01/02/1992 (2)
.
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
January 2, 1992
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at
City Hal', Thursday, January 2, 1992 at 6:00 p.m., with the following members
present:
Rita Garvey
Sue Berfield
Lee Regulski
William Nunamaker
Richard Fitzgerald
Also present:
Michael J. Wright
M.A. Galbraith, Jr.
Cecil Henderson
James Polatty, Jr.
Cynthia E. Goudeau
Mayor/Commissioner
Vice~Mayor/Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
City Manager
City Attorney
Assistant Public Works Director
Planning and Development Director
City Clerk
.
The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
The invocation was offered by Reverend A. V. Ward of St. John's Primitive
Baptist Church.
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 Pin Awards.
1 service pin was awarded to a City employee.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards.
Proclamations:
Minature Art Month ~ January 1992
Pinellas Economic Development Council Month - January 1992
ITEM #5 - Presentations - None.
ITEM #6 - Minutes of the Regular Meetinq of December 19. 1991
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item until the next
regularly scheduled meeting of January 16, 1992. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Aqenda. - None.
.
CCmtg
1/2/92
1
"
,
.
.
.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM *8 - Declaration of Surplus Property located at 1151 and 1153 Tanaerine
St., Lots 8 & 9, Blk 0, Greenwood Park #2 Sub. to be donated to CHA for
eventual use by CNHS as a site for their house moving program (PLD)
The City recently acquired, at no cost, two lots on Tangerine Street
through a tax foreclosure. These adjacent lots are 40' x 100' and are located
approximately 300' west of Martin Luther King Avenue. Clearwater Neighborhood
Housing Services (CNHS) has requested the donation of these lots as a site to
move a house which has been donated to them. Funds to move the house, prepare
the slab and rehabilitate the house for sale will be drawn from the
Homeownership Revolving Loan Fund established by the City. Proceeds from the
sale will repay the loan fund advance: any surplus funds will be used by CNHS
for operating expenses. In order to meet the requirements of the City
Charter, these lots must be donated to Clearwater Housing Authority which has
agreed to transfer them to CNHS.
Commissioner Nunamaker moved to declare Lots 8 and 9, Block 0, Greenwood
Park H2 Subdivision surplus to city needs and authorize donation of these lots
to Clearwater Housing Authority for eventual use by Clearwater Neighborhood
Housing Services as a site for their house moving program. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #9 - Declaration of Surplus Property located at 1760 Harbor Drive, part
of Lots 2 & 3, Blk C, Avondale Sub., to be offered for sale consistent with
the City Charter and procedures established in the Infill Housing Development
Program (PLD)
This site is located at the corner of Harbor Drive and Washington Avenue
and is approximately 5400 square feet in size. The City acquired this site in
1977 as a gift. The property is currently vacant and has a heavy tree cover.
Staff recommends offering this site for sale for housing under the
Infill Housing Development Program. If it is chosen as a homesitel the City
will be paid the appraised value. An appraisal received in December, 1991
established the value of this lot at $71500. Revenues will accrue to the
general fund. There will be no costs to market this site.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to declare that part of Lots 2 and 3 in
Block C of Avondale described as follows: Begin at the Northeasterly corner
of Lot 3 in Block C of Avondale, run thence South, along the Easterly line of
said Lot 3, 53.46 feet; thence Northwesterly 89.45 feet; thence Northeasterly
75.0 feet to a point on the Northerly line of Lot 2, in said Block C, said
point lying 74.25 feet northwesterly of the Northeasterly corner of said Lot
3; thence Southeasterly along the Northerly line of said Lots 2 and 3, 74.25
feet to the Point of Beginning surplus to city needs and authorize staff to
offer this property for sale consistent with the City Charter and procedures
established in the lnfill Housing Development Program. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
CCmtg
1/2/92
2
.
ITEM 610 - Alcoholic BeveraQe Separation Variances for property (Island Breeze
Cafe & Grill' located at 740 Gulfview Blvd. S., Bayside Shores, Blk C, Lots 1-
10 (Kebort, AB92-01)(PLD)
.
The applicant is requesting an alcoholic beverage distance separation
variance of 200 feet from businesses with similar licenses and 210 feet from a
residentially-zoned district. The Planning and Zoning Board granted the
applicant a conditional use for the on premise sale of alcoholic beverages on
November 5, 1991 subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall
obtain variances to the separation requirements between alcoholic beverage
establishments and residential zones and between similarly licensed
establishments from the City Commission; 2) The applicant shall obtain
variances from the Development Code Adjustment Board for minimum seating and
minimum area requirements; 3) Sales of alcoholic beverages shall be restricted
to sales for on premise consumption; 4) All permits and licenses be obtained
within six months of this public hearing; and 5) The sale of alcoholic
beverages shall be prohibited after 9:00 p.m., all days of the week.
On December 18, 1991 the Development Code Adjustment Board approved two
variances for the Island Breeze Cafe subject to the fOllowing conditions: 1)
Sales of alcoholic beverages shall be restricted to sales for on-premise
consumption; 2) The sale of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited after 9:00
p.m. all days of the week; 3) All permits and licenses shall be obtained
within six months of this public hearing; and 4) Approval applies only to the
current owner of the establishment, Brian Shanahan.
The applicant's establishment is located in the Bay Bazaar Shopping
Center. The Police Department has not indicated any objection to this
establishment serving alcoholic beverages, nor have objections been raised by
other city staff.
Commissioner Nunamaker moved to approve a variance of 200 feet to allow
alcoholic beverage sales within 0 feet from a similarly licensed establishment
and a variance of 210 feet to permit alcoholic beverages sales 90 feet from a
residential zone. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #11 - Variance to Si n Re ulations for property located at 2226 Druid
Rd., Sec. 18-29-16, M&B 32.10 BAHH Partnership, SV92-01)(PLD)
The applicant is requesting variances to permit an existing pole sign
that is too tall and too close to the property line and permit two existing
property address signs when only one is allowed.
Regarding the pole sign, the applicant has a 10.8 foot high pole sign as
his property identification sign. Staff review of the site reveals that a
reduction in this sign's height to the maximum allowable height in this
Limited Office zoning district (six feet) would partially obstruct the
visibility of the sign due to the landscaping in the area. The surface area
of the sign meets the maximum allowable sign area requirement (24 sq.ft.).
The sign encroaches on the required five foot setback from the west and north
property lines. The positioning of the sign is dictated by the parking lot
.
CCmtg
1/2/92
3
.
.
.
and tree line along the road. The sign's location does not cause any
visibility problem for drivers entering or leaving either the applicant's
property or the bank parking lot adjacent to the applicant's property. lhe
proposed Countywide Sign Regulations allow pole signs up to 12 feet in height
for office land use. The City Sign Regulations permit pole signs to be at
least 20 feet high in all districts other than residential and limited Office
districts.
Regarding the two existing property address signs, the applicant has a
group of business identification signs, one for each occupant, on the west
side of hi5 building. These individual siQns are 2.5 sq.ft. The applicant
has placed a single address sign of approxlmately 1.25 sq.ft. over these
individual signs. This sign and the street numbers on the pole sign give the
property a total of two street address signs. The total surface area of these
two signs is less than the allowable 8 sq.ft. for a single sign. The
applicant requests a variance in order to retain both address signs. Staff
finds that the wall address sign does help to identify the building and assist
individuals who have entered onto the premises to identify the offices.
If granted these variances will extend past the October 13, 1992
amortization period.
A concern was expressed that if obstruction by landscaping is recognized
as a reason for variance approval, landscaping would be allowed to grow in
order to justify other variances.
Jim Polatty, Planning and Development Director, said that is a
possibility but in this case, there is really no other location for the sign
as there is no "front yard".
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the vegetation
is a factor but there are other unique considerations other than vegetation
that justify the granting of a variance.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve variances of: 1) 4.8 feet to
permit a 10.8 foot high pole sign; 2) 1.5 feet to permit a pole sign 3.5 feet
from property lines; and 3) one address sign to permit a total of two such
signs. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM *12 - Variance to SiQn ReQulations for property located at 26210-26256
US19N, The Village at Countryside Parcel 4 Replat, lot 3 less that part taken
for road (Countryside Associates limited, SV92-02)(PLD)
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) of 124 sq.ft.
to permit a 280 sq.ft. property identification sign; 2) to permit a pole sign
instead of a ground sign where such is allowed on basis of street frontage
greater than 500 feet: and 3) of 12'-4" to permit a 361-4" high pole sign.
A variance was granted to the property in 1986 to permit a pole sign
with 168 sq.ft. in area and a height of 30 feet. This variance expires on
October 13, 1992 according to a condition established for the variance. The
;
\. '
, \
CCmtg
1/2/92
4
.
.
.
applicant states that the existing pole sign is 36 feet 4 inches in height.
He intends to keep the existing vertical portion of his sign, and enlarge the
two eXisting message boards from 6 feet by 16 feet each to 7 feet by 20 feet
each.
The applicant is requesting the variance of 124 sq.ft. to permit a pole
sign with 280 sq.ft. The maximum size pole s;gn permitted for property
identification in the Sign Regulations is 192 sq. ft. for an establishment with
200,000 sq.ft. of 9ross leasable floor area (the applicant has 104,600 sq.ft.
of such floor area). The proposed Countywide Sign Regulations permit a
maximum surface area for freestanding signs of 150 sq.ft. for Highway
Commercial areas.
The applicant has provided no unusual or compelling circumstances to
justify his request for an increase in height and/or surface area. The
property is similar to others along US19 and staff could not find any
justification for the requested variances for this sign.
The applicant is also requesting an additional pole sign in lieu of a
ground sign which he is authorized due to having more than 500 feet of
frontage on USI9. The maximum size permitted for this authorized ground sign
is 24 sq.ft., which is the surface area requested for the substitute pole
sign. This sign would be placed at the south entrance to the shopping center
to advise drivers that they can enter the center at that location. The
applicant contends that a pole sign will be more visible, and provide better
notice of this alternate entrance. There is an existing pole sign for Casa
Gallardo which would be approximately 100 feet south of the proposed second
pole sign for the applicant.
A second pole sign will contribute to the proliferation of such signs in
the area. The City's Sign Regulations require 150 feet separation between
pole signs on the same parcel or between pole sians and ground signs. The
proposed Countywide Regulations require a spac1ng 'of 300 feet between such
signs. Although these are regulations for a sing~$ property, it is felt they
provide an appropriate guideline for variances. The code does permit the
applicant a qround sign, which could be placed up to five feet from his
property line, or about 70 feet from the Casa Gallardo pole sign. As the
restriction for additional signs due to large frontages suggest, ground signs
are considered less obtrusive than pole signs. The desire of the applicant to
delineate a second entrance to his property is not unique. No compelling
reason for the substitution has been offered.
Jim Polatty, Planning and Development Oirector, indicated the applicant
is stating the variances are required due to the size of the center and the
proposed US19 overpass for Countryside Boulevard. He st~ted he has been
informed the elevation of the future roadway should be approximately the same
as currently exists and should not cause any visibility problems. There are
no reasons for the variances. He stated the Countywide Sign Code will be more
restrictive than the City.s in this regard.
CCmtg
1/2/92
5
. ~, ... "" ' 'l", . '.: , , '., . . '. ':, ;":1. ~';';":'''lt-.. '. ~ ~ "''''.'''.' s'.'-C; T,., .~'
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated there are two
hardships which justify the granting of these variances. He stated that due
to the topographical features of the area, there is a loss of signage on walls
with only half of the center visible from U519. He indicated that with the
proposed changes for the overpass, the site will lose direct access to U519.
He felt the minimum variance required is being requested.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed roadway changes and Mr. Polatty
again indicated the proposed elevation of the road would not cause visibility
problems. It was also stated there would be no left turns onto US19 from
Enterprise Road once the overpass is completed. '
Mr. Pressman indicated that when he contacted DOT, they had reported
there were no elevation figures available. He stated, based on Mr. polatty's
information, they would withdraw the request for the height variance.
Concerns were expressed that when the Department of Transportation
obtained the right-of-way, they would have included compensation for the loss
of the si9nage in the price far the property.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny the requested variances. The
motion was duly seconded.
A question was raised regarding whether or not the motion included a
provision that the request could come back if the visibility was a problem due
to the overpass. It was stated this was not within the motion.
~ In response to a question, it was indicated the existing signs will be
non-conforming as of October 13, 1992.
.
Upon the vote being taken on the motion, it carried unanimously.
ITEM #13 - Public HearinQ & First ReadinQ Ordinance #5157-91 - code amendment
adoptinq the 1991 Standard Housinq Code: applying the provisions of Sec. 308
to hotels, motels, dormitories and lodging houses (PLDJ
Due to questions which arose at worksession, it is requested this item
be continued.
Commissioner Nunamaker moved to continue this item until the next
regularly scheduled meeting of January 16, 1992. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances
ITEM #14 - Ordinance #5159-91 - Vacatino the 10' drainaqe and utilitv
easements lying along the easterly and southerly boundary lines of Sec. 21-29- '
15, M&B 44.11 (Fairwinds Properties Inc. V91-13)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5159-91 for second reading and
read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt
. ~
~
CCmtg
1/2/92
6
. - a ."'. a' I l : ,~
.
.
.
Ordinance 15159-91 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded.
Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
IINaysll: None.
ITEM #15 - Ordinance #5060-91 - Extending term of GTE franchise from 1/1/92 to
7/1/92
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5060-91 for second reading and
read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt
Ordinance #5060-91 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded.
Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #16 - Ordinance #5161-91 - Proposed Charter Amendment relatino to
allowable uses of municioal or other public property along the bayfront area
to be submitted to voters on the 3/10/92 election
Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Ordinance #5161-91 to read as
follows: 1) On page 1, in the title, delete liTO PROVIDE THAT SUCH PROPERTY
MAY BE USED FOR CITY-OWNED RECREATION FACILITIES" and substitute liTO PROVIDE
THAT SUCH PROPERTY LYING SOUTH OF CLEVELAND STREET MAY BE USED FOR CITY-OWNED
TENNIS COURTS AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCESII; 2) On page 2, in Section 1 of the
ordinance, delete "city-owned recreation facilities." At the end of Section
1, insert the following: "However, city-owned tennis courts and associated
appurtenances may be constructed and maintained on such property south of
Cleveland Street."; and 3) On pages 2 and 3, amend the ballot question to read
as follows: liThe City Charter limits the use of municipal and other public
property below the 28-foot elevation line, West of Osceola Avenue, East of
Clearwater Harbor, between Drew and Chestnut Streets, and the Memorial
Causeway or lands contiguous thereto, to open space and public utilities.
Ordinance #5161-91 proposes to amend the City Charter to allow city-owned
tennis courts and associated appurtenances on such property south of Cleveland
Street. Shall this amendment be approved?lI The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
One citizen spoke in opposition to the proposal stating they wanted to
keep the nine tennis courts that were currently existing.
One citizen spoke stating it was important to maintain the bayfront and
the charter does not need to be amended. They were in favor of the amendment
which has just been adopted.
One citizen spoke concerned that the 28 foot contour line should not be
in the charter and that by approving this charter amendment to be on the
ballot, there are changing what the ,people voted for in the referendum
CCmtg
1/2/92
7
. . . ~ '. " . 0 , -. " ' ~. ' ' '
. .
.
.
.
regarding the bayfront. It was stated this was not a change and the 28 foot
line was in all the public notices. '
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 15161-91 as amended for second
reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass and
adopt Ordinance #5161-91 as amended on second and final reading. The motion
was duly seconded. Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayesll: Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
t1Naysll: None.
ITEM #17 - Ordinance #5162-91 - Relating to utilitiesj amending Sees.
50.05(e)(1) and (3), 50.05(f)(1) and 50.05(g)(1) to increase water and sewer
rates and charges
One citizen spoke concerned that in the budget, there shows a 3.5
million dollar surplus and now this study is saying there will be 4.8 million
dollar loss. He stated he has been told this is due to a difference in
accounting methods. He requested the timing of rate increases should be in
conjunction with the budget.
In response to the concern regarding difference in accounting methods,
the City Manager indicated the budget is done on an accrual basis while this
study was done on cash flow.
In response to a question, the City Manager indicated the rates are
based on meter size, whether the property is residential or commercial. It
was stated that at worksession, it had been determined that information
regarding proposed increases will be sent out as utility stuffers prior to
discussion by the Commissiun. It was stated that while the Commission did not
want to raise the rates, there were 50 million dollars in water improvements
which were mandated and there is increased operational costs for these
facilities. It was indicated these operations are being done with less
manpower than before. It was indicated the increases are due to increased
purchases of water from Pinellas County, water consumption decreases, debt
service increases and the cost of water treatment has increased.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5162-91 for second reading and
read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass and adopt
Ordinance #5162-91 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded.
Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayesll: Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald and Garvey.
"Nays": Berfield.
Mot ion carried.
CCmtg
1/2/92
8
...
- '. ,:. . L, I ,0' " ~ ...... /" " Ji., t,,:," '.~ . ~. ',': '. u I .,. pO', "'l',' ~.'
I ".' .
. 't.-_ . . . 'I. , r
.
.
.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items '18~29) ~ Approved as submitted.
Agreements - Approved.
ITEM #18 - Two revised
Bids & Contracts ~ Awarded.
ITEM #20 - 1991 92 Tennis Court Resurfacin Contract to Varsity Courts. Inc.,
Longwood, FL, for $13,303 PW
ITEM #21 - Jeffords Street & Norwood Avenue Storm Sewer 1m rovements to
Sun coast Excavating, Inc., Ozona, FL, for $42,108 PW
Citizens & Staff Requests - Approved. (123 denied)
ITEM #22 ~ Authorize purchase of 16 pre-owned vehicles by Al Davenport, Inc.,
at the Orlando (wholesale) Auto Auction at a cost not to exceed $181,000 (GS)
ITEM #24 - labor Mana ement Committee's Lon evit Award Pro ram; 5 years: Pin
with City Seal, letter or citation of appreciation LCA signed by all
Commission members and the City Manager; 10 years: Desk or Wall Clock with
City Seal, LCA; 15 years: Plaque and LCA; 20 years: Watch and LeA; 25 years:
Proclamation day for employee, day off with pay and dinner certificate of $100
for food only; 30 years: Choice or ring, necklace or vacation package of a
value up to $400; and 35 years or more: Recommendations to be made by City
Manager and City Commission, estimated cost $10,000 (CM)
ITEM #25 - Waiver of insurance reQuirements and charQes for city services
relative to the Dr. Martin Luther King Junior Holiday Harch and Rally to be
held 1/20/92 (PR)
Change Orders - Approved.
, ITEM #26 - C.O.#3 for Stevenson's Creek Channel Improvements Phase I to
Kimmins Contractin Cor ., Tampa, FL, increasing the contract amount by
15.505 for a new total of $1,277,174.62 (PW)
CCmtg
1/2/92
9
.
.
.
Receipt & Referral - Received and Referred.
ITEM *27 - Annexation. Land Use Plan Amendment to Planned ResidentiAl
Develooment and RPD ZoninQ: and feceiot of site Dlan for Island in the Sun
obile Home Park, part of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 17-29-16, 41 acres m.o.l.
Kennedy/Roberts A91-14, LUP91-15)(PLD)
CITY Ai TORNEY
Agreements, Deeds & Easements
ITEM #29 - Pedestrian access easement - adjacent to Ultimar property to
provide access to Sand Key Beach, Sec. 19-29w15 (USX Corp.)
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted
and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
~
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the contract purchaser, is requesting
Preliminary Site Plan approval for the redevelopment of the existing
Loehmann1s Plaza Shopping Center.
The existing Loehmann's Plaza is 195,500 square feet of building area.
The proposed Wal-Mart building is 121,079 square feet in Phase I and an
additional 30,000 square feet in Phase II.
A conditional use approval is required for the garden shop/outdoor sales
area. The site has been determined to be vested and meet the criteria of the
concurrency requirements for traffic.
The conditions for site plan approval required by the Commission during
the Commercial Planned Development rezoning of this property are listed below
and these conditions will be listed on the site plan:
1) Within the 25 foot wide buffer proposed along the rear of the site
(the west side) and along the Stag Run Boulevard frontage west of the proposed
driveway (a portion of the north side), buffer vegetation shall be installed
consisting of three rows of shrubs (minimum height 30" at time of
installation) placed three feet on center; the tree planting requirements of
the Clearwater City code for perimeter landscaping shall also be met. Due to
site constraints, however, the rear buffer can be reduced to a minimum of 10
feet in width along up to 20 percent of the width of the property to
accommodate the turning radii required for truck loading access and maneuvers
CCmtg
1/2/92
10
, .
. . "
. ":
I . ' . . . . : . . ~ . '.'~" ":'. '." f " ',' . . .~,.:." : .. '.'~'!' '. ~~ ,
.
.
.
so long as no reduction in plant materials in the reduced width buffer occurs.
Plant materials to be installed in the reduced areas shall be dense, fast
growing varieties. A landscaping plan indicating this landscaping, as well as
all other required landscaping, shall be submitted to the Director of Planning
and Development and Assistant Public Works Director (Environmental) and
approval of this plan shall occur prior to the issuance of a building permit;
2) The Wal-Mart building shall maintain a 75 foot setback from Stag Run
Boulevard; 3) The existing driveway proposed for removal along Stag Run shall
be completely removed through the wetland mitigation area and the land under
the driveway shall be restored to a functioning wetland condition to the
extent possible given existing utilities in this area; 4) During construction,
erosion barriers shall be installed to protect wetland areas to be preserved
and/or created: 5) No alcoholic beverage sales for on-premise consumption
shall be permitted on the subject property; 6) The hours of operation shall be
from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m., seven days a week, except that extended hours
of operation of 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. may be permitted for special events
for up to ten days per calendar year: 1) No pickups or deliveries shall occur
before 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m., seven days a week; 8) The applicant
shall construct or, alternately, provide funds to cover the full construction
costs of cul-de-sacs or other street termini, as deemed acceptable by City
staff, to close Stag Run to through traffic; such construction should include
landscaping and other design considerations to eliminate cut-through traffic;
9) a. The applicant shall provide all improvements to surrounding roadways
required by FOOT ~ b. As offered, the applicant shall pay $10,000 for
improvements to the NE Coachman Road approach to US19, to be included in the
planned resurfacing project for NE Coachman Road (FOOT project for FY92-93):
10) The applicant shall provide architectural renderings showing the proposed
east (front), north and south elevations of the proposed Wal-Mart building as
part of its site plan application. These elevations shall demonstrate
architectural features, such as color schemes, entrance treatments, and
landscaping which mitigate the "boxlike" appearance of some Wal-Mart stores
and specify color treatment for the building; 11) All outdoor storage and
displays shall be required to be approved through the conditional use permit
process. Proposals for special, temporary outdoor sales shall be included in
this requirement, so that screening and other conditions can be established.
Also included are temporary outdoor storage proposals; 12) A cross-access
easement shall be executed between the applicant and the owner of Lot 4 to
permit the sharing of the proposed driveway access(es)j no direct driveway
access shall be permitted to Lot 4 from NE Coachman Road; 13) No semi-trailers
shall enter or exit the property on Stag'Run Boulevardj that staff initiate
improvements to Stag Run Boulevard to eliminate through traffic between US19,
Old Coachman Road and NE Coachman Road; and that staff initiate a traffic
circulation study to appropriately place improvements to NE Coachman Road on
the Transportation Improvement Program; and 14) Signs and fencing/walls are
subject to separate review and permitting processes.
The one issue to be resolved regarding this site plan is whether or not
to allow two accesses onto NE Coachman Road.
Peter Yauch, the City'sTraffic Engineer, reviewed the current accesses
stating the one to the west. while listed as a right turn-in right turn-out
CCmtg
1/2192
11
.
.
.
only, is not used in that manner. He stated the proposed improvements to
allow two left hand turns from NE Coachman onto US19H and a right turn lane
south on US19 from NE Coachman will work with any of the driveway
configurations. The three proposals are a single driveway configuration,
approximately midway between the existing two: the existing two with the
eastern most being .right turn-in right turn-out only: and a driveway
configuration that lines up the second access with the access to the apartment
complex on the south side of HE Coachman.
Discussion ensued regarding the advantages and disadvantages of each of
the configurations. Mr. Yauch recommends the configuration that keeps the two
existing accesses due to the one access between the current ones would provide
a shorter storage for left hand turns into the apartment complex and the one
lining up with the apartment complex would cause difficulties for the site
plan recommendations. He stated the two driveway system will allow the left
hand turns out of the property to be farther' away from US19 and allow greater
left hand storage into the center while separating the left hand turn into the
apartment from those for the center.
In response to a question regarding a letter from DOT indicating they
would approve a driveway at the midpoint, based upon appropriate taper of the
lanes, Mr. Yauch indicated the single drive configuration would not be able to
meet these requirements.
It was stated in the long range plan for improvements to NE Coachman, a
median will be placed in this vicinity and there will be right turn-in right
turn-out only to any of the driveways.
In response to a question, Mr. Yauch indicated that while turns could be
restricted during certain portions of the day, this would be difficult to
enforce.
A concern was expressed regarding the plan needing to be withdrawn to
allow rapid dispersal of traffic once it got onto the property. It was stated
this will be addressed at the review by the Development Review Committee.
In response to a question, Mr. Yauch indicated that while generally one
access is preferable, in this case, two acccesses are prefered.
Trish Muscarella, representing Brandon Nu-West, owners of Lot 4,
indicated they concur with staff's recommendation. She stated staff has met
with residents in the area and she does not believe there is any opposition to
the two driveways.
John McBain, President of the Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association,
stated they have met with staff and are pleased with Mr. Yauch's design. He
stated their concern has always been traffic, not the number of,accesses.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to authorize the Development Review
Committee (n.R.C.) to review and recommend final approval of the final site
plan to the Commission subject to the aforementioned fourteen conditions with
CCmtg
1/2/92
12
., ." ,."!...... ,.'~ ';'~":."" -'r ..,.'i~ },',': .:"..:......I.~,...~:-~I
" " +, " ': ; ,.' '". ,":: ..,'.: :..., : '., ~- , . \ ..
.
.
.
the two entrances as recommended by the Traffic Engineer with the internal
configuration being addressed to disperse traffic once on the property. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #31 . Resolution #92.2 and #92~3 ~ Pipeline Crossing Agreements with CSX
Transportation, Inc. (PW)
The Engineering Division is in the process of submitting construction
plans to the Pine'llas County Health Department for the replacement of water
mains in Phase 8 of the Citywide bonded replacement program. A portion of the
work will require the placement of two water mains beneath CSX railroad
tracks. One crossing is proposed at Chestnut Street and the other at Laura
Street. These crossings are needed to replace existing 211 galvanized pipe and
to maintain proper circulation. The CSX railroad requires a Pipeline Crossing
Agreement and a.Resolution by the City approving the agreement for each of the
crossings. The cost to the City for each agreement is $325.00 to meet the
railroad requirements of a Construction Risk Insurance Fee and a One~Time
License Fee for a total of $650.00. The City needs to have all of the
required permits prior to construction of the crossings. The City has already
paid the Railroad $300 in permit application fees to prepare the initial
agreements. The tentative schedule is to advertise Phase 8 for construction
bids in January 1992.
Commissioner Regulski moved to approve the Pipeline Crossing Agreements
with CSX Transportation, Inc. and that the appropriate officials be authorized
to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #92~2 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #92-2 and authorize
the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded, upon
roll call the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Naysll: None.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #92~3 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #92-3 and authorize
the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded, upon
roll call the vote was:
IIAyesll: Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
lINaystl: None.
ITEM #32 - Neighborhood Advisorv Committee ~ 2 aopointments (eLK)
Commissioner Regulski moved to appoint Curlee Rivers to the North
Greenwood category. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CCmtg
1/2/92
13
, .' " . .', I > '. \ . . . ,. ,.' " < . I < ~ '.. ~ . . . f" J. ..' " ".' ..,' 'I
.
.
.
Commissioner Berfield moved to appoint Donna M. Pratt to the East
Clearwater category. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #33 - Beautification Committee - 2 appointments (CLK)
Commissioner Nunamaker moved to appoint Candace Gardner. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Regulski moved to appoint William E. Baldwin. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Other Pending Matters - None.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORr~
Resolutions
ITEM #34 - Resolution #92-1 - Assessing property owners the costs of mowing or
clearing owners I lots
The City Attorney presented Resolution #92-1 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #92-1 and authorize
the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded, upon
roll call the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, fitzgerald, Berfield and Gar"ley.
"Nays": None.
Other City Attorney Items - None.
City Manager Verbal Reports - None.
Other Commission Action
Commissioner Berfield asked the City Clerk to remind the public of the
Maas Brothers Task Force meetings. The City Clerk announced the meetings are
scheduled for January 9, 1992 at the East Library and January 23, 1992 at the
Countryside Library, both meetings starting at 4:00 p.m.
Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey wished all a Happy New Year.
Adjournment
Jhe meeting adjour.ned at 7:46 p.m.
. .
ATTEST:u (1~~ f J~~__.
~erk'
CCmtg
1/2/92
14
. . ...:;')~