will be forthcoming. Commission approved scientologists' request for one lane closure of Ft. Harrison Ave. at the Ft. Harrison Hotel on 5/6/94. Deputy City Manager announced resignation of Peter Yauch, Acting Public Works Director & Traffic Engineer. 41. Commission Discussion Items 42. Other Commission Action ,•_" 4/21 /94 41. None. 42. Berfield questioned status of problems with Cruise Ship at Seminole Dock. Report to be provided 4/22/94. Berfield reported she rode the Jolley Trolley. She stated it was enjoyable & recommended other Commissioners do the same. Commissioner Deegan questioned a break down of Jolley Trolley on Cleveland St. Berfield reported mechanical problem, back up & running within 10 minutes. 6 Thomas requested discussion re moving from Utility Customer Support Building be agendaed for 5/2/94. He requested the drapes in the Chambers be removed. Peter Reuter appointed to replace Donald Williams on the PSTA until 10/1/94. Thomas requested Interim City Attorney obtain information re Milton A. Galbraith's decision re his continuing as an Assistant City Attorney. Thomas congratulated Ned Seaton of the St. Petersburg Times on his promotion. Fitzgerald expressed concern re the condition of the medians on Countryside Boulevard. Deegan questioned when variance fees would be on the agenda. Staff responded 5/19/94. He requested a date by which costs for total renovation of Maas Brothers to Convention Center will be provided. He questioned if the beach noise survey by the Police had been done. He questioned if staff was providing a report re elimination of septic tanks. Mr. Shuford indicated due to issues raised by the County, this had been postponed. Deegan requested appointment to St. Pete/Clwr Economic Development Council be on 5/2 agenda. 43. Adjournment 43. 12:27 a.m. (4/22/94) C"114/21/94 7 CITY COMMISSION MEETING April 21, 1994 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, April 21, 1994 at 6:02 p.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Fred A. Thomas Richard Fitzgerald Sue A. Berfield Arthur X. Deegan, II Also present: Elizabeth M. Deptula Kathy S. Rice William C. Baker Paul Richard Hull Peter J. Yauch Scott Shuford Cynthia E. Goudeau The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was offered by William C. Baker, Assistant City Manager. In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #3 - Service Awards One service award was presented to a City employee. The April 1994 Employee of the Month award was presented to Marjorie Doucette of the Administrative Services Department. ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards Mayor/Commissioner Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner City Manager Deputy City Manager Assistant City Manager Assistant City Attorney Acting Public Works Director Central Permitting Director City Clerk Proclamations Secretaries Week Nursing Home Week Epsilon Sigma Alpha International Days Victims' Rights Week - April 24 - 30, 1994 - May 8 - 14, 1994 -May 1 - 15, 1 994 - April 24 - 30, 1994 ITEM #5 - Presentations min0004d.94 1 4/21/94 Final Report of Homeless Task Force Commissioner Deegan reported 27 people, including representatives from several municipalities in Pinellas County and social service agencies, participated on the Task Force to address assistance needed by the truly destitute. He stated it was their intent to have a coordinated approach and a one stop program to address these needs. He reported the temporary winter shelter had opened and operated successfully. The Task Force's conclusions, on Page 13 of the report, indicate the drop-in center is needed and feasible. Commissioner Deegan stated this will continue to be a cooperative effort with the County and north county municipalities. He also reported the Pinellas Coalition has agreed to be a co-applicant for this program. The Clearwater Police Department and the Salvation Army will join together to develop the program. Commissioner Deegan stated it had been difficult to establish a feasible site. The report indicates it should be in the vicinity of current, similar operations on North Betty Lane. Clearwater's Police Chief found the temporary winter shelter to more than meet expected law enforcement objectives. Chief Klein would like to move the mobile classroom at the McMullen Booth substation to a site on Betty Lane. Everybody's Tabernacle has agreed to provide oversight for a temporary drop-in operation in that facility until a permanent program can be established. Clearwater CDBG funds set aside for administration of the Task Force's Homeless Project will be used to move the mobile classroom, outfit it, and begin operations. This will afford both the Police Department and Salvation Army an opportunity to develop a permanent program. Commissioner Deegan referred to an article in the City/County magazine indicating a true need to address the homeless issue. He was pleased to report 282 signed Certificates of Appreciation would be mailed to people who had volunteered to assist in this program. He asked that twu members of the Task Force be allowed to provide their insight into the experiment. Barbara Green, of Everybody's Tabernacle, stated she runs a shelter and the temporary winter drop-in center allowed her to send individuals there when her shelter was full. She thanked the City Commission for addressing the problem and commended the City Commission. Dr. Stephanie Adair-Tateff stated she has worked with the homeless for seven or eight years. She stated the volunteers showed the dedication of this community in assisting the needy. She noted the practical aspect of the program enabled Police who found themselves with an individual who needed attention, to direct that person to the shelter for assistance. She recited a poem, "Volunteers," written by one of the clients. Commissioner Deegan recognized two other Task Force members in the audience, Mary Lou Guthart and Representative John Maronni. minCC04d.94 r 2 4/21 /94 Is Commissioner Thornas thanked Commissioner Deegan for leading this issue. He stated Commissioner Deegan's service in this matter was beyond the call of duty. Mayor Garvey added her thanks to Commissioner Deegan and all of the volunteers. Representative Maronni indicated his office remained available to help on this issue. ITEM #i6 - Approval of Minutes Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the minutes of the special meeting of March 21, 1994, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Commissioner. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Berfield pointed out on Page 23 of the March 17, 1994, Commission minutes, referring to Commissioner Thomas' comment regarding the purchase of the Sun Bank building. It should read "the building was purchased without estoppel letters" instead of "with." Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 17, 1994, as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 7, 1994, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Commissioner. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda Joseph Cascio stated he owns a business in Largo that he needs to expand. He stated he has been talking with Steve Watry regarding the economic development plan for the Infill Commercial and requested work continue on this plan. David Little requested the proposed pavilion for Clearwater Beach be taken up separately from the recommendations of the for the development of the area at the foot of Pier 60. He stated the pavilion should be a public facility and he was afraid if it remained with the other proposals, it would be delayed. He reported the Chamber has indicated it would coordinate the scheduling of activities at the pavilion. He requested the Commission take immediate action. Commissioner Deegan indicated direction from April 18, 1994 had to do with businesses at the foot of Pier 60. He indicated the Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force had made separate recommendations for the businesses at the foot of the pier and for the pavilion. He requested staff find out what would be involved in order to erect a pavilion in what is called the public events area on the beach. He stated its location may involve variances to the Coastal Construction Control Line. He indicated the pavilion should be separate from other proposals for the Pier 60 area. minCC04d.94 3 4/21/94 Mayor Garvey indicated the April 18, 1994 presentation did not indicate a specific location for the pavilion. Commissioner Deegan requested again that the impact of the Coastal Construction Control Line on this project be investigated. Otto Schlack and Bob Henion, representing the Sand Key Civic Association, expressed concerns regarding the proposal to study the feasibility of a convention center on Clearwater Beach. It is their opinion this is not a good idea because of limited parking on the beach as well as businesses that would be displaced. There are also concerns that gambling, in conjunction with a convention center, would be a possibility. Dee McCollum stated she was in favor of the economic development plan for the Commercial Infill zone. She said a lot of things are needed in order to realize this, such as street lighting and parking. She stated eight other business owners are interested and concerned about the plan. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM #8 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5593-94 - Vacating 5 foot utility easement lying along the easterly line of Lots 1-5, Blk 39, Mandalay Sub. (Nixon, et al, V94-03)(PW) The applicant is requesting the vacation of the 5 foot north-south utility easement crossing their land and that of their neighbors. The easement lies adjacent to the easterly line of Lots 1 through 5, Block 39, Mandalay Subdivision. The property owners also own the land lying between the lot line and the seawall. Some of the residents have improvements that encroach into, or cross this existing easement. This request has been reviewed by the various city departments and divisions concerned and by Florida Power, General Telephone and Vision Cable and there are no objections. Mayor Garvey questioned if this vacation would be impacted by the Coastal Construction Control Line. It was indicated it would not. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the vacation of the 5 foot utility easement lying along the easterly line of Lots 1 through 5, Block 39, Mandalay Subdivision. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5593-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5593-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. min0C04d.94 4/21 /94 4 ITEM #9 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5594-94 - Vacating westerly 5 feet of the drainage & utility easement lying along the easterly line of Lot 49, Cypress Bend of Countryside Unit One less the northerly & southerly 5 feet (Mayan, V94-04)(PW) The applicant is proposing to build a pool and deck which would encroach into the existing easement approximately 4 feet. The City has no existing utilities within the easement. This request has been reviewed by the various city departments and divisions concerned and by Florida Power, General Telephone and Vision Cable and there are no objections. Commissioner Berfield questioned when the City began keeping track of pools that encroached on easements. Mr. Baker explained that up until two or three years ago, plans for swimming pools showed the water line of the pool rather than the outside walls. Drawings are now required to show the walls and decking. Commissioner Berfield expressed concern regarding giving this property away. Mr. Baker indicated the applicant already owned the property, the City was relinquishing its easement rights as they were not needed. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the vacation of the westerly 5 feet of the drainage and utility easement lying along the easterly line of Lot 4, Cypress Bend of Countryside Unit One, less the northerly and southerly 5 feet. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5594-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5594-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #10 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5565-94, #5566-94 & #5567-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban and RS-8 Zoning for property located at 3123 John's Parkway, John's Parkway Sub., Lot 4, 0.23 acres m.o.l. (Enright, A94-04, LUP94-04)(CP) The subject property is located on the south side of John's Parkway, between McMullen Booth Road and Bayshore Boulevard. The applicant wishes to annex to obtain city sewer service for a new single family house to be built under a county building permit. The applicant's property has a Countywide Future Land Use Classification of Residential Urban. The other lots of the subdivision which are in the City have the same classification and are zoned RS-8. minCCO4d.94 5 4/21/94 On April 5, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed this request. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve annexation, a land use plan amendment to Residential Urban and RS-8 zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5565-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5565-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5566-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5566-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5567-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5567-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. f t ITEM #11 - Public Hearing & First Readinq Ords. #5568-94, #5569-94 & #5570-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and RPD-D Zoning for property located at 2370 Dora Dr., Rolling Heights, Lot 68, 0.21 acres m.o.l. (Vernon, A94-03, LUP94-03)(CP) The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Dora Drive and Ella Place. The applicants wish to annex to obtain city sewer service. Lot 11, across Dora Drive, is in the City. The abutting segments of Dora Drive and Ella Place need to be annexed with the applicants' property. The applicants' property has a Countywide Future Land Use Classification of Residential Low and should be assigned the same city classification. Lots 10 and 11 , across Dora Drive, were annexed last year and assigned the Residential Low classification and interim zoning of RS-6- All three lots should be zoned RPD-D, the new zoning for areas with a land use of Residential Low (maximum density of 5.0 units per acre) and dimensional requirements of the RS-6 district. Staff will follow up with an administrative rezoning of the other two lots as part of a major consistency rezoning program later this year. min0004d.94 6 4/21/94 Commissioner Thomas moved to approve annexation, a land use plan amendment to Residential Low and RPD-D zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. On April 5, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed this request. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5568-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5568-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5569-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5569-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5570-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5570-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. s ITEM #12 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5572-94, #5573-94 & #5574-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment for Parcel A to Industrial General & Parcel B to Industrial Limited and IL Zoning for property located at 1770 Hercules Ave., Sec. 1-29-15, M&B 34.32, 0.73 acres m.o.l. (Instrument Transformers, A94-01, LUP94-01)(CP) The subject property is located on the west side of N. Hercules Avenue, approximately 500 feet south of Calumet Street. The applicant wishes to annex to develop the property in conjunction with his existing business operations directly to the west. Sewer is available to the property, and the applicant will be required to connect the existing building on the front of this parcel to the city's sewer system. The applicant's property meets the dimensional requirement for a lot in a Limited Industrial District. The side setback from the south property line of 2.1 feet for the existing building is less than the minimum requirement of 10 feet for Limited Industrial Districts. The building will be nonconforming and will not be able to be expanded unless a variance is granted. The owner is aware of this limitation. minCC04d.94 7 4/21/94 On April 5, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed this request. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve annexation, a land use plan amendment to Industrial General for Parcel A and Industrial Limited for Parcel B, and IL zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5572-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5572-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5573-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5573-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5574-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5574-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #13 - Public Hearing & First Readinq Ords. #5575-94, #5576-94 & #5577-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Suburban and RS-2 Zoning for property located at 2671 Third Ave., N., Chautauqua, Sec. A, Unit 1, Blk 44, Lots 1-6, part of 7 & 20 and 21-26, 1.40 acres m.o.l. (Carter, A94-06, LUP94-06)(CP) The subject property is located between Second and Third Avenues, along Chautauqua Avenue, just east of Cypress Point Shopping Center (US19 at Enterprise Road). The applicants wish to annex to obtain city sewer service for a new single family house they intend to build on the property after it is annexed. The applicants' property has a Countywide Future Land Use Classification of Residential Suburban (2.5 u.p.a. max.), and it is proposed to assign the same city classification. Most of the surrounding property is in the City with that to the north, south and east zoned RS-2. In spite of the applicants' property being over an acre, the building site is restricted due to a large pond on the property. Due to site restrictions, the applicants went before the Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB) on March 24, 1994 for variances to enable them to construct their proposed home. The DCAB continued consideration of the variances until April 28, 1994. min0004d.94 4/21 /94 8 On April 5, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed this request. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford indicated the annexation needed to go forward in order for the variances to be considered. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve annexation, a land use plan amendment to Residential Suburban and RS-2 zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5575-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5575-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5576-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5576-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. +w The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5577-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5577-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #14- Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5578-94,#5579-94ᗌ-94- Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1920 Skyline Dr., E., Skyline Groves, Lot 58, 0.20 acres m.o.l. (Sather, A94- 02, LUP94-02)(CP) The subject property is located at the northeast corner of East Skyline Drive and Raymont Drive, one block north of Sunset Point Road. The applicants wish to annex to obtain city sewer service. The abutting street right of ways for East Skyline Drive and Raymont Drive are both in the City, as is Lot 37 across East Skyline Drive. The lots in Skyline Groves which are in the City have a Future Land Use Classification of Residential Urban and RS-8 zoning. The Countywide classification for this parcel if Residential Low. Although this subdivision has a mixture of classifications, it is proposed to assign the same classification as on the Countywide Plan, Residential Low and RS-8 zoning. Later this year, staff will be getting back with the Pinellas Planning Council If . min0004d.94 4/21 /94 9 to try to establish a single Future Land Use Category for this subdivision (Residential Urban) and for other subdivisions with multiple land use categories. On April 5, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed this request. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve annexation, a land use plan amendment to Residential Low and RS-8 zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5578-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5578-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5579-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5579-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5580-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5580-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #15 Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5581-94, #5582-94 & #5583-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and RPD-D Zoning for property located at 601 Dora Dr., Rolling Heights, Lot 21, 0.22 acres m.o.l. (Antoniello, A94-05, LU P94-05)(CP) The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Dora Drive and Sharkey Road. The applicants wish to annex to obtain city sewer service. The applicants' property has a Countywide Future Land Use Classification of Residential Low and should be assigned the same city classification. Other lots in the subdivision which are in the City have been assigned RS-6 zoning. The applicants' property should be assigned RPD-D zoning, the new zoning for areas with a land use of Residential Low and dimensional requirements of the RS-6 District. Staff will be following up with an administrative rezoning of the adjacent lot to the south as part of a major consistency rezoning program later this year. minCC04d.94 4/21 /94 10 On April 5, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed this request. t: . Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve annexation, a land use plan amendment to Residential Low and RPD-D zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5581-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5581-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5582-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5582-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5583-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5583-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #16 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5584-94 - RM-16 Zoning for property located at 2855 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Baskins Replat Resub., part of Lot 2, 33.44 acres m.o.l. (Morton Plant Life Services, (Bayview Gardens) Z94-02)(CP) The subject property is located in the City, south of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, between Sky Harbor Drive and Cross Boulevard. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to increase allowable density to permit construction of a 120 bed nursing facility which would be operated in conjunction with the existing facilities on the property. On April 5, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed this request. Scott Shuford indicated the 1 20 bed nursing unit will require a conditional use from the Planning & Zoning Board. He further reported a site plan review will be forthcoming to the Commission. Mark Marquardt, Attorney representing Morton Plant Hospital, stated the rezoning is being requested to enable them to construct a 120 bed nursing facility on the property. r min0004d.94 11 4/21 /94 He stated Bayview Gardens has met the needs of the elderly since 1962, however, they have been unable to facilitate long term care. He stated this presents problems when a spouse is involved and the individuals must be separated. He stated it will be an attractive facil ity. Mayor Garvey questioned where on the property the facility would be located. Mr. Marquardt indicated on the eastern portion of the property. Concerns were expressed that according to the map, it looked as if buildings were already in that location. Sandy Hugg, Manager of Bayview Gardens, stated two units were removed two years ago. She stated a maintenance shop and one living unit will also be removed. Commissioner Thomas questioned if there were plans to construct additional nursing facilities. Mr. Marquardt indicated this was not in the plans at this time. Mayor Garvey questioned if this would use up the density allowed on the property. Mr. Shuford indicated it would. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve RM-16 zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5584-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #'5584-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #17 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5563-94 - Amending Sec. 35.1 1, to create definitions for collector, local, rninor arterial and major arterial streets; amending Sec. 40.104, to provide for Level I Group Care Facilities as a conditional use in the RS-8 district; amending Sec. 41.053, to establish supplementary conditional use standards for Level 1 Group Care Facilities in the RS-8 district (LDCA 94-03)(CP) On January 20, 1994, the Commission heard a request to rezone a single lot from RS-8 to RM-8 in order to accommodate the expansion of an existing group care facility. While the Commission did not support the rezoning request, it followed the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation and directed staff to develop a land development code amendment to permit Level I Group Care facilities in the RS-8 district as a conditional use. Pursuant to this direction, staff has developed Ordinance #5563-94. The ordinance provides a definition for different classes of streets, and establishes Level I Group Care facilities as conditional uses in the RS-8 zoning district subject to a number of supplementary standards for approval, including the requirement that the group care facility be located on an arterial roadway. min0004d.94 4/21/94 ?` 12 This ordinance would accommodate the particular case which brought this matter to staff's and the Commission's attention. It would also provide some zoning incentives for single family property located on major roadways. Both the Development Code Adjustment Board and the Planning and Zoning Board endorse this land development code amendment. This ordinance was revised after initial distribution to amend Sec. 40.105 to ensure the separation and other standards of Code Section 41.201 dealing with adult congregate living facilities would apply to this use. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if the Legal Department had reviewed the revision. Mr. Hull indicated they had and were in agreement with it. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a land development code amendment concerning Level I Group Care Facilities in RS-8 zones. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5563-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5563-94 as amended on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Days": None. ITEM #18 - Public Hearing - Declare surplus for conveyance by deeds to FDOT for r-o-w purposes, parcels 121 and 135, lying along S.R.55 (US19), between S.R.60 and the CSX Transportation r-o-w north of Drew Street; Res. #94-19 - authorizing city officials to execute deeds of conveyance to FDOT (PW) The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is proposing to make improvements to US 19 from SR60 to the CSX Railroad, beginning in FY 1995/96. The road improvement project includes a 6 lane overpass at Drew Street, frontage roads and intersection improvements. The project will require the FDOT obtain additional right of way from several property owners along US19, including the City. In order to facilitate the project, the FDOT is requesting the City convey these two parcels for right of way purposes in consideration of the FDOT paying all costs associated with the conveyance, including, but not limited to, transaction costs, utility relocations, clearing the right of way and the benefits to be obtained from the highway improvements. Parcel 121 is a triangular parcel containing 249 square feet, more or less, lying along the west side of US 19 in the southeast corner of the city-owned Carpenter Field property. Parcel 1 35 is also a triangular parcel containing 392 square feet, more or less, lying along the east side of US1 9 in the northwest corner of the city-owned drainage pond adjacent on the south to the Cambridge Apartments. min0004d.94 4/21 /94 13 Commissioner Berfield moved to declare Parcels 121 and 135 (lying along SR55 ~ (US 19), between SR60 and the CSX Transportation right of way, north of Drew Street) surplus for conveyance by deeds to the Florida Department of Transportation for right of way purposes. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Resolution #94-19 and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-19 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #19 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5562-94 - Amending Sec. 35.1 1, to create a definition for utility facilities; amending various sections within Ch. 40, to provide for utility facilities as permitted uses in IL and P/SP districts and as a conditional use in all other zoning districts; amending Sec. 41.053, to establish supplementary conditional use standards for utility facilities (LDCA 93-23)(CP) AND ITEM #20 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5590-94 & #5591-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General and CG Zoning for property located at 509 Bayview Ave. & 508 Meadow Lark Lane, McMullen's Bayview, Blk 3, Lots 1 & 2 and E::.. south 1/2 of r-o-w to north (R. Roy Meador, TRE, LUP93-43, Z93-54)(CP) Commissioner Berfield moved to continue Item #19 to May 5, 1994, and Item #20 to May 19, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances ITEM #21 - Ord. #5536-94 - Amending Sec. 42.26, to establish maintenance standards for fences and walls (LDCA 93-20) Commissioner Thomas moved to amend Ordinance #5536-94 in Section 42.26(e), insert after "appearance," "; however, this section is not intended to prohibit the maintenance of fences in which a deteriorated section of the fence is replaced with new material which will take some time to "age" or "weather" to replicate the appearance of the original fence." The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5536-94 as amended for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5536-94 as amended on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: min0004d.94 4/21/94 '"14 "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #22 - Ord. #5554-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General for property located at 1201-1215 Drew St., Padgett's Sub., Lot 1 (Uhrich, LUP93-19) The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5554-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5554-94 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. E't.: ITEM #23 - Ord. #5555-94 - CPD Zoning for property located at 1201-1215 Drew St., Padgett's Sub., Lot 1 (Uhrich, Z93-08) The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5555-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5555-94 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #24 - Ord. #5560-94 - RM-8 Zoning for property located at 1551, 1555 & 1559 Druid Rd., Druid Groves, Blk A, Lots 1, 2 & part of 3 together with vacated r-o-w (Shinier & Drapkin, Z94-01) The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5560-94 for second reading and read it by title only. The Mayor indicated one letter had been received from someone concerned about this rezoning. Ruth Wallace stated she wanted to be sure the hospital could not put Jasmine Way all the way through and there would not be an outlet to Crest Avenue. Mr. Shuford indicated the hospital would be precluded from accessing property from anywhere other than the hospital property. They must access and exit through the existing hospital parking lots. Gerard Coleman spoke in opposition, stating hospital activities are disturbing to nearby properties. He stated his property would be devalued by the development of minO004d.94 15 4/21 /94 this parking lot. He requested, if the Commission would not deny this application, they ` delay action to allow him time to get input from additional property ownerc. Carlos Pool stated he lives next to the hospital and opposed the rezoning as it would degrade his property. Brian Green, Realtor working for the hospital, stated he felt property values would increase due to the beautification and landscaping planned for the parking lot proposed for these lots. He stated the hospital has been trying to work with the neighbors regarding this project. Torn Matthews, representing the hospital, stated the property will have a better appearance than it does currently. He stated all access will be from hospital property. The proposed parking will be restricted to employees. He stated the hospital has a parking shortage. Much of their business is now outpatient care. He reemphasized . parking is needed. Commissioner Thomas questioned if there would be a berm and trees separating the parking lot from Jasmine. Mr. Matthews indicated there would be. Jim Shawn, Architect for the hospital, indicated there would be a gentle flow downhill from the parking lot and a retention area would be placed between the parking lot and Jasmine Way. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the parking lot would be visible from the houses. Mr. Shawn indicaLed the retention area will be retained by a berm, there will be landscaping and a six-foot tall opaque fence. Mr. Pool expressed concerns that this berm would be next to his swimming pool. He stated the hospital has not kept promises made when it was originally built. Mr. Coleman indicated three parcels were being considered today but the next step was to rezone additional lots. Mr. Pool reported he had received a letter regarding the hospital's proposal. The proposal was presented as an all or nothing deal. He stated if the hospital buys everyone out, that is fine. Mr. Matthews indicated the hospital has had a fair market value study done on all of the properties. He indicated they do have contracts on additional lots. Commissioner Thomas questioned if there was an independent opinion regarding whether or not property values would be decreased or increased. Mr. Coleman questioned if there would be access from the parking lot to his property. Mr. Matthews indicated there would not be. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if it was the hospital's intent to obtain the properties on Jasmine Way. Mr. Green indicated it was their long term plan. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned the prices paid for some of the property. Mr. Green indicated some were above market value. I minCC04d.94 4/21/94 16 Mayor Garvey noted the Commission's responsibility is to determine whether or a `pt not the rezoning is appropriate. Mr. Baker indicated the streets adjacent to the hospital property could only be opened with Commission approval. Commissioner Thomas requested the Itern be continued until staff could bring back an independent opinion regarding the values of the property. Mayor Garvey and Commissioner Fitzgerald felt this should be the responsibility of the property owners, not the City. Commissioner Thomas agreed but still requested the delay to allow the owners to bring in the independent opinion. Mr. Matthews indicated this process had been going on for quite a while. He stated the hospital has made efforts to explain to the neighbors what it is doing. He stated to continue the Item at this point would not be fair to the hospital. Commissioner Thomas stated two weeks ago at First Reading there had been indications there was no objections to the rezoning. Mr. Matthews indicated that two weeks ago, no objections had been voiced to the hospital. Bob Bickerstaffe stated when this case came before the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Board meeting, one of the board's main concerns had been if there were any complaints from the neighbors. He stated they had been reassured that all neighbors were in favor of the rezoning. He expressed concerns regarding the radius for the required notification to surrounding property owners not including homes further south of Druid. tCathy Bowen, owner of property at 1563 Druid Road, stated when she lived there, she could not exit her driveway. She stated if this rezoning will increase the property's ability to deal with rain, it will be helpful to the area. Mr. Shuford indicated the application to rezone additional lots on Druid Road were scheduled for receipt and referral in May. He stated the P&Z Board expressed concerns regarding the impacts of this proposal and felt the buffer provided was good. The P&Z Board approved the conditional use with conditions that the parking lot be used by employees only, from 6:30 a.m. until midnight. The height of lighting was also limited. He stated there will be controls on the upkeep and activities in the parking lot. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the Commission could require the remaining lots come in as a total group. Mr. Matthews indicated they would like to have the remainder of the block and did not feel the hospital would bring in a rezoning of one lot at a time. Commissioner Berfield questioned when the P&Z Board heard the request. Mr. Shuford indicated the request was heard on April 19, 1994. minCC04d.94 r 17 4/21 /94 Commissioner Berfield questioned the letter in opposition. Mr. Shuford indicated there had been a letter concerned with the utility easement but that had been addressed. Commissioner Berfield stated there was another letter of opposition. Mr. Shuford indicated he was not aware of it. He said one person at the P&Z Board that objected, lived on Glenwood Avenue and was complaining regarding helicopter landings at the hospital. The City Clerk indicated if a letter of opposition had been sent to the City Commission, neither Mr. Shuford nor the P&Z Board would necessarily be aware of it. Brenda Harris Nixon indicated her recollection of the hearing before the P&Z Board differed from Mr. Bickerstaffe's. She stated the Board was concerned regarding the height of the lighting and the landscape buffering to be provided. She felt this would be an improvement to the property and good for the City as a whole. She stated her concern is the negativity with which hospitals are viewed. Mr. Matthews indicated the helicopter landings are regulated by the EMS system. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5560-94 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Deegan announced he had a conflict of interest as he sits on the hospital's board. Commissioner Berfield indicated she would support this but before the rezoning of the additional lots are brought forward, she wanted the notification of surrounding orders expanded. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated he would have no objection to that being made as a second motion. Upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. Abstain: Deegan. Motion carried. Commissioner Berfield moved when lots 4, 5, and 6 come in for rezoning, notification be extended to include all properties between Druid and Lotus Path, and the hospital and Crest Avenue. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being minOO04d.94 d' 18 4/21 /94 taken; Commissioners Berfield, Thomas and Fitzgerald voted "Aye," Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Commissioner Deegan abstained. Motion carried. The meeting recessed from 8:58 to 9:13 p.m. Ms. Deptula left the meeting and Ms. Rice took her place. ITEM #25 - Ord. #5585-94 - Amending Sec. 29.58 to delete occupational license requirement for family care facilities and revise occupational license requirement for group care facilities The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5585-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5585-94 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #26 - Ord. #5586-94 - Amending purchasing code The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5586-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5586-94 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #27 - Special items of widespread public interest - None. ITEM #28 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda Dennis Henneger stated there is no police protection in downtown Clearwater. He stated he had received a report there had been 1,257 documented cases in the downtown area from January 1992 until April 18, 1994. He stated citizens are not getting what they paid for. Tom Selhorst stated ten business people have appeared before the Commission ready to go into business in the Commercial Infill zone. He stated there is a property purchase contract pending contingent on the economic development plan being instituted. He encouraged more community involvement in the plan. minCC04d.94 19 4/21/94 Scott Suits supported Mr. Selhorst in the economic development plan. He state there needed to be police protection on Pinellas Trail. Raymond Herie spoke in support of the economic development plan for the Commercial Infill area. CITY MANAGER REPORTS ITEM #29 - Receipt/Referral - LDCA re accessory dwellings in the Infill Commercial zoning district (LDCA 94-09)(CP) As a means of implementation of the "Selhorst Plan", staff has developed the proposed ordinance which simply adds a single permitted use, accessory dwellings, to the new Infill Commercial (CI) zoning district. This use is added to promote the transition from residential to commercial in portions of this zoning district which are now predominantly residential. The ordinance would allow someone to continue to live in their home and operate any of the allowable businesses available under Cl zoning. The Planning and Zoning Board and the Development Code Adjustment Board will need to review this ordinance. Commissioner Thomas questioned the status of the economic development plan. Ms. Rice will provide a report. % Commissioner Berfield moved to receive a land development code amendment concerning accessory dwellings in the Infill Commercial zoning district and refer to the City Clerk to advertise for public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #30 - Preliminary Site Plan for Builders Square (Sorin Realty Corp., PSP94-06)(CP) The applicant proposes to construct a 109,800 square foot Builders Square Home Improvement/Building Supplies retail center with a 27,696 square foot garden center and a 13,009 square. foot lumber storage facility on a 14.24 acre parcel which was the subject of a Commission approved development agreement known as the Sorin Agreement, executed with the City on April 30, 1993. The Sorin development agreement outlines the terms of the development and gives vested rights to the property owner as to certain development approvals. The original site plan submitted with the development agreement has been modified, but the revised plan is consistent with the development agreement. The northern 800 feet of the property has a Commercial/Tourist Facilities Land Use Plan designation and is zoned CG; the remainder of the property has a Land Use Plan designation of Residential Urban and is zoned RM-8. E minCC04d.94 20 4/21 /94 The developer proposes to provide two drives from Gulf to Bay Boulevard and one drive from Druid road for ingress/egress. However, the southernmost 112 feet, zoned RM-8, will not be developed with the Builders Square development; it is intended to remain undeveloped at this time. The applicant will need conditional use approval to permit noncommercial parking in the RM-8 zone, and for the outdoor retail sales for the garden center and outdoor storage for the lumber storage facilities. Unless an agreement with Florida Power Corporation can be reached, a variance to the parking requirements will also need to be obtained. The owner has reserved a capacity of 656 average weekday peak hour trip ends on any adjacent link on Gulf to Bay Boulevard by paying $317,720 to the City to receive vested rights for the purposes of the City's Concurrency Management Ordinance as it relates to the City/County Transportation Impact Fee. The owner has been issued a Certificate of Capacity for the proposed development guaranteeing capacity for all essential services for the term of the agreement. The proposed traffic signalization at SR60 and Old Coachman Road is being reviewed by the FDOT and the City Traffic Engineer. Associated lane alignments and ingress/egress concerns are to be addressed with regard to safety and optimum traffic flow. Staff has received one letter of concern from a citizen representing the Druid Park and Melody residential areas regarding the use of Druid Road. Druid Road is not a truck route, therefore, trucks will be entering and exiting to and from Gulf to Bay Boulevard. :. Preliminary review of the site plan indicates the proposed development is an expansion of the existing use and is therefore subject to the two percent land dedication requirement for open space. Staff recommends cash payment in lieu of land to satisfy the Open Space Land Dedication Ordinance, as there is no existing park nearby and the land dedication would be too small for a park (12,410 sq.ft.). Mr. Shuford indicated the staff has required that the plan not have a "straight shot" from an access on Gulf to Bay Boulevard to Druid Road. He stated the letter of objection concerned the access on Druid and truck traffic. He restated Druid Road is not a truck route. He also reported the owner retains the right for residential development on the property on Druid Road. He stated a retention pond will be placed between the commercial and residential developments. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern that the letter of opposition did not mention truck traffic but traffic in general. He questioned how staff planned to address this concern. Mr. Shuford indicated it will be addressed through the site design as there will be limited parking to the rear of the commercial development. He again stated a curvilinear drive is being required in order to reduce access from Druid Road. min0004d.94 21 4/21 /94 Commissioner Deegan questioned if the traffic impact study on Druid Road had { been completed. Mr. Yauch indicated the study showed a minor distribution of traffic onto Druid Road. He stated traffic counts are currently being done. Mr. Shuford indicated the previous plan was for a shopping center with out parcels on Gulf to Bay Boulevard. He stated this plan is better from a traffic point of view. Commissioner Thomas questioned if a drive could be prohibited from Druid Road. Mr. Shuford indicated the development agreement shows access to Druid Road and it would be difficult to preclude it at this time. Commissioner Thomas questioned if trees would be placed in the ovals on the site plan. He expressed concerns that trees are being removed from the site and questioned if replacement would be required. Mr. Shuford indicated the development will at least meet the tree replacement requirements and trees will be placed where appropriate. In response to a question from Commissioner Thomas, Ed Armstrong, Attorney representing the applicants, indicated they will adhere to the tree ordinance. Commissioner Berfield moved to received the preliminary sit plan for Builder's Square and authorize the DRC to approve a final site plan subject to conditions attached to these minutes as Exhibit A and approve payment in lieu of land dedication to satisfy Open Space Land Dedication Ordinance requirements. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #31 - Preliminary Site Plan and Receipt/Referral RPD-C zoning for Landmark Manors, Sec. 21-28-16, M&Bs 23.04, 23.05, 23.06, 23.08 & 23.13, 17.3 acres m.o.l. (accept fee instead of land to meet open space/land dedication requirement) (McCullough, Z94-04, PSP 94-D5)(CP) Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #32 - Modification to Pelican Walk certified final site plan located on the east and west side of Mandalay Ave., between San Marco St. and Poinsettia Ave. (E3.J.E., lnc.)(CP) Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to May 5, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #33 - Report from Tropical Seascape Theme Committee; direction requested (CP) A committee composed of representatives from the Clearwater Beach Association and the Chamber of Commerce has been working to develop a recommendation to the Commission for the Tropical Seascape Theme implementation min0004d.94 22 4/21 /94 on Clearwater Beach. This is the second report to the Commission on the progress of N? the committee and contains the following recommendations: 1) Sorne form of mandatory design guidelines implemented by a design review committee are necessary; 2) The concept paper developed by the Committee should be used to provide direction for the ultimate development of formalized design guidelines; 3) A consultant be retained to complete work on the final design guidelines; 4) An incentive program to encourage property owners to voluntarily adhere to the design guidelines be developed using tax increment financing through a community redevelopment agency or some form of special taxation district. (The latter option is favored because it would result in a known quantity of funds for implernentation of the project); 5) A design review committee composed of interested citizens having specific qualifications would oversee both mandatory and incentive based design improvements. This review board would be appointed by the City Commission and have City staff support for its consideration of cases. The Committee felt the ordinances from Seaside, Florida and Wilmington, North Carolina should be considered by City staff in developing an ordinance for the Commission's consideration. The Committee requests the Commission to direct staff to expeditiously begin the process of implementation. Staff feels the design review approach can be successfully implemented on Clearwater Beach due to the redevelopment pressures there. Staff recommends the following actions in order to implement the Committee's proposed combination approach of regulatory requirements and incentives: 1) A comprehensive analysis of options for implementing the incentive approach is necessary and should be prepared by the Legal, Central Permitting, and Finance offices. The analysis would include a) developing cost projections for renovations so that meaningful incentives can be offered; b) determining annual incentive fund needs based on projected renovations; c) determine the options for funding the incentive and recommending the best option; d) hold public hearings to discuss the analysis, receive public input, and reach decisions. In order to facilitate the regulatory approach for the program, staff recommends appointing a design review board. This approach lengthens the permitting and developing process, however, it is recommended over a staff or consultant administered option as it incorporates a community based design methodology. Staff recommends that a consultant be retained to prepare the initial design guidelines as staff does not have inhouse expertise or time to develop the level of specificity needed. Staff also suggests the ordinance establishing the design review board and implementing the design guidelines be developed by staff. It is also recommended that staff support this board rather than hiring an outside architectural consultant. An additional employee would be needed to provided this staff expertise and could also be used to assist in other design programs, i.e. the Downtown design and the North Greenwood facade improvement program. Steve Fowler, a member of the Committee, stated they felt the Committee had provided the ground work for the implementation of this theme. He stated they are now requesting staff be directed to fine tune the ordinances to implement the program. minCC04d.94 23 4/21 /94 Mr. Shuford indicated the staff is seeking direction regarding whether or not to pursue the proposals. He stated what is proposed is a combination incentive/regulatory approach. While there is a need to have a consultant do the design guidelines, the program would ultimately be staff supported. He stated lie is not able to provide this support with current staffing. He further reported, depending on how the incentive is set up, that funding may not come from the General Fund. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned what was being asked of the Commission tonight. Mr. Shuford indicated direction regarding whether or not to proceed. He stated this is the initial step and staff would bring back options regarding the incentives, costs for the consultants, and how to fund the program. He stated staff will have to identify funding sources and will be returning to the Commission with a more elaborate reckoning of costs and alternatives. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned whether or not tax increment financing or a special taxing district would be pursued. Mr. Shuford indicated this would be a decision the Commission would make at a later date, once additional information is provided. He stated it will take a lot of staff research to come up with the alternatives and the required information. He indicated if the Commission did not wish staff to pursue the program, it needed to be known now. Commissioner Berfield stated the Committee had expressed a preference for the special taxing district as monies would be available sooner than with the CRA. Mr. Shuford indicated this was the case, however, in the long run, there would not be as much money available. Commissioner Berfield questioned if Mr. Shuford is basically asking if the Commission wants staff to go ahead and study the proposals. Mr. Shuford indicated this was correct. Commissioner Berfield questioned the time frame in which staff would return with recommendations. Mr. Shuford indicated it would take 60 to 75 days for staff to make recommendations regarding how to fund the proposals. Commissioner Deegan stated his opinion that with the draft, the North Greenwood design guidelines and the guidelines from Seaside, Florida, the design guidelines were almost developed and would not require a consultant. Mr. Shuford indicated while this could suffice, staff's recommendation was for a more elaborate picture book with architectural renderings. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the Commission agreed as long as it is not too costly, design guidelines were desirable. The second step would be staff to come back with a complete package of design guidelines. Third would be implementation. Commissioner Deegan stated when the first report was submitted in February 1994, it indicated a need for an appropriate theme logo to be developed in April or May. He stated if this was developed, it would be first visual image staff could min0004d.94. 24 4/21 /94 use for the program, He again stated the third step would be detailed pros and cons of cost and implementation of the program. Mr. Shuford indicated staff would return to the Commission at intervals to provide reports. Commissioner Thomas stated he felt a lot of work had already been done and they were not starting from zero. He did not see a huge staff time investment. He supported "getting off center." He stated he supported the basic premise of Commissioner Deegan for the guidelines to be developed, a pictorial theme logo, and then the implementation. Mr. Baker expressed concerns Commissioner Thomas' review of Commissioner Deegan's remarks indicated staff would develop the design guidelines. Ms. Rice felt Commissioner Deegan's second step was for staff to develop cost estimates and come back to the City Commission. Commissioner Deegan stated he is asking for the cost of each phase of the program. Before any monies are allocated, staff is to come back with recommendations regarding: 1) how much it will cost to develop a complete package of design guidelines and a logo; 2) the pros and cons of the alternatives for funding and implementation of the program. Mr. Shuford indicated his understanding of the direction was that staff was to f develop a theme logo in concert with the Committee, staff is to come back with ??. different levels of implementation, the costs and pros and cons of each level of implementation. Mr. Fowler stated the Committee felt they had developed a spirit they wish to obtain. He stated they are now asking that staff be directed to come up with a document that can be turned over to architects and developers to use in redeveloping the beach. John Doran stated Mr. Fowler had done most of the work on the Committee. He stated they did not come tonight asking for approval. He stated the volunteers have carried the ball as far as they can and they are asking that staff be directed to look into the program further. Commissioner Deegan moved to receive the report from the Tropical Seascape Theme Committee and to direct staff to bring back detailed information regarding alternatives and costs for completing the design guidelines and the alternatives and the costs for various methods of implementation and the pros and cons for those alternatives. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Shuford acknowledged the volunteers that served on the Committee and thanked them for all of their hard work. { minCC04d.94 25 4/21/94 ITEM #34 - Preliminary-Re port re Clearwater Beach Redevelopment Plan; direction ' requested (CP) In February, staff provided the Commission with a short presentation on its work to date on the Clearwater Beach Redevelopment Plan. This presentation involved a discussion of the contents of the preliminary plan and a brief slide show illustrating some of the proposed improvements. Commission direction at that time was to look into redevelopment options involving privately owned property in the East Shore/Poinsettia area. Staff has revised the preliminary plan accordingly, attached as Exhibit A of these minutes. Staff now seeks further Commission direction regarding the plan and the process for public comment on the plan. Staff would propose that, after tonight's meeting, the plan be presented to the Planning and Zoning Board, Development Code Adjustment Board, Clearwater Beach Association, and the Beach Area Council of the Chamber of Commerce. The newly formed business association formed on Clearwater Beach would also be a possible group to which the plan should be presented. If the Commission so directs, staff will initiate the public comment portion of the plan and will begin the development of some initial estimates of costs involved in implementing the plan. After initial presentations to the public, staff will return for further direction from the Commission. Ms. Rice and Mr. Shuford indicated staff is looking for direction regarding if the Commission is comfortable with staff taking the plan to the public for input. Commissioner Thomas stated the two issues are the residential area and the commercial area. He stated he had no problem going forward with the residential component of the plan. He stated he +./vould like to see a smaller area being addressed as a starting point for commercial redevelopment. He felt if something really good was accomplished in a small area, people would be more comfortable with implementing the plan for the rest of the beach. He stated the first area for redevelopment should be in the north beach between Marianne and Baymont Street, the bay and the gulf. He stated this is the most rundown area of the beach and has the greater opportunity for redevelopment. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern regarding the alternatives requiring significant public investment. He felt people should be encouraged to redevelopment, but there should not be a commitment from the City to do the redevelopment. Commissioner Deegan stated the reason for focussing on the area referenced by Commissioner Thomas is because that area is close to being blighted. He felt the status quo was a poor choice and he disagreed with heavy public investment, however, he felt significant public investment could be valuable and it could be accomplished with a public/private partnership. He felt the most important aspect for redevelopment was to m inOO04d. 94 26 4/21/94 provide a shopping/eating/entertainment complex through private investment. He stated there were some properties the City would do well to buy. He felt the major point was there be a face lift to the entire area. He recommended the owners pool their assets and the City help with this redevelopment. He stated in the Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force Report, there was a general schematic of this whole four block area and how it could be redeveloped. The schematic included a two-story parking garage, shopping, restaurants, and a small conference center. He took exception to staff's comment that pedestrian traffic was most important. He stated vehicular traffic was the most significant problem on the beach. The parking garage is an important part of the redevelopment plan. He stated he is suggesting staff focus on and private developers be encouraged to do something in this one area. Commissioner Thomas felt the City has the responsibility to create an appropriate infrastructure that would provide an incentive for property owners to redevelop. He again stated he was in favor of concentrating on the "east shore" area. He stated it was important to get an ambiance in that one area. Commissioner Deegan pointed out that the Pelican Walk development project is redevelopment where several people agreed to participate. He stated business on Clearwater Beach need help and improving this area can do that. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated the proposal sounded good but he had reservations regarding what it all meant. He said if the redevelopment is under private initiative, he was in favor of it. He questioned if this had a greater priority than other ?. areas such as North Greenwood, North Ft. Harrison, etc. He stated a concern he had with public/private partnerships is they often call for heavy public subsidies. He expressed concerns about buying property and the possibility the City would find it had to condemn these properties and it would, therefore, cost more. He stated it was a good idea to look at this area and encourage redevelopment, however, he was reluctant to involve the City in a costly way. Commissioner Deegan stated Commissioner Fitzgerald's comment regarding this being a priority was well taken and that it wasn't the highest priority but it was one priority out of many. Julie Nichols stated there are 13 vacant storefronts on Clearwater Beach which is unheard of. She stated many merchants are waiting to see what happens in the coming months. She stated the convention and trade show business is one of the most important to the Clearwater Beach area. She referenced a report on the top twenty beaches in the country which included Sand Key with 11 other Florida beaches. She requested the Commission direct staff to proceed with redevelopment of the beach and to start with the conference center. Tom Pratt stated he had experience managing hotels throughout the country. He stated convention centers are important to hotels. The City of Clearwater has the benefit of being a good destination for leisure travel. He felt the meeting industry would bring quality people to the City. He stated hotels do their best business with a min0004d.94 27 4/21/94 meeting base. He viewed the meeting industry as an insurance policy that would provide hotel patrons during off season. Jay Keyes stated he felt the redevelopment plan was one of the most important issues this year and it should be developed as soon as possible. Ile stated Clearwater Beach used to be a family oriented destination point. He stated currently there is nothing for families to do on Clearwater Beach during the evening hours. He expressed concerns small motels are converting to other uses which are unattractive. William Goodwin stated he was in opposition to a conference center in the marina area as it would create traffic problems. He stated in listening to the plans for redevelopment of the east shore area, a conference center was acceptable in that location. Phil Henderson, chair of the Clearwater Chamber of Commerce, stated redevelopment of the beach is vital to tourism and the tax base. He stated the concept is long overdue. He stated there has been a misunderstanding about the Chamber's proposal regarding a conference center. He stated the proposal was to expand the conference center study currently being done to determine the best location. Their recommendation was not site specific. He stated there needed to be an exploration of the pros and cons of the conference center. He stated studies of conference centers have found they need to be built near hotels. He stated the proposal for Maas Brothers would accommodate small meetings but a conference center should be part of the beach development plan. The Chamber supported the TDC paying for this conference center. He again recommended the study of a conference center on Clearwater Beach. Chuck Pollick stated there were many things that could be done in order to create business on Clearwater Beach. He stated the area being considered by some for the location of the conference center is a problem in that the Sand Key Civic Association, Clearwater Beach Association, etc. have indicated they are not in favor of that location. Mayor Garvey reiterated the request is to let staff come back with input. Commissioner Deegan stated rather than submit the entire plan for public input, to ask for input on the specific area as described; the redevelopment of the east shore area; the feasibility of a conference center; and development of entertainment/restaurants/ lodging and parking garage in that area. It was the consensus that staff could proceed with the residential component of the plan. Mr. Shuford indicated lie could separate the two issues. He stated he would come back to the Commission with options and graphics for redevelopment of the east shore area prior to requesting public input. minCC04d.94 28 4/21 /94 Commissioner Deegan questioned when this could be brought back to the Commission. Mr. Shuford indicated he could bring back options of varying scale with potential ways to accomplish the various options by May 19, 1994. Commissioner Deegan requested a option regarding a public/private partnership be included. The consensus of the Commission was for staff to return to the May 1 9, 1994 meeting with these options and that staff was riot expected to provide this information two weeks in advance with the normal distribution of agenda packets. The meeting recessed from 1 1 :26 to 1 1 :32 p.m. ITEM #35 - First Reading Ord. #5588-94 - Relating to stormwater systems within the city; creating a new Article X of Ch. 32, consisting of Secs. 32.391-32.399 (PW) As a part of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting effort through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the City is required to adopt regulations which provide the City with the ability to regulate the discharge of pollutants to the stormwater systems within the City. Stormwater systems include all facilities used for collecting and conducting stormwater; such as conduits, creeks, lakes, channels, catch basins, ditches, streams, culverts and retention or detention basins. The EPA has determined the City does not have adequate legal authority to: control discharges; control illicit discharges; require compliance; or carry out inspections, surveillance and monitoring. Consequently, the proposed ordinance has been developed. This ordinance is an adaptation of similar EPA approved ordinances used by Palm Beach County, Pinellas County and most of the municipalities within Pinellas County. The primary components of the ordinance are: 1) regulation of discharges from industrial sites; 2) prohibition of discharges not composed entirely of stormwater; 3) provision of a procedure for notification and clean up of spills; and 4) provision of a procedure for compliance inspection and monitoring. Adoption of this ordinance will provide environmental staff with enforcement authority which is intended to be used in cases of obvious violations. At this time, staff can only attempt to achieve voluntary compliance. No increase in staff or budget is requested in conjunction with adoption of this ordinance. EPA has been provided a schedule which commits the City to adoption of the necessary regulations by September 1994. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if the EAC had commented on this ordinance. Tom Miller, Assistant Public Works Director, Environmental, stated the committee has seen the ordinance several times and, while no formal motion had been taken, they agree by consensus the ordinance should go forward. min0004d.94 I` 29 4/21 /94 ± Commissioner Berfield moved to approve creation of a new Article X, Chapter 32 of the code to regulate discharges to the stormwater system, provide for clean up of spills and provide for compliance inspection and monitoring. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5588-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5588-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #36 - First Reading Ord. #5558-94 - Relating to Flood Damage Prevention; amending Sec. 51 .32 to clarify when certain electrical, plumbing, or other utility connections are allowed below the base flood elevation (CP) This subsection was amended in March 1990, under Ordinance #4921-90 to allow certain electrical, plumbing, or other utility connections below the base flood elevation. However, the clarity of the wording of this section has been questioned. As it is written, it gives the appearance that only electrical lights and lighting control is allowed below the base flood elevation. This section was intended to allow for any reasonable connection required by other codes, or in a more practical location consistent with the intent of another code, below the base flood elevation. The proposed change will allow the Building Official to review all facts and code requirements to determine if this is the best, or only, place for the connection. An example is a fire alarm annunciation control panel. The fire codes require this panel to be located in an area where the Fire Department has access. Working with the Fire Marshal, the Building Official was intended to have the ability to locate the panel in the best possible place for Fire Department access, even if that location is below base flood elevation. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve an amendment to Chapter 51, Flood Damage Protection Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #15558-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5558-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. C minCC04d.94 30 4/21/94 ITEM #37 - Other Pending Matters a) City Attorney selection committee Ms. Rice reviewed the nominees submitted by the City Commission. Mayor Garvey questioned how many members were to be on the committee. Commissioner Thomas stated the concept was for members to represent different geographical areas and they not be practicing before the City Commission. Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated he had not understood that criteria and stated he nominated local attorneys with whom he was familiar. Commissioner Thomas suggested each Commissioner state their first choice. He felt John Hubbard was an outstanding nominee. Commissioner Deegan agreed. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned the number of individuals being chosen. Ms. Rice pointed out the Interim City Attorney would Chair the committee. Commissioner Deegan suggested three more individuals be appointed. Mayor Garvey suggested Deborah Crumbly. Commissioner Berfield expressed concerns stating she felt strongly the individuals should have no dealings with the City. Commissioner Fitzgerald felt no one should be appointed who works for one of wY the Commission members. Commissioner Thomas indicated he had no problem with that if those were the established ground rules- He stated Gerald Figurski was working for the City of Clearwater. He withdrew Mr. Fogarty's name who works for a firm that has worked for Commissioner Thomas' business. Commissioner Thomas requested information regarding Mary Ellen Borgia. Commissioner Berfield indicated she practiced family law and did not practice before the City. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concerns that Ms. Borgia shared space with Commissioner Berfield's husband. Mayor Garvey suggested now that ground rules were being established, that an opportunity be provided for Commission members to bring in more names. Commissioner Deegan felt it would be possible to find three out of the submitted list. Commissioner Berfield moved to appoint John Hubbard to the City Attorney Selection Committee. The motion was duly seconded. Mayor Garvey expressed concerns that Mr. Hubbard was representing someone in opposition to the City. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas voted "Aye." Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried. { min0O04d.94 31 4/21/94 r Commissioner Thomas moved to appoint Julius J. Zschau. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to appoint Harry Klein. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Deegan moved to appoint Steve Siebert. The motion was duly seconded. Mayor Garvey expressed concerns that due to Mr. Siebert's service on the County Commission there was a possibility of a conflict. Commissioner Berfield questioned Mr. Hull if there was a conflict. Mr. Hull indicated most of the conflicts raised are apparent and not real conflicts. Mayor Garvey pointed out the City is in opposition to the County in regard to annexation of enclaves and sewer hookups. Commissioner Thomas stated his proposal had been for the brightest and best attorneys in the area to help the Commission select a City Attorney. He stated the committee will submit the top five candidates to the Commission and the Commission will make the final decision. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, Fitzgerald, and Thomas voted "Aye." Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried. b) Ice House discussion h Scott Shuford reported the agreement had not been signed regarding redevelopment of the Ice House property, however, the applicant is acting as if it had and plans have been submitted. Elements of the plan are missing and staff is working with the owner to address these concerns. He stated they plan to start construction prior to the May 31 , 1994, deadline. He indicated he needs to discuss with the Attorney's Office staff's need to go back and inspect the site and if violations are found, to cite the owner. He stated this should prompt signing the agreement or correction of the violations. Commissioner Thomas questioned why the agreement was not signed. Mr. Shuford indicated staff has been working through the owners' attorney. Commissioner Thomas felt the City Commission should have been advised the agreement had not been signed. Mr. Shuford indicated the owners had an engineer certificate stating the building had been rendered safe and that is why staff needs to return and inspect the property. He stated as soon as staff knew there was a problem, it returned to the Commission. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS min0004d.94 32 4/21 /94 ITEM #38 - Resolutions a) Res. #94-30 - Demolition lien for 603 Railroad Avenue The Assistant City Attorney presented Resolution #94-30 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-30 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. b) Res. 494-31 - Adding Rule 19 to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, requiring the Mayor provide notice to the Vice-Mayor indicating when she or he will be absent The Assistant City Attorney presented Resolution 494-31 and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-31 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded. Mayor Garvey spoke in opposition to the rule change stating it was not the proper procedure to follow. Upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas. "Nays": Fitzgerald, Garvey. Motion carried. ITEM #39 - Other City Attorney Items - None. ITEM #40 - City Manager Verbal Reports a) Alan Zimmet contract Ms. Rice reported Mr. Zimmet had submitted a proposed agreement. Based on concerns submitted by Commissioner Thomas the agreement has been changed: to retain Mr. Zimmet, not his firm; to delete compensation for paralegals; to provide that itemized statements will be furnished the City. Ms. Rice stated in order to address the concern regarding Mr. Salzman, an attorney in Mr. Zirnmet's firm serving as the Code Enforcement Board attorney, that service could be suspended while Mr. Zimmet serves as Interim City Attorney. min0O04d.94 33 4/21 /94 Commissioner Thomas questioned the rate being proposed by Mr. Zimmet and questioned why the rate would increase after 20 hours when his original offer was $100 per hour. Mr. Zimmet indicated his original proposal was $125 per hour and the proposed fee of $100 an hour for the first 20 hours a month, and $125 an hour for additional hours was negotiated with Ms. Rice. Commissioner Thomas questioned if Mr. Zimmet would have a problem serving Pro Bono as Chair of the Selection Committee. Mr. Zimmet indicated he did not. Commissioner Deegan questioned the need for a thirty day written notice to terminate the agreement as it was hoped this arrangement would be needed for only 60 to 90 days. Mr. Zimmet indicated he had placed the provision in the agreement for the Commission's protection. He had no problem with a reduced termination time frame. It was the consensus to change termination notification to one week. Commissioner Thomas questioned if weekly reports of hours being spent could be submitted to the Commission. Mr. Zimmet indicated he would check with the firm's administrator to see if the computer could provide these reports. Commissioner Thomas questioned if Mr. Zimmet found he was working less than 20 hours a month in the latter part of the contract if time worked over twenty hours a month in the beginning of the contract could be applied to that. Mr. Zimmet indicated the month of April would probably have 20 hours or less. The first 20 hours in May would be at the $100 rate. Mr. Zimmet agreed to provide his bills on a monthly basis and to provide the Commission with a hours worked report weekly. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the agreement with the change to the seven day termination clause. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Thomas requested there be a resolution regarding the Code Enforcement Board service. The consensus of the Commission was there was no conflict and Mr. Salzman could continue to serve as attorney for the Code Enforcement Board. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Thomas emphasized Mr. Zimmet had agreed to Chair the Selection Committee on a pro bono basis. The Assistant City Attorney announced a need to have a special closed client/ attorney session regarding the Doran case. The consensus of the Commission was to set this for approximately noon on Wednesday, April 27, 1994. min0004d.94 34 4/21/94 Ms. Rice reported the Commission will be receiving information regarding staff's plans for receiving input for development of the foot of Pier 60. Ms. Rice brought forward a request from the Scientologists for a partial street closure on May 6, 1994. Questions were raised regarding whether or not there was a limit on the number of times closures could be requested. This was the third request made by the Scientologists in the last 12 months. James Bond, representing the Scientologists, indicated he did not believe there would be another event before the October event which they had requested closure for last year as well. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the partial closing of Ft. Harrison Avenue on May 6, 1994 between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and midnight. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Rice reported Peter Yauch, Acting Public Works Director and Traffic Engineer, has submitted his resignation. Slip, state he is going to work for a private firm at the end of May, 1994. ITEM #41 - Commission Discussion Items - None. i ITEM #42 - Other Commission Action Commissioner Berfield requested an update on the problems at Seminole Dock with the cruise ship. Mr. Shuford indicated he would be getting a report out to the Commission tomorrow. Commissioner Berfield stated she rode the Jolley Trolley the night before and found it to be an enjoyable experience and recommended it to the Commission. Commissioner Deegan questioned why one of the trolleys was broken down on Cleveland Street. Commissioner Berfield indicated it was a mechanical problem and the trolley was up and running within ten minutes. Commissioner Thomas questioned when the Utility Customer Service building was to be agendaed. Ms. Rice indicated staff planned to bring forward a potential lease on May 16, 1994. Commissioner Thomas stated he wanted to debate the entire issue. The consensus of the Commission was to agenda this for May 2, 1994. Commissioner Thomas questioned the status of the removal of the drapes in the Chambers. It was reported staff is working on getting estimates. It was also noted the lighting needs for broadcasting the meetings need to be considered when determining what to do. min0004d.94 Q.- 35 4/21/94 Commissioner Thomas requested the Commission make an appointment to fill the late Don William's seat on the PSTA. The Mayor indicated this was to be agendaed. Commissioner Thomas stated there would be a PSTA meeting next week which he could not attend and Clearwater needed a representative present. Commissioner Thomas moved to appoint Peter Reuter to the PSTA to complete the term until October 1, 1994. The motion was duly seconded. Mayor Garvey stated she had additional names she would like to recommend but had riot contacted to see if they could serve. She felt the representative needed to be a business person familiar with budgets. Commissioner Thomas stated Mr. Reuter knows the PSTA system "inside and out." Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas voted "Aye." Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried. Commissioner Thomas requested Mr. Galbraith be asked to provide information regarding Mr. Galbraith's plans to continue as an Assistant City Attorney. It was the consensus to ask that Mr. Zimmet obtain the information. Commissioner Thornas congratulated Ned Seaton of the St. Petersburg Times of his promotion. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concerns regarding the condition of the >:. medians on Countryside Boulevard, indicating the grass has died and weeds are growing. Commissioner Deegan questioned when revision to the variance fees would be brought forward. Mr. Shuford stated it was scheduled for May 19, 1994. Commissioner Deegan requested a date be established for staff to provide estimates for converting the first and third floors of the Maas Brothers building to convention / trade show space and placement of this item on the tracking list. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the Police survey of beach businesses regarding noise ordinance violations had been done. Commissioner Deegan questioned the status of the elimination of septic tanks to be discussed with the County. Mr. Shuford indicated a memo had been sent to the City Commission indicated that due to ongoing discussion with the County, this had been delayed. min0C04d.94 36 4/21/94 Affillk. Commissioner Deegan requested the appointment of another Clearwater representative on the St. Petersburg/Clearwater Economic Development Council be agendaed for May 2, 1994. The Clerk indicated this had been done. ITEM #43 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 12:27 a.m. (April 22, 1994) ATTEST : City Clerk 4/21/94 37 r® °I a F cc 1?h 1-b OL CLEARWATER BEACH COMMERCIAL AREA PLAN - PRELIMINARY FOCUS AND DISCUSSION - Xl a t Introduction The commercial areas of Clearwater Beach form an extremely important part of the City of Clearwater's economy. These commercial areas serve both residents and tourists, and significantly reflect on the image that Clearwater portrays to both visitors and citizens. This report serves as a strategic issues discussion for the commercial areas of Clearwater Beach. It is not intended to be an exhaustive study of the development issues of the beach. It is intended to represent a preliminary study to designate key focus areas for public redevelopment and development activities on Clearwater Beach. The study focuses most of its attention on the public areas of Clearwater Beach. Staff feels that privately owned property on Clearwater Beach does not require subsidies for redevelopment in the same manner as private development in Downtown Clearwater and North Greenwood. Property values on Clearwater Beach are substantially higher than most areas of the City. These values have increased in As mentioned above, this study concentrates primarily on the publicly owned areas of Clearwater Beach. Of extreme importance are the roadways and sidewalks of the beach. Improvements to these areas will have ramifications on the surrounding private development, and this report suggests that measures be taken to mitigate or minimize those impacts. The report is divided into eight sections: Introduction; Alternatives; Key Issue Identification; Traffic Circulation Improvements; Appearance Improvements; Zoning and Signage Improvements; Open Space Improvements; and Future Action. Alternatives Staff has identified three alternative courses of action to be considered regarding the commercial areas of Clearwater Beach. The first alternative is the"status quo" alternative. This alternative is to not proceed with any actions to revitalize the commercial areas other than standard property maintenance and incremental improvement activities. 1 The second option is a major redevelopment alternative. This alternative would center around heavy public investment in purchasing deteriorating properties for private to redevelopment activities. For example, the East Shore/Poinsettia area could be redeveloped as a "theme" development like Hamlin's Landing. The third option, and the one that this report discusses, is an intermediate approach. Instead of continuing with the status quo, or making major public investments to encourage major rivate investments, staff suggests that the focus for the commercial areas of Clearwater Beach should be on improving public facilities to promote private investment. This focus recognizes that Clearwater Beach is already an attractive area for private development due to the public beaches, tourist accommodations and shopping and dining opportunities. By improving public facilities, especially sidewalks, parking and open space, the City can establish the environment for renewed private interest in Clearwater Beach, as well as making the beach more attractive, functional and safe for residents and visitors. Selection of this intermediate approach will involve significant public investment. Replacing the 400+ back-out parking spaces in the Coronado/Hamden area with a public parking garage would cost around $3.5 million, for example. Sidewalk and roadway improvements called for in this plan are also expensive. The added staff needed to implement the "Tropical Seascape" design theme currently under consideration will represent a continuing personnel expense. However, investment now in improved public facilities will be cheaper in the long run than either the status quo alternative (since it may foster further deterioration) or the major redevelopment option (since private redevelopment activities are not funded through public channels). The following section addresses key issues identified for discussion purposes under this intermediate alternative. Key Issue Identification Key issues for the commercial areas of Clearwater Beach have been identified by various means. First, the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force report has been used as a first step toward analyzing issues in which a commercial area plan may be directed. Second, the staff has had substantial discussion with various individuals and groups representing Clearwater Beach. This public contact has been invaluable in helping us formulate our recommendations. Third, staff has drawn on the experience of other communities, both in Florida and nationwide, in helping assign our recommendations. The key result areas we have identified are discussed in detail in the following pages. These areas are summarized in Table 1. 2 TABLE I CLEARWATER REACH COMMERCIAL AREA PLAN KEY RESULT AREAS 1 . PEDESTRIAN AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION. AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS ? IMPROVE SAFETY - REDUCE PEDESTRIAN/AUTO CONFLICTS ? IMPROVE AMBIANCE - MORE PLEASANT PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE ? ELIMINATE BACK-OUT PARKING ON MAJOR PEDESTRIAN STREETS ? CONSOLIDATE PARKING THROUGH PUBLIC PURCHASE OF KEY PARCELS OR CREATE A COMPREHENSIVE ON-STREET PARKING ARRANGEMENT (OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH) 2. APPEARANCE IMPROVEMENTS ? ESTABLISH DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BUILDINGS, SITES, SIGNS ? MOVE OR SCREEN DUMPSTERS ' ? ENCOURAGE STREETSIDE/SIDEWALK CAFES ? PROVIDE LANDSCAPING ALONG STREETS 3. ZONING IMPROVEMENTS ? RECOGNIZE EXISTING SITUATION ? FOCUS ON KEY AREAS - HEIGHT; SETBACK; WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; USES IN CR-28 4. OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENTS ? CONSOLIDATE OPEN SPACE IN MEANINGFUL PATTERN THROUGH PUBLIC PURCHASE OF KEY PARCELS p IUARiA<..:A : a .:...0r sr ..............fir..................:.......:?............ 3 Pedestrian and Traffic Circulation, and Parking Improvements Pedestrian circulation is the single most important issue on Clearwater Beach. If the commercial areas are to succeed and improve, pedestrian circulation must be improved. A significant reason for the revitalization of Miami Beach has been the improvements to the pedestrian circulation system. In Miami Beach, the pedestrian circulation was greatly improved by the substantial widening of sidewalks along the main thoroughfares. This study recommends that a similar approach be taken along the main pedestrian corridors on Clearwater Beach. Existing sidewalks, for the most part, meet minimum traffic engineering standards for commercial areas, but go no further. There are many commercial areas without sidewalks. The existing situation does not enhance the pedestrian experience on the Beach. This report recommends substantial widening of the sidewalks, through either the deletion of on-street parking or through the deletion of existing back-out parking arrangements on public property, or both. By making these adjustments, it will be possible to install new sidewalks or widen existing sidewalks. Widening of the sidewalk system on Clearwater Beach will be costly. A large number of back-out parking spaces will be required to be deleted, having substantial impacts on individual property owners. Merchants will also be affected by the loss of on- street parking. For this reason, the proposed improvements may be phased. The loss of these parking spaces must be compensated for. This report suggests two alternatives: (1) Consolidated parking facilities; or (2) A comprehensive system of on-street parking. Ultimately, a combination of both options may be the best way of replacing the deleted spaces. Under the consolidated parking facilities option, large surface or garage parking lots would be constructed in several areas on Clearwater Beach to replace deleted back- out and on-street parking. Due to the lack of available land, and the fact that some condemnation of private property will have to occur in order to establish parking facilities to replace these spaces, staff would recommend that parking garages be constructed in most cases. The cost per space for structure parking is between $4,000 and $7,000 per space, not including land cost. The taller and the larger the structure, the lower the per space cost; in some cases, the spaces may be "piggy- backed," further reducing the per space cost. Arrangements would have to be made to "reserve" portions of the garage parking for private use. Under this option, loading area improvements will have to occur as well. Since many of the affected properties are motels, there must be areas set aside and designed into the sidewalk patterns to allow for checking in and loading and unloading luggage. 4 The second option would involve establishing angled on-street parking to replace deleted back-out parking. To accommodate the revised parking arrangement and the sidewalk improvements, narrowing of streets will be required. Arrangements must also be made to "reserve" the on-street parking for private use. Improvements to the pedestrian circulation system for Clearwater Beach is absolutely essential if the beach is to substantially progress. Improvements to pedestrian traffic will result in fewer cars on the roadway, increased business for owners of commerciel property, and greater opportunities for improved urban design and community appearance. Eliminating back-out parking along major pedestrian roadways will also result in improved public safety. The proposed pedestrian improvements will, in some cases, require changes to the vehicular circulation pattern. Both the East Shore and Poinsettia and Hamden and Coronado streets may have to be converted into one way pairs in order to increase the amount of right-of-way which can be devoted to sidewalks or on-street parking. Staff recognizes that the one way pairing issue is extremely controversial that has been considered many times in the past. However, the sidewalk improvement issue, along with the parking options, provides an incentive for property owners which has not been previously advanced. The incentives are: Creation of an improved pedestrian circulation pattern adding to the ambiance of Clearwater Beach; creating the potential for portions of the sidewalk areas to be used for displays of merchandise and sidewalk cafes; consolidation of parking into a safe, attractive and efficient network of parking structures and surface parking areas or a comprehensive arrangement of on-street parking; possible additional income for motel owners by allowing the private rental of "unused" parking spaces assigned to individual motels; and reuse potential of the privately-owned areas in front of the motels, restaurants, and shops (currently used for back-out parking) for site amenities such as landscaping display areas, outdoor cafes, and swimming pools. A summary of possible traffic pattern plans for both the north and south areas of Clearwater Beach is provided in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Appearance Improvements The Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force and other individuals and groups, have identified improved appearance of Clearwater Beach as a major factor in stimulating redevelopment and progress on the beach. Subcommittees of the Greater Clearwater Chamber of Commerce and the Clearwater Beach Association are considering the appearance issues. Preliminary discussion with these groups indicates that the preferred approach appears to be the creation of a community redevelopment area and agency (or similar organization) which would encourage appearance improvements. 5 w w w > > > W z z z O J O -j 0 -j aa.. co aQm L U 5` F= I F- ? 0- a o o? o © o O C.? a( a s a0- a a :3 D a cn O cn a O o cn cn cn CO L Q w V QwU <>Lu ¢ ¢ ¢ W n LLJ -1 U.3 -1 F- N W O X000 x;00 (nn c~n v~) L w aC a- A IC d A, OC a- Q Q CW7 0 w 0 w W zu Q o Q s U U >- z Q U ?- i u-_ ppJ w_ Oa Z 0 LL N F- LU W LL W Cl) w F_ :?e a z = > ? Se N?.JE... zv Qz Q? >cn ao N ¢u I ?.? (n V LLI M Z w Z 6 • U -W cp 0 a? W w p Od w>-oc O Q?.z uwz Cl) © J o LLp CL ? J z z O CL O~ D 4 L11 6 Q [3 ? U ?G w? U (n ?z OQ F?-W 3? (n cc IL < OQ w0 FW-Z= _¢ C>> 00mz jw 0zU Omz ?a 6L) d 0QQ wYW ;?p Q D CCZCC QWw °-=owc °C<Z aLczQ z N? •OQ ??cn •U¢ •a.N •G? • LL LL CO? 130 ; 00 U Q= Q= CL F- C7 F- LL- ?. C7 n. 0 a LL w3 ? Z0 L x -- } Q Z i4ij Y Y :L1W::::: > w Q w CC -j LLJ cc CL (9, O :: .:.. W cn z _ ¢ _ . p - 0 w C7 Y ::_. CL 6 O a Q F- C3' C7 ?C Q ?G `u?i# p z w :: z Y wW C3 p ¢QF- "•. z0 U wc O O: C F- w W CL a- (7 0'`> Q F_ m Y O W W J d Q ¢p i2?:'i WJ W¢ .J " .«t U) Q W w to W W 0 ?XO? W?w W? F- Z Cf) W IL J z J W 0:• cn W U- L) O W W U W V O W • U.. . (/1 •- ?• G A O Q Z+ • (n N A U i i i ?- ?- ?- LL z z z 0 w w w z 2 O U) U) z > > > Z w z z z W > m U m U U J w ca C13 m z D :3 :D a °C (L CL LL Z _ LL J oz oz oZ O O 0 (5 O 0 V (,3 ¢ 02 :2 a 0:D :D 2 0 d d as 0 a. CL a to o W o V) O cn (n cn U) ?-- cn (n C1Q U. Qw w v aw w >w U Q>w Q ¢ Q Q° ¢ Q a LLJ F- F- u F- WOO 000 WOO (n (f) (1) U) V) U) UJ ?ir LL ?IX Q, ooca. ?m F- w as N LU i z a p ¢ Q U >Z O ¢ U >- U ?- ?a z o o U- 0 u LLJ _j 0 a. o U? (1) U.J - LLI LL U) V) M.j vv Q QF- >in .. CCm ¢v cc ¢v 4.?ZQ a ?U w U? 3:: 0 ?J (n OQ zZ cn "W n° cn OQ 1 Q Lu Z Fw`-v in-cc z? LLIp < ?ccc p?} V° ?>. Cl) Co0 ??- Li- (L O zz u.a Jz wLL U- 0 YZ j 0 p 0 1 0 Dcc wa QD ?Y wp =j w0 Z W F- in a Q F--0 DQ w0 Fw--zw OQ ?z ?< ??1r S ? .?1 cc O m z OF-0 cc ? U) O ° z cc -j z O °O z = ° Q IIJ? Jzf= Q ?. ww ~ CCww wWZ JZF- Cl) C( cc cc Qww a.occc °CQO ¢ww z CCd ¢wW z •Q A20 ?U¢ ?CL N ?2U) ? ?Q. A (n ? W ?cn a W LL - LL a °fl 00 F- 00 00 z 0 D Cl) QS Q O Q L) S ? ® ¢ '' (l. ~ O U (D F- W CL Z W ¢° m W z w >- ?z ¢ H S C) ". m Z 0 cr- °cr- O O 1_2 < Z< F- cc W cc Q w - 0 !?i: Q 13- D > a. F- > CL _j cc ! O m<0iM? m? o QC m? O Q F- 0 tr m: O Q U m X C7 Q I= w w CL ° O¢:: -Z Q dw z ?e Q z0w NC O QzU0 m a.w ZO U a. z-u- U O0> Q w wcn0 QF' ?Y ww ¢w° cr Z F- F- D cn 03 _j ¢?N w-j Q ?Q .-V wJ W¢ Q- w -V- W ¢ Z w Z 0 x F- >' Z (n (n O F- CC< CC, F- oc > w U) Ow w3:w LL Win- w?w wUS LLJ wcn ' (n W LL J w LL J I-- mUOOQ W JLU 5Q? U0 QL U M0° U0 ?, . U ? cn r- ? 0 ? n. (i s to N A (n U m ? ch ?? ? U r ° J 0 v vrE. ' !' a \ f ,. u cn w? 2 O u w w ?VV? 0 w w w wU-mw LL w Z cn O_j z z z 1- 0.JUZ? 0J 0J 0J a °m??-= °m °m ?m z Q=om - cn Q O Q= Q= m a a_ a a w 2F -x 21 :? V d w W 0 0 w O w O w Q daDQoc CiCL dm 0CL W CD °?V) D°U -iF -jF- 00 ?0 CC 0 ? moLLJ o LLJ o ¢ 0 ?woc0QN w oC (n0 w oc ? o o u.,nc W CC • cc a. U. a_ > L O+ (_ • OC CL • OC a. U) ?- uj W cWn UJ LLJ 111 ? C) D ?_ (D i c vi Z Q (f) cn 4 cn Q z ? Q?Zd Q? ?} ?} z a= r Q d LJU W° oaa< oQ od oa ZQ ZQ?w Z¢ zQ zQ LLI s W ? QO Qp QD ,. Q ? ?z U) w N cn= -j cow u?iw v=iw cna - Zui< jZ ?z jZ { Ot= a- ZQCC a0 0.0 a_0 Z Z z U m? Q O m? m m? Q a °Q?0 oQ °a °Q .? O w Z? O W O W V O U) U QS2 F- D¢ oQ zd cc 0 (n U) r/ s W A cn a. a lL A, t) ?(n A N -' C/) W w ¢ W in U Z LLJ CL LU cc U) w ZU- ??2 pU Q V mo © a"? a Z VU3 C) 0 LLJ LLI IZ O.U j ?? Q? Y ?Ya< ?W? ;?«1QOOC w cc w 0_ CL Q oaacci ?za- N?Q cA w O O a ' a H w Cl Z O Z Z cn N x u U w O N.<O Q o[ Y- CC 0 OTC O JLL WO fG0 Z ?C CCzZ °' t= cu'i>>df-V) (LcnV pZc~n a..3? o_ w C/) I- z w F- m a_ J Y p w O 4 O cn p¢ U) W F- O O (D m w H m 0_ UJ (D C7 20t7Ow z0w zo- o_ Z©? C7 w? 0 Q Z <wO F-O ?ccaYCQ? wV) oYC ?wc~n wwv a0<CL Ox? Q QF0 OH Q L-JL CL A LL 0_U) 'L wo a. ?cnJ ?cnm 7 ?„ This approach will require the preparation of design guidelines to specify precisely what improvements are desired, and the development of financial incentives (grants or low interest loans) to encourage private property owners to improve the appearance of their buildings. Along with this effort, the staff would recommend that on-street dumpsters be moved or screened, the landscaping program which has begun along Mandalay Avenue be expanded to include other thoroughfares on Clearwater Beach in a comprehensive, priority-based fashion. Staff would also suggest that the ambiance and appearance on the beach could be improved through the encouragement of streetside and sidewalk cafes, either through the devotion of portions of the public right-of-way for these types of uses or through incentives to provide outdoor seating for restaurants on private property. Design/appearance issues are summarized in Table 5. Zoning and Signage Improvements Several improvements to the Land Development Code (zoning code) are needed in order to promote improved development practices on Clearwater Beach. First, the height for structures in the Resort Commercial Twenty-Four district should be increased from the current 30 feet to 50 feet. The current regulations establish a unintentional "cap" on density for this zoning district. It is nearly impossible to reach the allowable density with the 30 foot cap and existing open space and building coverage requirements. Second, setback requirements need to be revised. In particular, no setbacks should Y be required in the Beach Commercial zoning districts except along alleyways. Along Mandalay Avenue, a "build to" line might be established which would require structures to meet an established setback line, unless the structures provide some public amenity, such as a landscaped area or an open area for public assembly, along the front part of the property. No parking should be provided in the "front yard" for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue. Third, the south area Beach Commercial zoned should be converted to Resort Commercial Twenty-Eight (CR-28) district. The development pattern in this area is substantially different from than that along Mandalay Avenue, with more open space and greater structural setbacks. This will require some adjustment to the permitted and conditional uses in the CR-28 zoning district in this area in order to minimize the effect of this change on existing uses. Fourth, the waterfront development standards should be revised to exempt small lots from meeting excessive side setback requirements. View corridors are only effective when they are of sufficient width to provide an adequate view. Small lots fronting on Clearwater Harbor typically do not have sufficient width to allow this to be an effective tool in promoting visual goals. (See the following section on open space.) 9 rt , w W z w D LL cn ? J z wCC Z > Q W w a a Z ?: o z ° in u °C W o oF- dcn dQ W (n cc uj Z :3 U) W cn U)? ?< LLB ; A (-I A 0 ? Q E w z Z J W o O DQ LIJ y O C7 O >- .j CL W f- cn ca LO o u w Z V W Q cc _ w v W DQ CL ? O a ? LLJ Z 05 Q aLL a? = in w Ow w U 0 • A v/ Q • J 0 w o o CL V ?z ® w to Z LU O j 0 . OU a u ®. can U Z L.Li Z 0 W Z Q ?.' 2 cc Q<z z2 a WWMO z-j Q°- Wa D o. w 0- LL a -- CL O O w QWOm o` C7 W C7 w o in in w- in- 5; 11 N U a A 0 cc Q O w w H z LL LL F N 0 d(n Cn w Z aw N-° . c? w z J W 2cc 0O cn m w cc wU CLw ?- z zL < LL O cn (n zw 00 L A Q cr- oU) ?z ww cn =)Z w m D as ww cc Qz z (n Ow C/) Q 0z J Q w A 0 0 d a N N a a V) W A A N m w H N n. D ?w U Na Q LL 0 1 w Wa 0 :) O in w U Z ?w 0 o Z 3.1 ac= .U Cl) cn w Q w I- >- LL U) U ?Z ? 0 O 0u- z° W WZZ cc L a (n C/) w w? ? ¢ , 0 Z a zi t a. W 0 A A LL 0 z LL J W z 1L 0 0 a N A f U Z w Q W CL 0 w L,L1 D w oc A z CL U cn 0 z o - I w w a A Fifth, new regulations need to be developed for parking structures to require specific perimeter landscaping, provide floor area ratio "bonuses" or incentives for ground floor commercial uses in private parking structures, and require ground floor commercial uses in new structures. A draft ordinance is attached as Appendix A. Sixth, signage requirements should be revised to "minimize" the public attention drawn to accessory uses in motels. Our codes have been changed to reduce the extent of motel conversion to retail or restaurant uses, while allowing some minimal level of retail sales or restaurant uses (as accessory uses) within the motels as a service to the tourists staying there. However, we have not adopted corresponding signage regulations to further restrict the actual effect of these changes 10 those tourists as opposed to the public at large; consequently, motels are advertising their "accessory" uses to the general public. Finally, staff would recommend that Clearwater Beach commercial areas be established as an Activity Center on the Pinellas Planning Council Countywide Land Use Plan. This designation will allow some flexibility in land uses, including increased impervious surface area for properties identified as needing such special allowance. Zoning and signage improvements are summarized in Table 6. Open Space Improvements Water views are an extremely important part of -the experience of Clearwater Beach for both visitors and residents. The City has been fortunate to have large areas of `"- publicly owned property providing excellent views of the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, the property that the City owns that fronts on Clearwater Harbor is not well suited to providing good, useable open space for public enjoyment of the water. Staff would recommend that a public lands acquisition plan be started to acquire property along East Shore Boulevard and Hamden Drive in order to ensure that sufficient areas are obtained to provide for public view and access to the water. Acquisition of these areas may possibly be partly funded through state water access grants. Improvements to these areas, such as docks, parking, restrooms and other facilities may also be paid for through state access grants. Open space improvements are summarized in Table 7. 11 W Q ac W 17 O O O 0 0 0 0 V a Q a 0 a d ci d d cn U) cn cn co cn to m? a ¢ d a ¢ a Q W z . . A . . . A N cc z QQ c uu j z .J w o LU Q W a J v Lu O (no z? no Q Q Lu Lu w L,J Lu Lu w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z z z z z z W . . . A A, J C? i-- cn O z cn z = Qo w wo ?< a Wo0W NN of ° ? ?W = CL o W N O m t oc V L J Li) o? 0 CL Lij LLJ F- U L.Li 3: - 0-- F- CL z Cc: Q O CL Q 0 d m Y Q = Q x _ cc Lu Lu Q oc ? ?- _ LL LU) u ?- L LI uNi (L z C- UO ocN a- Q O~ w0 ?rV ?cn a-0 z?i Y ? ZOc ?' u Q~ zH ? >- N 0 v z Z Z: o v) cn cc c? pp N z O z N cn OW z (,7 U) N DC Q z 00 ZLV? L~uU WO°C O N wz W? zLLU U LU UF- (D ) = O US z U oc Q ? oc w ON LL. . z .J A U A En A, CL V) . Q O A 0 Z W W w z h- p J co c Q IL W ~ 0 , r , V a W Q LU 00 W - W°U Noo W •o a I-- W a s O WU CC Q N Q Q : J z z w Z ¢ cn z =) LLLJ z Q ¢ ui z d N w CC U W cn O z? O 5< ? a ? W a °° z ow 0° t? Cf) • J W ?+ J ? W ®. O W W O CL CL ° w C o O a CA °- wW . O H a. CL a a .a v cn o wWa C a CL w U wof-- z Q Q LU LL z ??tll LU a = f]C ~ °- p Q East`>ShorelPo r sett a: clt'y Aarina ,t Future Action This plan represents a very cursory and preliminary study of the Clearwater Beach commercial areas. It serves means of facilitating discussion and identifying directions in which staff should proceed. Consequently, should the Commission elect to pursue the components of the plan, the following actions should be authorized: ? Preparation of a comprehensive sidewalk improvement and parking study for the beach commercial areas, including engineering reports. ? Preparation of an open space needs identification study to determine key properties for purchase, including an analysis of potential funding sources. 14 ? Continued coordination of the "Tropical Seascape" theme design issues through the citizen committee, with ultimate implementation of the committee's findings consistent with the Commission's wishes. ? Development and implementation of a streetside landscaping program. ? Preparation of Land Development Code amendments identified in this report for Commission consideration. 15 APPENDIX A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; CREATING DIVISION 14 OF CHAPTER 41, CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO PROVIDE FOR REGULATION OF PARKING GARAGES; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; ESTABLISHING DIMENSIONAL AND NUMERICAL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. Chapter 41, Code of Ordinances, is amended by the creation of Division 14, consisting of Sections 41.251 through 41.252, inclusive, to read: DIVISION 14. PARKING GARAGES. Sec. 41.251. Definitions. The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: "Automatic ticket dispensing entry" shall mean an entry into a parking garage controlled by a machine dispensing tickets for garage use. "Free flow entry" shall mean an entry into a parking garage without controls, such as attendants, or automatic or manual ticket dispensing controls. "Manual ticket dispensing entry" shall mean an entry into a parking garage controlled by a person manually dispensing tickets for garage use. "Parking garage" shall mean an above ground or below ground multi-level parking structure. "Pedestrian-oriented zoning district" shall mean the Resort Commercial Districts on Clearwater Beach, the Beach Commercial District and the Bayfront, Core and Eastern Corridor subdistricts of the Urban Center District. "Piggybacking" shall mean a parking stall design in which one vehicle parks behind another from a single travel aisle access point. "Valet parking garage" shall mean a parking garage where each vehicle is parked by an attendant. r ?a 16 Sec. 41.252. Dimensional and numerical development requirements. The following dimensional and numerical requirements shall apply to the development of parking garages: (1) Minimum setbacks. Parking garages shall have the following minimum setbacks: (a) From a street right-of-way: 1. For parking garages located in pedestrian-oriented zoning districts, the minimum setback from a street right-of-way shall be 10 feet if the street is classified as an arterial or collector street on the thoroughfare plan, and five feet if the street is otherwise classified on the thoroughfare plan. 2. For parking garages not located in pedestrian-oriented zoning districts, the minimum setback from a street right-of-way shall be the same as for other structures in the zoning district in which the parking garage is located. (b) From side and rear property lines: The minimum setback from side and rear property lines shall be the same as for other structures in the zoning district in which the parking garage is located. C (2) Maximum height. The maximum height for parking garages shall be the same as for other structures in the zoning district in which the parking garage is located. (3) Minimum open space: None. (4) Maximum floor area ratio: None. (5) Maximum building coverage: None. (6) Minimum parking stall dimensions: As specified in section 42.34(4), design standards. (7) Minimum travel aisle width: As specified in section 42.34(4), design standards. (8) Minimum vehicle storage requirements at entry points: (a) For free flow entries: One space per entry lane. (b) For automatic ticket dispensing entries: Two spaces per entry lane. (c) For manual ticket dispensing entries: Eight spaces per entry lane. 17 (d) For valet parking garages: 10 per cent of that portion of the parking garage parking capacity served by the entry lane, or as otherwise specified by the traffic engineer. (9) Minimum landscaping requirements: (a) Perimeter landscape standards. The perimeter landscape standards of section 42.27(3) shall be met. (b) Interior landscape standards: None. (c) Other landscape standards. All other landscape standards of section 42.27 shall be met. f(M4'"< (10) Ground floor commercial or office component. For parking garages located in pedestrian-oriented zoning districts, not less than 50 per cent of the linear width of the parking garage as measured along any abutting street right-of-way shall be devoted to commercial or office development on the ground floor level only. Such commercial development shall not be used in computing the total floor area allowed for the property on which the parking garage is located. (11) Piggybacking. For nonvalet parking garages constructed to meet the parking requirements for residential uses, piggybacking shall be permitted when each pair of piggybacked spaces is reserved for an individual residential unit. For valet parking garages, piggybacking shall not be permitted to be used for required parking for nonresidential uses unless a separate design is submitted showing how the garage could be converted to meet the parking requirements with a standard (i.e., nonpiggybacked) parking space arrangement in the event the valet parking is discontinued. This requirement may be waived for parking garages controlled by perpetual agreements between the city and the property owner to provide valet parking that allow for liens against the properties in the event the valet parking is discontinued; such agreements shall be contingent upon approval of the traffic engineer and city attorney. Section 2. The provisions of this ordinance have been found to be consistent with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. 18 CLEARWATER BEACH RESIDENTIAL AREA PLAN - PRELIMINARY FOCUS AND DISCUSSION - Introduction The residential areas of Clearwater Beach are receiving increased redevelopment pressure as property values climb. More and more frequently, older homes are being demolished or added on to by owners desiring a larger, more modern home. This redevelopment pressure creates both challenges and opportunities. Current code requirements, designed for areas not experiencing such pressures, do not seem to adequately handle many of the redevelopment proposals. Revising these code requirements to more readily accommodate desired redevelopment is a major challenge. A major opportunity presents itself under these circumstances. The current architectural design of the residential areas on the beach is a mixture of many styles, ranging from older Florida beach cottages to ranch styles to rnodern/mediterranean. The extent of the redevelopment efforts currently underway provides the City with an opportunity to consider residential architectural design controls that will be in keeping with the Tropical Seascape design theme proposed by the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force. The following sections address the challenge and opportunity. Challenge - Revise Zoning Regulations An analysis of variances given on Clearwater Beach over the past several years reveals that an adjustment to our code requirements may be appropriate. Single family residential properties on the beach are being developed with larger and larger structures. The existing development pattern on the beach reflects a smaller street yard setback and greater coverage of the lot by structure than is the case in other areas of the City. We are not seeing this same development pattern for single family areas on the mainland or Island Estates since the higher property value developments in these areas typically have larger lots sizes and have an established development pattern more consistent with current code requirements, perhaps due to the time frame in which most of the lots were developed. The existing beach development pattern has combined with high property values and strong efforts to achieve good site design. This has resulted in most requests for setback, building coverage and open space variances being granted. Consequently, the staff, in its continuing effort to reduce the number of repetitive, frequently- approved variances, is recommending that a separate set of dimensional requirements for single family residential properties on Clearwater Beach be established. The following table provides an illustration of possible amendments to the RS-8 zoning district regulations to provide the proposed changes. 20 TABLE I x:CLEARWATER REACH PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS EXISTING SETBACKS ? STREET: 25' ? SIDE: 5' ? REAR: 10' PROPOSED - CLEARWATER BEACH SETBACKS ? STREET: 15`: ? SIDE: 5' ? REAR: 10' BUILDING COVERAGE BUILDING COVERAGE 42% ala OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE ? FOR LOT: 35% ? FOR LOT: ? FOR FRONT YARD: 40% ? FOR FRONT YARD: 35 Opportunity - Appearance Improvements The Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force and other individuals and groups have identified the improved appearance of Clearwater Beach as a major factor in stimulating redevelopment and progress on the beach. Subcommittees of the Greater Clearwater Chamber of Commerce and the Clearwater Beach Association are jointly considering the appearance issues as the Tropical Seascape Theme Committee. While the Committee has concentrated its efforts on the nonresidential areas of Clearwater Beach, ultimately some architectural controls may be extended over the residential sections. Preliminary presentations by the group indicates that the preferred approach appears to be the creation of a community redevelopment area and agency or similar mechanism which would encourage appearance improvements. This approach will require the preparation of design guidelines to specify precisely what improvements are desired, and the development of financial incentives (grants or low interest loans) to encourage private property owners to improve the appearance of their buildings. Special provisions will be needed to add or otherwise incorporate residential architectural design into this effort, due to the somewhat wider range of architectural styles present in the residential area, as opposed to the commercial area. Since the results of the committee studying this issue have not been presented, only some preliminary information and possible actions are provided in Table 2. 21 TABLE 2 cc, y/a i J? ?f PROPOSAL SUMMARY - CLEARWATER BEACH RESIDENTIAL AREA PLAN -DESIGN PROPOSAL CONSEQUENCES/ ADDITIONAL ACTIONS ALTERNATIVES DESIGN/APPEARANCE ? CREATE APPEARANCE CODE ? CONSULTANT PREPARES ? STATUS QUO; WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES GUIDELINES; ADDED STAFF-ADMINISTERED AND COMMUNITY STAFF; NEW CITY BOARD GUIDELINES APPEARANCE BOARD ? PROVIDE FUNDING ? REDEVELOPMENT ? STATUS QUO; LOW MECHANISM TO ASSIST IN AGENCY INTEREST IMPLEMENTING DESIGN CODE LOANS/GRANTS FROM GENERAL FUND ? PROVIDE STREETSIDE ? REDEVELOPMENT ? STATUS QUO; LANDSCAPING AGENCY GENERAL FUND CWBCHPLN.SS ?N 1 ?- 22 r,,.. FORM COUNTY, I.ASI NA,iI:- I IRSI ?'nMl 0 t:k i-' 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS MII101I N.Ahtr L'' r/`( MAILING Al)I)KI=SS Crl 1' C'OU N I'1' G l-X 001.1.1 ,,q T 'E l2 - f L- IZ z I-- 5 UAIE ON' w1I1C'Ii V(YIE OCCURKtt) ?'(2_,l z-- Z'1 r Q9Y NAME OI• HUAKII. C'OUNC'IL. COMMISSION, Atli HOW I1. OK COMNIFITEI. c 17Y CO X4 911 is llb,2j I HE HOAKU. C'OUNC'IL, CUM MISSION, AU1 HOW] Y OK CoN1NIF171El: ON WInCN ISURVE IS A UNIT O : I CITY O C'OUN11' O OI fit K I OCAI. AGrNCY NAbtF.C)! I'Ol_CCICAL SUl1Ut\'lSt(1!?. Nil f`Utili 10N IS: Et_tri n'E _a nrrc)INTI\'I: WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, cou:rcil, commission, authority, or coin III,ttc'c. It zpplies equally to Incmbers cif advisory and non-advisory bodies \vho are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3 143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law Wkil faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest wiII vary greatly depending on whether you hold alt elective or appointive position. For this reason, {Tease pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the r,verse side and filing the form. f. E INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive count}-, municipal, or oilier local public office MUST A13STAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by -whom he is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he is retained); to the special private gain of a relative; or to the special private gain of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S,, and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in- law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-lav,,. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED DFFICEIZS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate: the forin in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. 1F YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEM PT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WLL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making a ny attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. . . . • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency _. • -The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. CE FOR M 8B - 10.91 PAGE I IF YOU M AKE NO A1TEN11'T 1'O INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. ., l You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the fa,must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST ,hereby disclose that on , 19 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain; inured to the special gain of my business associate, G C_ ?=,??2 w ?Q/Z CCJ/u?! cJ?c/l j?y ?{C?f??(T?C inured to tl:c special gain of my relative, _ inured to the special gain of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: 0, U eaE tt.JT 4-/ _s S yLUf C & 4,0, 9 t, 7- 1-7?`rd/T-?? f? `y+'1 VI Date Filed 2? l r ? Signature by , which NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED -DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B - 10.91 PAW