Loading...
12/14/1992CITY COMMISSION WORK SESSION December 14, 1992 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 A. Berfield Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan Commissioner Also present were: Michael J. Wright City Manager M. A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and the following items were discussed. Five service awards were presented to City employees. Karl Whittleton, Life Hazard Safety Inspector II, Fire Department was recognized as December 1992 Employee of the Month. Anclote Basin Board Presentation re: Retrofit Program (WSO) Norm Davis of Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), Brooksville, along with Fred Campbell, Kathy Polly and Chris Shoemaker, members of the Anclote Basin Board were present. The importance of the program is based on the increased demand on the water supply. A projection of 30 years indicates the current use in Pinellas County of 118 million gallons equals 6-12% of the needs of 2020. Plans include mandatory reduction of use per person. The approach to conservation includes xeriscapes, water reuse, and leak detection. Conservation initiatives are offered by the Basin Board. Fred Campbell stated the SWFWMD Basin Board is very much aware of Clearwater's conservation efforts including restriction of outdoor use. A joint venture agreement with SWFWMD can save an additional 20-22 gallons per day per household by use of retrofit devices. Installed in 400,000 houses, this could save 8-10 million gallons per day. Phase I of this program is in progress with Pinellas County Water System with 140,000 kits distributed. It is believed 70% of the households are using them. The cost to Clearwater would be $6.49 for distribution and feedback analysis per kit for an estimated total cost of $300-325,000. It was stated SWFWMD previously approached the City regarding the program and it was decided not to participate because it was felt it was too expensive. Clearwater initiated its own distribution program, with $42,000 used of the $100,000 set aside. The program has been in progress for about two years and there is still a large inventory of kits. A concern was expressed that the plumbing in many older homes can not use the retrofit devices. In response to a question regarding how it is determined what percentage is using the devices, it was stated feedback comes from door to door calls. Responses are that at least part of the kit is being used. Mr. Davis stated Phase III will be to work with hotel/motel management, and work with State offices for public awareness funding aimed toward tourists and the elderly population. It was stated Tom Hackett, Water Superintendent, would be meeting with SWFWMD regarding the program and would report. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. Presentation re: Drew Street Project (WSO) Bill Baker, Public Works Director, stated Drew Street is the answer for the east/west long range traffic problem. Part of it is County road and they are in a project about a year ahead of the City. The overpass at Drew Street and U.S. 19 is next on DOT's calendar for construction as a $9 million 94/95 project, and the Bayside Bridge is almost finished. When FDOT was approached to handle the project from NE Coachman to Osceola with Clearwater offering $4 million as an enticement, the project was put on their plans and received MPO approval. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. was hired for the PD&E studies which are necessary for a project involving Federal funds which, in this case, are administered by the FDOT. Dave Twitty, FDOT, stated the project was approved about two years ago, and they have been working with City staff regarding scope of services in defining project development and the PD&E study. The district has committed $8.5 million for FY 97/98 acquisition of rights-of-way. They are also working with the MPO assuring them of the priority of the project and receiving guidance as to where the district's money goes in Pinellas County. Mr. Twitty stated about a year ago DOT made a decision to look further into other options since it has to do with the priority list. The MPO ranks corridors in the County and puts them on a priority list and makes decisions on where to spend the money. If something is high on the list, they ask DOT to spend the money first. There are too many priorities; the list is used as a guide of where and when to spend the money. Options are being looked at for the Drew Street corridor to keep the costs reasonable and prudent for widening Drew Street. When Pinellas County looks at the priority list, they will know the MPO is getting the best option for the money. Mr. Baker stated the MPO approved the project some time ago and will reconfirm its priority status tomorrow. In response to questions regarding priority status, he stated MPO endorsement is required. The project was endorsed about two years ago, but somehow was not entered into their list of projects. Staff anticipates that once the City is officially in the program the project will be advanced because of the City's production with plans and specifications and its readiness to go. Mr. Twitty responded to questions regarding the FDOT's input regarding priorities, stating they would have to get concurrence from the MPO in moving the project up on the priority list by displacing other projects already funded. There is $8.5 million of State money designated for 1997/98 right of way acquisition. Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan still have to finish the PD&E study and go through a final design which is a two to three year process. This would be the earliest point to acquire rights-of-way, and would have to be worked out with the MPO because all dollars are committed in the first three years. Mr. Twitty stated when the scope of services for the PD&E study were being discussed, about six months of technical time was lost. Drew Street was not funded in the program for design or right of way acquisition prior to the amendment to the PD&E study. The $4 million commitment of Clearwater got a lot of attention, with the FDOT looking to support Clearwater's priority by placing the money as early as possible. Any further action has to come from the MPO. The City has not done anything to hinder the process. Jim Kennedy, of Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., displayed a map depicting MPO priorities in Central Pinellas citing East Bay Drive and Ulmerton Road as part of the FDOT's program for the past ten years. Currently for right-of-way and construction, probably the MPO's first priorities along with several interchanges on U.S. 19 at S.R. 60 and at Drew Street. The new #1 priorities are at Coachman and Sunset Point Roads. In response to questions, Mr. Kennedy stated the County is scheduled for rights-of-way acquisition next year which will take about twelve months, followed by construction. The Clearwater section of Drew Street is from Fort Harrison Avenue to Coachman, and is #9 on the MPO priority list. Mr. Kennedy stated the process starts with creating a federal aid project. This is followed by the PD&E study, of which Clearwater is now 41% through; final design which, once you reach the 90% point, is followed by right-of-way acquisition, which takes about 24 months; and 18 months for construction. The total process takes about seven years, which could be shortened or lengthened when dealing with federal funds. The flow chart was designed for Drew Street the intention was to streamline the project both time wise and financially. Initially, it was felt a one-way pair was not viable for this area and would not have to be considered. It has now been determined that FDOT will require a one-way pair analysis for Cleveland and Drew Streets be included in the PD&E study. Mr. Tittle stated an enormous amount of right-of-way would be needed for Drew Street with significant impacts. He felt it best to have the answers for the public and the FHWA regarding the one-way pair option. The streets for the pair were chosen by FDOT and Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan staff. Mr. Kennedy stated traffic impacts will need to be studied before a determination could be made for a switchback location. The complete limits of the one-way pair have been outlined. Environmental data on Cleveland Street needs to be gathered before finishing the study, which will take another five months. About the middle of next summer the analysis will be complete. A decision will need to be made whether to go ahead with design or wait until after the public hearing which will delay design until December, 1993. In response to a question regarding whether FHWA would deny funding if the City's recommendation was not the cheapest, Mr. Kennedy stated he's never known them to turn down a recommendation of the FDOT, and the decision will be FDOT's. The FDOT will discuss the alternatives with the FHWA, with the recommended choice. A large difference in costs between Drew Street and a one-way pair will have an impact regarding how soon a project can be completed. In response to a question regarding the cost for Drew Street, he stated about $5 million is for construction and $9 million for rights-of-way. Regarding the amendment to the PD&E Study contract with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., the Public Works Director stated if the one-way pair drops out early, all of the $190,000 contract increase may not be necessary. The hourly rates are the same, and the time involved has been examined by FDOT and concur it is reasonable. In response to questions whether there are guidelines in designating a one-way pair, it was stated to be effective the roads should be 300-1200 feet apart. Drew and Cleveland would be ideal in that regard. ITEM The City Manager stated he asked the Public Works Director and City Traffic Engineer to look into the feasibility of taking ownership of Cleveland Street in exchange for Court Street. The Traffic Engineer stated he spoke with Jim Edwards, the head of planning for District 7 of the FDOT, who stated the Drew Street PD&E Study has become a factor in any change. He stated the FDOT would like to reserve the Cleveland Street corridor should it become a portion of the S.R. 590 corridor. In addition, Mr. Edwards stated the state would not consider the jurisdictional redesignation of S.R. 60 through downtown at least until the one-way pair portion of the Drew Street project has dropped out of the picture. ITEM Mayor Garvey expressed concern regarding the danger of Keene Road dead-ending at Gulf to Bay Boulevard, and questioned whether some additional signage could be installed. The Traffic Engineer stated there are overhead signs on the approach about half a block back. A double arrow sign or end of road diamond would be acceptable. The green arrows would be a conflict with the crosswalk indication. Consensus was a sign with arrows both ways would best suit the need. Since it is the FDOT's responsibility, it was requested staff get with them for their recommendation and report back to the City Commission. Declare as surplus, for the purpose of leasing to the IAFF, property located in Magnolia Park Sub., Block 12, Lot 8, for the period 1/1/93-12/31/97, for a monthly rent of $275 (GS) To be withdrawn The City Manager stated this item is being withdrawn. An estimated cost of $20-27,000 was received for relocating the building, which is not justifiable for the purpose of leasing it to the IAFF. It was suggested the property at Garden Avenue by the Fire Department could be leased short-term. Concern was expressed whether there was sufficient parking. American Disabilities Act Transition Plan. The American with Disabilities Act (A.D.A.) of 1990 was passed by Congress on behalf of the 43 million people in the United States who have a physical or mental disability. It seeks to give them the same access to employment, transportation, public services, retail and business establishments, and telephone communication as is available to the nation's able-bodied citizens. Title I of the 1990 ADA covers employment in the public and private sector. Title II covers public services and transportation. Title III covers commercial facilities and privately owned public accommodations such as hotels, restaurants, and taxis. Title IV covers telecommunications. Title V covers miscellaneous provisions such as enforcement and insurance issues. Pursuant to this law, all public entities with 50 or more employees were to have developed by July 26, 1992, and must complete by January 26, 1995, a Transition Plan. This plan must provide for the removal of barriers to the disabled if structural modifications are required to achieve program accessibility. Most of these barriers will be found in restrooms, parking lots, walkways, entrances, stairs and elevators, ground and floor surfaces, furniture, and drinking fountains. As the law requires, the City's Transition Plan: 1) lists all such barriers, 2) gives a detailed outline of the modifications that will be made in order to remove these barriers, and 3) gives a time table for the completion of those modifications,. By January 26, 1995, disabled individuals should be able to approach, enter, and use all facilities that are accessible to the general public. This includes public parks and stadium, public sidewalks, and public transportation as well as public buildings such as libraries, auditoriums, and public-access city offices. It does not necessarily include facilities to which the public normally has no access such as most of the fire stations, some of the public service facilities, and a few no-public-access City offices, e.g. Gas System. An A.D.A. Advisory Committee has been formed and meets monthly. The committee members either have a disability or represent agencies whose clients are disabled. Currently the Committee assists in reviewing the City's Transition Plan and other plans, such as the street-end plans on the beach, making recommendations as appropriate and practicable. A.D.A. compliance cost estimates of $747,661 are outlined in the City's Transition Plan. $129,016 of these estimated costs, representing improvements to the Purchasing Building, the Utilities Building and Annex, and City Hall and the City Hall Annex, are no longer necessary due to the construction of the new City Hall, and the $19,445 anticipated for improvements to the Clearwater Beach Recreation Center have already been funded in the 1992/93 Capital Improvement Project 315-3263, Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex. An adjusted estimate for A.D.A. compliance is $599,200. Of this amount, it is recommended that approximately $145,065 be funded by Enterprise Fund operations, with the remaining $454,135 funded by General Fund surplus. In response to questions, it was stated anyone with a disability must be able to approach, enter and leave a publicly used building. Employee only areas are exempt. If compliance is not obtained, the area is required to shut down. Discussion ensued regarding the costs of updating the intersections for compliance with the plan. It was stated several million dollars from Penny for Pinellas tax will be received for sidewalks over several years. The cost is estimated at $1,000 each for 861 intersections. In response to questions, it was stated buildings, intersections and sidewalks must be in compliance by January 1995. The plan is being reviewed by different organizations, but no comments have been received. The plan does not receive an official approval from any governing agency but is subject to challenge. The plan has been ready since July; the money is the important part. A presentation was requested for Thursday night, with a continuance to the January 21 meeting to allow the Commission time to review the plan. (Cont. from 12/3/92) Fourth amendment to paragraph 3 of Lease Agreement with Bikini Buttons, Inc., dated 6/12/90, allowing sale of charts, maps, personalized license plates, fruit shipping service (produce not allowed in store), key duplicating service and sale of greeting cards (MR) Mr. Eric Peterson, current lessee of room 8 in the marina building and owner of Bikini Buttons, Inc., d/b/a One-Hour Photo and Dive Shop, requests paragraph 3 of his lease agreement be amended to include sale of charts, maps, personalized license plates, fruit shipping service only (produce not allowed in the store), key duplicating service and sale of greeting cards. The lease agreement with Bikini Buttons, Inc. expires on November 30, 1994. All other conditions, limitations, restrictions and obligations of the current lease agreement will remain in effect throughout the term of the lease. This item was continued from the December 3, 1992 meeting due to concerns regarding certain post cards being displayed and sold. Bill Held, Harbormaster, in response to a question regarding a concern about the postcards, stated the Police Department cannot do anything about it so they backed off. The City Attorney suggested this is a landlord/tenant dispute. The City is the landlord and may have more leeway as the owner. Presentation regarding proposed Island Estates Marina Station expansion project (WSO) On January 24, 1991, the City Commission approved the exchange of land with Mr. Rex Harper whereby the City acquired the property at 205 Windward Passage for Hillsborough County acreage owned by the City sewer fund. The proposed Island Estates Marina Expansion property is an irregular shaped lot within the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. The proposed Marina is in character with the surrounding land uses and should not create negative impacts on nearby land uses. At the present time there are several watercraft facilities located in the immediate area. The proposed Marina Expansion design meets required setbacks and includes perimeter landscaping. This Marine Department Capital Improvement project is scheduled for Fiscal Year 1993/94. Challenger Enterprises Inc. has been placed under contract to handle the permitting process through the state and county. Current available funds in the CIP will cover the permitting costs. Funding for the dock construction and upland improvements estimated at $415,000 and payment of $430,000 to the sewer fund for the property will come from Marina borrowing. Slip rent revenue will be sufficient to cover the annual debt and for maintenance/upkeep of the facility. The proposed Marina Expansion will be operated as an unstaffed facility of the Marine Department with 76 wet boat slips and parking for 36 vehicles. There will be no fueling facilities, commercial vessels or live-aboard vessels. Dredging is not required and the boat slips will be located on city-owned bottom land. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the expansion and the Development Code Adjustment Board approved variances for parking spaces and clear space for the expansion. Combined conditions of the approvals include the following: 1) the applicant shall obtain a building permit within one year of this public hearing; 2) all marina facility lighting shall be directed away from residential land uses; 3) no habitable buildings or structures shall be constructed; 4) parking shall be by permit only; 5) the applicant shall apply for a variance from the Building/Flood Board for a variance to permit construction within 18 feet of the existing seawall; and 6) the City shall amend the site plan to reconfigure the three parking spaces next to detention area #3. The Harbormaster stated there will be a security gate with permit parking only. Slip rentals will exceed $90,000. Comments objecting to and in support of the project were received. In response to a question regarding traffic, it was stated there are no concerns. Rejection of mediation agreement between the City and Roger Brennan (CM) Mediation for Brennan v. City was held on November 17, 1992. An agreement was drafted. The City agreed to reclassify Mr. Brennan to R-60 Step 5 in the regular pay plan. He is now Credit Manager, a SAMP position. The City would pay Mr. Brennan the amount necessary to adjust his 1987/88 evaluation from a "C" rating to an "A" rating without adjustment to the score, and annual leave used in connection with pursuing this claim and other considerations and concessions, the amount to equal that necessary to bring the total gross amount to $10,000. Mr. Brennan agreed to drop all charges and any potential charges since the beginning of time until this settlement. The City and Mr. Brennan agreed to state that the parties have amicably resolved their differences. The agreement called for Ms. Pequignot, Mr. Brennan's attorney, to submit legal fees and taxable costs for City Attorney's review. Legal fees were submitted for $52,671 and taxable costs were submitted in the amount of $13,606.40. The entire file is available for Commission review in the City Manager's office or, if the Commissioners wish, they may discuss this individually and directly with the City's labor attorney, Ms. Crumbley. The agreement stated "this settlement agreement is wholly contingent upon the events described herein and the following, the failure of any one of which results in this agreement being void and of no effect: 1) agreement on the amount of attorney's fees to be paid to Brennan's attorneys; 2) review and approval by the City as provided under the claims ordinance". The City and the City's labor attorney have reviewed the attorney's fees and costs and cannot reach agreement with Ms. Pequignot regarding her fees. The City's position is that it has done nothing wrong and is only considering settlement as a potentially economically viable way to put this matter to rest. The figure submitted by Mr. Brennan's attorney does not fit this criteria. The recommendation to deny the settlement is based on the fact that the City and Mr. Brennan's attorney could not agree on the amount of Mr. Brennan's attorney's fees to be paid. If this case is not settled in mediation, the City will proceed to court. The federal court date is set for the January 1993 docket. Deborah Crumbley, Labor Counsel for the City, stated documentation was received from the plaintiff's counsel for fees of $52,000 plus $13,000 in costs. At this point, the City feels a more appropriate amount is $30,000. She will be meeting with Ms. Pequignot tomorrow afternoon to further discuss this matter and attempt to reach an agreement. If not, it is her obligation as the City's counsel to treat Ms. Pequignot's request for $52,000 in fees and $13,000 in costs as a bonafide settlement offer which would be presented to the Commission under the claims ordinance with staff recommendations for or against. In response to questions whether an option would be to go to trial, Ms. Crumbley stated it would be an option. A trial date is currently scheduled for January 4. If the matter is not resolved on December 17, trial preparation must begin immediately. There are currently 75 people under subpoena and a lot of last minute preparation required. The court date has been pushed back previously since the court system is obligated to take criminal cases first. (Cont. from 12/3/92) Public Hearing - Vacating 7' x 36' portion of Dempsey Street lying adjacent to Lake Belleview Addn, Blk 2, Lots 21 & 22 (Rehm V92-20)(PW) When Mr. Rehm purchased the subject encroaching building his survey did not disclose the encroachment and depicted the building within the property limits. Mr. Rehm is now in the process of refinancing his property and a more current survey shows the portion of one of his buildings encroaching approximately six feet into the right-of-way of Dempsey Street. Mr. Rehm applied for a vacation to eliminate the encroachment. While the City has a 60 foot right-of-way in this neighborhood and, because the streets all dead end into Lake Belleview with little traffic, the City could do with 7 feet less roadway width in this location. It is not desirable to impact the right-of-way to this extent and an attempt was made to find some manner in which Mr. Rehm's financial dilemma might be resolved other than the right-of-way vacation. It is staff's understanding that a letter expressing the City's toleration of the encroachment (with qualifying language) will sufficiently resolve Mr. Rehm's dilemma. In response to a question why the City could give up seven feet, the Public Works Director responded if no other alternative, the road could be narrowed. It was also stated the City prefers to tolerate the encroachment. (Cont. from 12/3/92) Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5319-92 - Vacating easterly 3' of westerly 5' utility easement lying in Mandalay Sub., Blk 57, Lot 8 (Davis V92-22)(PW) The purpose of this vacation is to eliminate the encroachment of a swimming pool into an existing utility easement. There are no utilities of the City, Florida Power, General Telephone or Vision Cable currently occupying the easement. There are no future plans by these agencies for future use of the easement. All reviewing departments and the Public Works Director have no objection to the request and it is recommended the application be approved. It was stated when the permit was applied for, the easement was not referenced on the maps. The permit was issued prior to City Commission approval based on past requests. In addition, the applicant had already contracted for the design and construction since he was not made aware of the easement for a couple months. In response to questions, the Public Works Director stated the City did not require the applicant to show a drawing of his easements and foundations relative to the easement since the map did not show any easement. In the past, the Building Department would issue a permit after the applicant produces a survey showing the pool is not in the easement. The survey would show a line outside the easement which was assumed to be the pool but was actually the water line outside the easement. Later it would be found that the footers do encroach. Now, if an easement is involved, a drawing of the pool in a cross section is required showing the closest edge to the easement before issuing a permit. Edenville Channel Improvements (92-27) The purpose of this project is to make improvements to a drainage ditch located south of Druid Road, north of the McMullen Tennis Complex, and to the rear of homes located on Edenville and Evelyn Avenues. The residents who own and are adjacent to the drainage ditch have made numerous requests to the City to make improvements to control erosion of the steep banks of the channel. The environmentally permittable alternative to control the erosion is to widen the channel section and reconstruct the banks of the ditch to a flatter side slope. The existing 30 foot width of the existing drainage easement will allow for the top of the ditch banks to be widened and a flatter side slope to be constructed. the banks are proposed to be resodded and reinforced with a geo-fabric known as Terraloc which is placed beneath the sod. The sod will grown through the geo-fabric to help stabilize the soil. We believe the more stable side slopes will be able to better withstand erosion than the present irregular geometry. The flatter slopes will also be easier to maintain by the residents. It should be understood that unless the ditch is either paved or piped (both unpermittable), a sewer storm may still cause erosion of the banks. The residents have agreed to relocate their fences as necessary to the edge of the drainage easement to allow for the proposed improvements. This project (approximately 600 feet in length) was first bid on August 12, 1992 at a price of $37,055. That bid was rejected as too high and not competitive. This second bid, although still involving a single bidder, is 33% less costly and reasonably priced. In response to a question regarding the fences, the Public Works Director stated the residents are aware they will need to move them. Amendment to Engineering Contract - Joint City-State Widening Project S.R. 590/Drew Street, Downtown Clearwater to NE Coachman Road (PW) The City proposes to widen Drew Street from just west of Ft. Harrison Avenue to just east of NE Coachman Road in cooperation with the FDOT. The City has agreed to take the lead in the project's development by preparing the Project Development and Environmental Study (PD&E) in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) rules and procedures. The City has allocated $4 million to accomplish as much of the studies, design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction as the amount will afford - with the State joining the effort in a future fiscal year and thereafter taking the project to conclusions. At its meeting of 12/05/91 the City Commission approved an Engineering Services contract with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J), Consulting Engineers, for the preparation of the PD&E study for a fee of $496,429.89. The contract is structured such that the numerous subsequent phases can be assigned to Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan should the City desire when the need arises. At the time the contract was being negotiated and the scope of services described we purposefully eliminated an item of work involving the examination of a one-way pair along Drew Street/Cleveland Street as a project alternate. We did not believe that the costs associated with an examination of this one-way pair alternate was money well spent. While the FDOT examined and approved the proposed contract with PBS&J, we have from the start been aware that we might have to include the one-way pair study to fully comply with FHWA regulations. The FDOT has now stated that the one-way pair alternative must be included due to the possibility of constructing a lower cost facility to meet future traffic demands minimizing right-of-way acquisition and construction costs and to meet FHWA study requirements. Public involvement is a major component o the PD&E study and a one-way pair may well be rejected by strong public opposition. Although it appears that the one-way pair consideration may drop out early, it is necessary now to amend our existing contract to include that item of work. The amendment consists of an additional 2,305 manhours of work for an added value of $190,400.40. This cost will be reduced if the one-way pair option is dropped after the first public workshop. The hourly rates for the various personnel involved are the same as the existing contract approved in 1991. The Public Works Director stated the idea of a one-way pair is not desirable but, since it is a less expensive option, it is required as part of the study. In response to a question regarding staff's opinion regarding a one-way pair, Mr. Baker stated staff does not favor a one-way pair. FHWA federal monies are requiring that we study it as an alternative. Because it may be less expensive is not grounds for the FHWA to require the one-way pair. Public opinion has a great impact. In response to a question, it was stated a determination was not made for which road would be eastbound or westbound. The study must be done, and a public hearing will be held. Contract with Donnell Consultants Inc. as Project Management Consultant for City of Clearwater City Hall Project (CM) Each of the short-listed firms presented formal proposals on Wednesday December 2, 1992. Following the written and formal oral presentations, each of the firms was ranked individually by each member of the selection committee. The total scores from the presentation were used to rank the firms. Each member of the selection committee independently ranked Donnell Consultants Inc. as the first-ranked team. A meeting is planned with Donnell Consultants Inc. to contract an agreement. If none can be agreed to, the City will cease discussions and begin negotiations with the second-ranked team. Each of the short-listed firms expressed concern over the timetable presented in the City's Request for Proposal. The majority of them, and especially Donnell Consultants, requested that we reschedule the program and schematic design phases so that our cost saving opportunities in the design phase of the project can be optimized. Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice request this item be continued. In the agreement the scope is not specific enough. Specifically, the space needs are required before agreeing on a contract. Concern was also expressed regarding the compressed time frame. The plan needs to be definite. She requested the Commission review the plans and space needs. In response to questions, it was stated the schedule will be delayed up to three months. Donnell Consultants Inc. are architects and would be qualified to bid a design/build concept; however, they were told if chosen for this contract they would not be eligible. Commissioner Deegan stated he would like to review the RFP responses. This item was pulled from the December 17 meeting. (Cont. from 12/3/92) Revised Downtown Development Plan - First Reading Ords. #5297-92, #5298-92, #5299-92, #5300-92 & #5302-92 to expand D.T. Dev. District Land Use Plan classification; First Reading Ords. #5301-92, #5303-92, #5304-92, #5305-92 establishing Urban Center (Eastern Corridor, Core or Bayfront) zoning; First Reading Ord. #5235-92 revising Urban Center zoning district requirements and Res. #92-73 - accepting D.T.Dev. Plan and expanding the CRA area (PLD) The City Manager requested this item be continued to the January 21 meeting, stating more time is needed to consider the recommendation for the East End Project. He wants to be sure all pertinent information is supplied. It will not affect the submissions to the State of Florida. (Cont. from 12/3/92) Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5306-92, #5308-92 & #5310-92 establishing new LUP classifications for the area and Ords. #5307-92, #5309-92 & #5311-92 establishing a new zoning pattern for the area and Ord. #5320-92 creating a new Infill Commercial Zoning District - North Ft. Harrison/North Myrtle Avenue Zoning Study (PLD) In response to concerns by both commercial and residential property owners within the study area, staff has prepared a neighborhood zoning study designed to promote commercial redevelopment and enhance neighborhood stability in the study area. On December 1, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of the study subject to the following conditions: 1) a code amendment should be adopted to allow reconstruction of nonconforming single family residences if they are destroyed or damaged in excess of 50% of their value; 2) the following uses should be added to the proposed Infill Commercial district as conditional uses: Bed and Breakfast Inns, outdoor commercial recreation and congregate care; 3) the following use should be deleted from the proposed Infill Commercial district: Blood Plasma Centers; and 4) a provision should be made to allow noncommercial parking in the RS-8 zoning district for the portion of the study area west of N. Ft. Harrison Avenue. Staff has presented the study to the North Greenwood Design Review Committee, Board of Directors, North Ft. Harrison Business Association, Old Clearwater Bay Homeowners Association and the North Greenwood Association. Input from these groups has revealed widespread support for various aspects of the plan. Commercial revitalization of the existing neighborhood commercial strips along North Fort Harrison and North Myrtle Avenues was considered extremely important. There is also strong support from two of the groups for the "downzoning" of existing RM-8 areas to a RS-8 classification to promote neighborhood stability (N. Ft. Harrison Business Assoc. and Old Clearwater Bay Homeowners Assoc.). However, there is a concern by several property owners in the area that the rezoning will reduce the value of their property. Staff notes that existing duplex, triplex and multifamily uses are currently nonconforming under their existing RM-8 classification; they would remain nonconforming under the proposed RS-8 classification. There is a second concern that commercial conversion of the RM-8 area sandwiched between two commercial strips will result in reducing the amount of land available for affordable housing in this area of Clearwater, as well as creating a "barrier" between the North Greenwood and Old Clearwater Bay neighborhoods. Staff recognizes this concern and, in the plan, proposed addressing the affordable housing issue through the commitment of the construction of a minimum of 50 multiple family housing units within the area by 1995. Construction of these units will replace the housing units that might be removed from this area as redevelopment occurs. Also, regarding the "barrier" issue, staff recognizes the potential for a larger commercial area to impede access from both a physical and a psychological standpoint between the two neighborhoods. However, the area proposed for the rezoning does not constitute a stable residential area due to the existing land use patterns which have been established in this area. The subject property is sandwiched between two commercial areas and will continually face land use conflicts due to this existing land use pattern. Attempting to create an expanded residential zoning pattern to minimize these conflicts is not likely to succeed since there will be a continued incentive for commercial property owners to retain their property, even in a nonconforming status, in commercial use. Staff recommends Commission adoption of the Plan and its associated ordinances as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board, with the exception of the proposal to allow noncommercial parking as a conditional use in the RS-8 zoning district. Staff has promoted a rezoning of the existing RM-8 residential area west of N. Ft. Harrison Avenue in order to maintain and increase neighborhood stability. Allowing commercial uses fronting on N. Ft. Harrison Avenue to extend their parking lots into this area will not serve this purpose. Per Commission direction on December 3, 1992, the ordinance has been revised to reflect staff recommendation. Finally, staff has looked into the proposal to extend higher density multifamily zoning along the north side of Venetian Drive. Staff feels that going beyond a recognition of the existing 12 unit multifamily structure will negatively impact neighborhood stability by introducing new, higher density residential uses to the area. Further research into this matter has led staff to conclude that the appropriate zoning district to recognize the existing multifamily use is RM-16, rather than RM-20. The ordinance has been revised accordingly. Scott Shuford, Planning Manager, stated the purpose of the RM-16 zoning is to recognize what is there as opposed to allowing additional density. There are a couple of large structures in that area that will be probably be converted to multi-family which can create a potential for increased problems in this neighborhood as far as single family uses are concerned. The Planning and Development Director stated the whole character of a neighborhood changes after a certain percentage of multi-family dwellings, and staff believes this neighborhood already has enough multi-family structures. A map depicting the land uses in the area was displayed. Concern was expressed regarding one property being upgraded and the next door neighbor being downgraded. The purpose of zoning from multi-family to single family is to eliminate additional multi-family dwellings. The existing multi-family structures can not be rebuilt as such should they be destroyed. (Cont. from 12/3/92) Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5296-92 & #5312-92 - Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments related to the Countywide Consistency Program; Res. #92-69 - authorizing the PPC to request amendments to the countywide plan for properties located within City limits; and Res. #92-78 - requesting the PPC to reconsider certain of its countywide Land Use Plan rules (PLD) On October 13, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of the proposed changes to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Land Development Code relative to the PPC Consistency Program. On November 5, 1992, this item was continued by the Commission in order for a joint work session to be held on this subject with the Planning and Zoning Board. Two joint work sessions were held on November 17 and November 30, 1992. David Healey, Executive Director of the PPC, was present at both meetings to answer questions about the Countywide Rules relative to the PPC Consistency Program. Staff presented a table which outlined the effects of the PPC Consistency Program on properties in the City. The following paragraphs summarize discussion from the joint work sessions. City Land Use Plan Categories The proposed increase in the number of land use classifications will require more reviews by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) and Countywide Planning Authority - County Commission (CPA), thereby reducing City Commission authority to make local changes. As discussed in the work sessions, it is unlikely the PPC staff will favorably consider consolidating or reducing the number of categories since substantial discussion and effort has gone into establishing these categories, and approximately one half the local government in Pinellas County have implemented changes to their regulations to adopt the proposed categories. However, to retain the appropriate level of local zoning authority and flexibility, the Commission may wish to consider requesting the PPC consider reducing the total number of land use categories on the Countywide Plan from 29 to approximately 10. Thresholds The PPC has established a one acre threshold for land use plan changes that place properties under this threshold level on the Council's consent agenda. Staff has recommended that revisions be made to the Special Act to entirely exempt subthreshold amendments from PPC review. Staff has also recommended increasing the threshold in accordance with the Planners Advisory Committee recommendation or with State small-scale amendment thresholds. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) The PPC has established a maximum transfer of one unit per acre from properties designated Preservation (except for properties seaward of the CCCL). Staff feels TDR regulation should be a local prerogative. Staff would recommend that TDR's be deleted from the Countywide Rules, leaving its regulation entirely to the discretion of local governments, as has been done in a limited fashion for TDR's across the CCCL. Mayor Density/Intensity Reductions .95 Impervious Surface Ration (ISR) requirement in the Resort Facilities High classification - This Countywide requirement will require changes to the Beach Commercial Zoning District which currently has no minimum open space requirement. Given discussion at the work sessions, PPC will not support a change. Staff recommends the PPC be asked to revise its Rules to allow a 1.0 ISR for existing areas in this classification which have been developed under a 1.0 ISR requirement (e.g., the Beach Commercial Zoning District). .65 Floor Area Ration (FAR) requirement in the Institutional classification - This Countywide requirement specifically affects Morton Plant Hospital's expansion plans. The City's P/SP zoning district allows a maximum FAR of 1.00. PPC staff has indicated support for some solution to this concern. Staff recommends the PPC be asked to revise its Rules to allow a 1.0 FAR for hospital uses within this classification. Minor Density/Intensity Reductions One minor density/intensity reduction issue remains a concern which regards the Residential/Office Limited and Residential/Office General/Residential Office Mixed Use Category. Staff recommends the PPC merge the classifications and establish a maximum 15 units per acre density allowance and a .60 maximum FAR allowance for the merged classification. PPC staff support for the revision of PPC requirements is not considered likely, given discussions at the work session. Staff would recommend the PPC be requested to revise its rules concerning this item. Staff recommends the Commission adopt a resolution to the PPC expressing the City's concerns about the changes to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Land Development Code regulations. The Planning and Zoning Board reconsidered this item on December 15, 1992. They recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments and approval of Resolution #92-78. The Board felt strongly that the .95 ISR requirement in the Resort Facilities High classification should be deleted from the Countywide Rules in order to be consistent with existing standards in the City for properties on Clearwater Beach. Therefore, Exhibit A of Resolution #92-78 has been revised in accordance with the recommendation of the P&Z Board by: Deleting the recommendation on the "City Land Use Categories" issue; Deleting City objections to the .95 ISR requirement in the Resort Facilities High classification; Deleting the Residential Office Limited and General concern under the "Minor Density/Intensity" issue; and revising the wording of the "Small Scale Amendment Thresholds". Staff recommends deleting the "City Land Use Categories" issue because the added categories ultimately provide the City with greater flexibility to annex property without PPC review under the City's interlocal agreement with Pinellas County. The .95 ISR and Residential Office Limited issues were deleted as it was the consensus of the Commission to not address these relatively minor issues at this time. The Threshold issue language was revised after discussions with the City's lobbyist, James Massey, to clarify the intent of the language. Staff recommends the Commission adopt on first reading the proposed changes to made the City's Comprehensive LUP and LDC consistent with the Countywide Plan. Simultaneously, the resolution to changes the Rules in the areas which conflict with the City's standards will be forwarded to the PPC. If the PPC decides to make these changes, then the regulations will be modified at second reading. If the PPC chooses to not make the changes, then the Commission will be asked to advise staff on what course of action to take at second reading. Amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan will be sent to the State DCA as a part of the City's first State biannual 1993 review. In response to a question regarding what impact the recommendation of .95 versus 1.0 will have on the beach, it was stated it would be negligible. The FAR argument for Morton Plant is significantly more important in terms of potential impact than the .05 argument on the beach. The Planning and Development Director stated they are asking for a requirement for landscape space. There is a question whether the requirement should be on a lot by lot basis. Consensus was to remove the recommendation to change the ISR from .95 to 1.0 for the Beach Commercial district. The City Manager stated Morton Plant is at .6 FAR right now. Their five to ten year plan looks at an FAR of almost .9. The City Manager stated Morton Plant may be looking at a mini DRI, a very expensive process. There will be major impacts on transportation, especially in that corridor. It is important from a development standpoint that Morton Plant be allowed to go up to 1.0. It was stated the majority of hospitals in Pinellas County are at least 1.0. They need to present their case to the Planning Council with the City's support. Res. #92-77 - amending fee schedule to eliminate fees associated with annexations and to establish a fee for development agreements (PLD) As an initial step in proceeding with the annexation incentive program directives provided by the Commission, staff has produced a proposed amendment to the fee schedule to eliminate fees associated with annexations. This fee schedule would result in there being no charges for the annexation of properties into the City, including any necessary zoning or land use plan amendments associated with the annexation. Of course, subsequent changes to zoning or the land use plan for properties which have been annexed will carry the same fee as for other properties currently within the City. The fee schedule also establishes a fee for development agreements. In response to a question regarding what is a development agreement, the City Attorney stated it is an attempt to enter into a negotiated contract with the developer that outlines the terms of how the land can be developed. They are now good for ten years. City's have utilized the process previously but without an official contract. The City Manager stated there is a proposed development being discussed now on Gulf to Bay Boulevard, and they are wanting a development agreement. A fee has never been established. They are often used to reserve capacity on the road. Ultimar Three Condominium Appeal re: property located at 1560 Gulf Blvd., Sand Key (Sea Towers Construction Co./Johnson) (CM) The developer of the Ultimar Three residential condominium development is appealing the City Manager's decision to prohibit two aspects of the proposed site plan design which are not in conformance with the Final Judgement of the Circuit Court Settlement Stipulation imposed on October 17, 1986. The stipulation states that in the event the City Manager determines the proposed site plan is not in conformance, the owners shall have the right to appeal the decision of the City Manager to the City Commission. First, the developer is proposing to increase the height of the proposed structure to 280 feet which is 70 feet above the maximum height allowed by the settlement stipulation which allows a height of 210 feet. However, Exhibit "B" Parcel II Schematic Site Plan, note number 8, states: "The height of the building structures is defined as the distance above the flood plain to the roof deck or, in the case where sloped roofs are used, to the mid-point of the roof slope. Elevator machine rooms, mechanical rooms, stairs, parapet walls and other necessary design elements will be permitted above the maximum heights established herein". The Ultimar residential development includes three buildings, of which two have already been constructed. Ultimar One has a height of 210 feet and Ultimar Two has a height of 252 feet. The Ultimar Two tower was built to 252 feet to accommodate mechanical rooms that were perceived to be "necessary design elements" when the tower was approved. Staff approved the 252 feet height for Ultimar Two since the usable floor space was below the 210 feet limit and only machinery, parapet walls and similar features extended above 210 feet, in accordance with note 8 above. A letter from James Polatty, Planning and Development Director, to the applicant's representative contains a statement that the allowable height for the Ultimar Three project is 248 feet. This height limit was based on a staff estimate of the Ultimar Two building height that further research has determined to be in error; the building is actually 252 feet tall. Staff feels that if the Ultimar Three building is constructed to the same height as the Ultimar Two building, it will be sufficiently tall enough to accommodate any likely mechanical equipment and other necessary design elements. The Sand Key skyline is an important characteristic of Clearwater and should reflect the best planning and architectural practices possible for the long term benefit of the citizens and visitors of Clearwater. The applicant has presented no "hardship" as to why the building should be 280 feet high rather than 252 feet like the Ultimar Two structure. The design elements associated with this extra height appear to be simply aesthetic in nature and are not related to mechanical requirements. Second, the developer of Ultimar Three residential condominium development is proposing to include an in-ground swimming pool within the clear view corridor. The settlement stipulation does not allow active recreation uses in the clear view corridor. Exhibit "B" Parcel II of the Schematic Site Plan, note number 4, states: "The view corridors through the site will exclude all structures, walls, fences and parking, but will allow passive recreational amenities, landscaping, pedestrian walkways, driveways and emergency vehicle access ways." The applicant has presented no "hardship" as to why the swimming pool must be located in the clear view corridor. A letter of opposition has been submitted by the representative of the Harbor Condominium located across from the proposed tower. The letter states that it is also an appeal of any decision by staff to authorize a building height in excess of 210 feet. There is disagreement regarding what "other necessary design elements" includes. The developer is claiming that the items causing the increased height are necessary mechanical rooms and design elements. The City Manager reviewed the developer's plans, stating due to the developer's design of the building to maximize views of the gulf and profitability, they are requesting the additional height also for aesthetic purposes. The required view corridor allows passive recreational amenities. The developer is including a swimming pool in said classification. It was stated the land development code classifies it as active recreation. In response to referenced townhouses, it was stated they are only proposed at this time and have not yet been approved. The area designated for the townhouses is the only other available spot for the swimming pool. A request was made that this item be placed first under Other City Manager Items. Amended Site Plan and First Reading Ord. #5323-92 - IPD Zoning for Lot 1, Clearwater 19 Commerce Center, 22067 US 19, 14.13 acres m.o.l. (Kunnen, Jr. Z92-07)(PLD) This request is for a change of zoning to Industrial Planned Development (IPD) for Lot 1, Clearwater Commerce Center in order to allow a broader range of uses than that permitted under the existing zoning for this developed parcel. The property is located on the east side of U.S. 19 approximately 1950 feet north of Drew Street. The site plan was reviewed by the Development Review Committee at its meeting on November 25, 1992. The revised plan will be presented to the Commission on December 17, 1992. The Commission will also be advised of the anticipated changes to the plan resulting from the proposed construction of the Drew Street overpass. On November 17, 1992, the applicant was granted two conditional use permits by the Planning and Zoning Board under the existing IL zoning. One permit was for outdoor retail, display, and storage of automobiles and light trucks on the undeveloped section of the property fronting US 19. The second permit was for vehicle service uses in the building on the north side of the property and for the north portion of the building at the northwest corner of the property. In response to a question whether the zoning change could be limited to part of the property, the Planning and Development Director stated staff is proposing a condition of the site plan that accommodates future acquisitions of Florida Department of Transportation at the same time allowing the owner a wider range of uses. It was stated there use to be a broader range of uses prior to the 1985 zoning changes. In response to a question whether the change would increase the value of the property thereby compensating for the affects of the FDOT plans, it was thought it may. A question was raised whether its a possibility to allow the additional uses on the property on the revised site plan and not the part to be purchased by the state, it was stated it would be possible. Authorization to file suit against Randolph Centeno for damage to City property (CA) Assistant City Attorney Richard Hull stated Mr. Centeno was involved in a traffic accident in which he drove his car into a pole and knocked out a traffic signal box. The City wants to recover the property damage. ITEM Discussion ensued regarding limiting how late a Commission meeting can continue. Concern was expressed regarding hearings being discussed at 3 a.m. in that the public is not being served fairly. A suggestion was made that the Commission vote whether or not to continue a meeting once it is past a certain time. Concern was expressed regarding continuing items in that there may be additional advertising expenses, and inconveniencing people who are present to address a hearing. Consensus was to schedule for further discussion. City Manager Verbal Reports The City Manager reported Alan Stowell has requested the special sign variance meetings be televised. It was stated Vision Cable needs two weeks notice. There was no objection to televising if Vision Cable can schedule. A rough draft of the Maas Request for Quotes/Proposals is in Commission mail for discussion at the City Commission meeting. It was reported Mr. Elliott requested in writing to be agendaed before the Commission in order to discuss the repeal of City Code Chapter 74. Consensus was to schedule for January 7, and request Mr. Elliott submit written information in advance. COMMISSION DISCUSSION ITEMS Downtown Development Board's Downtown Comes Alive Committee concert/ festivities on January 2 - to attract Hall of Fame visitors as well as residents A request was received that fees and permits be waived and in-kind services be provided. Information regarding the costs to the City was requested. A concern was expressed that the last event was over-policed. Concern was expressed there was not enough information regarding what was being requested. Additional information was requested. Mayor Garvey stated the PSTA is concerned the Trolley trips to Island Estates may be cutting into the business of the regular bus route. She also stated the requirements for trolleys is being changed. Commissioner to serve on the Chi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation Board of Trustees The City Manager reported the Board meets once a year in New York. Consensus was to address this in April when all City Commission appointments to boards are considered. Draft Bill to amend Pinellas County Planning Act The County Administrator has forwarded to the City changes he wishes to propose to the Countywide Comprehensive Plan Special Act. The City Manager presented his letter supporting the recommendations. Consensus was for the letter to be sent. OTHER COMMISSION ACTION The Mayor expressed concern that copies of responses sent by individual Commissioners are not on file. It was the consensus to establish a read file for this and that staff develop a process for indicating when inquiries are responded to. Sign variance meetings were scheduled for January 15 and 25 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. each. The meeting adjourned at 5:33 p.m.