Loading...
12/13/2004CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION CITY OF CLEARWATER December 13, 2004 Present: Brian J. Aungst Mayor Frank Hibbard Vice-Mayor Hoyt P. Hamilton Councilmember William C. Jonson Councilmember Carlen Petersen Councilmember Also present: William B. Horne II City Manager Garry Brumback Assistant City Manager Pamela K. Akin City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter The Mayor called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. at City Hall. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Presentations Service Awards Nine service awards were presented to City employees. Business Assistance Partnership with Chamber and County Katy Cole, Regional Chamber of Commerce, reviewed program offerings and accomplishments. She thanked the City Council for their commitment. The City Council recessed from 1:29 to 1:30 p.m. to meet as the Pension Trustees. Economic Development and Housing Approve the City of Clearwater FY2003-2004 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is the principal administrative report, documenting the City’s expenditures of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) programs funds to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). For FY (Fiscal Year) 2003-04, the City’s allocations for the CDBG and HOME programs were $1,180,000 and $592,678, respectively. The CAPER document serves as the basis for program monitoring for compliance and for financial audits for all activities conducted during the FY 2003-04 as outlined in the Consolidated Action Plan for that program year. The report provides HUD with necessary information for the Department to meet its requirement to assess each grantee’s ability to carry out relevant Community Planning Development (CPD) programs in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. It also provides information necessary for HUD’s Annual Report to Congress and it provides grantees an opportunity to describe to citizens their successes in revitalizing deteriorated neighborhoods and in meeting objectives stipulated in their Consolidated Planning document. The City of Clearwater FY 2003-04 CAPER contains information on the City’s assessment of activities: 1) Assessment of Three to Five Year Goals and Objectives; 2) Affordable Housing; 3) Continuum of Care; 4) Leveraging Resources; 5) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing; 6) Citizens Comments; and 7) Self-Evaluation. Through programs covered under the CAPER, over 38,567 persons were assisted through Public Services, Public Facilities, Housing Rehabilitation and New Construction, Fair Housing and Economic Development programs. Also, during this past fiscal year 14 homes were rehabilitated and five new homes were constructed through City CDBG and HOME Programs. The City’s Neighborhood and Affordable Housing Advisory Committee approved the FY 2003-04 CAPER on December 7, 2004. The FY 2003-04 CAPER is due to HUD no later than December 29, 2004. Assistant Housing Director Howie Carroll said the City received no comments on the report. He said there are several large projects still ongoing. Information related to the earned income tax credit is included in training materials. A copy of the CHIP (Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project) Master Plan was requested. Fire and Rescue Department Award a contract to Alan Jay Automotive Network for the purchase of three 2005 Chevrolet 2500 3/4-ton Suburbans, at a cost of $86,199 in accordance with Section 2.564(1)(d)-Florida Sheriff's Association & Florida Association of Counties Contract #04-12-0823 and authorize lease purchase under the City's Master Lease Purchase agreement. Vehicle Requests: a) Replace #G1537 1995 Chevrolet Suburban with 2005 Chevrolet 2500 3/4-ton Suburban; b) Additional vehicle - 2005 Chevrolet 2500 3/4-ton Suburban for Fire Division Chief/Support Services Division; and c) Additional vehicle: 2005 Chevrolet 2500 3/4-ton Suburban for Fire Div. Chief/Operations Division. The first requested vehicle is a replacement to a reserve, in accordance with the schedule for replacement, at a cost of $30,609. Fire Chief Jamie Geer has inventoried the Fire & Rescue fleet and will be eliminating four other vehicles that were over purchased and from now on will replace vehicles with fire management vehicles more appropriate to the department needs. The Department decided to not go with pick-ups due to design module problems. The purchase requests for the other two vehicles are at a cost of $27,795 each. The Resource Management Committee approved the request on November 3, 2004. In response to a question, Fire Division Chief Joel Gray said the cost of equipping the vehicles is budgeted. He said “over purchased” referred to vehicles that were supposed to be taken out of service but were still in use. Those vehicles now have been removed from service. Finance Adopt Resolution #04-36 establishing the intent to reimburse certain Water and Sewer project costs incurred with proceeds of future tax-exempt financing. A Water and Sewer rate study has been completed which recommends implementation of water and wastewater rate increase of 7% in FY 2006, and 6% rate increase in FY 2007, FY 2008, and FY 2009, and reclaimed water rate increases of 29.4% in FY 2006 and FY 2007 with subsequent increases of 6% annually in FY 2008 and FY 2009. These rate increases are sufficient to provide for operations, capital projects, and debt service on bonds issued. The rate study identified a need for approximately $135.6 million in capital projects through FY 2009, with $28,812,375 to be funded with bond proceeds in FY 2006 and $49,101,449 to be funded with bond proceeds in FY 2008. The date of issuance will be determined at a later date based upon market conditions. The Water and Sewer Fund will be incurring expenses on these projects prior to the issuance of the bonds. This reimbursement resolution will allow for the City to be reimbursed from the Bond proceeds. Controller Bill Kleinsorge said the City is responsible for the cost of relocating City utilities as necessary for scheduled FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) and County road construction projects. Marine and Aviation Request City Council discuss and provide guidance on Resolution #04-38 authorizing changes to the recently amended commercial and private dock permits for storage of vessels at the Clearwater Municipal Marina and the conditions surrounding the turnover of business ownership at the Clearwater Municipal Marina. The City Council approved Resolution #04-14 on July 15, 2004. The resolution modified the commercial and private dock permits, and included a transfer fee equivalent to three year’s base rent in effect at the time of a sale, payable by the purchaser. Afterward, about twenty charter fishing boat captains met with the Harbormaster to address issues/concerns they had with the changes to the dock permits. Several tenants separately approached the City Manager, who has asked that staff bring the dock permit changes back to the City Council for additional review. The following changes were discussed with the majority of the charter fishing boat owners and the Marine Advisory Board and are submitted for consideration/approval: 1) Amend the transfer fee for current tenants to allow the boat ownership transfer to include retaining the slip to be the dollar equivalent of one year’s base rent in effect at the time of the sale of a boat, for current commercial and private tenant sales. All current commercial and private tenants only will have to inform prospective buyers of a one-year transfer fee. Future owners will have to inform prospective buyers of a three-year transfer fee, as established by Resolution #04-14 2) Approve a no transfer fee for a business sold to a boat captain or crewmember, with proof of being with the business for five years or more. Virtually every tenant requested a longer term dock permit or a lease so that they had a document with a term greater than thirty days they could use when financing a boat repair or upgrade or that a new purchaser could use to help get financing to buy an existing business. They addressed the following items and wanted no transfer fee. 3) Establish a three-year dock permit for commercial tenants by an addendum to their docking permit. 4) Re-institute a provision to discourage changes in business form by instituting a fee equivalent to five years slip rent fee at time of sale for any business desiring to change the business from its current form to another type of business. 5) Charge a fee to both who remain on or be placed on both the commercial waiting list and the private slip waiting list. These fees would be held by the marina and any interest on these fees be retained by the marina as an administrative fee. If a person requested to be removed from either waiting list they would be returned the principal amount only. The tenants felt the fee should be substantial and suggestions ranged from $5,000 to $1,000 for commercial slips. Other marinas charge fees of $75 to $100 to be on a waiting list for recreational boat slips. Some are refundable some are not. Marine & Aviation Director Bill Morris said the original intent of this resolution was to update the dock permit and close loopholes that allowed someone to buy a business, keep the slip but was not allowed to change the type of business for a year. He said when he met with the commercial boat captains, they expressed concern regarding tranfer fees and had offered suggestions. He said the City owns the slip and is entitled to some compensation when it is transferred to another. Discussion ensued in regard to a dock permit vs. a dock lease and Mr. Morris indicated a lease infers stronger ownership than a permit. He said the boat captains are requesting a longer-term commitment. In response to a question, Mr. Morris said the City previously has not charged for placement on the marina’s waiting list. He said the waiting list dropped dramatically when non-resident fees were imposed. The City Attorney said the City is reluctant to issue two- to three-year marina permits, which would be similar to leases and give them an interest. The City has no legal prohibition from issuing marina leases but has not issued them previously. Currently, permits are valid for thirty days. If leases are permitted, contract language would have to be reviewed and subletting could be prohibited. In response to a concern that tenants had not addressed the City Council prior to implementation of contested changes, Mr. Morris said only input from large boat captains had been solicited. MAB (Marina Advisory Board) members had differing opinions on the changes. Support was expressed for rescinding the transfer fee for boat captains, extending implementation of the changes, implementing longer leases, obtaining input from all tenants, and charging a non-refundable fee for waitlisted names. The City Manager said the current mix of tenants provides a good balance of marina activities. Mr. Morris reported a new Master Plan would implement slip consolidation to accommodate new larger vessels. Award the South Beach Pavilion lease to Steve and Lisa Chandler for a 10-year term beginning January 1, 2005, for a guaranteed minimum lease payment of $1,000,080, in equal payments of $8334, plus annual payments of yearly gross sales, excluding beach rentals: 20% from $750,000 to $1,000,000, 22.5% from $1,000,001 to $1,500,000 and 25% above $1,500,001, plus monthly payments of 40% of monthly gross beach rental sales for the term of the lease, plus $2,500 per year to the Clearwater Beach Patrol Lifeguards for the term of the lease and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. RFP 02-05 was released on October 1, 2004, for a 10-year lease of the South Beach Pavilion. Six proposals were received. The criteria for evaluating the responses to the RFP (Request for Proposals), included such items as similar experience, responsiveness, references and financial return to the City. In order to evaluate the financial return to the City, the past three years of audited financial reports of the South Beach Pavilion's performance were used to compare each proposal’s financial projections. The review team of the Directors of Planning, Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, Marine and Aviation, the Assistant Finance Director, and an Assistant City Attorney evaluated the responses and developed a short-list of four from which to receive oral presentations. The financial return proposed by the four short-listed responders ranged from $153,000 to $2,602,500. Two proposals included financial returns not required by the RFP. One provided support for the beach lifeguard program, the other support for Capitol Improvement Projects. At the oral presentations on November 23, 2004, the review team evaluated the presenters experience with the local community, municipal contracts, their ability to manage beach rental inventory, and their understanding of the criteria outlined in the RFP. Based on the financial return to the City, along with their experience in providing beach services, particularly beach rental, the review team chose the proposal submitted by Steve and Lisa Chandler as the most responsive. In response to a question, the City Attorney said the contract states the nine parking spaces used by South Pavilion could be recaptured when BeachWalk is complete, but does not require new spaces to be provided. As with all City lease language, the City can recapture the facility if deemed to be a public need. She said this lease does not include a buyback provision because it does not contain intensive capital improvements. Assistant City Manager Garry Brumback reported the City is paying the majority of renovation costs. Solid Waste/General Services Authorize creation of a Capital Improvement Project for repairs and modifications to the South Beach Pavilion and approve transferring $90,000 from General Services Retained Earnings to fund the project. Repairs and modifications are required to address safety and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessibility issues concerning the wood deck, public access ramp and public restrooms. Deck Issues: 1) replacement of deck boards and various support members is necessary to eliminate tripping hazards and to maintain the stability of the structure and 2) existing handrails for the stairs are not ADA compliant and need to be replaced. Access Ramp Issues: 1) ramp is not ADA compliant and needs to be modified to provide the appropriate slope and contain an intermediate landing and 2) handrails are not ADA compliant and need to be replaced. Restroom Issues: 1) ADA accessible stalls in both restrooms are non compliant and need to be enlarged to allow appropriate clearances and to contain a lavatory within the stall; 2) various fixtures and accessories are not compliant and need to be replaced or repositioned; and 3) dressing rooms in women's restroom are not compliant and need to be enlarged. In response to a concern these issues had not been addressed during current CIP efforts, Solid Waste/General Services Director Bob Brumback said construction on these items could not begin until engineering plans were completed, required permits obtained, and materials ordered. The City Manager said there was no reason to delay the current project until these issues were addressed. Engineering Declare property at 1250 Palmetto Street surplus to City needs, and approve an Agreement For Exchange of Real Property with the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida conveying same to the Board in exchange for fee title to an 11,475 square foot parcel, and easement over and across 25,477 square-feet of land, in Sec. 5-29-16, with estimated closing costs of $1,550, and that appropriate officials be authorized to execute same and all other instruments required to effect closing as described therein. The City's Reclaimed Water Service Area 19 that begins at McMullen-Booth Road and Union Street embraces the Elysium and Chelsea residential subdivisions, Sylvan Abbey Cemetery, McMullen-Booth Elementary School, and its environs. The subject Agreement provides that the School Board of Pinellas County ("Board") will convey the critical property interests described therein to facilitate construction of the Union Street Booster Station. The Booster Station is required to boost the system pressure from the low pressure effluent pipeline, connecting the City's Northeast APCF to the East APCF outfall, to feed irrigation systems within the service area. Although the interests being exchanged are not identical in value, the City Charter allows the transfer of surplus real property to another governmental entity for less than appraised value if the Council finds a valid public purpose for the transfer. Among Agreement provisions, the Board will convey its property interests to the City within 45 days of the Effective Date of contract. The City will retain title to the former library property for from three to five years following the Effective Date, during which time the City has entered into a lease of the library with Le'azon Technology Institute for up to five years. The lease was approved by Council on August 19, 2004, and provides for termination by the City if the property is required for another public purpose. Upon proper notice from the Board, delivered not sooner than three years following the Effective Date, the City will terminate the Le'azon lease and transfer title to the Board. Engineering Assistant Director Al Carrier said the City would pay closing costs. City Engineer Mike Quillen said while the School Board may not need the library property for four to five years, an earlier effective date is listed, should it be necessary. Garry Brumback said the School Board is working on an area master plan. Mr. Le’azon is aware of this agreement. In response to a question, Mr. Carrier estimated the booster station property is worth $50,000, while the Palmetto property is worth $28,000, with the library building valued at $175,000. Mr. Quillen said the School Board has no use for the library building. Approve the applicant's request to vacate the east 240 feet of the 40-foot right-of-way of State Street, (adjacent to 1312 State Street), subject to retaining a drainage and utility easement over the full width thereof, and pass Ordinance #7370 on first reading, (VAC2004-18 Reichel). The applicant seeks this vacation to expand the adjacent property to the north and proposes attached dwelling units and landscaping for use of the right-of-way, if it is vacated. Progress Energy, Verizon, Bright House and Knology Broadband have no objections to the vacation request, provided that a drainage and utility easement is retained. Public Works Administration has no objections to the vacation provided that a drainage and utility easement is retained over the full width of the right-of-way to be vacated. In response to a question, Mr. Quillen said future plans are to relocate the entrance to the north. Beach Walk Update - Lanes on Coronado/Water features on Beach Walk. Richard Claybrooke, PBS&J (Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc.), recommended maintenance of traffic during construction of BeachWalk feature four lanes on Coronado Drive to avoid two years of severe congestion. In response to a question, he said trucks might block one lane during deliveries, although that action will be discouraged. Concern was expressed reducing the number of lanes on Coronado would negatively affect resident access to Sand Key and Coronado businesses. Mr. Quillen will report on the number of Coronado businesses that will lose back-out parking. Mr. Claybrooke said the impact on businesses fronting Gulfview also should be considered. People will avoid the area if congestion is too severe. Support was expressed for maintaining four lanes of traffic on Coronado Drive during BeachWalk construction. Dale Siska, PBS&J, reviewed proposed BeachWalk fountains, related maintenance issues, and artwork planned along the south gateway. Concern was expressed no art committee exists to select artwork and it was suggested that the design incorporate historic icons or references. Public Works Administrator Mahshid Arasteh said artwork areas could be determined prior to construction for future installation of art. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed fountains and concern was expressed sand would be a problem resulting in daily cleaning and high maintenance costs. Mr. Siska estimated fountain operations would cost $2,400 monthly and will submit information regarding the cost of the proposed interactive fountain. A question was raised regarding the warranty on this fountain and it was felt it would be in the best interest of the City to have the contractor install and maintain it for a year. Mr. Quillen reported a separate CIP (Capital Improvement Program) would be necessary to fund a major resurfacing project for South Gulfview to rebuild curbs and sidewalks. To avoid significant traffic tie-ups, he recommended delaying this project until 2008, following completion of nearby construction projects. It was stated the amount of necessary work cannot be determined until the project design is complete. Mr. Quillen reviewed project components, indicating design work would take six months. Concern was expressed the project not be done piecemeal. Staff is to report when the South Gulfview design is complete and a construction start date is determined. Planning Deny a development agreement between K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater and deny Resolution #04-39. The subject site is 2.739 acres (including First Street and a portion of South Gulfview Boulevard rights-of-way, excluding new Second Street right-of-way and a portion of Coronado Drive) and is located at 100 Coronado Drive and 201, 215 and 219 South Gulfview Boulevard. On October 19, 2004, at the developer's request, the CDB (Community Development Board) recommended denial. In her November 29, 2004 memorandum, Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani reported that K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC has purchased the Days Inn property formerly owned by Antonios Markopoulos. The new development entity submitted three applications including a site plan, vacation/dedication of rights-of-way, and a development agreement. The status of each application is described below along with the staff recommendation on each matter. On August 17, 2004, the CDB approved a flexible site plan application for a resort hotel, its accessory uses, and residential condominiums. Subsequently, the City requested that the CDB reconsider its decision for the sole purpose of adding requisite conditions to the original approval. On September 21, 2004, the CDB agreed to reconsider its approval and scheduled that reconsideration for October 19, 2004. On October 19, 2004, the CDB amended its approval to attach three conditions, making the site plan approval contingent upon future decisions of the City Council: 1) approval of a development agreement; 2) approval of the vacation of rights-of-way (a portion of Gulfview Boulevard and all of First Street) and dedication of rights-of-way by the developer (new Second Street on southern end of site); and 3) approval of a land exchange, trading a portion of the City’s northern right-of-way of Gulfview Boulevard for new right-of-way along Coronado Avenue. The land exchange is now part of the Development Agreement. Vacating First Street will allow consolidation of the entire site without any intervening vehicular way. Theoretically, elimination of an intervening right-of-way can facilitate a more effective site plan. However, in this instance, vacation of First Street has assisted in the creation of a form and design that overpowers both the site and surrounding area and does not meet the design guidelines of Beach By Design. The Development Agreement first was heard by the CDB on August 17, 2004, along with the flexible site plan application. At that meeting, the CDB continued the Development Agreement, with the developer’s consent, for one month to address two outstanding issues: 1) to insure that the 50-year license agreement for the bridge was in compliance with the City Charter and 2) to attempt to increase public parking in the project. The Development Agreement was heard again by the CDB on September 21, 2004. The new owner, K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC, through their representative, Patrick O’Connor, requested a continuance of one month to allow the new owner to assess the Development Agreement and the CDB continued the item to October 19, 2004. On October 19, 2004, the developer’s representative asked the CDB to deny the Agreement, since it was not complete. The developer did not propose any changes to the development agreement from that submitted. The CDB did recommend denial of the Development Agreement as written. Several drafts of the Agreement have been presented to the City staff to revise some sections; however, there remain significant issues on which City staff and the developer do not agree. Major areas of disagreement are outlined. Allocation of Density Pool Units - The Development Agreement requires that the project consist of a minimum of 350 hotel rooms up to a maximum of 450 hotel rooms. The Agreement also allows that residential use may be included in the project pursuant to a conversion rate from hotel rooms to residential units on the basis of four hotel rooms for every three residential units (same conversion rate as in the Tourist zoning district) (Section 2.03.1c and d). The developer currently has 200 hotel rooms on site and this nonconforming density and use were approved by the CDB as a Termination of Nonconforming Use. Based on that approval, the developer converted 100 existing hotel rooms to 75 condominium units. The remaining existing 100 hotel rooms are proposed to be added to the requested 250 hotel rooms from the density pool to create a hotel with 350 rooms total. The CDB approved the site plan for the project consisting of those uses: 350-room hotel with its accessory uses and 75 residential condominium units. However, it should be noted that the CDB’s approval of the site plan is contingent upon the Council’s approval of an Agreement that allocates the density pool hotel units. It is acknowledged in the Agreement that any combination of hotel and/or residential use other than that previously approved by the CDB will require a subsequent approval by the CDB (Section 2.03.1d). The applicant has requested approval of the allocation of 250 hotel rooms from the beach density pool. Although the City desires to encourage revitalization of the beach as contemplated in Beach by Design, the number of units requested by this project, along with the residential component of the project, has resulted in a design that does not meet the design guidelines of the beach plan. Therefore, the City does not recommend the allocation as requested and believes that this forms one of the major reasons for denial of the Agreement. The City would contemplate a revised project that reduces the size and scale of the project and meets the design guidelines of Beach by Design. It is expected that significant changes in both the design and scope of the project (measured by the number of hotel units and/or residential condominium units) would be necessary to meet the guidelines. Pedestrian Bridge across Gulfview Boulevard - The developer proposes a pedestrian bridge that spans Gulfview Boulevard and connects the hotel project with the beach. The Development Agreement refers to the bridge as “Pedestrian Access Improvements” (Section 2.03.1e, Item 24 in Definitions Section). On the hotel side, the bridge lands on the sidewalk with an outside stairway; in addition, hotel guests may access the bridge from the second level of the hotel. The City objects to the pedestrian bridge for several reasons. In general, the City does not support the concept of a pedestrian bridge due to the potential for this structure to block views along Gulfview Boulevard and the potential for additional requests for bridges that could clutter the visual appeal of Gulfview Boulevard. Specifically, the City does not support this bridge as proposed by the developer due to its beachside landing and conflicts created with the City’s lifeguard building. The City structure currently houses the lifeguard station/office as well as the parking collection facility for the Pier 60 parking lot. According to the proposed plans, the proposed bridge landing is extremely close to, if not adjacent to, the City’s building, which will create difficulties in retaining the existing building and accommodating the new bridge. The City requested that Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan, its design consultant for Beach Walk, evaluate the effect of the proposed bridge on the City’s building. Post Buckley responded on November 19, 2004 as follows: “If the Patel development continues with its plan to develop a bridge from its hotel development to the Lifeguard building, the existing building will need to be demolished, because there is little chance of renovating this building to accommodate the stairs and elevator needed for the bridge. Once demolished, the chances of reconstructing this building somewhere else in the general vicinity, west of the CCCL (Coastal Construction Control Line) line and within the VE flood zone, are slim at best. Furthermore, if the City were able to reconstruct, the building would be very different in appearance and function due to the requirement of the VE Flood Zone determination. Finding a location is also difficult, because Pier 60, the Pier 60 parking lot and the relocated Gulfview Boulevard greatly limit the possible locations that would be suitable for the new building.” Mahshid Arasteh, Public Works Administrator, further estimates the cost of reconstructing the Lifeguard building, if permits could be issued, at $165 to $185 per square-foot for 1,800 square-feet, for a total estimated cost of between $297,000 and $333,000. It also should be noted that this estimate is in current dollars and should be increased 10% per year for each year construction is delayed. Finally, instead of recognizing the necessity of CDB approval for a change in the location of the bridge landing, the Agreement proposes to make this change a minor change not requiring review by the CDB (Item 24 of the Definitions Section). The authority for site plan review rests with the CDB, not the City Council; therefore, this provision is a violation of the City’s Community Development Code. In addition, the Agreement proposes that the Developer and City staff would agree to a bridge location within 30 days after approval of the Agreement. There have been many previous attempts to negotiate an acceptable location with the developer, and all to no avail thus far. To postpone agreement on this important issue, which has many connections to other design issues of the project until after approval of the Agreement, is neither logical nor appropriate. The uncertainties in reconstruction, coupled with the developer’s refusal thus far to relocate the beachside landing of the bridge to a location agreeable to the City, creates an unacceptable situation. Therefore, the proposed bridge forms the second major reason for staff’s recommendation of denial of the Development Agreement. Public Parking within the Project - The CDB-approved site plan includes 15 parking spaces open to the public and located on the first floor of the structure, accessed from the garage entrance on new Second Street. These spaces are in addition to the parking required by the development and would be operated by the developer as paid parking spaces on a first-come first-serve basis. Through the pending development agreement, the developer proposes to increase the public parking from 15 to 100 spaces (Item 29 of the Definition and Section 2.03.1a). However, the developer has not provided revised site and building plans to detail the location of these spaces. Since no definition of the proposed spaces has been provided by the developer, it also is unclear whether this proposal results in an actual net increase of 85 spaces or whether the proposal is merely a re-allocation of the use of the same number of parking spaces, i.e., defining the spaces as “public spaces” that are the required spaces for either the hotel or residential use or both. If the developer intends to provide an actual increase in the public spaces, it is expected that significant changes to the parking layout will be necessary to accommodate these additional 85 spaces. Since no revised plans have been submitted, it is unclear if the 100 public parking spaces still can be located on the first level of parking. Currently, all parking for the residential condominium units also are located on the first floor, which eliminates the need for residents to use the car elevators; rather residents would access their parking directly via the Second Street garage entry. It is unclear if the residents’ parking will remain on the first level or be relocated to another floor, necessitating the use of the car elevators for 150 additional cars than originally approved and evaluated. Staff remains concerned about the size of the porte cochere/entryway to the hotel and is increasingly concerned if an additional 150 cars will now use this limited area for access to the car elevators and garage. The CDB approved stacking spaces for the hotel portion of the development only. If a net increase in parking is proposed, it is expected that additional stacking spaces will be needed for the residential portion of the project, which requires a new CDB review and approval, since stacking spaces are not code-compliant. It also should be noted that the developer has proposed a “Parking Protocol,” which establishes the operation of parking and access for hotel guests, public parking, and residents’ parking (Section 5.05.4). The Parking Protocol requires the hotel management to use an adequate number of valets to handle traffic volumes, to close the porte cochere when full to capacity, to provide written directions to visitors to the Second Street garage entrance, and to require hotel event planners to encourage use of the Second Street garage entrance by event/ meeting attendees. While all provisions of the Parking Protocol are logical efforts to manage traffic, the design of the porte cochere and use of car elevators have the effect of making the project more reliant on operations rather than on an effective access and parking design. This almost total reliance on operations, that may vary with different hotel owners or managers, is a tenuous situation and staff remains concerned about the potential for traffic to backup into Gulfview Boulevard or Coronado Street. The City also is opposed to the developer’s proposal in Section 5.05.4b that eliminates the requirement for valet service as described in the Parking Protocol, if the CDB eliminates the need for a valet service. This provision has the effect of amending the development agreement through CDB action; clearly, the only allowable mechanism in the City code to amend the Development Agreement is through City Council action. Finally, instead of recognizing the necessity of CDB approval for changes to the parking layout in the garage, the Development Agreement states that the Developer “may” seek approval of the CDB for changes in parking and access. Therefore, the site plan attached to this Development Agreement is not the final version of the site plan since staff believes that most, if not all, parking alternatives will require additional review by the CDB. In summary, the provision to circumvent CDB review of a revised parking layout and the lack of certainty about the project’s ability to meet its parking demands form the third major reason for staff’s recommendation for denial of the Development Agreement. Other major provisions of the Development Agreement that should be noted: 1) Length of the Agreement - 10 years (Section 16.18); 2) Length of Approval of Density Pool Units - In order to retain and use the 250 hotel units from the pool, the developer must either pay his fair share for Beach Walk no later than two years from the Effective Date of the Agreement or the project’s Commencement Date must be within three years from the Effective Date of the Agreement. If one of these dates is not met, the allocation of hotel units shall expire. The Commencement Date is defined as the date that the Developer commences construction on the foundation or other structural element of the project. Per Florida Statute, the Effective Date is 30 days after receipt of the Agreement by the State Department of Community Affairs. (Section 3.01.3 and Definition Section); 3) Quality Standards - The project may be either a four-star, four-diamond rating from AAA or the Mobil Travel Guide or a three-star, three-diamond rating with additional amenities. If the project elects the four-star rating, no further City monitoring is required. If the project elects the three-star plus amenities rating, then the City has the right to monitoring and enforcement proceedings for the life of the Agreement. (Section 2.03.5); 4) Beach Walk Payment - The developer will pay his pro rata share of the construction cost of Beach Walk based on the frontage of the project as a proportion of the entire road project. If the City commences construction of Beach Walk prior to the developer’s application for the first building permit, then the Developer must pay his fair share prior to issuance of a building permit. The Developer’s fair share may be in the form of a letter of credit, trust account, or escrow facility. If the Developer is ready to commence construction prior to the City beginning Beach Walk, then the City must solicit bids within 45 days of the Developer’s notification that he intends to construct and the fair share is due to the City upon award of the construction contract. (Section 5.05.7). It should also be noted that the City is required, pursuant to Section 5.05.7c, to require any developer, fronting on Beach Walk who requests hotel units, to pay its fair share for those improvements. The only other project that currently meets these two requirements is the Taub/Hyattt project whose recently approved Development Agreement also requires them to pay their fair share of Beach Walk; 5) Land Exchange - The City will exchange a portion of South Gulfview Boulevard along the north property line of the site for the Developer’s property of additional right-of-way along Coronado Drive. (Section 5.03.6); and 6) Relocated First Street/New Second Street - Upon the City’s vacation of First Street, the Developer shall construct new Second Street including pavement, sidewalks, and streetscaping. It should be noted that the vacation of First Street is not effective until the Developer commences construction of the project. (Section 5.05.3) In summary, the City Administration recommends denial of this Development Agreement as presented: 1) The Allocation of hotel units from the density pool creates a design and form that does not meet the intent and design guidelines of Beach by Design: 2) The Developer proposes a beachside landing to a pedestrian bridge that creates a major conflict with the City’s lifeguard building and the Developer has refused to relocate the bridge. Further, the Developer proposes relocating the bridge after approval of the agreement without requisite review by the CDB; and 3) The Developer proposes an increase in the approved public parking from 15 to 100 spaces without agreeing to required review by the CDB nor has he detailed related changes to the site plan which are expected to result in unanticipated effects on the access and parking for the project. It also is unclear whether this proposal results in a net increase in the number of parking spaces or whether the proposal is merely a re-allocation of the use of the same number of parking spaces. Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani reviewed the project and proposed changes to the location of the pedestrian bridge, the building’s mass, and the parking agreement. The City Attorney reviewed revisions submitted this morning by the developer’s representative. A new site plan has not been submitted for review by staff or the CDB. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani reported the developer had requested the CDB deny the Development Agreement. The parking and bridge are new and have not been seen by the CDB. Photographs of large area structures were presented with concerns expressed the proposed development would be massive, the large number of requested hotel pool units is for a development that features a significant number of condominiums, and the project does not reflect the community’s character. In response to a request, Ms. Tarapani said staff does not have the capability to produce simulations of proposed projects. Staff has not received an analysis regarding the proposed notch in the building. Staff also has been unable to determine the basis for developer claims that the project meets Beach by Design openness requirements for minimum separation between towers. Except for the notch, this proposal is unchanged from the one submitted in July, which staff determined did not meet minimum separation requirements. In response to a question, the City Attorney reported 100 public parking spaces are proposed, with 15 self-park spaces and 85 valet spaces throughout the parking structure. No mechanism has been submitted to determine which parking spaces are used by hotel guests and the public. Concern was expressed parking operations could be disrupted by a power failure or staff shortages. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the public can only access the proposed pedestrian bridge from the sidewalk and not from inside the hotel. The City Attorney said the bridge must be permitted and comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. The design submitted does not include elevators. Develop additional criteria to be added to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) provisions in the Community Development Code to assist in designating neighborhoods eligible to pursue NCOD designation in 2005 and accept applications and undertake one NCOD planning process in 2006. AND Discussion and Policy Direction on Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Ms. Tarpani reviewed the history of NCODs (Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts). The NCOD, established in 1999, is a planning tool for neighborhoods to establish unique sets of development standards for their communities. The NCOD planning process requires development of a neighborhood plan and standards to ensure that redevelopment and infill activities in existing stable neighborhoods are consistent with the neighborhood’s character. The Coachman Ridge and Island Estates neighborhoods have NCOD designation. During the review and approval process of these NCODs, the City Council expressed concern that these neighborhoods may receive a higher level of City services and delayed processing new NCODs until the Island Estates and Coachman Ridge NCOD were in effect for at least a year and an evaluation determined impacts. Coachman Ridge was the first neighborhood to initiate the NCOD planning process. In August 2000, the Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association (CRHA) initiated the NCOD process with the support of more than 60% of property owners and submitted an application and petition for NCOD designation in October 2000. On January 16, 2001, the City Council approved initiation of the process and between February and May 2001, five public neighborhood meetings were held. The neighborhood, in conjunction with staff, developed the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan (CRNP). On August 16, 2001, the City Council approved the CRNP, placed the overlay zone on the zoning atlas, and incorporated requirements specific to Coachman Ridge into the Code. Coachman Ridge NCOD provisions regulate: 1) permitted uses; 2) lot sizes; 3) setbacks; 4) off-street parking; 5) driveway materials; 6) parking on landscaped areas; 7) vehicles required to be parked in garages; and 7) fences and screening. Island Estates was the second neighborhood to pursue NCOD designation. Neighborhood parcels, ranging from single-family homes to high-rise condominiums and one place of worship, are included. Island Estates citizens presented petitions to the City in December 2000, supporting initiation of the NCOD process, from 64% of property owners of single-family properties on Island Estates. On April 19, 2001, the City Council approved initiation of the NCOD planning process. On September 6, 2001, the Council approved a NCOD boundary expansion to include all multi-family areas and St. Brendan’s Church based on petitions supporting the expansion from 63% of additional properties. During seven public neighborhood meetings between September 2001 and February 2002, the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan (IENP) and development standards were developed. A September 2001, code amendment required residents to vote on each proposed development standard, with each standard requiring at least 51% of cast votes for submission to the Council for consideration. NCOD provisions, effective on September 19, 2002, include: 1) permitted uses; 2) lot sizes; 3) setbacks; 4) building height; 5) parking on private property; 6) landscaping; outdoor storage; and 7) fences. The Planning Department analyzed each neighborhood related to: 1) neighborhood association compliance with Community Development Code Section 4-608.E - provides initial means of enforcement for any NCOD code violation and requires property owners to be educated at least twice a year regarding NCOD requirements; 2) extent of development activity and NCOD code enforcement cases to determine if the City was providing higher levels of service to these neighborhoods than those without NCOD designation and 3) extent to which neighborhood plan objectives were achieved. The CRHA has actively met its obligations and communicated compliance with staff. The CRHA generally has provided information to property owners about NCOD requirements at its annual meeting and in one newsletter annually. NCOD requirements are listed in the Neighborhood Information Directory. A CRHA board member provides each new resident with a copy of the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan, which includes NCOD standards. Staff indicated that requests for zoning information regarding NCOD requirements may take slightly longer to retrieve because staff does not administer the provisions on a daily basis, however it does not significantly affect service levels. When Coachman Ridge initiated the NCOD process, most participants focused on codifying neighborhood deed restrictions. Once the planning process began, the majority embraced it and understood the value of creating a plan for the future. Staff believes the Coachman Ridge NCOD has been very successful: 1) Significant neighborhood support of NCOD; 2) Understanding and support of neighborhood planning process; 3) Relatively small and compact size of neighborhood; 4) Age of housing stock; 5) Lack of redevelopment pressures; 6) NCOD requirements support existing development patterns that maintain the existing character of the neighborhood; and 7) Committed neighborhood association. Staff received an e-mail from the Island Estates Civic Association (IECA) regarding neighborhood compliance with Code Section 4-608.E, indicating the final NCOD section of the Plan was mailed to each resident earlier this year and each IECA quarterly newsletters has a section titled “Code and Deed.” The e-mail also indicated that articles in the newsletter address methods to be used if a violation occurs. On November 16, 2004, staff received four editions of the 2004 Island Estates Civic Association Newsletter. Several issues referenced the NCOD and reported that residents must file written complaints to the Civic Association regarding NCOD violations. It further stated that the Board would then determine if a violation exists and proceed accordingly. One issue listed NCOD code provisions regulating Island Estates. With regard to code enforcement efforts, information in the e-mail indicated the Association had not received any written complaints. It further indicated though several visible violations existed, since no one complained, no action was taken. Staff did not anticipate that NCOD enforcement required written complaints. The IENP indicates should a violation of the development standards occur, the IECA shall use a several listed procedures to gain compliance. According to the Community Response Team, the City has not had any code complaints related to Island Estates NCOD provisions. The NCOD seems to have no impact on the volume of new construction taking place on Island Estates. Property investment continues on a fairly constant basis and no marked changes in the level of requests for flexibility are evident. Although staff had not had official correspondence regarding Plan implementation, information was obtained via telephone from a NCOD study committee member. Neighborhood aesthetics have been a priority for the IECA and is evidenced by significant improvements made to the Island Estates entryway. The neighborhood also has worked with the Police Department to improve speed limit enforcement. When Island Estates initiated the NCOD process, participants focused on codifying neighborhood deed restrictions. Once the planning process was started, this focus did not change. Most participants did not understand the value of the plan and never embraced the process. This was a missed opportunity because the process generally brings people together and improves the final outcome and final product of the neighborhood plan. Staff believes the difficulty in developing the Island Estates NCOD was impacted by: 1) Diversity of land uses included in NCOD i.e. single-family homes and condominiums; 2) Location of neighborhood on Clearwater Harbor; 3) Value of land; 4) Age of original housing stock; 5) Redevelopment pressures; 6) Impact of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Authority) requirements on new construction; and 7) Line item vote for each proposed NCOD requirement. Island Estates has been facing redevelopment pressure due to its desirable location and significant economic value of this property. Most property owners desire to maximize development potential. Staff does not believe the Island Estates NCOD truly addressed compatibility issues associated with existing at-grade construction adjacent to new elevated construction that complies with FEMA requirements. Although Island Estates NCOD provisions for areas zoned Low Medium Density Residential increased side yard setbacks from five feet to 7.5 feet, this small increase cannot effectively offset the increased bulk and height of elevated new structures and will not ensure that new development is consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. Another issue the Island Estates NCOD faced, unlike Coachman Ridge, was the requirement for a line item vote on all development standards. Only standards that received at least 51% of votes cast were reviewed by City Council. Several items that did not receive 51% of the vote were important and worked in conjunction with other provisions which passed. The NCOD would have been more effective if related requirements were grouped together as one ballot item and voted on as one item. The Planning Department believes the effectiveness of the Island Estates NCOD was diluted because those three provisions were not included. The amount of time required to develop a NCOD is significant and is staff intensive. Once approved, NCODs have not resulted in any code enforcement problems, have not resulted in significant zoning review issues, have not seemed to create neighborhood strife, and have not impacted the rate of redevelopment. Coachman Ridge has been a true partner with the City and has met all of its responsibilities and has made significant progress in implementing its plan. It has made an effort to communicate concerns or issues with staff and provides evidence on a yearly basis of its compliance with education requirements. Island Estates has not acted as a “partner” due to its lack of communication with the City. It also appears that the IECA has not been proactive in gaining compliance with visible NCOD code violations. The IENP implementation section specifies if the Island Estates Civic Association does not perform its required function, the City would initiate a rezoning to eliminate the Island Estates NCOD. Island Estates needs to significantly improve its communication with the City and revise its methods of NCOD code enforcement to be more proactive. If the IECA does not provide necessary enforcement, the value of those requirements is lost. Staff will continue to monitor the effectiveness of Island Estates’ code enforcement program to determine what next steps may be appropriate. Due to the Planning Department’s workload and the intensity of the planning process, only one NCOD can be prepared each year. Based on the Department’s current work program and the fact the Department will be undertaking one neighborhood planning effort in 2005 related to Beach by Design relating to the Old Florida District, no new NCODs can be started before 2006. Staff recommends additional criteria be considered when choosing the neighborhood to pursue NCOD designation. Criteria include neighborhood need, redevelopment pressure, level of neighborhood interest, understanding of the required planning process, level of neighborhood association commitment, etc. During 2005, the Planning Department could further refine the process for neighborhoods to submit requests for NCOD designation and be ready to accept applications and begin a neighborhood planning process in 2006. Discussion ensued regarding neighborhoods that have indicated a desire to pursue NCOD designation. Concern was expressed in just codifying deed restrictions. Ms. Tarapani suggested the City Council consider neighborhoods that lie in the path of redevelopment. City Attorney Approve the conversion of the part time Staff Assistant position in the City Attorney's Office to a full-time Senior Staff Assistant position, adding the equivalent of .3 FTE. This position was originally a full time position that was converted to part-time several years ago. Since that time, several new duties have been assigned to this position, including all FYI scanning for the department and the majority of the Pcard administrator duties for the department. The department also plans to add additional duties to this position over the next year to improve internal and external communication processes. Legal Office Administrator Gina DeWitt said this change would result in no financial impact this year due to savings related to the transfer of a long-term employee to another department. She estimated next year, the impact would be approximately $10,000. Other City Attorney Items Setting impasse hearing re IAFF contract, if needed. The City Attorney reported the City is waiting for agreement of all parties on the impasse hearing. Human Resources Director Joe Roseto said the City had requested clarification of some issues. Discussion ensued regarding the hearing process. The City Attorney said the hearing would be quasi-judicial in nature. She reviewed the procedure. Council Discussion Items Bob Stewart Livable Communities Committee within the MPO. It was suggested that someone from Hillsborough County’s Livable Roads Committee be invited to address the City Council regarding that program. It was reported that the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) transportation committee is considering ways for developers to participate in projects that enhance livable communities, i.e. pedestrian friendly parking lots, bicycle paths, and PSTA (Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority) bus depots. The City Manager encouraged City Council review of documentation on the Hillsborough County program prior to additional discussion. Language at Concerts – Hibbard Councilmember Hibbard reported citizen concern was expressed regarding the profanity at Sunday’s Coachman Park concert and recommended the City find a way to control that type situation or reconsider the venue. Discussion ensued with comments that these types of concerts should only be held indoors and the sponsoring radio station needs to work with the City to come up with a solution or lose its privilege to host concerts at Coachman Park. Parks & Recreation Director Kevin Dunbar reported the City controls sound levels via a subcontractor. He reviewed staff efforts to address profanity at youth and adult events. Language issues cannot be controlled via contracts. Once an act has taken the stage, the City cannot control what is said. If problems are anticipated, the City can remove the act from the lineup. The Sunday evening curfew at Coachman Park has been stepped back from 11:00 to 9:00 p.m. The City Manager reviewed the history of concerts at Coachman Park, reporting they were started four years ago to attract young people to the park and Downtown. Staff has worked with the radio stations, but it is impossible to achieve 100% compliance with language standards. Concern was expressed sponsoring radio stations invite problems. The City Manager said resident reactions and the number of complaints were average. It was recommended the City appeal to acts or sponsoring radio stations to provide entertainment without jeopardizing future performances due to vulgar language. Consensus was for staff to work with the radio stations to submit solutions for consideration; otherwise these concerts will not be scheduled. Other Council Action Councilmember Hamilton reported the Stanley Cup will be brought to the December 16, 2004, Relay for Life Benefit at the Palm Pavilion, beginning at 5:00 p.m. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 5:31 p.m.