Loading...
04/01/1991 CITY COMMISSION WORK SESSION April 01, 1991 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Sue Berfield Commissioner Lee Regulski Commissioner William Nunamaker Commissioner Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. Service Pin Awards Two service awards were presented to City employees. Contract for purchase of microwave test equipment for the 800 mHz Trunked Radio System to Hewlett Packard Co., Atlanta, GA, for $23,060 (GS) On August 3, 1989, the City Commission approved the purchase of a microwave hop between the north and south towers to provide communication between the towers. The test equipment is essential to maintain the microwave system that is no longer under warranty. With the test equipment, the Radio Communications Division can correctly diagnosis problems when breakdowns occur and perform the necessary measurements and adjustments to keep the system in a reliable operating condition. This is a sole-source purchase. In response to questions, Floyd Carter, General Services Director, indicated a system is being tested that should solve 95% of the difficulties with "dead spots." The problems at the mall are a separate issue and will cost approximately $10,000. Contract for the purchase of five pre-leased 1990 vehicles to Hertz Car Sales, Tampa, FL, total cost of $49,364; financing for $28,964 will be provided under the City's Master Lease/Purchase Agreement with AT&T Credit Corp., the balance ($20,400) will be a cash purchase (GS) Bids were solicited and received for the purchase of five '90-'91 pre-leased vehicles. Staff recommends buying them from Hertz Car Sales. In the past, the City has purchased pre-leased vehicles that have provided excellent service at a lower cost. Hertz Car Sales has offered a choice of Ford Taurus, Crown Victoria LX, or Thunderbird, Mercury Sable, Cougar, or Grand Marquis GS with a 12-month, 12,000 mile Limited Power Train Warranty (whichever comes first) . The replacement purchases were approved by the City Commission during its FY 1990/91 Budget Hearing Meetings and are listed on the approved Vehicle Replacement List as published in the 1990/91 budget. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if leasing cars had been considered. It was indicated this had been investigated but can be reviewed again. Contract for the construction of the Sailing Center Building to Bandes Construction Co., Inc., for $315,333; and approve the transfer of $16,298 from recreation facility impact fees (P&R) On June 21, 1990, the City Commission approved a budget of $300,000 to secure an architect and construct the Clearwater Community Sailing Center Building. On September 4, 1990, the Commission approved a contract with Fowler Associates Architects, Inc. for $26,300 for basic services and $16,150 for additional services, leaving a balance of $257,550. Nine companies submitted bids including a base bid with seven deductible alternates. Bandes Construction Company, Inc. had the low base bid of $323,174. Staff recommends that alternate #4 (pram storage racks can be constructed later) be deleted, reducing the total contract amount by $7,841 to $315,333. The contract will provide an attractive building with a metal roof and cedar shake siding for aesthetics and low maintenance, solid plastic partitions in the restrooms for durability and low maintenance and tile on the restroom floors. A ten-foot wide, second floor veranda wrapping around the building's east, north and west sides will add character to the structure, allow for more flexible and diverse uses of the building, and enable people to congregate on the upper deck to enjoy the views. The second floor will include a meeting room, that can be divided into two, with banquet seating capacity of 190, restrooms, storage and floor to ceiling windows on the north and east sides. The ground floor will have storage space for prams, an office, restrooms, showers, and a small work room. The building has an elevator and is handicap accessible. If the contract is approved, there will be a shortage of $57,783. Staff recommends transferring $16,298 of Recreation Facility Impact fees to the Sailing Center budget and the remaining $41,485 come from the budgeted $50,000 of Penny for Pinellas Infrastructure Tax Revenue, currently in the Sand Key Sailing Center code and earmarked for landscaping of the Sailing Center site. The remaining $8,515 of landscape money, along with in-house materials and labor, will be sufficient to provide attractive landscaping. Ream Wilson, Parks & Recreation Director, pointed out a separate project will be coming to the Commission for 30 to 35 parking spaces. He stated eventually there will be 80 spaces at the Sailing Center. In response to a question, he indicated parking is not included in the contract before the Commission. Questions were raised regarding the building. Steve Fowler, Architect, reported the 6,300 square foot building is to be constructed of concrete block with a sheet metal, galvanized aluminum roof and reflects the tropical theme of the Beach. Proposed architectural effects and choice of building materials for Big Pier 60 Replacement Project (PW) Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM), consulting engineers proceeding with the design of the Big Pier 60 replacement project, have suggested the City depart from a traditional all concrete pier, and instead, construct a wooden deck pier with architectural details. Staff feels this suggestions might be more in keeping with the tropical seascape motif recommended by the Clearwater Beach Task Force. Tom Burke, of CDM, stated the basic concept for the pier replacement remains the same. However, the amenities would change. The visual character would change as the concrete decking would be wood which would look nicer, would be easier to maintain and in better standing with the Clearwater Beach Task Force's view. A question was raised regarding longevity. Mr. Burke indicated pressure treating and the type of wood used would affect its longevity, however, the initial cost would be higher but maintenance costs will be lower than concrete. Concerns were expressed that maintenance costs would be higher as wood splinters. The City Manager said if the decking is built of wood, the maintenance could be done inhouse at a much lower cost. Bill Baker, Public Works Director, reiterated there will be maintenance, however, it will be easier for the City to maintain. A question was raised regarding how long concrete would last. It was indicated 30 to 40 years. Mr. Burke pointed out that only the decking of the pier would be wood and it would be at least ten years before any replacement would be needed. Mr. Baker reiterated that wood decking would look better and while there will be maintenance, it will be less expensive. The City Manager reported concrete lasts longer and costs less to build, but it is less attractive and is more expensive to maintain. Questions were raised regarding whether or not wood decking is the answer to the aesthetics. Mr. Wright indicated the Beach Task Force wants to consider these sorts of things as a way to continue their recommended theme. Concerns were expressed that wood rails would create long term problems. It was suggested that instead of the entire pier, the theme could be accomplished in small areas on the pier. Questions were asked if the pier decking could be cantilevered in order to allow the addition of gazebos and/or seating areas. Mr. Wright indicated the alignment of the new pier has been designed so the old pier can remain standing while the new one is constructed. Further discussion ensued regarding the need to relocate the pier and whether or not any of the pilings were usable. It was stated that the only advantage to relocating is the ability to keep the old pier open. The City Manager indicated staff recognized this would be more expensive. Concern was expressed that the beach is now stabilized and any changes to the pier could be a problem. It was felt a hydrologic study was needed. Caution was urged regarding relocating the pier. Concerns were expressed that even lowering or raising the pier could cause problems. The City Manager stated the direction he was hearing from the Commission is that the location of the pier should remain where it is and, for the decking, longevity was more important than aesthetics. A question was raised regarding how this would conform with the proposals for the area. Mr. Baker reiterated staff would not recommend wood if they did not feel it would hold up well. Tom Burke reported wood has been used on the East Coast and it has held up well and provides for easier sweeping and maintenance. William Held, Harbormaster, indicated the wood decking at the marina is 16 years old and they just now are considering replacement. Due to it being wood, there is the ability inhouse to repair and replace the structure. In response to a question, Mr. Burke indicated the cost for wood versus concrete is about the same in regard to maintenance over a thirty year life period. He stated marina concrete is a specialty area. A question was raised regarding how wood was reached as a suggestion. Bill Held indicated when staff met with the task force, it was suggested that wood be used for the above water section. He stated it has also been suggested that contests be held for the design of the pier. The City Manager suggested the pier could have concrete decking with wood architectural treatments. Art Deegan, Chairman of the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force, said there was a desire to keep aesthetics in mind. He stated if the pier is to be relocated, it is recommended it be moved north, not south. He indicated the Task Force is willing to present a check to the City Manager to sponsor an architectural competition to address the pier's design. He noted this would be the first project of importance on the Beach. A question was raised if the time frames could be met. Mr. Burke indicated they could be, to a point. A question was raised if a contest is supported, would decking influence the design. Mr. Wright indicated the cost for concrete decking would be $400,000, and for wood $500,000. He stated the construction budget is $1 million. The consensus of the Commission was for the pier to be built in its current location, that a competition for renderings for design of the vertical surfaces and the type of decking be part of that competition. The award of $1,000 from the Task Force's donation would be distributed with $500 for the first prize and $350 for second. The decision will be made 60 days after the announcement of the competition. A question was raised regarding whether or not the competition should be limited to registered architects. It was recommended that the Clearwater Beach Task Force make this decision. Mr. Wright indicated there have been questions regarding extending the pier. He stated this would present permitting problems. Mr. Held indicated individuals who fish from the pier would like it to be extended, however, it would muddy up the permitting process and increase the cost. Cecil Henderson, Assistant Public Works Director, indicated the Department of Natural Resources, is resistent to permitting lengthening. Mr. Held also stated the existing pier is grandfathered on State bottom land and, if it is extended, that permission could be lost. Purchase of Lot 10, R H Padgett's Sub of original Lot 5 from Albert L Rogero, Jr. for a total price of $60,000 (PW) In response to a question, the City Manager reported the cost is $8 a square foot. Verbal Report - Status of Clearwater Pass Bridge (PW) Bill Baker, Public Works Director, stated the Corps of Engineers has indicated it will not approve a bridge measuring 65-feet high, therefore, staff has decided it would be best to submit an application to the Coast Guard for a 75-foot high bridge. It was indicated that the Federal Highway Administration may pay the extra cost of the bridge. The City Manager questioned the time frame. Mr. Baker indicated this would still allow the City to come in "under the wire." Questions were raised if the bridge's slope would need to be increased and if the Coast Guard has the final authority on the height. It was indicated the Coast Guard has the final authority. A question was again raised about the time frame and it was stated that, assuming there is cooperation and sensitivity to the time, the City would still be able to meet the proposed time frames. In response to a question, it was indicated staff had not completed a detailed design for a 65-foot tall bridge. Verbal Report - Southwest Florida Water Management District Update (PW) It was reported that a letter from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFMWD) indicated the City needs to improve the enforcement of water restrictions. It was indicated the Police Department is doing all they can. The City Attorney's office is amending the ordinance to allow Water Division personnel to issue citations for violation of the water restrictions. Mr. Baker stated staff is pursuing development of the water supply and has a plan to see if the City can produce 3 million more gallons per day. Reclaimed water projects are encouraged and the City is postured to proceed into that project. An application for State revolving funds for reclaimed water is in a three to five year stage. The City could borrow enough money to build the system until the system could pay for itself. He stated he has talked to SWFMWD and the City is in good stead regarding what the City can do. A question was raised regarding the ability to use Penny for Pinellas monies. The City Manager indicated the reclaimed water system would be a utility to pay for itself. A question was raised regarding whether or not there was any limitation on new wells. It was indicated that the City has had to cut back on the pumping rate on all of its wells and a permit will be needed for new ones. Though the City's current consumptive use permit allows Clearwater to pump 8 million gallons of water per day, the City is currently below that threshold. It was stated that a long term solution is needed. Tom Burke, of CDM, stated the City is beginning to investigate a reclaimed water system which will reduce the need to impact the local water supply. The City Attorney indicated only the Police Department currently can issue citations, however, he is amending the code to allow code enforcement inspectors to do the same. A question was raised regarding whether or not there would be a fine. It was indicated this could be paid instead of going to court. A questioned was raised regarding the teeth the ordinance would have if the fine is not paid. The City Manager indicated it would depend of the State Attorney's posture. A question was raised regarding a trial situation for reverse osmosis. Mr. Baker indicated this would not be allowed. The meeting recessed from 10:41 until 10:49 a.m. (Cont'd from 03/21/91) Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5087-91 LDCTA - regulation for hedges (PL&D) Jim Polatty, Planning & Development Director, indicated this item needs to be continued in order to accommodate the Development Code Adjustment Board's (DCAB) recommendations regarding fences and hedges on certain streets. He stated DCAB is nearly in agreement and needs to go back and incorporate recommendations regarding triple frontage lots. The City Manager pointed out that the Development Code Adjustment Board is recommending against regulating hedges. Mr. Polatty explained this was due to their belief that it would be difficult to administer. He stated DCAB wanted further restrictions regarding waterfront setbacks. Scott Shuford, Planning Manager, indicated the restrictions would apply only to single family residential and have to do with the view. Cont'd from 03/21/91) Variance to the Sign Regulations; (Target Store) located at 21680 US 19N, Clearwater Collection First Replat, Lot 4 (Dayton Hudson Corp. SV91-05) (PL&D) This item was continued from the March 21, 1991 Commission meeting due to uncertainties about the conditions associated with the site relating to signage. Staff found the following condition was established for the certified site plan: "On October 13, 1992, the shopping center shall be restricted to a total of two freestanding signs on US 19N and one on Drew Street (each of the two major streets adjacent to the site)." Since there was no mention as to whether these "free standing signs" are property or business identification signs, the wall signs relating to this request should not be affected by this condition. The application has been revised to eliminate one of the previously-requested variances. The applicant amended the request to delete the increased business identification signage. The applicant has utilized its property identification signage allowance to erect the previously requested "business identification" sign. The "TARGET" sign is the allowed property identification sign (it is 125 square feet; 128 square feet is allowed). The applicant is requesting a variance to permit one additional business identification sign (a 40 square foot "Garden Store" sign) for a business establishment known as Target, located on the e side of US 19N on the north side of Drew Street. The Land Development Code allows one business identification sign per business establishment with the surface area not exceeding 1.5 square feet per lineal foot of building width (frontage) with a maximum of 128 square feet for major tenants located at shopping centers. Target would be a major tenant. The proposed sign would be placed on the front (e side) of the building along US 19N. The applicant claims the conditions that exist relating to the property are unique due to the location of the retail establishment a considerable distance from the public right-of-way restricting visibility and creating some difficulty for the general public to locate the subject property; he also claims the visual aid is necessary to help traffic flow onto and within the property. Over the l four years, the Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB) has considered the following requests for sign variances for various business establishments at this same location: 1) 08/27/87 Lechmere Lot 2 - a) of 92 square feet of property identification to permit 156 square feet for a pole sign. Action taken: Granted; b) of 10 feet to permit a 30 foot high pole sign. Action taken: Granted; c) of 48 square feet of business identification sign to permit 112 square feet for a pole sign. Action taken: Denied; 2) Lechmere Lot 1 - a) of 84 square feet of business identification to permit 212 square feet of wall sign. Action taken: Granted subject to no property identification sign on Lot 1; b) of 28.25 square feet of property identification to permit 140.25 of additional sign. Action taken: Granted; 3) 09/10/87 Silverberg Lot 3 - a) of 20 square feet of property identification to permit 84 square feet for a pole sign. Action taken: Denied; 4) 05/12/88 Silverberg Lot 3 - a) of one business identification sign to permit two such signs. Action taken: Granted; b) of 31.5 square feet of business identification sign to permit 79.5 square feet of such signage. Action taken: Denied; 5) 11/10/88 1st Federal of Largo Lots 2 & 3 - a) of 3 business identification signs to permit 4 such signs. Action taken: Granted - 2 additional business identification signs; b) Of 62 square feet business identification signage to permit 110 square feet of such signage. Action taken: Denied; 6) 12/20/88 1st Federal of Largo Lots 2 & 3 - a) of 27 square feet business identification to permit 75 square feet of such signage. Action taken: Granted; 7) 10/11/90 Target, Lots 2 & 3 - a) alteration of non-conforming sign. Action taken: Granted; b) sign to remain after amortization period. Action taken: Denied. DCAB generally allowed the installation of additional business identification signs but usually did not permit increases in business identification sign sizes. Staff performed research requested by the City Commission at its March 4, 1991, Work Session concerning the percentage of wall area taken up by the proposed signs. The Target store building is 402 feet in length on the side where signs are to be placed, (approximately 9,000 square feet in area). The proposed signage would cover about 2.7% of the wall's area. This percentage is generally less than what the staff would consider recommending for attached signage in amending the sign code pursuant to Commission direction. Staff would recommend amending the code to allow approximately 10% of the wall area to be covered by attached signage, with a cap on the number of signs and the total square footage. From the standard of possible new regulations, the signage is likely not out of compliance. Since the request is reviewed under current code, staff finds the applicant has provided no evidence that an unnecessary hardship exists in trying to meet the sign requirements of the LDC. While there has been some history of variances for signage at this general location, there appears to be no special circumstance regarding this proposal which would warrant granting the subject request. Most of the signage problems that have occurred at this site are attributable to the site's CPD (Commercial Planned Development) zoning which is quite restrictive regarding property identification signage, allowing only 64 square feet of property identification signage. Similarly-sized development in the vicinity is zoned CH (Highway Commercial) and is allowed 156 square feet of property identification signage. The sign in question is a business identification sign, however, and is primarily intended to orient the public once they are on the property. This site is a clear example of how the sign issue should be handled at the Planned Development zoning level. Based on staff review and analysis of the information contained in the application, the request does not appear to support the Standards for Approval of Land Development Code Section 137.012(d). In particular, the following standards do not appear to be met: 1) The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in preceding recital "2" for the purposed of making reasonable use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; and 5) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. Should the Commission favorably consider the request, staff suggests imposing the following conditions: 1) The requisite building permit shall be obtained in six months from the date of this public hearing; and 2) No additional attached signage shall be permitted beyond what is included in this request and what has previously received permits. Concerns were expressed regarding the control the Commission thought was being implemented during the replatting and the requirement on the plat regarding the property identification signs allowed. The City Attorney indicated these restrictions should have been on the plat. It was indicated there would be no other way of conveying to a potential purchaser the restrictions regarding signs on this property. Legislative Update (CM) Betty Deptula, Assistant City Manager, indicated the billboard legislation was to go to the House Rules Committee and could come up for action Thursday before the whole House. The City Attorney recommended the City "adopt" a Senator regarding this bill. Ms. Deptula will draft a letter to be faxed to the Legislature tomorrow. Legislation regarding Impact Fees could affect the City in the long term and the City needs to be watchful and careful that too many restrictions are not placed on the ability to use Impact Fees. Regarding coastal zones, no information has been received. It was understood that the sponsor is looking for a way to introduce the bill. Subordination Agreement for the Clearwater Housing Authority The Clearwater Housing Authority (CHA) has requested the City consider subordinating a loan for them in order for CHA to obtain refinancing with Barnett Bank. It was the consensus of the Commission that this item be added to the Thursday night agenda. Verbal Reports The City Manager requested the Commission consider making a trip, funded by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), to Phoenix, AZ, in order to obtain additional information regarding a redevelopment project similar to the one being proposed for the East End. It was the consensus of the Commission that such a trip would be warranted if a project similar to the one considered for the East End is available for review. The City Manager recommended the Commission consider no longer meeting in the conference room for work sessions but rather install a new table in Chambers to provide additional space. Consensus of the Commission was for this to be pursued. Consensus of the Commission was to attempt to use lapel microphones at the Thursday night meeting. Other Commission Action Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned the implementation of the cruising ordinance. The City Manager indicated he would prefer to bring back a complete report that also includes enforcement of the noise ordinances. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned a letter from Alan Stowell regarding the sewer line on his property. The City Attorney indicated he is dealing with Mr. Stowell's attorney. The City Manager stated as soon as the issue is finalized, a report will be given. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned comments regarding the number of disciplinary actions taken. Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager, indicated that was in response to comments that no disciplinary actions were being taken. She stated City management is trying to treat all employees equally. A question was raised regarding whether or not union employees are treated differently from non-union employees. Ms. Rice indicated an employee has a choice whether to go through union grievance procedures or Civil Service procedures. The City Manager indicated he did not remember that distinction being an issue. Adjournment The work session adjourned at 12:06 p.m.