Loading...
05/01/1995 CITY COMMISSION WORK SESSION May 1, 1995 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Fred A. Thomas Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Sue A. Berfield Commissioner Michael R. Dallmann Commissioner J. B. Johnson Commissioner Also present: Kathy S. Rice Deputy City Manager William C. Baker Assistant City Manager Pamela K. Akin City Attorney Scott Shuford Director Central Permitting Rich Baier City Engineer Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Patricia Sullivan Board Reporter The meeting was called to order at 9:24 a.m. Service Awards - None. The Commission recessed to meet as Pension Trustees at 9:24 a.m. and reconvened at 9:29 a.m. PRESENTATIONS Redevelopment of Courtney Campbell Beach - Chuck Walter, FDOT Project Representative City Engineer Rich Baier referred to a recent Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) proposal to terminate public access to the Clearwater section of the Courtney Campbell Causeway and redesign it to address erosion concerns. The City Commission had requested staff develop an alternate plan to permit Clearwater to take over responsibility for the beach. The City’s safety concerns include liability issues related to the combination of watercraft, vehicle parking, children and beach activities. Chief Engineer Terry Jennings said the City’s plan would request FDOT to move their proposed four-foot high rock rubble away from mean high water so beach area would remain. A shell parking area behind the revetment would be high enough to see the water and still meet stormwater requirements. A section of the lot would be paved and a ramp constructed over the revetment to meet ADA access requirements. A rest-room and pumping station would be built and trash facilities provided. Neither watercraft nor jet skis would be permitted. The project would cost an estimated $100,000. Mr. Baier reported FDOT plans to construct a deceleration lane at the beach area’s access regardless of the City’s decision. He recommended against the project. While 250 - 300 cars currently park at the causeway beach on sunny days, the plan would provide parking for only 75 - 80 cars. He noted public concern regarding the mix of parking, sunbathers, and playing children. Mr. Baier indicated it was not prudent to expose the City to added liability. It was recommended that staff contact Senator Latvala and suggest he work with FDOT regarding his concerns for the beach and that the State forbid watercraft access along the causeway. A concern was expressed that no controls currently exist. Chuck Walter, FDOT engineer, said the State approached the City regarding this project because they feel the beach is a City “amenity.” He predicted sand migration would continue eroding the beach. Mr. Walter said providing parking for beach visitors is outside FDOT’s mission. It was suggested other State agencies, such as the Park Service, take over the causeway beach. An opinion was expressed that vehicle license plates indicate most causeway beach patrons are Hillsborough County residents. Mr. Baier said he would forward the staff’s plan for the State’s use. Consensus of the City Commission was to follow staff’s recommendation. Information Station Express - Don Maggard Don Maggard, Information Station Express (ISE) Sales Consultant, said ISE operates kiosks in Welcome Centers at four Florida gateways: I-75; I-95; I-10; and US 231. The touch screen of the Interactive System for Tourism, Attractions and Reservations (STAR) allows visitor access to information about tourist related services, local events and general Florida information. ISE employees are available daily to assist visitors in the use of the system. The name, address and telephone number of every hotel/motel in the State is included in the data base. Information on properties that advertise in the system can be accessed according to room rates, specific amenities and location. The auto-dial feature for direct reservations requires a participating property have an (800) number. Mr. Maggard recommended the City purchase the “Gold” package that includes a 30-second full-motion video seen at the Welcome Center kiosks every five to seven minutes. In answer to an inquiry, Mr. Maggard said ISE is fine tuning a system that could be used in local Welcome Centers. A request for a presentation regarding the establishment of a mini system in the City’s Welcome Centers was made. Concern was expressed that the City’s investment would be of little value if local properties did not participate. Mr. Maggard reported 18 Clearwater properties have signed up for a plan. The Gold package cost for four kiosks is $1,500 monthly. In response to a request for an incentive discount of 25%, Mr. Maggard offered a 5% discount Vision Cable’s offer to produce the video was noted. Suggestions for the film included a helicopter flyover of the Memorial Causeway, Marina, Pier 60, etc., a voice over, a streamer, and an area map noting Clearwater’s location 90 minutes from Disney World. Mr. Maggard said most Clearwater merchants have chosen to advertise in the I-75 and I-10 Welcome Centers. A suggestion was made to advertise in all four Centers, especially the East Coast entrance on I-95. Another suggested the City first try one or two locations. If the film includes enough information, potential visitors will find Clearwater. It is up to local business owners to decide their level of investment. Mr. Maggard stated the system tracks the number of phone calls to a motel property. Concern was expressed that the advertising’s effectiveness cannot be monitored. It was recommended that the City take the lead and do something for tourism. Mr. Maggard indicated no other City has signed up for the service. Concern was noted that small operations could not afford the advertising rates. Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice said staff would present a plan to the Commission after analyzing the marketing plan and budget. Concern was expressed that marketing efforts be directed to smaller motel properties. Ms. Rice reported the goal of the City’s new tourism plan, due July 1, 1995, is to better focus on marketing tourism. The plan includes City Commission input and direction. Design Review slide show - see Design Review Item on page 12. ED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Public Hearing - Res. #95-38 - adopting the Enterprise Zone Strategic Plan The Enterprise Zone Strategic Plan includes: 1) descriptions of community goals; 2) descriptions of coordinated efforts for revitalization; 3) descriptions of poverty and general distress; 4) verification that contributing organizations participated in the planning process; 5) commitments from the governing body to enact local and fiscal regulation incentives; 6) identification of local and private resources available in the nominated area; 7) indications of how the tax incentives and local, state, and federal resources will be used in the nominated area; 8) identification of funding requested under any State or federal program for the proposed revitalization efforts; 9) identification of the baseline, data and benchmark for measuring the success of the strategic plan; and 10) implementation strategy. Mr. Ferri said the volunteer Enterprise Zone Development Committee was formed last October and met every other week since December. Mr. Ferri said if the State approves the City’s Enterprise Zone, specific ordinances need to be adopted. Approximately $19-million worth of incentives will be available to zone businesses over the 10-year life of the Enterprise Zone. City costs will be $3-million, or $300,000 per year in tax breaks. He said the plan was developed as a team effort by many volunteers. He said the plan is competitive with the five other applicants. He noted details regarding utility tax credits do not need to be defined at this time. Concern was expressed regarding the proposal to include every qualified tract in the zone, especially areas in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) district. It was suggested that redevelopment plans focus on a limited area. Mr. Ferri indicated development in the Enterprise Zone will be market driven although staff can focus on one area. He said 70% of the City’s cost would be for businesses in the CRA part of the Enterprise Zone. Staff proposed a large zone to address State criteria requiring inclusion of residential areas as the legislation links job creation for residents with business and residential development. The City’s work with housing improvements, the area’s size and the City’s relationship with local agencies offering social and human services help strengthen the application. Mr. Ferri said the estimated annual cost of $30,000 required for one additional staff member may come from economic development funds. Concern was expressed that this program will be expensive to administer and will require an additional cost center. Mr. Ferri said zone properties in the CRA district will be lent funds to pay their CRA taxes. Mr. Ferri said properties in the proposed Enterprise Zone are declining in value at a rate of 6% per year while infrastructure costs increase. Concern was expressed about imposing an Enterprise Zone on the CRA district. Mr. Ferri said Enterprise Zone businesses in the CRA district will still pay taxes. The Committee recommended providing graduated abatements. The loan will be equal to the abatement and the business will pay taxes. Concern was expressed regarding the Enterprise Zone’s impact on the CRA and the fact that two organizations will be providing incentives for the same area. Ms. Rice noted that 70% of the zone’s commercial properties will be disqualified if the CRA district is removed from the Enterprise Zone. Mr. Ferri indicated this is a one time opportunity. It was suggested that a smaller Enterprise Zone be approved. Ms. Rice said State officials have indicated the City may be able to do something about the area encircled by the proposed zone if the Enterprise Zone is approved. It was noted the City can do many things without an Enterprise Zone. Mr. Ferri said the Pinellas Private Industry Council (PPIC) will work with the City and businesses by placing area individuals into jobs. In response to a question, Mr. Ferri said staff would provide help with loan applications. Concern was expressed that the Enterprise Zone, as first proposed, offered a great deal more flexibility regarding its size. Mr. Ferri said the CRA is not like an Enterprise Zone. He said the only forgivable loans relate to those used for abatements and the City is not responsible for pay back should those loans default. The majority of the Commission agreed the Enterprise Zone should be reduced, leaving a zone of six census blocks north of Drew Street. It was suggested that the tract including the Sunshine Mall be included if the areas do not need to be contiguous. A new resolution will be addressed on May 4, 1995. Second Reading Ord. #5815-95 - creating the City of Clearwater Enterprise Zone Development Agency After adopting Resolution #95-37, the City Commission needed to create a public body corporate and politic to be known as an Enterprise Zone Development Agency (EZDA). The agency shall be constituted as a public instrumentality, and the exercise by an EZDA of the powers conferred by this act shall be deemed and held to be the performance of an essential public function. The powers and responsibilities of the EZDA are: 1) to employ staff, subject to funding availability; 2) to assist in the development and implementation of the strategic plan for the Area; 3) to oversee and monitor implementation of the strategic plan for the Area; 4) to adopt a set of bylaws to govern meetings and other activities; 5) to file with the City Commission and with Florida’s Auditor General, on or before March 31 of each year, a report of its activities for the preceding fiscal year, including a complete financial statement; 6) to make quarterly reports to the City Commission evaluating progress in implementing the strategic plan for the Area; 7) to identify and recommend to the City Commission ways to remove regulatory barriers; 8) to identify to the City Commission the financial needs of, and local resources or assistance available to, eligible businesses in the Area; 9) to review, process, and certify applications for State enterprise zone tax incentives pursuant to SS 212.08(5)(g); 212.08(5)(h), 212.08(15), 212.096, 220.181, and 220.182; 10) to provide assistance to businesses and residents within the enterprise zone; 11) to promote the development of the enterprise zone; 12) to borrow money and apply for and accept advances, loans, grants, contributions; 13) to appropriate such funds and make such expenditures as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this act; 14) to make and execute contracts and other instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of its powers under this section; 15) to procure insurance or require bond against any loss in connection with its property in such amounts and from such insurers as may be necessary or desirable; 16) to invest any funds held in reserve or sinking funds, or any funds not required for immediate disbursement, in such investments as may be authorized for this act; 17) to purchase, sell, or hold stock, evidences of indebtedness, and other capital participation instruments; 18) to invest in community investment corporations; and 19) to submit to the Florida Department of Commerce prior to December 1 of each year a complete and detailed written report summarizing the activities of the fiscal year. Prior to the area being designated as an Enterprise Zone by the Florida Department of Commerce, the City Commission must create an EZDA pursuant to Section 290.0056 of the Florida Statutes, Florida Enterprise Zone Act of 1994. The City Attorney said the ordinance has been amended to modify the powers of the EZDA requiring City Commission approval. It was suggested the EZDA should only be granted the first four or five powers and the remaining powers remain with the City Commission. The City Attorney will provide draft legislation by May 4, 1995, that divide the powers into administrative ones for the EZDA and financial ones for the City Commission. The City Attorney indicated the Commission would retain power #12. According to State Statues, EZDA members are called commissioners. Concern was expressed about creating a new bureaucracy and opposition was voiced regarding a larger work force. Mr. Ferri said with one additional staff member, his department will work with other local agencies and handle the work load. His staff is already doing much similar work. Res. #95-45 - appointing the Board of Commissioners of the Enterprise Zone Development Agency (EZDA); designating Chair & Vice-Chair After the EZDA is created, the City Commission shall, by ordinance, appoint a board of commissioners of the agency that shall consist of not fewer than 8 nor more than 13 commissioners. The City Commission must appoint at least one representative from each of the following: 1) the local chamber of commerce; 2) local financial or insurance entities; 3) the businesses operating within the nominated area; 4) the residents residing within the nominated area; 5) nonprofit community-based organizations operating with the nominated area; 6) the local private industry council; 7) the local code enforcement agency; and 8) the local law enforcement agency. The terms of office of the commissioners shall be for 4 years, except that, in making the initial appointments, the City Commission shall appoint two members for terms of three years, two members for terms of two years, and one member for a term of one year; the remaining initial members shall serve four-year terms. The City Commission shall designate a chair and vice chair from among the commissioners. A vacancy occurring during a term shall be filled for the unexpired term. The importance of minority representation on the agency shall be considered in making appointments so that the agency generally reflects the gender and ethnic composition of the community as a whole. The Commission concurred that mandatory positions should be designated as four year terms. EZDA commissioners will be voted on by occupation, not name. Because of the ten-year limit of the Enterprise Zone, it was recommended that service be limited to two terms. Concern was expressed that EZDA commissioners should be City residents. The Commission recessed from 11:38 to 11:47 a.m. FN FINANCE (Cont’d from 4/20/95) Contract with Raymond James & Associates, Inc., to be City's Financial Advisor for a period of 3 years Seven firms responded to the City’s December 21, 1994 Request for Proposal (RFP) for expressions of interest from financial advisors. After the initial evaluation by the Financial Advisor Selection Committee, the top four firms made formal presentations. The Committee then selected Raymond James & Associates, Inc., as the top ranked firm. Fees for Raymond James, hired as the City’s Financial Advisor in 1989, remain the same as in the original agreement. The City can terminate the agreement any time by providing Raymond James with 90-days written notice. Finance Director Margaret Simmons said Raymond James scored first on both the oral presentation and written evaluation. Concern was expressed that in the past, Raymond James had to be pressed to negotiate a better deal for the City and should act like the City’s “hired gun.” GAS GAS SYSTEM Change Order to Joint Project Agreement with Pinellas County to install natural gas mains during improvements to Tampa Road, increasing the estimated labor cost to $267,000 On August 1, 1991, the City Commission approved this Joint Project Agreement (JPA). When the project was delayed until 1994, Pinellas County developed a new JPA form which the City Commission approved on January 18, 1994, including the same estimated labor and material costs from the 1991 Agreement. The Clearwater Gas System (CGS) has had to revise its project estimate to reflect current prices. Estimated labor costs have increased from $135,000 to $267,000. Material costs have increased approximately $5,500 to $40,000. Concern was expressed that these estimates had not been updated in 1994. Chuck Warrington, Gas System Managing Director, said that error should not have occurred. GS GENERAL SERVICES Purchase of 1 street sweeper from Florida Municipal Equipment, Lakeland, FL, for $95,890; financing to be provided under city's master lease-purchase agreement with Barnett Bank of Pinellas County (Consent) The street sweeper replaces another vehicle used by the Public Works Department in its street sweeping activities. This bid represents the lowest one submitted. Concern was expressed that proposed stormwater improvement through increased street sweeper action has not occurred. Public Works Director Gardner Smith noted the Commission had decided not to buy two additional street sweepers. It was recommended that stormwater regulations be reviewed. MR MARINE License Agreement with National Ocean Service, National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration to maintain and operate a permanent tide station on Pier 60, for a period of 10 years from date of last signature, with options to extend the agreement for subsequent 10 year periods (Consent) On January 24, 1991, the City reached a five-year license agreement with National Ocean Service (NOS) and National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with options for subsequent five-year extensions, to allow NOS to operate and maintain a tide station on Pier 60. After the old pier was demolished, the station was not reinstalled. This new license agreement allows NOS to locate east of the “T” on Pier 60 and operate a tide station with a small stainless steel enclosure and 20-foot meteorological tower to hold equipment. NOS will use the station for tide predictions, tidal analysis, storm surge, nautical charting and navigation. At their expense, NOS will install an electronic sign displaying air and water temperatures, wind speed and direction inside the Pier 60 bait house. With 90-days’ written notice, either party can terminate the agreement. In reply to concern regarding the electronic sign, Ms. Rice noted the moving sign will be inside and is not covered by the sign code. Concern was expressed regarding the tower and possible additional instruments. The City Attorney will amend the agreement’s language to state all changes in instruments must be approved by the City Commission. PR PARKS AND RECREATION Purchase/install replacement playground equipment for Del Oro Park & Marshall Street Park from Park Structures, Inc., for $42,631.28 (Consent) The City’s Capital Improvement Project was established to replace worn-out playground equipment in the City’s 27-playgrounds. Inspection and maintenance programs assure the equipments’ safety and determine the replacement schedule. For Fiscal Year (FY) 1993-94, staff earmarked substandard equipment for replacement at Del Oro and Marshall Street Parks. These major play centers, installed more than 10 years ago, are in poor condition and do not meet ADA accessibility requirements. The recommended equipment, geared to preschoolers and children between six and eleven years old, is constructed of steel and plastic with stainless steel hardware and contains a transfer module for disabled accessibility. It was reported that the park rest-rooms do not work. Concern was expressed that equipment in other parks is in worse condition. In reply to a question, Parks & Recreation Director Ream Wilson stated a large park, such as Crest Lake Park, may have more equipment. He judged that this equipment is in worse shape that others. Ms. Rice noted the equipment being replaced does not meet ADA requirements. A list of playground equipment, including the scoring, was requested. Mr. Wilson indicated his department adheres to a replacement schedule based on monthly and annual inspections of equipment condition. The Commission recessed from 12:20 to 1:00 p.m. (Cont’d from 04/20/95) Assignment of lease from PGA Tour Associates-I, Ltd. to Balboa Enterprises, Inc., for the PGA's interest as "Lessee" under lease dated 11/12/85, between the Chi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation (Lessor) and PGA (Lessee) On November 12, 1985, the City entered into an agreement with the Chi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation, Inc. to lease City property on McMullen-Booth Road to the Foundation for educational purposes and the construction and operation of a public golf course. On the same date, a “Lease” was reached between the Chi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation, Inc. and PGA Tour Associates-I, Ltd., to sublease part of the land on the east side of McMullen-Booth Road for the construction and operation of a golf driving range (Family Golf Center). The agreement’s initial term was through November 12, 2000. Automatic extensions have added 10 years to the term, now running to 2010. PGA Tour Associates-I, Ltd. may not assign their interest under the lease to another party without the written approval of the City and Chi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation Beryl Artz, Vice President of CCA Golf Center-Clearwater, Inc., has requested the City approve the assignment of the lease. Mr. Artz indicated a group of investors has offered and will assume the remaining term of the lease with plans to add batting cages, a miniature chip and putt course, and other improvements. Mr. Wilson stated that Balboa Enterprises was no longer interested but a new group, MJM, is interested in assuming the sub-lease. Money from the sub-lease would still flow to the Chi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation. He noted PGA Tour Associates-I, Ltd. reported they are backing out of the lease because of financial problems. Mr. Wilson noted the property needs attention. Concerns were expressed that Chi Chi leased out valuable City property for a profit. Mr. Wilson indicated Chi Chi subleased the driving range in return for money. Questions were raised regarding the reference to a general partnership in the original agreement and when did CCA become a general partner. Concern was expressed that the original lease had been violated. The City Attorney was requested to see if there has been a breach of contract and analyze possible ramifications. It was noted a developer has expressed interest in the land on the east side of McMullen-Booth Road for a shopping center complex. The developer’s offer included the relocation of the Police Department. A suggestion was made that the City take over the property for possible development and pay the Chi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation $60,000 a year for the remainder of the lease. The City Attorney noted the lease has a termination clause that requires just compensation for investment in the property and relocation expenses. If Clearwater becomes the sublessee, the City would be obligated to abide by operational requirements. Mr. Wilson said that Chi Chi had indicated the driving range facility is important beyond the revenue it provides the youth foundation. He reported the driving range and club house are open and the “putt-putt” course is closed. Concern was expressed that the lease includes a requirement that the lessee maintains the property. It was requested that the City’s Real Estate department value the property. A suggestion was made for staff to contact the Chi Chi organization regarding their feelings on the other issues involved. It was questioned if another area property was available for the Police Station. The difficulty in relocating the pistol range was noted. Opposition to constructing a shopping center on the property was expressed. It was noted that JJM formed MJM. Interest was expressed in the financial situation of MJM and the condition of the property. Concern was expressed that Chi Chi did not receive all of the profits from this donated land. It was recommended this item be pulled. EN ENGINEERING (Cont’d from 04/20/95) Agreement for professional engineering services with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., for a term of 5 years On February 13, 1995, the City Commission reviewed and approved the ranking of consulting engineers for negotiation of a contract for engineer of Record. In accordance with Florida’s Competitive Consultants Negotiation Act, staff negotiated with the top ranked firm, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J), Tampa, FL, to prepare a five-year consulting contract for execution by the City Manager and City Commission. Concern was expressed regarding PBS&J’s involvement with a County project on Sunset Point Road. Mr. Baier reported that PBS&J was the construction engineer inspector and did not design the project. It was noted that many assertions in a recent letter were incorrect. Mr. Baier said staff determines when assistance from PBS&J is required based on a project’s size. CP CENTRAL PERMITTING Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5769-95 - LDCA prohibiting parking on front lawns of single family, duplex and triplex uses, including any unpaved portion of street r-o-w adjacent thereto (LDCA 94-15) This code amendment was prepared in response to requests from homeowner groups, the code Enforcement Review Task Force, the Planning & Zoning Board, the Development Code Adjustment Board, and the City Commission. If adopted, the ordinance will: 1) make it unlawful to park on a front lawn in a residential neighborhood or on the grassy portion of a street right-of-way. Violations will be enforceable through the issuance of parking tickets, and 2) existing regulations affecting the parking of boats, commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles, etc., in residential neighborhoods will be relocated from Chapter 42 to Chapter 30 in the Code of Ordinances to aid enforcement and permit the issuance of parking tickets. On August 22, 1994, a 10-member citizen focus group reviewed parking on front lawns and the ordinance. Consensus was: 1) parking on front lawns in residential neighborhoods is a problem the City should regulate; 2) parking should be allowed only in appropriately designed and constructed spaces including spaces constructed of mulch, gravel, or other durable materials; and 3) issuing parking tickets to violators is the preferred means of enforcement; enforcement should occur on a complaint basis only. The Planning & Zoning and Development Code Adjustment Boards recommended approval. On April 11, 1995, staff met with the North Greenwood Association (NGA) board to discuss the ordinance’s impact on that neighborhood. Board members expressed concern the ordinance would impact smaller lots and substandard setbacks. The NGA suggested the following options: 1) exempt substandard properties from the provisions; 2) provide a streamlined, no cost, minor variance type program to allow exemptions on a case-by-case basis; or 3) postpone enforcement action in North Greenwood for two years to allow time to “catch up” to the rest of the City through redevelopment and code enforcement activities. After two years, the City could investigate whether enforcement is desirable. Staff agrees potential problems may impede implementation of the ordinance on substandard properties but feels exemptions should be on a case-by-case basis. The ordinance is not part of the Land Development Code, and is not subject to regular variance procedures. A separate exemption or “minor variance” type program could be established as part of the implementation procedures. Staff agrees with postponing enforcement in North Greenwood until after the effects of the City’s comprehensive redevelopment/code enforcement program are realized. After the number of substandard properties are reduced, enforcement could be initiated. Staff suggests postponing second reading to allow staff time to develop the recommended enforcement program. Concern was expressed that staff concentrated on North Greenwood as the only neighborhood with potential conflicts when South Greenwood and the beaches will also be affected. Central Planning Director Scott Shuford said North Greenwood has a large number of substandard lots. When the City starts enforcement of the ordinance on a complaint basis, many people will be affected. Mr. Shuford stated enormous support exists in the community for the ordinance, even in North Greenwood where they have asked for additional time. He presented a drawing of a typical 50 foot lot and noted a 30 foot wide paved platform would accommodate three cars in front. It was noted that most neighborhood associations support the ordinance. Concern was expressed regarding the ordinance’s impact on less fortunate residents. Mr. Shuford noted street parking will continue to be permitted where allowed. (Cont’d from 02/02, 03/16, & 04/20/95) Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5741-95 & #5742-95 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General & CPD Zoning for property located at 509 Bayview Ave. and 508 Meadow Lark Lane, Town of Bay View a/k/a McMullen Bayview Sub., Blk 3, part of Lots 1 & 2, and S 1/2 of vacated street abutting N side of lots; and CPD Zoning for property located at 509 Bayview Ave., 508 Meadow Lark Lane, and 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd., McMullen Bayview Sub., Blk. 3, part of Lots 1 & 2 and Bayview City Sub., Lot A, and vacated street r-o-w between Lot A and Lots 1 & 2 of McMullen Bayview Sub. (R. Roy Meador, LUP93-43, Z93-54) This item was continued from the April 20, 1995 Commission meeting by applicant request and without objection from Bayview neighborhood residents. The applicant met with area residents and staff understands some concerns were addressed in the proposed revised site design, although not all concerns were fully covered. If the Commission feels the proposal can be approved, the first ordinance reading will need to be continued to allow any modifications of the site plan. Staff does not support continuance unless the Commission favors the request. Meetings between the applicant and residents regarding site design modifications resulted in a proposed site plan submitted on April 14, 1995. The plan shows a smaller percentage of the site being rezoned to CPD and a residentially-zoned portion of the property’s south side retained to serve as additional buffer. This residential area conforms to RS-6 zoning lot size requirements. It was noted that P&Z has not had an opportunity to review the recently submitted revised plan. Mr. Shuford indicated the new plan is less intensive than the last one P&Z reviewed. He noted negotiations have occurred between the applicant and neighborhood. Mr. Shuford noted the plan may need to be changed if the driveway must be modified. He indicated staff is seeking City Commission direction LDCA - Sign Code Update (WSO) On September 17, 1992, Clearwater’s sign code underwent substantive change to coordinate with Pinellas County’s sign ordinance standards. Since standardization, ministerial and enforcement efforts have revealed areas warranting adjustment. Most are minor. Prior to presenting an amending ordinance, staff requests Commission input regarding: 1) number and sizes of flags, and heights of flagpoles; 2) sizes of political signs in residential neighborhoods; 3) standards for placement of sandwich board signs downtown; 4) restrictions affecting vehicle signs; and 5) the number of permissible message changes on electronic reader boards and multi-prism signs. Mr. Shuford indicated staff recommended a reduction of the size of political signs in residential neighborhoods. He also suggested the City limit the number of flags based on a property’s size. Concern was expressed that limiting the size of flags based on zoning districts will create additional work for staff. Mr. Shuford said a cumulative total for flag area will be established. He said problems with adjoining properties with different zoning can be addressed through the variance process. Mr. Shuford recommended grandfathering flag poles and establishing a short amortization for flags. Opposition against limiting American flags was noted. Mr. Shuford indicated the ordinance addresses all flags, not just the US flag. The City Attorney said the ordinance cannot treat flags differently based on their message. Mr. Shuford indicated a need to coordinate regulations with the Design Review Board. He noted a proposed kiosk on Cleveland Street will be discussed at the May Downtown retreat. Concern was expressed that use of sandwich boards Downtown is tacky. Mr. Shuford expressed concern regarding commercial vehicles parked in front of businesses as signage. He recommended reader boards not be permitted to change their messages more than eight times a day. It was suggested that movable reader signs could replace sandwich board signs. Staff will return to the City Commission with specific proposals. (Cont’d from 4/20/95) Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5817-95 - LDCA re Design Review Board (LDCA 95-01) (CP) This amendment to the Land Development Code establishes a Design Review Board (DRB) for nonresidential sections of Clearwater beach (as an implementation measure of the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force report), for downtown (to facilitate implementation of the design grant programs) and for the North Greenwood commercial district (to facilitate implementation of the design grant and zoning incentive programs). This ordinance replaces the North Greenwood Design Review Committee regulations and establishes a seven-member board to implement the various existing design guidelines or those to be developed by the DRB, including the Tropical Seascape design guidelines for Clearwater beach. Under the proposed ordinance, design review will be voluntary, except for grant applicants, in downtown and North Greenwood and mandatory on Clearwater beach. Staff supports CRA Director Peter Gozza recommendation for a mandatory approach downtown. The scope of DRB review will be limited to building plans for new buildings, building additions and facade alterations requiring building permits, and sign plans for which sign permits are required or requested. DRB will also provide policy-type input on design and development issues regarding Clearwater beach, downtown, and North Greenwood, including the development of design guidelines. Mr. Shuford suggested the Commission may require the guidelines be mandatory in each area. He presented a slide presentation to show how simple changes in design can make a difference. Concern was expressed that all guidelines have not been established. Mr. Shuford indicated the DRB may be more effective if it has a hand in developing the guidelines. Ms. Rice noted guideline recommendations may differ if they are mandatory. Concern was expressed that the City Commission may have to hear a large number of appeals. Mr. Shuford said the number of appeals will not be great if word gets out that the Commission supports the DRB. Concern was expressed about establishing mandatory guidelines. Mr. Shuford said after strong public participation at association and public meetings and newspaper advertising, the support for mandatory guidelines on the beach seems strong. It was suggested that guidelines for all three areas be either mandatory or voluntary. It was noted the DRB will have jurisdiction if guidelines are mandatory. Concern was expressed that nothing will happen if the guidelines are not mandatory. The majority of the Commission agreed guidelines for all three areas should be mandatory. Mr. Shuford said staff does not propose that interior improvements to trigger a design review. In some programs, interior improvements can count toward the grant match. The Commission recessed from 2:47 to 2:54 p.m. CM ADMINISTRATION Direction re disposition of the Tree Farm Property A City tract, bounded on the south by Airport Dr., on the west by the Keene Rd. right-of-way, on the north by the CSX railroad and on the east by a line along Arcturas and Hercules Avenue, contains Clearwater’s Executive Airpark, Clearwater Golf Park, the City’s Fleet Maintenance facility, a Public Works Complex and a 5.73-acre tree farm. The tree farm has not been active since 1993 and the Airpark Authority has expressed interest in expanding onto that property to expand facilities and increase Airpark revenues to render it more self-sustaining. The Airpark will have difficulty reaching self-sufficiency within its current crowded boundaries. Pinellas County’s Engineering Department sent a written request that the City allocate part of the tree farm for stormwater detention necessary to construct Keene Road. Pinellas County’s road construction project is desirable and will positively affect Clearwater. The preliminary pond site covers the northern half of the tree farm property. For $1 per year, the Florida Military Aviation Museum requested the City lease the entire tree farm site plus two acres to be added later, and construct an access road to serve the site until Keene Road is completed. The museum’s request included numerous other valuable considerations. The tree farm is valued at $100,000 per acre, for a total value of $575,000. If land is provided for the County project, half the acreage will remain available for Airpark use. If the museum can function with part of the property, they continue as an interested party. Staff feels any arrangement with the Aviation Museum should be structured as an outright sale of the property for a predetermined appraised value. Assistant City Manager William Baker said the Engineering Department has also requested the tree farm site for a materials testing laboratory. It was suggested they consider the old Parks building. Opposition to leasing the land to the Florida Aviation Museum for $1 a year was voiced. It was noted the priorities for use of City property must be based on City need. It was suggested that part of the property can be used for a pond site and part for Airpark needs. Concern was expressed regarding Airpark expansion. It was suggested that the Florida Aviation Museum work with the County and that the museum’s planes could be parked on the land until it is needed for construction of the road. Concern was expressed regarding possible squatter rights. Mr. Baker suggested offering a different temporary location. Consensus of the City Commission was to agree with staff’s prioritization. This item will be placed on Thursday’s Consent Agenda. Proposed Site Plan for renovation of 3-acre site at base of Pier 60; presentation as to elements of proposed renovation; & direction requested re further activities; location of Beach Pavilion The City Commission instructed staff to remove all structures and features on the three-acre tract at the foot of Pier 60 on Clearwater beach. Plans once included a possible tower restaurant as a site focal point. The Commission noted its desire to remove the landscaped entrance mound and indicated the proposed pavilion should not be located within the Pier 60 site due to its proximity to the Holiday Inn Surfside. Several considerations have arisen since the Commission’s early instructions. Locating the pavilion outside the three-acre tract will impact the adjacent parking lot with a loss of parking spaces and revenue. Several parties have indicated the issue of proximity to the Holiday Inn has dissolved and the pavilion should have a “beach aura.” Gerri Raymond, President of Sunsets at Pier Society, has requested to sell commemorative “path stones” to generate revenue for the City and Society. Sara Zaleski and others oppose removal of the landscape mound. James Grogan has submitted a proposal to construct a 335-foot observation tower whose description appears to simulate the Commission’s original concept for a tower on the site. The proposal brochure describes four possible business deals, information, and a pro forma. Mr. Baker stated current plans include removing the existing buildings and pool to permit a view of Pier 60 from the road and creating a passive park with a covered playground and concession stand. The contract to raze the structures is about to be let. He noted landscaping on the north side would separate the park from the Holiday Inn. It was felt a vista of the beach and Pier 60 is important even if the berm must be removed. Mr. Baker suggested the berm could be replaced later if the Commissioners choose. The majority of the Commission agreed to remove the berm. Mr. Baker referred to plans to locate the pavilion on the sand. The majority of the Commission agreed with the proposal. Mr. Baker referred to a proposal from James Grogan regarding a tower that would not compete with current beach attractions. A potential for laser shows exists and the tower could produce an annual income of $2.5-million. The tower could be located anywhere on the beach with pedestrian traffic including the Mandalay or S. Gulfview parking lots. Concern was expressed that the tower not be located in the Pier 60 park. It was noted the tower is 20 years old and a request was made that the manufacturer report on the tower’s tolerance for local salt conditions. A new tower was estimated to cost $7.3-million. Mr. Baker reported the tower would be renewed and noted the elevator is the only complex part of the tower. Concern was expressed that Tampa would not permit the tower to be erected and that the projected figures seemed untenable. It would be impossible to run at full capacity daily. Questions regarding the figures were raised. It was noted that people are attracted to towers and a suggestion was made that staff research the proposal’s feasibility, but not at the Pier 60 location. Mr. Baker referred to a proposal from Ken Hamilton to develop the park as an enterprise with a larger concession stand and deck, a Volleyball Hall of Fame with a Welcome Center and trolley stop, and an open-air pavilion. Ms. Rice noted concern that the City would have to extend the opportunity to others to bid on this proposal if the Commission were to consider it. The City Attorney concurred. Concern was expressed that the park remains under City control and a suggestion was made that this plan could be considered for another beach location. As other proposals might exist, it was suggested an RFP be let to attract some revenue producers. It was noted an opportunity exists for the City to receive revenue from the concession stand and pavilion. A concern was expressed that the ice cream stand remain until a replacement is constructed. Consensus was to proceed with the plan for a passive park including the pavilion. The ice cream stand will remain until its replacement is erected. The drop off lane will remain and parking will be permitted. Concern was expressed regarding replacing the pool. Ms. Rice indicated that would be addressed during budget discussions. Mr. Baker noted the pool is in poor condition and not heavily used. (Cont’d from 04/20/95) Budget for leasehold improvements 1st & 3rd floors, Harborview Center restaurants The $9.11-million approved for the Harborview Center construction project will accomplish everything defined in the project’s scope and includes the rear glass atrium, escalators and column removal. Continuing financial consideration relative to the project includes a proposed lease under current negotiation with Pickles Plus Restaurant that calls for the City to fund $80,600 for the infrastructure serving the restaurant, i.e., heating, air-conditioning, plumbing, electrical, etc., and an additional $100,000 for walls ceilings, finishes, lighting, doors, etc. with the $100,000 finishing costs to be reimbursed to the City over two five-year periods. Another party has expressed interest in a larger third floor restaurant with costs estimated at $136,000 for infrastructure and $164,000 for finishes. Approval of this item will allow installation of the basic infrastructure serving both restaurants while negotiations continue. Funds necessary to finish the restaurants will be requested as lease negotiations come to fruition. Funding will be provided by a mid-year budget amendment transferring $216,000 in unappropriated retained earnings of the Special Development Fund. Mr. Baker reported a shell will be constructed for the third floor restaurant. Ms. Rice indicated all the furnishings and fixtures are included for Pickles Plus, including the salt shakers. Mr. Baker noted if Pickles Plus does not renew after five-years, the City keeps the equipment. In reply to a question regarding an earlier payback arrangement, Ms. Rice noted the lease has not been finalized. She said a similar deal may be negotiated for the third floor space. Concern was expressed that the leases for neither restaurant call for providing catering services. Ms. Rice said the budget does not contemplate constructing a catering kitchen. The City is not negotiating with anyone regarding the third floor space. Construction work beyond “white space” will occur downstairs once the lease with Pickles Plus is finalized. Concern was expressed that the restaurant may leave before the lease is complete. Ms. Rice stated the City would own everything and is working on termination clauses. It was recommended that Pickles Plus provide a letter of credit. The item is to be amended to only include funds needed for the shells. Funds for the finishes will be approved once leases are negotiated. CA LEGAL DEPARTMENT OTHER CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS Update of status of occupational licenses for adult businesses Assistant City Attorney Robert Surette said Clearwater’s ordinance has not been amended to reflect recent decisions and proposed legislation will need to pass constitutional muster. The ordinance attempts to incorporate recent constitutional decisions. Discussion of occupational license revision Mr. Surette said the revision places constraints on the time period in which the City must issue or transfer a license. He referred to page 3 and noted language deals with the right to revoke or deny the issuance of an occupational license. Grounds are established with specific language to build a defensible procedure. Mr. Surette referred to page 5 which imposes time constraints as occupational licenses cannot be revoked forever. Merchants have the same protections as a First Amendment speaker. The City Attorney noted this discussion is to introduce the Commission to the materials. First reading is not scheduled for May 4, 1995. Mr. Surette noted the City has four active legal cases regarding this issue. He said he would report the impact of new legislation on those cases before first reading. Mr. Surette referred to pages 6 and 7 and noted disqualification provisions for applicants are established. Criteria for denial of First Amendment activities are limited to sexually oriented offenses although no Supreme Court case has determined if a local government can deny an applicant a license based on that. The Commission and City have been aggressive in regulating activity within City establishments. Ms. Rice questioned if current difficulties relating to licenses for non-sexually oriented businesses are being addressed and fixed. Mr. Surette indicated they are and the ordinance includes a disqualification for those who have been subject to court supervision within the previous three years. Mr. Surette said the remainder of the ordinance establishes time constraints. Provisional licenses will not be limited by a time frame. If reasons for disqualification appear on a report, the applicant will be notified of the grounds for denial and can appeal to the City Manager. Time constraints on the appeal process are also included. The ordinance is complex because the City is attempting to regulate business with a taxing device. Ms. Rice indicated the ordinance is important to address as it has needed an update for a long time. Consensus was to have first reading on May 4, 1995. City Manager Verbal Reports Scheduling Meetings 1) Strategic Planning was scheduled to follow the City Commission Work Session on May 30, 1995. 2) The CIP was scheduled to follow the City Commission Work Session on May 15, 1995. 3) The Walk-Thru of the Harborview Center was scheduled for 5:00 p.m. on May 18, 1995. The Downtown Partnership Meeting Retreat will take place on May 13, 1995 at the Junior League Building on N. Ft. Harrison from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Ms. Rice recommended Commission representatives, Mayor Garvey and Commissioner Berfield, plan to attend the afternoon session from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. Bargaining Agreements Ms. Rice reported tentative agreements have been reached with all four City unions and reviewed a handout. Highlights include a four percent one-time bonus, two three-percent raises over the next three years and a step increase between Steps 9 and 10 was added. The number of sick days was decreased from 15 to 12 over three years and the cap for sick day accumulation for new hires was lowered to seven months. Concern was expressed that lower caps were not instituted for employees who had not reached their caps. Ms. Rice indicated sick day accumulation for current employees is frozen at the cap in place when they were hired. All employees have a cap and the rate of accrual will be slower. Ms. Rice said the Pension plan was settled with the 2.75 multiplier. She recommended the City hire Lee Dahner, the Union’s lawyer, to draft language for the pension plan to be reviewed by the City Attorney. Ms. Rice said she had agreed to bring to the Pension Trustees a request for payment of Mr. Dahner’s fee for the negotiations. A leave pool using vacation time only has been established for each bargaining unit. She noted the unions will take the contracts to their groups for ratification before it is returned to the City Commission. Commission Discussion Items (Cont’d from 4/17/95) Commission Rules (including Work Session procedures) It was requested that all language referring to Monday Commission meetings be removed. It was noted CRA meetings will occur before the first Monday Work Session in a month. It was noted that references to the City Clerk are included in the City Charter. The City Attorney recommended dividing Commission Rules into Meeting Rules and Administrative Rules. She and the City Clerk can draft a proposed list of rules for Commission review and approval. The Commission concurred. It was proposed that time could be saved at Work Sessions if Commissioners note their concerns via memorandum prior to the Work Sessions. It was requested that the rule requiring the Vice Mayor to be advised when the Mayor is out of town be deleted. Consensus was to remove that rule. It was noted it is important for City emergencies that the Mayor be required to notify the City Manager when leaving town. Rule 20 was addressed. The City Attorney noted the City Charter refers to absences and this rule defines “absence.” She stated it was important that this language be defined. Rule 21 defines excused absences. The City Attorney indicated the rules need to address Closed Door Sessions. Rule 8 indicates the City Commission determines which staff members will attend the meeting. It was felt this was a City Manager prerogative. Consensus was to delete Rule 8. Work Session rules will be incorporated in the Commission rules. Concern was expressed that the public is not permitted to comment on items during Work Sessions. The majority agreed no change to the rule should be made. Commissioners Berfield and Thomas requested copies of Work Session minutes. The remaining Commission indicated they do not need them. Volunteer Recognition Program Concern was expressed that the Commission should have input and select recipients of the Commissioner’s Award. An oversight had caused Commission members to not be informed of the identity of last year’s award winners. It was noted a committee chooses the winners from a list of nominees. The majority agreed the program should remain as it is as long as special care is taken to apprise Commissioners prior to the awards ceremony. Other Commission Action Mayor Garvey expressed concern that the RFP for the East End project be a joint project with the CRA and the City. It was noted the CRA’s Executive Director’s compensation is tied to that project. Commissioner Johnson questioned where funds from the $7,500 Local Assistance Planning Grant would go. Ms. Rice indicated in the General Fund. Commissioner Johnson questioned who makes decisions regarding grants to North Greenwood. Ms. Rice indicated the City Commission makes those decisions. Adjourn The Commission adjourned at 5:34 p.m.