Loading...
12/17/1992 CITY COMMISSION MEETING December 17, 1992 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, December 17, 1992 at 6:00 p.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Sue Berfield Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Commissioner Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney William C. Baker Public Works Director James Polatty, Jr. Planning and Development Director Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Mary K. Diana Assistant City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was offered by Reverend Mac J. Williams, Jr. In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #3 - Service Awards - None. ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards The Golden Turkey Award was presented to the Library for the greatest percentage of entrants in this year's Turkey Trot. The 3rd Polarization Award was presented to Mayor Garvey by Reverend Mac J. Williams, Jr. Suggestion Awards were presented to seven City employees for their ideas which saved the City money and/or enhanced safety and operations. Proclamation: Miniature Art Month - January 1993. ITEM #5 - Presentations A) Clark Weaver - Curbs on Glenwood Avenue. Clark Weaver said his neighborhood had been annexed prior to developers being responsible for providing curbing. He felt the City should have been responsible for installing curbs when the area was annexed in the 1920s. He said curbs are needed for assisting in drainage, helping to keep mud out of the lake and would improve the neighborhood. Public Works Director Bill Baker said the curbing can be handled through the petition process, or if deemed by the Commission to serve a public purpose, through a capital improvement project. A question was raised if the curbs are being requested for drainage or because the park across the street impacts this area due to cars parking on the grass. Discussion ensued in regard to the drainage system being substandard. A question was raised regarding part of the yards would have to be taken if the curbs were installed. It was stated many streets in the older neighborhoods of the City do not have curbs. Consensus was to comply with Commission policy of following the petition and assessment process to obtain curbs. B) American Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan. Human Relations Director Eleanor Breland discussed the plan and proposed funding to bring the deficiencies in City facilities into compliance with the ADA. In response to questions, it was indicated the cost to bring all sidewalks into compliance had not been determined. Several hundred staff hours were spent to put the plan together. ITEM #6 - Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 3, 1992 and the Goal Setting Meeting of November 16, 1992. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 3, 1992, and the goal setting meeting of November 16, 1992, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Commissioner. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda Don Zebley complained regarding a second home being constructed on a single family lot and his being cited for code violations. Staff is to review. John Meek, Jr. stated the City is in violation of the sign code. He requested taxpayers be made aware of the cost for the City to comply with the sign code. Brian Morris expressed concern citizens are not familiar with city ordinances that govern them. He said he is still waiting for information regarding the cost of enforcing the sign code. He said the Commission is anti-business. The Mayor noted the City Commission had voted unanimously for a RFP regarding development on the bluff. Joann Watson complained regarding the quality of her rehabilitation loan project. She questioned why the City Manager halted criminal investigation of this matter. She requested the Commission to investigate. Jay Elliott questioned why he and the Watsons were not invited to attend a November 21, 1990, meeting with staff, contractor and licensing board regarding their rehabilitation loans. He requested staff provide notes of this meeting. Jacub Bilal questioned whether the name change from Community Relations to Human Relations affected any responsibilities of this department. It was stated it did not. Steve Saliga requested consideration be given to a multi-purpose civic center. Russell Latimer requested the Commission look at the City of Dunedin regarding downtown development. James Grady requested consideration be given to moving the Marine Science Center to the Maas Brothers site. ITEM #8 - Res. #92-79 - Amending Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the City Commission relating to the order of presentation, time limits and other procedural matters to be followed in hearing variance applications The City Attorney presented Resolution #92-79 and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #92-79 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. In response to a question, it was indicated the amended rule #10 would apply only to variance hearings. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM #9 - Alcoholic Beverage Separation Distance Variance for property (The Wine Vault) located at 2556 McMullen Booth Rd., Northwood Plaza, Sec. 28-28-16, M&B 33.02 (John Hancock Properties AB92-18)(PLD) The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a new 3-PS alcoholic beverage sales licensed establishment known as "The Wine Vault". The distance separation variance is required because the subject property is less than 200 feet of another similarly licensed establishment (Winn Dixie). City code requires that similarly licensed uses on the same property be considered as having a zero foot separation. The subject property is located at 2556 McMullen Booth Road on the northwest corner of Enterprise Road. No additional parking will be required. There are 1,132 existing shared parking spaces at Northwood Plaza and the applicant intends to share with other tenants. The proposed hours of operation are 10:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m., weekdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on weekends. The applicant's request for the associated conditional use permit was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board at their December 1, 1992 meeting subject to: 1) The requisite occupational license be obtained within six months from the date of public hearing; and 2) Prior to issuance of an occupational license, the requisite separation variance be obtained from the Commission. The police department has no negative comments regarding this establishment. While there are five alcoholic beverage establishments within 300 feet of the proposed use, staff does not find these to create an over-concentration situation at this location. Staff finds this request meets the standards for variance approval. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a variance of 200 feet to allow alcoholic beverage sales zero feet from a similarly licensed establishment. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #10 - (Cont. from 12/3/92) Public Hearing - Vacating 7' x 36' portion of Dempsey Street lying adjacent to Lake Belleview Addn, Blk 2, Lots 21 & 22 (Rehm V92-20)(PW) When Mr. Rehm purchased the subject encroaching building, his survey did not disclose the encroachment and depicted the building within the property limits. Mr. Rehm is now in the process of refinancing his property and a more current survey shows a portion of one of his buildings encroaching approximately six feet into the right-of-way of Dempsey Street. Mr. Rehm applied for a vacation to eliminate the encroachment. It is not desirable to impact the right-of-way to this extent and an attempt was made to find some manner in which Mr. Rehm's financial dilemma might be resolved other than the right-of-way vacation. It is staff's understanding that a letter expressing the City's toleration of the encroachment (with qualifying language) will sufficiently resolve Mr. Rehm's dilemma. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the request for a 7 foot by 36 foot right-of-way vacation of Dempsey Street and to authorize the City Attorney to express the Commission's toleration of the right-of-way encroachment. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #11 - (Cont. from 12/3/92) Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5319-92 - Vacating easterly 3' of westerly 5' utility easement lying in Mandalay Sub., Blk 57, Lot 8 (Davis V92-22)(PW) The purpose of this vacation is to eliminate the encroachment of a swimming pool into an existing utility easement. There are no utilities of the City, Florida Power, General Telephone or Vision Cable currently occupying the easement. There are no future plans by these agencies for future use of the easement. All reviewing departments and the Public Works Director have no objection to the request. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the vacation of the easterly 3 feet of the westerly 5 foot utility easement for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5319-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5319-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #12 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5322-92 - Vacating S 2' of the N 10' drainage & utility easement lying in Lot 28, Countryside Tract 8, Unit One less the easterly 5' (Blue V92-24)(PW) The applicant has a pool structure which encroaches approximately 2 feet and the decking another 1.9 feet. The City has no existing utilities within this easement. The Building Inspector's Office reports "the house was permitted and built in 1978 and the swimming pool and cage were also permitted and built in 1978". This pool was constructed prior to the recently instigated process whereby impending encroachments are more readily discovered and precluded. This petition has been reviewed by the various city departments concerned with vacations and the three utility companies and there are no objections. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the vacation of the south 2 feet of the north 10 foot drainage and utility easement for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5322-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5322-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #13 - (Cont. from 12/3/92) Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Stewart Title of Clwr) located at 1290-92-94 Court St., Hibiscus Gardens Sub., Blk O, Lots 35A and 36 and vacated street on east (Smoyer SV92-28)(PLD) The subject property is an interior lot located at 1290-92-94 Court Street. The applicant is requesting two variances for an existing freestanding sign. Staff review indicates the request for additional sign height is not justified. There is nothing unique about the shape of the property or its location which would require an additional two feet of sign height to adequately identify the property. It appears the request is based upon the applicant's intent to use the existing sign panels at their current height and location. These existing panels could be relocated on the existing sign structure in a conforming fashion. Staff finds this request does not meet the following standards for variance approval: 1) The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; 6) The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. Regarding the requested variance for sign setback, staff review indicates that the applicant's claim that relocation on this site is not feasible is an accurate one. While the sign could be relocated elsewhere on the site, there would be a setback problem created from the side property lines instead of the existing front property line setback. The site design appears to work well in its current arrangement. Relocation of the sign in a conforming fashion would interfere with the overall site design with regard to vehicle access to the property. Staff feels the requested setback variance is justified since all standards for variance approval appear to have been met; in particular, the existing site design creates a unique, hardship situation and the applicant is requesting a minimum variance. Margaret Smoyer, applicant, stated the panels would not have to be cut off or relocated if the 10-foot height variance was granted. Commissioner Deegan moved to deny a variance of 2 feet to permit a freestanding sign 10 feet tall due to not meeting variance standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 and to approve a variance of 4 feet to permit a freestanding sign to be located 1 foot from a property line as all variance standards are met for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Polatty indicated the street address could be on the top of the sign and not counted in the height measurement. He requested Ms. Smoyer work with staff. ITEM #14 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5315-92 & #5316-92 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Public/Semi-Public and P/SP Zoning for property located at 1234 Druid Road (former Siples Restaurant), portion of Government Lot 1, Sec. 21-29-15, M&B 21.03 (Morton Plant LUP92-22, Z92-13)(PLD) The applicant is requesting rezoning and corresponding Future Land Use Plan Amendment in order to allow the use of this property as an educational/training facility, including a personnel office. The site overlooks Clearwater Harbor south of Jeffords Street and west of Druid Road. Much of the surrounding property is owned by Morton Plant Hospital. To the north, the property is used as offices. Directly to the east, the property is occupied by a parking lot behind which is the main hospital building. The proposed use is compatible to these properties and the existing building was designed to fit into its waterfront setting. The property south of the applicant's property is in the City of Belleair and is occupied by a low density residential development. Property owners from this area have expressed concern about the rezoning to P/SP, particularly to potential height, buffering landscape, and location of future buildings on the site. The P/SP district has a maximum height of 50 feet, a setback from a side property line of 12 feet for structures 20 feet or less in height, and a 12 feet plus 25% of the height of the structure above 20 feet for structures greater than 20 feet in height. It appears the residents to the south would prefer to see a greater setback with special conditions on buffer landscaping between their residential district and any development on the hospital's property. The Land Development Code (LDC) does not provide a way to add such restrictions to a P/SP district. An alternative to the P/SP zoning might be an Office Planned Development or Commercial Planned Development. Both of these districts could permit any use authorized in the LDC for any office district. The Commercial Planned Development (CPD) would add the possibility of permitting any use authorized in the various commercial districts. On December 1, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the P/SP Future Land Use Classification and Zoning for this property. The proposed rezoning to P/SP does require an amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and will thus require the review of the Pinellas Planning Council. Emil Marquardt, attorney representing the applicant, said Morton Plant is sensitive to the surrounding residential area. He indicated there will be approximately 10-15 employees at the personnel office and six at the education center. He said there is available parking on Jeffords Street and there will be no employee parking at the facility. He indicated the hospital had spoken with the surrounding residents and they felt the facility would be an enhancement to the area. In response to questions, Mr. Marquardt indicated less than three acres of this large site is developable, the building footprint will not be expanded and the area to the south will be buffered by large trees and fencing. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve an amendment to the Future Land Use Plan to Public/Semi-Public and P/SP zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5315-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5315-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5316-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5316-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #15 - Amended Site Plan and First Reading Ord. #5323-92 - IPD Zoning for Lot 1, Clearwater 19 Commerce Center, 22067 US19, 14.13 acres m.o.l. (Kunnen, Jr. Z92-07)(PLD) This request is for a change of zoning to Industrial Planned Development (IPD) for Lot 1, Clearwater Commerce Center in order to allow a broader range of uses than that permitted under the existing zoning for this developed parcel. The property is located on the east side of US19 approximately 1950 feet north of Drew Street. This request was scheduled to come before the Commission on September 17, 1992, but was returned to the Planning and Zoning Board for further consideration. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1) All freestanding signage shall meet the requirements of the Highway Commercial zoning district; all attached signage shall meet the requirements of the General Commercial zoning district; 2) There shall be no more than a cumulative total of 20,185 sq.ft. of gross floor area for retail and restaurant uses, of which no more than 1,500 sq.ft. shall be for restaurant uses; 3) New uses or revisions to existing uses within the center shall continue to be reviewed, on a case by case basis, for any required impact fees; 4) The applicant shall improve the retention area adjacent to the drain on the south side of his property in accordance with his agreement with Public Works, including the sodding of the bank along the section to be improved; maintenance shall be in accordance with standard City policy, and the City shall perform maintenance required to maintain flow; 5) There shall be no additional door or window openings on any building wall which faces a residential area; and 6) The applicant shall submit a revised conceptual site plan which reflects the changed site conditions resulting from the proposed highway improvement project and which shows perimeter landscaping along US19 in conformance with City Code requirements. Such landscaping shall be installed within six months after completion of the highway improvement project. The site plan was reviewed by the Development Review Committee at its meeting on November 25, 1992. On November 17, 1992, the applicant was granted two conditional use permits by the Planning and Zoning Board under the existing IL zoning. One permit was for outdoor retail, display, and storage of automobiles and light trucks on the undeveloped section of the property fronting US19. The second permit was for vehicle service uses in the building on the north side of the property and for the north portion of the building at the northwest corner of the property. Under the current IPD zoning proposal, land uses on the property will be governed by the uses listed on Attachment A in the agenda item. Dimensional and numerical requirements for the property are established in Attachment B in the agenda item. After first reading of the ordinance establishing the IPD zoning, Attachments A and B, along with other applicable conditions, will be incorporated into the site plan, which will be presented to the Commission for approval at second reading. At Monday's worksession, a question was raised about whether the proposed list of uses for the Clearwater "19" Commerce Park would provide the applicant with additional property value in the event of the FDOT taking. The Planning and Zoning Board has been careful to condition recent conditional use approvals to minimize FDOT damages in areas projected for taking. For outdoor displays, a time limitation condition was established that reflected FDOT road improvement scheduling. For vehicle service, the Board limited its approval to areas outside of the taking area. The only uses proposed for the IPD that are not common to the IL district are: medical clinics/laboratories, personal services, indoor commercial recreation/entertainment, commercial or trade schools, veterinary offices and animal grooming. Under the recommended site plan conditions, high traffic generation uses (indoor retail sales and restaurants) will be limited in allowable floor area to 20,185 square feet, with only a maximum of 1,500 square feet of this total being available for restaurant uses. Given these facts, staff does not feel the IPD zoning action will create a major taking "windfall" for the applicant. Timothy Johnson, attorney representing the applicant, stated the property was developed in the 1980s with an ML zoning which allowed a variety of activities some of which were eliminated in 1985 by the IL zoning. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve IPD zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5323-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5323-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #16 - (Cont. from 12/3/92) Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5306-92, #5308-92 & #5310-92 establishing new LUP classifications for the area and Ords. #5307-92, #5309-92 & #5311-92 establishing a new zoning pattern for the area and Ord. #5320-92 creating a new Infill Commercial Zoning District - North Ft. Harrison/North Myrtle Avenue Zoning Study (PLD) In response to concerns by both commercial and residential property owners within the study area, staff has prepared a neighborhood zoning study designed to promote commercial redevelopment and enhance neighborhood stability in the study area. On December 1, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of the study subject to the following conditions: 1) a code amendment should be adopted to allow reconstruction of nonconforming single family residences if they are destroyed or damaged in excess of 50% of their value; 2) the following uses should be added to the proposed Infill Commercial district as conditional uses: Bed and Breakfast Inns, outdoor commercial recreation and congregate care; 3) the following use should be deleted from the proposed Infill Commercial district: Blood Plasma Centers; and 4) a provision should be made to allow noncommercial parking in the RS-8 zoning district for the portion of the study area west of N. Ft. Harrison Avenue. Staff has presented the study to the North Greenwood Design Review Committee, Board of Directors, North Ft. Harrison Business Association, Old Clearwater Bay Homeowners Association and the North Greenwood Association. Input from these groups has revealed widespread support for various aspects of the plan. Commercial revitalization of the existing neighborhood commercial strips along North Fort Harrison and North Myrtle Avenues was considered extremely important. There is also strong support from two of the groups for the "downzoning" of existing RM-8 areas to a RS-8 classification to promote neighborhood stability (N. Ft. Harrison Business Assoc. and Old Clearwater Bay Homeowners Assoc.). However, there is a concern by several property owners in the area that the rezoning will reduce the value of their property. Staff notes that existing duplex, triplex and multifamily uses are currently nonconforming under their existing RM-8 classification; they would remain nonconforming under the proposed RS-8 classification. There is a second concern that commercial conversion of the RM-8 area sandwiched between two commercial strips will result in reducing the amount of land available for affordable housing in this area of Clearwater, as well as creating a "barrier" between the North Greenwood and Old Clearwater Bay neighborhoods. Staff recognizes this concern and, in the plan, proposed addressing the affordable housing issue through the commitment of the construction of a minimum of 50 multiple family housing units within the area by 1995. Construction of these units will replace the housing units that might be removed from this area as redevelopment occurs. Also, regarding the "barrier" issue, staff recognizes the potential for a larger commercial area to impede access from both a physical and a psychological standpoint between the two neighborhoods. However, the area proposed for the rezoning does not constitute a stable residential area due to the existing land use patterns which have been established in this area. The subject property is sandwiched between two commercial areas and will continually face land use conflicts due to this existing land use pattern. Attempting to create an expanded residential zoning pattern to minimize these conflicts is not likely to succeed since there will be a continued incentive for commercial property owners to retain their property, even in a nonconforming status, in commercial use. Staff recommends Commission adoption of the Plan and its associated ordinances as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board, with the exception of the proposal to allow noncommercial parking as a conditional use in the RS-8 zoning district. Staff has promoted a rezoning of the existing RM-8 residential area west of N. Ft. Harrison Avenue in order to maintain and increase neighborhood stability. Allowing commercial uses fronting on N. Ft. Harrison Avenue to extend their parking lots into this area will not serve this purpose. Finally, staff has looked into the proposal to extend higher density multifamily zoning along the north side of Venetian Drive. Staff feels that going beyond a recognition of the existing 12 unit multifamily structure will negatively impact neighborhood stability by introducing new, higher density residential uses to the area. Further research into this matter has led staff to conclude that the appropriate zoning district to recognize the existing multifamily use is RM-16, rather than RM-20. Planning Manager Scott Shuford summarized the zoning study stating it recognizes the predominantly single family neighborhoods adjacent to Clearwater Harbor. He stated the proposal also includes the formation of a new zoning category of infill commercial. Russell Latimer, representing the residents of Venetian Point and Venetian Drive, said the residents are confused as to what is being proposed. He expressed opposition to the change of zoning along the north side of Venetian Drive indicating it would promote lower income multi-family housing and would not be in the best interest of this small area. One citizen spoke in opposition expressing concern the change in zoning would impact parking as he felt it was already inadequate and multi-family zoning would destroy the neighborhood the residents have tried to improve. He submitted two letters in opposition to the change in zoning on Venetian Drive. One citizen who lived next door to the apartment complex was not opposed to the proposal but was opposed to "spot" zoning. He felt he should have the same rights as the property next door. He questioned whether this zoning would allow the apartment owner to add more units. Mr. Shuford said the intent is to recognize the existing density and the apartment owner could not add any more units. A petition containing sixteen signatures was submitted in opposition to the zoning change on Venetian Drive. One citizen expressed concern there was not enough room for both residential and commercial along Ft. Harrison and Osceola Avenues. One citizen said commercial should be kept on one side and residential on the other. One citizen said there should be a balance between residential and commercial and requested that the downtown core zoning be extended to Nicholson. There was discussion regarding the need for a balance between residential and commercial and allowing some conditional uses as permitted uses. In response to questions, Mr. Shuford indicated the RM-16 zoning for the apartment parcel would minimize the nonconformities and would allow it to be rebuilt if destroyed. Concern was expressed the area of the apartment complex was being treated differently and it was indicated this site was large enough to stand on its own. Discussion ensued in regard to working toward uniformity with the surrounding single family zoning and not rezoning the apartment complex parcel to RM-16. It was pointed out if zoned RS, this parcel could not be rebuilt at the existing density if destroyed. Discussion ensued in regard to the property zoned RM-8 and it was questioned whether the whole area should be zoned RS-8. Mr. Shuford indicated this zoning would allow only building back if all code requirements are met. It was felt everyone in the area should be treated equally. Commissioner Berfield moved to withdraw Ordinances Nos. 5306-92 and 5307-92, which would have zoned the property of the Apartment Complex to RM-16, and direct staff to prepare the necessary documents to place the property under RS-8 zoning. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5308-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5308-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5309-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5309-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5310-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5310-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5311-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5311-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5320-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5320-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. The meeting recessed from 9:00 p.m. to 9:16 p.m. ITEM #17 - (Cont. from 12/3/92) Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5296-92 & #5312-92 - Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments related to the Countywide Consistency Program; Res. #92-69 - authorizing the PPC to request amendments to the countywide plan for properties located within City limits; and Res. #92-78 - requesting the PPC to reconsider certain of its countywide Land Use Plan rules (PLD) On October 13, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of the proposed changes to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Land Development Code relative to the PPC Consistency Program. On November 5, 1992, this item was continued by the Commission in order for a joint worksession to be held on this subject with the Planning and Zoning Board. Two joint worksessions were held on November 17 and November 30, 1992. David Healey, Executive Director of the PPC, was present at both meetings to answer questions about the Countywide Rules relative to the PPC Consistency Program. The following summarizes the joint worksessions. City Land Use Plan Categories The proposed increase in the number of land use classifications will require more reviews by the PPC and Countywide Planning Authority - County Commission (CPA), thereby reducing City Commission authority to make local changes. As discussed in the worksessions, it is unlikely the PPC staff will favorably consider consolidating or reducing the number of categories since substantial discussion and effort has gone into establishing these categories, and approximately one half the local government in Pinellas County have implemented changes to their regulations to adopt the proposed categories. However, to retain the appropriate level of local zoning authority and flexibility, the Commission may wish to consider requesting the PPC consider reducing the total number of land use categories on the Countywide Plan from 29 to approximately 10. Thresholds The PPC has established a one acre threshold for land use plan changes that place properties under this threshold level on the Council's consent agenda. Staff has recommended that revisions be made to the Special Act to entirely exempt subthreshold amendments from PPC review. Staff has also recommended increasing the threshold in accordance with the Planners Advisory Committee recommendation or with State small-scale amendment thresholds. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) The PPC has established a maximum transfer of one unit per acre from properties designated Preservation (except for properties seaward of the CCCL). Staff feels TDR regulation should be a local prerogative. Staff would recommend that TDR's be deleted from the Countywide Rules, leaving its regulation entirely to the discretion of local governments, as has been done in a limited fashion for TDR's across the CCCL. Major Density/Intensity Reductions The .95 Impervious Surface Ration (ISR) countywide requirement in the Resort Facilities High classification will require changes to the Beach Commercial Zoning District which currently has no minimum open space requirement. Given discussion at the worksessions, PPC will not support a change. Staff recommends the PPC be asked to revise its Rules to allow a 1.0 ISR for existing areas in this classification which have been developed under a 1.0 ISR requirement (e.g., the Beach Commercial Zoning District). The .65 Floor Area Ration (FAR) countywide requirement in the Institutional classification specifically affects Morton Plant Hospital's expansion plans. The City's P/SP zoning district allows a maximum FAR of 1.00. PPC staff has indicated support for some solution to this concern. Staff recommends the PPC be asked to revise its Rules to allow a 1.0 FAR for hospital uses within this classification. Minor Density/Intensity Reductions One minor density/intensity reduction issue remains a concern which regards the Residential/Office Limited and Residential/Office General/Residential Office Mixed Use Category. Staff recommends the PPC merge the classifications and establish a maximum 15 units per acre density allowance and a .60 maximum FAR allowance for the merged classification. PPC staff support for the revision of PPC requirements is not considered likely, given discussions at the worksession. Staff would recommend the PPC be requested to revise its rules concerning this item. Staff recommends the Commission adopt a resolution to the PPC expressing the City's concerns about the changes to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Land Development Code regulations. The Planning and Zoning Board reconsidered this item on December 15, 1992. They recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments and approval of Resolution #92-78. The Board felt strongly that the .95 ISR requirement in the Resort Facilities High classification should be deleted from the Countywide Rules in order to be consistent with existing standards in the City for properties on Clearwater Beach. Exhibit A of Resolution #92-78 has been revised deleting the recommendation on the "City Land Use Categories" issue; deleting City objections to the .95 ISR requirement in the Resort Facilities High classification; deleting the Residential Office Limited and General concern under the "Minor Density/Intensity" issue; and revising the wording of the "Small Scale Amendment Thresholds". Staff recommends deleting the "City Land Use Categories" issue because the added categories ultimately provide the City with greater flexibility to annex property without PPC review under the City's interlocal agreement with Pinellas County. The .95 ISR and Residential Office Limited issues were deleted as it was the consensus of the Commission to not address these relatively minor issues at this time. The threshold issue language was revised after discussions with the City's lobbyist, James Massie, to clarify the intent of the language. Staff recommends the Commission adopt on first reading the proposed changes to make the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Land Development Code consistent with the Countywide Plan. Simultaneously, the resolution to change the rules in the areas which conflict with the City's standards will be forwarded to the PPC. If the PPC decides to make these changes, then the regulations will be modified at second reading. If the PPC chooses to not make the changes, then the Commission will be asked to advise staff on what course of action to take at second reading. Amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan will be sent to the State DCA as a part of the City's first State biannual 1993 review. Senior Planner Sandy Glatthorn reviewed the suggested changes. Emil Marquardt, Morton Plant attorney, spoke in favor of increasing the maximum .65 FAR to 1.0 for hospital uses in the institutional category indicating this increase is needed to meet community needs. Dave Healey, Pinellas Planning Council Director, requested clarification of the change in FAR, and Mr. Shuford stated the change is only for hospitals in the institutional classification. Commissioner Deegan moved to amend Ordinance #5296-92 on page 1, amend Section 135.005, Subsections 1, 2 and 3 to read: 1) The Single Family Residential "One" District shall be consistent with either the residential estate plan classification or the residential urban plan classification; 2) The Single Family Residential "Two" District shall be consistent with either the residential suburban residential plan classification or the residential urban plan classification; and 3) The Single Family Residential "Four" District shall be consistent with either the residential low residential plan classification or the residential urban plan classification. On page 23, amend Section 135.158, Subsection 7 to read: Maximum floor area ratio: 0.7 for properties with transportation/utility plan classification; 0.65 for properties with institutional plan classification, except for hospital uses which shall be permitted a maximum FAR of one (1.0) and on page 28, in Section 136.011(f), delete Subsection 2 and renumber 3. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5296-92 as amended for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5296-92 as amended on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to amend Ordinance #5312-92 by amending Exhibit A, regarding Policy 3.2.1., revised to add RS-1, RS-2 and RS-4 to the RU LUP classification; and add 1.0 FAR for hospital uses in Institutional LUP classification and amending Exhibit B to delete activity center designation from Clearwater Beach from Growth Centers map; and revise LUP classifications to RU for RS-2 and RS-4 zoning districts within City limits. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5312-92 as amended for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5312-92 as amended on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. The City Attorney presented Resolution #92-69 and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Resolution #92-69 as amended and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. The City Attorney presented Resolution #92-78 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #92-78 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #18 - (Cont. from 12/3/92) Revised Downtown Development Plan - First Reading Ords. #5297-92, #5298-92, #5299-92, #5300-92 & #5302-92 to expand D.T. Dev. District Land Use Plan classification; First Reading Ords. #5301-92, #5303-92, #5304-92, #5305-92 establishing Urban Center (Eastern Corridor, Core or Bayfront) zoning; First Reading Ord. #5235-92 revising Urban Center zoning district requirements and Res. #92-73 - accepting D.T.Dev. Plan and expanding the CRA area (PLD) ITEM #19 - (Cont. from 12/3/92) Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Dayton Andrews, Inc.) located at 2388 Gulf-to-Bay, Sec. 18-29-16, M&B 24.05 & 24.06, and Gulf to Bay Estates, Unit 3, Lots 594-597 (Massey Motors, Inc. SV92-26)(PLD) ITEM #20 - (Cont. from 12/3/92) Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc.) located at 2339 Gulf-to-Bay, Sec. 18-29-16, M&B 31.05, and Lokey F.B.C., Lot 2 (Lokey, McFarland, Flaws & Barnett Banks Trust Co. SV92-44)(PLD) ITEM #21 - (Cont. from 12/3/92) Public Hearing - Uphold decision of Building Official by Res. #92-66 - to demolish property located at 905-907 Hart Street (a/k/a Plaza Park Sub., Blk C, Lots 15 & 16) if owner fails to repair or demolish structures within 30 days (PLD) Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to continue Items Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21 to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 21, 1993. The motion duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #22 - Declare as surplus, for the purpose of leasing to the IAFF, property located in Magnolia Park Sub., Blk 12, Lot 8, for the period 1/1/93-12/31/97, for a monthly rent of $275 (GS) This item was withdrawn. Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances ITEM #23 - Ord. #5261-92 - Land Use Plan to Low Density Residential for property located at 3160 McMullen-Booth Rd., Sec. 21-28-16, M&B 23.04, 23.05, 23.06, 23.08 & 23.13, 17.35 acres (McCullough LUP92-13) Commissioner Deegan moved to amend Ordinance #5261-92 by substituting a revised Exhibit A to correct scrivener's error in the legal description. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5261-92 as amended for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5261-92 as amended on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #24 - Ord. #5262-92 - RS-6 Zoning for property located at 3160 McMullen-Booth Rd., Sec. 21-28-16, M&B 23.04, 23.05, 23.06, 23.08 & 23.13, 17.35 acres (McCullough A92-07) Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to amend Ordinance #5262-92 by substituting a revised Exhibit A to correct scrivener's error in the legal description. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5262-92 as amended for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5262-92 as amended on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #25 - Ord. #5321-92 - Amending Ch. 54 re: solid waste The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5321-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5321-92 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. CITY MANAGER REPORTS CONSENT AGENDA (Items #26-37) - Approved as submitted less Item #32. Agreements - Approved. ITEM #26 - Joint Project Agreement with Pinellas County to relocate natural gas mains during improvements to East Bay Dr. and Belcher Rd. intersection at an est. labor cost of $62,808.29 (GAS) ITEM #27 - Amendment to agreement with Chi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation, Inc., to eliminate paragraph 34 relating to the foundation constructing a nature center and park (PR) ITEM #28 - Renewal of agreement with The School Board of Pinellas County providing for the joint use of facilities for the period 1/1/93-12/31/93 (PR) Bids & Contracts - Awarded. ITEM #29 - Purchase of garden and nursery chemicals for the period 12/18/92-12/17/93 to J.C. Ehrlich Chemical, at an est. $2,185.05; Van Waters and Rogers Inc., for $9,886.30; Lesco Inc., for $158.50; Terra International Inc., for $9,405.70; and Helena Chemical Co., for $34,734.99 for an est. total of $56,370.54 (PR) ITEM #30 - Contract for Edenville Channel Improvements to Suncoast Excavating, Inc., Ozona, FL, for $25,600 (PW) ITEM #31 - Contract for structural demolition of properties located at 1701 Hercules Ave. and 1311 Kings Highway to Eicher's Backhoe, Clearwater, FL, for $25,336.50 (PW) ITEM #32 - See page 20 ITEM #33 - Contract for lot mowing & debris removal to Sunshine Lawn Maintenance, for the period 12/18/92-12/17-93, at an est. $32,250; and terminate contract with International Landscape Contractors due to unsatisfactory performance (PLD) Citizens & Staff Requests - Approved. ITEM #34 - Reappoint Roy May and Appoint William Schwob to the Board of Trustees, Clearwater Police Supplementary Pension Plan (PD) ITEM #35 - Authorization to file suit against Randolph Centeno for damage to City property (CA) Plans & Plats - Approved. ITEM #36 - Preliminary Site Plan for Hunter Blood Center, Inc. (Mobile Station) located at 2151 Calumet St., Clearwater Industrial Park, part of Lot 12 (Martin) (PLD) Authorize review of a final site plan with final action by the Development Review Committee (D.R.C.) subject to the following conditions: Perimeter landscaping shall be installed in accordance with Section 136.023 of the Land Development Code; 2) The requisite building permit be obtained within one year from the date of certification of the final site plan; and 3) The westernmost driveway shall be removed. Receipt & Referral - Received and Referred. ITEM #37 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential and RS-8 Zoning for property located at 2200 N. Manor Blvd., Clearwater Manor, Lot 17, 0.17 acres (Wickman, Jr. A92-12, LUP92-23)(PLD) Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted less Item #32 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #32 - Amendment to contract with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., for $190,400.40, increasing the contract amount to $686,830.29 for the preparation of a PD&E study for the widening of Drew Street to include additional work involving the examination of a one-way pair as one of the project alternates (PW) The City proposes to widen Drew Street from just west of Ft. Harrison Avenue to just east of Northeast Coachman Road in cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The City has agreed to take the lead in the project's development by preparing the Project Development and Environmental Study (PD&E) in accordance with FDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) rules and procedures. The City has allocated $4 million to accomplish as much of the studies, design, right-of-way acquisition and construction as the amount will afford, with the State joining the effort in a future fiscal year and thereafter taking the project to conclusion. At the meeting of December 5, 1991, the Commission approved an engineering services contract with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (PBSJ), for the preparation of the PD&E study for a fee of $496,429.89. The contract is structured such that the numerous subsequent phases can be assigned to PBSJ, should the City desire when the need arises. At the time the contract was being negotiated and the scope of services described, the City purposefully eliminated an item of work involving the examination of a one-way pair along Drew Street/Cleveland Street as a project alternate. Staff did not believe the costs associated with an examination of this one-way pair alternate was money well spent. While the FDOT examined and approved the proposed contract with PBSJ, staff has, from the start, been aware that the one-way pair study might have to be included to fully comply with FHWA regulations. The FDOT has now stated the one-way pair alternative must be included due to the possibility of constructing a lower cost facility to meet future traffic demands by minimizing right-of-way acquisition and construction costs and to meet FHWA study requirements. Public involvement is a major component of the PD&E study and a one-way pair may well be rejected by strong public opposition. Although it appears that the one-way pair consideration may drop out early, it is necessary now to amend the City's existing contract to include that item of work. The amendment consists of an additional 2,305 manhours of work for an added value of $190,400.40. This cost will be reduced if the one-way pair option is dropped after the first public workshop. The hourly rates for the various personnel involved are the same as the existing contract approved in 1991. Public Works Director Bill Baker said in order to comply with state regulations regarding right-of-way acquisition and to receive funding the City needs to examine all alternatives, including a one-way pair. In response to a question, Mr. Baker said the segment of Drew Street from SR 60 to N. Fort Harrison Avenue is the only city portion of the street. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the amendment to the contract with Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT ITEM #38 - Ultimar Three Condominium Appeal re: property located at 1560 Gulf Blvd., Sand Key (Sea Towers Construction Co./Johnson)(PLD) The developer of the Ultimar Three residential condominium development is appealing the City Manager's decision to prohibit two aspects of the proposed site plan design which are not in conformance with the Final Judgement of the Circuit Court Settlement Stipulation imposed on October 17, 1986. The stipulation states that in the event the City Manager determines the proposed site plan is not in conformance, the owners shall have the right to appeal the decision of the City Manager to the City Commission. First, the developer is proposing to increase the height of the proposed structure to 280 feet which is 70 feet above the maximum height allowed by the settlement stipulation which allows a height of 210 feet. However, Exhibit "B" Parcel II Schematic Site Plan, note number 8, states: "The height of the building structures is defined as the distance above the flood plain to the roof deck or, in the case where sloped roofs are used, to the mid-point of the roof slope. Elevator machine rooms, mechanical rooms, stairs, parapet walls and other necessary design elements will be permitted above the maximum heights established herein". The Ultimar residential development includes three buildings, of which two have already been constructed. Ultimar One has a height of 210 feet and Ultimar Two has a height of 252 feet. The Ultimar Two tower was built to 252 feet to accommodate mechanical rooms that were perceived to be "necessary design elements" when the tower was approved. Staff approved the 252 feet height for Ultimar Two since the usable floor space was below the 210 feet limit and only machinery, parapet walls and similar features extended above 210 feet, in accordance with note 8 above. A letter from James Polatty, Planning and Development Director, to the applicant's representative contains a statement that the allowable height for the Ultimar Three project is 248 feet. This height limit was based on a staff estimate of the Ultimar Two building height that further research has determined to be in error; the building is actually 252 feet tall. Staff feels that if the Ultimar Three building is constructed to the same height as the Ultimar Two building, it will be sufficiently tall enough to accommodate any likely mechanical equipment and other necessary design elements. The Sand Key skyline is an important characteristic of Clearwater and should reflect the best planning and architectural practices possible for the long term benefit of the citizens and visitors of Clearwater. The applicant has presented no "hardship" as to why the building should be 280 feet high rather than 252 feet like the Ultimar Two structure. The design elements associated with this extra height appear to be simply aesthetic in nature and are not related to mechanical requirements. Second, the developer of Ultimar Three residential condominium development is proposing to include an in-ground swimming pool within the clear view corridor. The settlement stipulation does not allow active recreation uses in the clear view corridor. Exhibit "B" Parcel II of the Schematic Site Plan, note number 4, states: "The view corridors through the site will exclude all structures, walls, fences and parking, but will allow passive recreational amenities, landscaping, pedestrian walkways, driveways and emergency vehicle access ways." The applicant has presented no "hardship" as to why the swimming pool must be located in the clear view corridor. A letter of opposition has been submitted by the representative of the Harbor Condominium located across Gulf Boulevard from the proposed tower. The letter states that it is also an appeal of any decision by staff to authorize a building height in excess of 210 feet. Timothy Johnson, Jr., attorney representing the applicant, stated the 1986 settlement stipulation governs the development of the property and not the land development code. He said a memo from the previous Planning Manager Paula Harvey indicated that she considered a swimming pool a passive recreational amenity and felt an inground pool is authorized by the agreement. He indicated the agreement allows for landscaping which he felt would be more obtrusive in the view corridor than a pool. He said the approved site plan for Phase II showed a pool in the view corridor. Mr. Lee, architect, said the design of the building dictates the height and he felt the roof top was an important element. He said he had participated in negotiating the language for the agreement and the reference to "structure" in the view corridor referred to a building and not a pool. He said the intent was to protect the view corridor and a pool would enhance the visibility of this corridor. The president of Dan's Island Sand Key Civic Association, spoke in support of the of the proposed design. He said the design of Phases I, II and III were tasteful and aesthetically pleasing. Harry Cline, attorney representing a Coalition of Sand Key Homeowners, spoke in opposition to any modification or variance to the proposal. He objected to any expansion of height over and above the agreement and to anything other than passive recreation within the view corridor as defined in the agreement. He said a pool is considered as a "structure" under the code. The president of the Harbor Condominium Association strongly objected to the proposal indicating the agreement should be honored. Mr. Johnson stated if the pool is not allowed in the proposed location, the availability of four gulfside townhouses valued at $3 million would be lost. The project will be delayed resulting in loss of sales and increased costs. He indicated a lawsuit would be filed if the City does not approve the application. The City Manager said when he reviewed the request, he applied the "common sense test." He read the agreement to see what would be permitted above the 210 foot allowable building height and what was a necessary design element. He said all structures were to be excluded in the view corridor. Mr. Polatty felt the stipulation agreement overrides the land development code and said the site plan depicted a pool in the view corridor. Concern was expressed the height and shape of the Phase III building would create a greater shadow effect on surrounding properties. An opinion was expressed the pool would not create a problem if it was not elevated. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the developer's appeal to increase structure height to 280 feet. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion ensued in regard to what would be considered a passive amenity. It was felt the City's intent was to protect the view corridor when the agreement was negotiated. There was discussion in regard to whether a pool was considered to be a structure and it was indicated a "structure" is clearly defined in the code. Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the location of an in-ground swimming pool within the clear view corridor. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield and Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye;" Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay." Motion carried. ITEM #39 - Rejection of mediation agreement between the City and Roger Brennan (CM) On November 17, 1992, the Brennan v. City was mediated with some potential success. While the settlement agreement is expressly contingent on the parties reaching an agreement on attorneys' fees and costs, both parties desire that any settlement be generally consistent with the mediation agreement. Further, because of the amount of money involved, approval of any settlement rests with the Commission under the claims ordinance. Since that mediation, the parties have worked out the attached settlement agreement and release. The only issue outstanding in the event the Commission decides to accept settlement as an alternative to continued litigation is the amount of attorney fees to be paid the plaintiff's attorneys. Ms. Deborah Crumbley has met and conferred with the plaintiff's attorney on the issue of attorney's fees and costs. The parties have compromised the issue of costs with an agreement of $3,883.40. The economic portion of the plaintiff's settlement is in the gross amount of $10,000. An offer to the plaintiff's attorney of $30,000.00, inclusive of all fees and costs, to settle this matter has been made in accordance with the terms of the draft agreement and release. Ms. Pequignot is prepared to settle in accordance with the agreement if she receives $40,000, inclusive of all fees and costs. Since we have estimated $30,000 to $50,000 to fully litigate this matter, a settlement offer in excess of that already offered is not economically sound since the City would spend that much litigating the case and, it is believed, would likely prevail on the merits. Needless to say, the plaintiff has a different opinion as to the merits. Further, the plaintiff is threatening additional legal action which could increase the City's fees. Notwithstanding this fact, it is staff's opinion that a settlement offer in excess of what has already been communicated is not warranted. Ms. Crumbley reviewed various options available to the City and indicated, if this case is not settled in mediation, the City will proceed to court. The federal court date is set for the January 1993 docket. Margot Pequignot, the plaintiff's attorney, said the mediation process is not the same as a settlement. The judge tells the parties they are to mediate. Ten hours were spent on this mediation and out of it came what is thought to be a compromise that both sides could live with. Ms. Pequignot said the controversy between Mr. Brennan and the City has been going on for five years. She said there has been a lot of dollars spent and emotional upheaval due to this case and Mr. Brennan will not benefit financially. She indicated the plaintiff likes and wants to keep his job. She pointed out in most cases where the EEOC has found cause, 58 percent of these cases were won by the plaintiff. In response to a question, it was indicated the only difference between the mediation agreement and settlement agreement was in the title and the addition of language such as dollar amount, listing FLSA as cause of action, etc. Commissioner Deegan moved to extend, for five calendar days, a settlement offer of $10,000 to the plaintiff and $30,000 in attorney fees and cost. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #40 - (Cont. from 12/3/92) Fourth amendment to paragraph 3 of Lease Agreement with Bikini Buttons, Inc., dated 6/12/90, allowing sale of charts, maps, personalized license plates, fruit shipping service (produce not allowed in store), key duplicating service and sale of greeting cards (MR) The applicant's attorney requested a continuance as he has just recently been retained. Commissioner Deegan moved to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of January 7, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #41 - Authorize purchase of 31.4 acres of land on Drew Street, Sec. 8-29-16, M&B 44.01 and portion of 43.01 for $1,500,000 ($1,250,000 in cash from City and $250,000 in the form of a 501-C3 IRS gift to the City) and related survey, engineering and closing costs of $50,000 for a total dollar cost to the City of $1,300,000 (PR) At the Commission Meeting of December 3, 1992, staff was directed to offer $1,250,000 for the subject 31.4 acres. According to a letter from Harry Cline dated December 10, 1992, the owners propose to convey the site to the City for the price of $1,500,000, accept that the City will pay only $1,250,000 in cash while the remaining $250,000 will be gifted to the City as provided for under the 501-C3 IRS code. The subject property is located west of the Eddie C. Moore Recreation Complex. Approximately 11 acres are proposed to be reserved for three regulation softball fields, a parking lot and other facilities. Additionally, a 50 foot wide strip along the north property line will join the subject property to Eisenhower School and will allow for the connection of the City's east-west bicycle path. Of the remaining 20 acres, approximately 9.2 acres are considered environmentally sensitive while the other 10.8 may be used for passive or open space recreation. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies a need for two additional softball diamonds by 1995 and a third diamond by the year 2000. Vacant property of sufficient size is rapidly disappearing and staff feels it important this subject site be acquired while it is still available. Staff recommends the following funding sources: Open Space Impact Fees $ 931,010.00 Open Space Interest $ 55,220.00 Recreation Land Impact Fees $ 272,206.00 Infrastructure Tax/Existing CIP Project 315-3119 $ 41,564.00 Total $1,300,000.00 Since softball fields are considered to be of city-wide significance, impact fees collected throughout Clearwater are eligible. The first quarter budget review will include an amendment to transfer the impact fees into project 315-3199, softball complex land, to provide funds for the purchase, engineering and survey of this property. Concern was expressed regarding the City's obligation in verifying the gift to the Internal Revenue Service. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, said all the City has to do is acknowledge reclining the gift. Lee Arnold, realtor, said the burden is on the donor of the gift. It is a criminal act to donate more than the value of the property being purchased. A citizen expressed concern regarding the City verifying the gift and questioned the validity of the Commission authorizing the purchase without a contract before them. He questioned what the City was getting, whether they were under a time constraint and requested they continue to negotiate the purchase price. John Gerlach, representing the owners, said the purchase price is considerably less than market value and there are no time constraints. It was pointed out there are approximately 9.2 acres of environmentally sensitive land that can not be used and that is why the Commission made a lower offer for the property. Commissioner Berfield moved to authorize purchase of 31.4 acres of land on Drew Street, Sec. 8-29-16, M&B 44.01 and portion of 43.01 for $1,500,000 ($1,250,000 in cash from City and $250,000 in the form of a 501-C3 IRS gift to the City) and related survey, engineering and closing costs of $50,000 for a total dollar cost to the City of $1,300,000. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #42 - Res. #92-77 - amending fee schedule to eliminate fees associated with annexations and to establish a fee for development agreements (PLD) As an initial step in proceeding with the annexation incentive program directives provided by the Commission, staff has produced a proposed amendment to the fee schedule to eliminate fees associated with annexations. This fee schedule would result in there being no charges for the annexation of properties into the City, including any necessary zoning or land use plan amendments associated with the annexation. Of course, subsequent changes to zoning or the land use plan for properties which have been annexed will carry the same fee as for other properties currently within the City. The fee schedule also establishes a fee for development agreements. The City Attorney presented Resolution #92-77 and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #92-77 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #43 - Other Pending Matters - None. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS ITEM #44 - Other City Attorney Items - None. ITEM #45 - City Manager Verbal Reports A) Maas Brothers Request For Proposal (RFP). The City Manager asked if the Commission was satisfied with the RFP for the Maas Brothers' property. It was the consensus to include the entire footprint of the existing building in the property available. Discussion ensued in regard to whether or not to include in the RFP that the underground parking could be handled through the CRA as it is felt the issue of parking could be used as a negotiating tool. An opinion was expressed including in the RFP that the CRA might help increase the number of responses. It was the consensus to separate reference to the CRA from the sentence regarding underground parking, but that the availability of CRA assistance be included in the document. In response to a question, it was indicated consideration would only be given to a lease. Cleveland Street Closing The City Clerk reported the Downtown Development Board is requesting Cleveland Street be closed annually a Hall of Fame Game Event and monthly for Downtown Comes Alive Concerts. She indicated DOT would require closure from Myrtle Avenue to Osceola Avenue and that sworn police personnel be used for traffic control. Consensus was not to close for the monthly events and the annual event closure be requested in time to be discussed during the budget process. A question was raised regarding the status of the Kravas lot. It was indicated the parking lot is currently being designed and staff is proceeding with all deliberate speed. The Assistant City Manager reported on the 3 month trial trolley express from the beach to downtown. Brochures placed in motels have promoted the free service and ridership has increased. A concern has been expressed regarding some of the trolley ridership being passengers that had been paying and riding PSTA's Route 80 to Island Estates. A suggestion was made that the Island Estates stop be changed from the shopping center to the Marine Science Center. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve continuing the express trolley for 90 days, changing the Island Estates stop to the Marine Science Center and authorizing PSTA to purchase an additional trolley at no cost to the City. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Staff is to provide monthly status reports. ITEM #46 - Other Commission Action A) Regulski Replacement. Commissioner Deegan moved to appoint Marvin Moore as Commissioner Regulski's replacement. The motion was duly seconded. An opinion was expressed that selecting a minority would provide a balance on the Commission. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield and Deegan voted "Aye;" Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Tie vote. Commissioner Berfield moved to appoint Bill Justice to fill the vacancy. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield and Deegan voted "Aye;" Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Tie vote. A citizen expressed concern that the Charter called for a majority vote within 30 days of the vacancy and a consensus would not be reached tonight. He recommended a special election be held. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to appoint Mayme Hodges as Commissioner Regulski's replacement. A suggestion was made to ask the submittees to present their ideas so the Commission could become more familiar with them. An opinion was given there had been ample time already to get to know them. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Deegan referred to a second opinion regarding the potential success of obtaining the necessary permits and lower overall costs to open Dunedin Pass. He objected to the use of the phrase "new main library building" as a decision has not been made for a new building. Commissioner Fitzgerald requested consideration be given to a cut-off time for meetings. The City Attorney is to draft a resolution for the next worksession. Discussion ensued regarding a change in order of items on the agenda and the City Clerk indicated priority needs to be given to public hearing items; however, she would review the order. A request was made to bring a copy of the Commission rules regarding the agenda to the next worksession. A goal setting meeting was scheduled for January 12, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. ITEM #47 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 12:44 a.m.