Loading...
01/06/1994 CITY COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 1994 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, January 6, 1994, at 6:00 p.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Sue A. Berfield Commissioner Fred A. Thomas Commissioner Also present: Elizabeth M. Deptula Interim City Manager William C. Baker Acting Assistant City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Peter Yauch Acting Public Works Director Scott Shuford Central Permitting 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 Acting Assistant City Manager William C. Baker. 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 Mayor presented a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting, on behalf of the Florida Government Finance Officers Association, to Margie Simmons, Assistant Finance Director. ITEM #5 - Presentations - none. ITEM #6 - Approval of Minutes Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 1, 1993, 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 (maximum of 10 speakers pre-registered with City Clerk) - none. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM #8 - (Cont. from 12/16/93) Receive public comment re: FY 92-93 CDBG Grantee Performance Report (ED) Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 20, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #9 - (Cont. from 12/16/93) Amendments to FY 93-94 CDBG Final Statement (ED) Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to continue this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 20, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #10 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5514-94 - Vacating portion of 10' east/west alley, lying between the former C.S.X. Railroad and Hamlet Avenue, Map of Belleair, Blk 15, subject to being retained full width as a drainage & utility easement (Mallory, V93-16)(PW) The applicant who is requesting the vacation of a 10-foot east/west alley lying east of the former CSX Railroad owns a private parking lot on the south side of the alley. Phillips Engineering owns the property to the north and has recently paved the alley with concrete and currently uses the alley to store materials. Various City Departments/Divisions concerned with vacations, Florida Power and Vision Cable reviewed the petition and have no objections to the vacation provided it be retained full width as a drainage and utility easement. The Public Works Director previously reported "The alley is not now being used as a traveled way by anyone and has already been vacated in other sections. The north adjacent owner is currently using the alley to store material and the south adjacent owner is the applicant. The alley should be returned to these two owners." Acting Assistant City Manager William Baker reported he received a letter from Mr. Phillips today and he now wants to use the alley as a travelway. He is in the process of removing the materials that are being stored there. Due to Mr. Phillips' request, Mr. Baker is no longer recommending approval of the vacation. Mayor Garvey asked if there was any redeeming feature for using this alley for public access. Acting Public Works Director Peter Yauch indicated this alley serves only the two adjacent properties. Mr. Baker pointed out emergency access is not a factor in approving this vacation. Commissioner Thomas asked what the City has done, historically, when only one adjacent property owner wants the vacation. Mr. Baker said the City would not recommend the vacation if there was still a public purpose to be served. Commissioner Thomas also asked what the City has done, historically, when two adjoining property owners want the vacation; however, a third party, who has no interest in the property, opposes it. Again, Mr. Baker responded if there is a public purpose to be served, staff would not recommend vacating the property. George Mallory, applicant, said the property has never served a public purpose and has been used for storage by Phillips Engineering. He felt more of a public purpose would be served if this property was returned to the tax rolls. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Mallory if he had spoken to Mr. Phillips, and Mr. Mallory responded Mr. Phillips is not in favor of the vacation because he has benefit of the property without paying taxes on it. There was discussion regarding Mr. Phillips paving the entire length of the 10-foot alley. Mr. Baker said the City gave Mr. Phillips permission to pave the alley at his own expense. Mr. Mallory stated the property has been used solely for storage since it was paved. Commissioner Deegan said he saw no documentation regarding why Mr. Mallory wants to vacate the alley. Mr. Mallory responded he wanted to beautify the area by putting in plants. Commissioner Deegan questioned how the public would be served by the vacation. Mr. Mallory stated the property would be returned to the tax roll. Mayor Garvey pointed out that if Mr. Phillips owns half of the right-of-way once it is vacated, he can travel on it. Lois Cormier spoke in support of the vacation. She said Mr. Mallory is her neighbor and she had thought the alley was private property. She pointed out she maintains the right-of-way adjacent to her property and was told by staff she could never pave the property. She said the subject alley is valuable land and she has not seen anyone else use this alley. Ms. Cormier said she trusts that Mr. Mallory will maintain the property. She said whatever action is taken tonight will impact what she will do on her adjoining right-of-way. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the requested vacation subject to it being retained full width as a drainage and utility easement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5514-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5514-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #11 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5507-94 - Amending Secs. 44.05, 44.51, 44.55 & 44.57 to regulate neon and other forms of exposed signs or lighting (LDCA 93-15)(CP) Under direction of the City Commission, staff prepared a Land Development Code amendment regulating neon signs and lighting. The ordinance provides a definition for neon signs and lighting, permits the use of neon signs and lighting when used as signage or as a means of outlining architectural details. It addresses the issue of nonconformities being grandfathered unless damaged or destroyed in excess of 50 percent of the value. The Development Code Adjustment Board and the Planning and Zoning Board recommended against the adoption of this ordinance. The board members were divided as to the reasons for not endorsing the ordinance. Some members felt that neon lighting needed more extensive regulation since no restrictions were placed on its use in outlining architectural details. The majority of board members, however, felt the ordinance limited the creative use of neon lighting by businesses; these members also felt that, due to the expense of neon lighting, the uses being proposed for prohibition by the ordinance would not likely be widespread and therefore not a problem for the City. In response to Commissioner Berfield's questions, Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford responded existing signs would be grandfathered until taken down or destroyed in excess of 50 percent and existing signs would transfer with ownership. Commissioner Deegan asked if a sign was taken down could it be replaced by a new owner and Mr. Scott responded the new owner would need to conform to the code. Commissioner Deegan asked Mr. Shuford if he would have recommended approval of this ordinance if the Commission had not directed it be brought forward. Mr. Shuford responded he would not have recommended its approval as its benefits are limited. Commissioner Deegan stated he was the most outspoken regarding bringing this ordinance forward as he wanted to address the issue before it got out of hand. He agreed currently there is not a widespread problem with garish neon signs. He said if a problem is seen, an ordinance can be adopted at a future date. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if staff should research what the boards would support. Mayor Garvey stated she is concerned regarding the proliferation of neon but agreed further study is needed. Commissioner Thomas felt it inappropriate to regulate businesses if no serious need to do so exists. He pointed out both boards opposed the amendment and did not view this issue as a problem. He felt passage of the ordinance would be anti-business. Commissioner Thomas moved to deny the request. The motion was duly seconded. Mayor Garvey pointed out the boards were not unanimous in their vote and felt staff may want to get additional input from them. Commissioner Deegan said he brought up the issue in the first place citing safety and aesthetic concerns. He said the safety concern had been resolved and did not support further study by the boards. He felt the issue could be brought up again if necessary. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. ITEM #12 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5508-94 - Amending various sections within Ch. 45 to establish minor variances and provide for minor variance approval by the Development Code Adjustment Board (LDCA 93-24)(CP) The proposed amendment will allow staff to establish an administrative, small scale variance approval process. This process will result in a less expensive, substantially shortened review for minor variances. The ordinance would allow the Development Code Administrator to grant minor variances as part of an administrative determination. The administrator would consider whether the variance meets all standards for approval before granting a minor variance. The applicant has the ability to appeal the decision of the Development Code Administrator to the Development Code Adjustment Board as a regular variance. The minor variances include small variances to side, rear and street setbacks, open space, landscaping, dock and fence regulations. The administrative process would streamline land development code procedures. The proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Code Enforcement Review Task Force, the Planning & Zoning and the Development Code Adjustment Boards. Suggested changes involved landscaping requirements, additional wording regarding the administrator and the reporting procedure of staff action. Mr. Shuford said staff has been looking at procedural changes to the land development code, several of which will be coming forward this year. These changes are in response to the Healy Report and the Code Enforcement Review Task Force. He said this ordinance addresses variances of 10 percent or less. He reviewed the changes suggested by the various boards which included using a number rather than a percentage when giving landscaping requirements. A concern of the boards was there would be an assumption that minor variances would be approved. He said staff would be providing reports of the administrative variances granted and pointed out there is a process for appeal of denials to the Development Code Adjustment Board. Mayor Garvey asked what the appeal fee would be. Mr. Shuford responded a resolution would be required establishing the fee, recommended to be $50. Appeals would be treated as normal variance requests. Mayor Garvey said concern has been expressed regarding the proposed procedure and questioned whether a policy should be established as to what type of variances may be granted. Mr. Shuford said the applicant will have to justify a minor variance the same as a larger one. Commissioner Deegan found the change from 2 feet to 1 feet for width of perimeter landscaping abutting a street to be substantial and questioned whether this would be more restrictive. Mr. Shuford responded it would be more restrictive as the amount of variances the Code Administrator can consider is smaller. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern that all standards for approval would be met. He said he has requested the standards be revised to be more objective. Mr. Shuford stated he is pursuing this and he has solicited input from other communities. He said there will always have to be some determination made. Commissioner Deegan requested the revised standards be brought forward in a reasonable time. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford said if the standards are changed, they would still apply to minor variances. Mayor Garvey questioned if the Commission wanted to give staff the leeway to approve minor variances and Commissioner Deegan said it was Commission direction to bring this issue forward. Mr. Shuford said he would welcome Commission scrutiny of staff decisions. Commissioner Deegan questioned who had the role of Development Code Administrator. Mr. Shuford responded he did. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a land development code amendment establishing minor variances. The motion was duly seconded. Anne Garris questioned whether alcoholic beverage variances would be considered under this ordinance. It was indicated they are not minor variances. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Deegan moved to amend Ordinance 5508-94 on page 1, in Section 45.02, in the 11th line, change "administrator" to "development code administrator;" on page 2, Section 45.23(3)(f), in Subsection 2, change "two feet" to "one foot" to read: Abutting streets. Variation of the required width of perimeter landscaping abutting a street of no more than one foot; on page 2, in Section 45.23(3)(f), revise Subsection to read: 1. Interior parking lot. Variation of the required interior landscaping for a parking lot to require less than six percent, but not less than five percent, of the total paved area of the parking lot or vehicular use area to be landscaped; on page 3, in Section 45.23(3)(j), in the 1st line after "setback" insert "from a street right-of-way" to read: (j) Fence setback. Variation of a fence setback from a street right-of-way of no more than six inches for the entire fence on any one side of a lot, or up to three feet for no more than ten percent of the length of the fence on any one side of a lot. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5508-94 as amended for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5508-94 as amended on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #13 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5511-94 - Amending Secs. 40.261-40.264 regarding revisions to Planned Development District requirements (LDCA 93-16)(CP) Necessitated by the Pinellas Planning Council Consistency Program, the Commission directed staff to develop required revisions to the Planned Development District regulations to establish Residential Planned Development (RPD) sub-categories in order to allow existing subdivisions to be rezoned in a manner which "grandfathers" the subdivisions' existing setbacks and development standards. There are two major substantive changes proposed. One, the modification of the required site plan for the planned development districts to substitute a "concept" plan allowing the Commission to consider planned development districts involving less than a full-blown site plan submittal, thereby making the zoning district more flexible and encouraging its more frequent use. And two, to allow the Commission to permit conditional uses by right as part of the planned development district approval for the purpose of improving flexibility and encouraging use of the planned development district concept. The Planning and Zoning Board and Development Code Adjustment Board recommend approval of this ordinance with consideration to changes suggested by Mr. Mazur regarding master planned developed districts. Mr. Shuford stated the subject amendment will provide for more control over site design and will establish five new categories of RPDs. He said there have been problems with subdivisions zoned RS-8 having a land use designation reflecting a lower density. He said it is desired to freeze lot sizes but maintain requirements such as setbacks, etc. The concept plan will be less intense than full blown site planning. The planned developments will be handled as normal rezonings; conditional uses by right will be allowed. He referred to the suggested amendment by Mr. Mazur regarding master site planned development districts accommodating projects on land areas in excess of 20 acres designed under a unified plan. Mr Shuford said staff is recommending 25 acres. Commissioner Deegan questioned whether "portion of site" in conjunction with master planned development districts was an adequate description when determining a substantial modification in use. Mr. Shuford said this would be addressed before second reading of the ordinance. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford responded master planned development districts will go through the normal site plan process with the Commission reviewing the full site plan. Discussion ensued in regard to the concept plan providing a great deal of information regarding the development. Mr. Shuford pointed out in the approval of a planned development district the Commission could be more stringent and any increases to the plan would come back to them. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the land development code amendment revising planned development district requirements. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5511-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to amend Ordinance #5511-94 on page 2, in Section 40.261, in the 5th line up from the bottom of the paragraph, add after "applicable," ", except for master planned development concept plans which shall be as specified in section 40.264" to read as follows: All land assigned this zoning will require concept site plan approval by the city commission in accord with the provisions contained in chapter 43. Such concept plan shall be reviewed by the city commission in conjunction with any application for planned development district zoning or rezoning and all development shall occur consistent with that concept plan as approved by the commission or as may be subsequently amended by the development code administrator or city commission in accordance with the following provisions. Any amendment involving increases in intensity of use (as measured by residential density or nonresidential floor area ratio), increases in structure height, or decreases in setbacks, open space, or buffering as shown on the approved concept plan shall be approved by the city commission. Other amendments may be considered minor amendments and may be approved by the development code administrator, unless determined by the code administrator to be appropriate for commission action. The minimum requirements for concept plans shall be the same as for preliminary site plans under chapter 43 or for preliminary plats under chapter 46, or both, as applicable, except for master planned development concept plans which shall be as specified in section 40.264. These minimum requirements may be modified or waived by the city commission in considering the application for a planned development district; in particular, the requirements for the specified subcategories of the residential planned development district may consist of existing plat or ownership documents. On page 3, in Section 40.262, at the end of Subsection (9), change "." to ";" and add a new Subsection (10) as follows: (10) Master planned development district (MPD). On page 3, in Section 40.263, in the 4th line after "district," add ", that 25 acres or more be provided to establish a new master planned development district," to read as follows: It is intended that four acres or more be provided to establish a new residential, office, commercial, industrial, research, development and office park, public/semipublic, urban center or Clearwater Beach planned development district, that 25 acres or more be provided to establish a new master planned development district, and that 50 acres or more be provided to establish a recreational planned development district, unless a reduced area is determined by ordinance be in the public interest. As an exception to the above guideline, there shall be no minimum area requirements for the specific subcategories of the residential planned development district listed in section 40.262(1) above. Furthermore, it is intended that no existing residential, office, commercial, industrial or Clearwater Beach planned development district be contracted to an area of less than the above guidelines four acres, and that no existing recreational planned development district be contracted to an area of less than 50 acres, unless the city commission determines by ordinance that a reduced area is in the public interest. On page 4, in Section 40.264, add Subsection (10) as follows: (10) Master planned development district: The master planned development district is intended to accommodate development or redevelopment projects on land areas in excess of 25 acres designed under a unified plan. a. Permitted uses. Any single or combination of uses identified as permitted or conditional within residential, office, commercial, industrial and public/semipublic districts may be permitted provided sufficient care is taken to segregate or buffer any proposed incompatible uses. b. Concept plan submission requirements. Due to the complexity of a master planned development project, the required plan submission requirements shall include the following: 1. Illustration of the proposed general uses of each area within the project. 2. Proposed locations and gross floor areas of buildings and structures. 3. Proposed maximum height of buildings and structures. 4. Proposed general location and number of parking spaces. 5. Proposed building setbacks at the perimeter of the site. 6. Proposed buffering at the perimeter of the site. 7. Proposed site lighting. c. Effect of MPD approval/substantial modifications. Master planned development district zoning approval shall entitle the proposed project to proceed to site plan, final site plan or building permit approval. Given the conceptual nature of the required plan, non-substantial modifications to the approved MPD concept plan may be permitted by the city manager. All changes to the approved conceptual plan involving substantial modifications shall require city commission review and approval. For the purpose of this section "substantial modifications" shall consist of any of the following deviations from the approved plan: 1. A change in the proposed general use of a portion of site. 2. An increase in proposed building height. 3. An increase in residential density by greater than five percent. 4. An increase in non-residential building floor area by ten percent. 5. A reduction in the width of any approved project perimeter building or parking setback or buffer area. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5511-94 as amended on first reading. The motion was duly seconded. Mayor Garvey reminded staff to come back with a definition for "portion of site." Upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #14 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5512-94 - Amending Sec. 42.34 to prohibit parking, displaying or storing of motor vehicles on grass or unpaved areas zoned for multiple family or nonresidential use unless approved as a grass parking lot (LDCA 93-19)(CP) Staff has requested this item be continued. Commissioner Thomas questioned why the subject ordinance excludes single family residential. Mr. Shuford said this ordinance is more appropriate for multi-family and commercial areas. He said a separate ordinance addressing single family residences, duplex and triplex properties is being drafted. Commissioner Thomas requested this ordinance be given priority. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 20, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #15 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5516-94 & #5517-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential High and RM-28 Zoning for property located at 1110 Pine Ave., Mary Land Sub., Blk B3, Lots 1-12 and vacated west 1/2 of Madison Ave., 1.89 acres m.o.l. (RHA/Florida Properties, Inc., LUP93-37, Z93-51)(CP) The property is located two blocks south of Court Street approximately 450 feet east of Greenwood Avenue. The land use and zoning changes are being requested to enable the applicant to provide needed parking and to expand and upgrade the existing facility. The proposed upgrading of this site would be consistent with the density limits established in an ordinance approved by the Commission on October 21, 1993. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a request for a future land use plan amendment to residential high and a zoning atlas amendment to multiple family residential "twenty-eight" for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded. Mr. Shuford said the ordinance provides owners the ability to maintain what is currently existing or to add a few units. The Mayor stated the facilities would still have to meet State standards. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5516-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5516-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5517-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5517-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #16 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5509-94 - RM-8 Zoning for property located at 1706 N. Highland Ave., Grove Circle Sub., Lot 16 (Smith, Z93-13)(CP) It was requested this item be continued. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 20, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances ITEM #17 - Ord. #5374-93 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General for property located at 2339 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Sec. 18-29-16, M&B 31.071, approx. 0.64 acres m.o.l. (Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc., LUP93-12) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5374-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5374-93 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #18 - Ord. #5375-93 - CG Zoning for property located at 2339 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Sec. 18-29-16, M&B 31.071, approx. 0.64 acres m.o.l. (Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc., Z93-03) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5375-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield asked if the problem regarding the fire hydrant had been corrected. Mr. Shuford responded it had and pointed out other approvals would be required. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5375-93 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #19 - Ord. #5515-93 - Extending GTE franchise to June 30, 1994. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5515-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5515-93 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #20 - Ord. #5529-94 - repealing Ord. #5386-93, as amended, which proposed a city charter amendment relating to the creation of a new city department and provided for a special election to be held on January 11, 1994; canceling the special election The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5529-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5529-94 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #21 - Special Items of widespread public interest - none. ITEM #22 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda Anne Garris, speaking for the Environmental Action Committee, said they have adopted a task concept and requested they be made a permanent committee. The Committee also recommends the portion of the money obtained by the sale of the sludge farm in Hillsborough County not required to go back to the sewer fund be allocated for the purchase of environmentally endangered lands in the City. She urged the Commission to notify owners of Camp Soule that the City would consider purchasing the property if for sale. She distributed a news article regarding a county music dinner theater concept on which she had reported. Commissioner Deegan asked Ms. Garris if the EAC task list included Stevenson Creek and she indicated the list only included Allen and Alligator Creeks. Commissioner Deegan asked if the Committee thought Stevenson Creek should be included. Ms. Garris indicated she had no opinion regarding this but others on the Committee might. Ms. Garris said the EAC is considering a mangrove management plan. Bob Bickerstaffe expressed disappointment in the Tourist Development Council not supporting a convention/entertainment center for the Maas Brothers property. He felt this type complex would inject vitality into downtown and asked the Commission to expeditiously pursue it. He congratulated Betty Deptula and Bill Baker on their appointments. CITY MANAGER REPORTS ITEM #23 - Preliminary Site Plan for property (U-Haul Self-Storage Facility) located at 23917 US19N (U-Haul of West Coast Florida)(CP) The applicant is proposing to expand the existing U-Haul truck and trailer rental business by adding a 9,500 square foot self-storage facility and a 1,200 square foot building addition on the 31,050 square foot adjoining vacant land, located to the northeast of the existing primary business area. The U-Haul business parcel was recently joined with the vacant incorporated parcel through annexation. The property has a future land use designation of commercial/tourist facilities and a zoning designation of general commercial. This project is an expansion of an existing non-residential development and a two percent open space land dedication fee is required. The Parks & Recreation Director recommends the City accept cash in satisfaction of this requirement rather than land since the site is an undesirable location for a park and would be more of a maintenance problem due to its small size. On November 2, 1993, the Planning & Zoning Board approved a conditional use to permit indoor storage and/or warehousing subject to conditions. Mark Scime, representing the applicant, said it has taken a year to get to this point in the project. He said retention has been an issue indicating the current site is completely paved. A permit has been received from SWFWMD and he expressed concern the City may require additional retention. Mr. Scime asked the site remain as currently developed indicating the landscaping and parking will be developed according to the plan. Commissioner Thomas asked if the egress will be one-way from Sunset Point Road and Mr. Shuford indicated it would because of the storage bays. He said the primary entrance will be from U. S. Highway 19 with another access from South Drive. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern regarding the maneuverability of trucks through the entrances and asked that close attention be paid to this. Mr. Shuford indicated Traffic Engineering will review. Mr. Scime agreed the entrances were confining and indicated they would like to expand. Acting Assistant City Manager Bill Baker questioned whether Mr. Scime found out the development did not meet the required retention requirements and was asking relief from them. Mr. Scime stated for the record they annexed into the City to develop the property and they cannot provide further retention. Mr. Baker responded he did not feel there was a problem. Commissioner Thomas moved to receive the preliminary site plan for property (U-Haul Self-Storage Facility) located at 23917 U.S. Highway 19N and authorize the Development Review Committee to approve a final site plan subject to conditions attached to these minutes as Exhibit A and authorize the acceptance of cash in lieu of land for Open Space Land requirement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #24 - Res. #94-5 - To name city property located on Pennsylvania Avenue, between Plaza and Jones Streets, as "Plaza Park", and to name the playground apparatus area to be installed in the park as "Lamar O'Byron Ford Memorial Playground" (PR) Because of objections from residents around Plaza Park to the name change, the City Commission tabled the resolution passed August 5, 1993 that changed the park's name to "Lamar O'Byron Ford Memorial Park." A compromise between staff and representatives of the North Greenwood Association, Inc. and the Drew and Plaza Park Homeowners Association, Inc. resulted in the following; the park will remain "Plaza Park," the new playground will be named "Lamar O'Byron Ford Memorial Playground." The membership of each organization met and approved the compromise. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the subject item. The motion was duly seconded. Gertrude Deevers said she appreciated all the efforts regarding this issue. She favored naming a playground for all the children killed in this area and calling it "All Children." David Grice, President of Drew Park Homeowners Association, said he approved of the compromise. He submitted a letter in opposition for one of the residents. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-5 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-5 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The meeting recessed from 8:10 p.m. to 8:21 p.m. ITEM #25 - (Cont. from 12/16/93) Purchase portions of 3 lots on NW corner of Greenwood Ave. and Engman St., S 100' of Lots 6, 7, & 8, less road, Blk C, C.E. Jackson's Sub., for public parking lot, for $38,000 and related environmental audit, closing fees and demolition costs est. at $5,506, for a total of $43,506 (ED) The North Greenwood Commercial District General Development Plan developed to revitalize the North Greenwood business district and the North Greenwood Merchants Association proposed building a parking lot at this site. The Chief of Police, concerned that an unattended parking lot on North Greenwood Avenue may create police problems recommends the following conditions be included in the parking lot development: fencing, good lighting, the ability to close lot access at both entrances and restrict access to the interior of the lot, and closing the lot at 9:00 PM every night. The property has been appraised at $38,000 including an estimate of $3,500 to demolish the boarded residential structure on Lot 8. The seller wants $38,000 exclusive of demolition costs. The property is to be owned and operated by the City of Clearwater, free of charge. Construction is to be accomplished by the City's Engineering Division. Sufficient funds exist for this contract. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve purchase of the subject property for $38,000 and related costs for a total of $43,506. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Thomas indicated the properties across the street from the subject property are deteriorating and becoming a center for crime. He suggested staff study buying deteriorating property in this area and making it into a park centered around the historic "Crab Tree". Mayor Garvey urged caution regarding this issue indicating the intent is to enhance economic development in the N. Greenwood area. Commissioner Thomas requested the Commission take an aggressive stance to acquire deteriorating properties. Mayor Garvey felt buying the properties would not completely solve the problem as crime would just move to another area. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. ITEM #26 - First Reading Ord. #5506-94 - Establishing the City's commercial recycling program including a competitive rate schedule; establishing rates for single family, multi family recycling; and approve purchase of a recycled materials baler & addition of one Heavy Equipment Operator (PW) House Bill #461 amended the 1988 Solid Waste Management Act and allows properly registered private recovered materials dealers to collect materials from commercial establishments throughout Clearwater effective January 1, 1994. The City Solid Waste Division wishes to register with the State of Florida as a Recovered Materials Dealer and aggressively compete in this very lucrative commercial recycling market. The proposed commercial rate schedule contains a base charge from which the City will be allowed to flex up or down in order to compete with private certified recovered material dealers. The Commercial Five-Year Recycling Program Proforma; Cardboard and Business (Costs) Summary; Processing and Marketing Summary; and Expected Gross Sales of Commercial Recyclables demonstrate that, given the opportunity to provide customized recycling service to commercial establishments for the five years beginning on January 1, 1994, the City Recycling Enterprise expects to generate $498,497 in positive cash flow. This is 20.5 percent of gross revenues. The only major upfront costs to this program are the addition of one heavy equipment operator and the capital investment of approximately $125,000 for a baler with a conveyor system to process cardboard, newspaper, aluminum and steel cans and plastic. The expected gross proceeds from the sale of baled cardboard and newspaper alone justify the acquisition of the baler. Upon approval commercial recycling service would start March 1, 1994, with billing commencing April 1, 1994. The ordinance revisions change existing definitions and add new definitions to comply with the 1993 amendments. The ordinance also provides for the registration of recovered materials dealers who will operate within the City. These revisions stipulate after January 1, 1994, all recovered materials dealers operating within the City must register and provide a copy of the state certification required by Florida law. This ordinance prohibits any non-certified recovered materials dealers from operating within the City of Clearwater and retains, under City control, residential and multi-family recycling by denying access to outside recyclers except through City approval or franchise; provides for recycling by the City; describes the residential, multi-family and commercial programs in broad terms; provides the rate schedules for the residential and multi-family programs that were approved by the Commission November 15, 1993; and establishes the base rate schedule for commercial recycling. Assistant Public Works/Utilities Director Robert Brumback distributed pens made from recycled corrugated cardboard. He said state law opens commercial recycling, the most lucrative portion of recycling, to competition. Staff is bringing forward a program they feel will operate effectively within this market. He reviewed the scope of the program. He said the flexible commercial program is oriented toward 800 businesses having tailored programs and a flexible rate structure that will enable competition with private recycling companies. Mr. Brumback presented slides of the dumpsters, vehicles and equipment to be used in the recycling program. He said the recycling dumpsters will have locking bars to prevent contamination and/or loss. He presented the baler to be considered as part of the program, indicating the bids are in. He said the baler will pay for itself in three years and provide a substantial profit to the City. Baled newspaper is more valuable and goes for approximately $35 per ton. He noted cardboard has gone up to $40-$45 per ton. Mr. Brumback said the six-year market trend demonstrates markets are healthy and commodities strong. He indicated 1994 projections are on target. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if the new yellow plastic milk containers are recyclable and Mr. Brumback responded they are not. Mr. Brumback pointed out aluminum is back up to $720 per ton. Mr. Brumback stated another driver and a baling system will be needed to start the commercial recycling program. He presented a 5-year proforma showing a 20.5 percent return on investment; this amounts to approximately $498,500. Commissioner Thomas found the cash flow proforma presented to be confusing. He asked if the operating costs included anything other than staffing, overhead, equipment, etc. Mr. Brumback said the City buys the materials and equipment upfront and no depreciation costs are reflected. Public Works Finance Manager Paul Nystrom responded the operating costs include the purchase of the dumpsters and containers. He said the cash flow approach is far more conservative than the normal profit and loss approach. Commissioner Thomas asked where total capital costs to start the business were reflected and Mr. Nystrom responded this number is included in the debt service. He said in the operating costs each year there are sufficient funds for obtaining equipment. Commissioner Thomas asked what part of the $1.9 million for the total cost of the program is for capital costs. Mr. Nystrom responded $806,000.00. Commissioner Thomas asked if this amount would be recovered in the five-year cycle and Mr. Nystrom responded it would. Commissioner Thomas said it was important for the citizens to know a profit of $500,000.00 would be realized if this program is undertaken. He said even though the program reflects a cost of $1.9 million the City is not actually spending that amount of the taxpayers money. Commissioner Deegan asked the proforma figures be reconstructed to correspond to the fiscal year rather than the calendar year. Commissioner Deegan asked why the prorated credit from the sale of recyclables and the anticipated sales differed. Mr. Nystrom said staff took the costs of processing and marketing and reduced the gross sales by those costs. Interim City Manager Betty Deptula asked if the residential program gets a prorated portion of that revenue and Mr. Nystrom indicated it did. Commissioner Deegan questioned why the figures on gross sales of commercial recyclables do not agree. Mr. Nystrom said the direct cost is subtracted from the expected gross revenues. Commissioner Thomas again remarked that the accounting layout was confusing. Commissioner Deegan referred to commercial uncompacted dumpster service charges. Mr. Nystrom indicated they reduced the charge to be competitive. Commissioner Deegan asked if a 40% market share was being anticipated and Mr. Nystrom said this was not the case. He said if people recycle, they would pay 40 cents on the dollar instead of $1.00; therefore, it is economically better to recycle. Commissioner Deegan commented the Gas Division is the closest to an entrepreneur program and sees recycling coming in as a close second. He asked if the City Manager has the ability to adjust the rates in the Gas Division as depicted in the recycling program. It was indicated this is the case. In response to a question, Ms. Deptula indicated a policy change had been made whereby the Gas Manager and/or the City Manager could, in certain situations, negotiate the rate if there was danger of losing customers. Commissioner Thomas requested an incentive program for workers in the recycling program. Ms. Deptula said this may be an issue of unfair labor practice in the regular pay plan; however, she said she could address incentives in the SAMP plan. She also pointed out direction had been given to include in the labor negotiations this year the allowance of incentive programs. Commissioner Deegan questioned why the baler was part of the recommendation. Mr. Brumback responded staff is just asking conceptual approval. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern that a bid had been let prior to conceptual approval. Mr. Baker pointed out there is a bid for a baler, not a contract. Commissioner Deegan questioned why staff was asking conceptual approval and Mr. Nystrom responded the baler is critical to the commercial recycling program. Commissioner Deegan questioned what staff would do if the Commission said no to the baler. Mr. Brumback stated staff wanted to be sure the Commission understood the program would require the purchase of the baler. Mayor Garvey pointed out approval of the purchase of the baler will come back before the Commission. Mayor Garvey said the recommendation could be restated to approve only the recycling program and the background could explain the need for a baler and heavy equipment operator. Commissioner Thomas pointed out the presentation showed baled prices versus unbaled prices and the change in revenue. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the establishment of a City commercial recycling program including a competitive rate schedule, the purchase of a recycled materials baler and the addition of one heavy equipment operator. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5506-94 for first reading and read it by title only. The City Attorney referred to page 7 of the ordinance regarding the Solid Waste Division's ability to adjust the rates but "may never exceed 30% of the rates approved by the City Commission." He stated 30% should be 130%. Commissioner Deegan recommended revising the language to reflect the rates never moving 30% in either direction. Mr. Brumback felt it was important the City be able to negotiate the rates as low as necessary to be competitive. Commissioner Thomas felt the City Manager should be delegated to negotiate the rates and should not have to come back to the Commission for an adjustment. Commissioner Deegan said this was part of the ordinance and should be reviewed if the rates vary too greatly. Mr. Nystrom recommended 40 percent. Commissioner Thomas asked if staff felt 50 percent would be better and Mr. Brumback indicated it would. Commissioner Deegan supported a 40 percent cap. Commissioner Deegan asked that Sec. 32.322 of the ordinance be changed to read the "City Manager" not "Solid Waste Division" may adjust the rates. Commissioner Berfield asked who adjusts the water rates. Ms. Deptula said the Commission does unless it is a pass through from the County. The gas rates are set by the City Manager. Mr. Nystrom pointed out recycling has alot of competition; gas service does not. Commissioner Berfield asked if Peoples Gas can go out and solicit customers and Mr. Nystrom responded only for LPG not for natural gas. Mr. Brumback commented recycling is a free and open market. Commissioner Thomas felt staff should be as unrestrained as possible. Commissioner Fitzgerald agreed. Mayor Garvey suggested the language "not exceed 50 percent plus or minus" for the ordinance. Commissioner Berfield supported 40 percent; Commissioner Deegan now agreed to 50 percent indicating staff can come back at any point if necessary. Commissioner Deegan referred to the rates set out in Appendix A in Sec. 32.322 and requested they be changed to "base rates" approved by the Commission. He referred to page 4 pointing out Subsections (5) and (6) are duplicated. The City Attorney agreed and recommended deleting Subsection (6). Ms. Deptula pointed out there has been a delay in the implementation of the residential curb side program indicating the City does not want to decrease residential rates until the residential program begins. The City Attorney said the effective date section of the ordinance can be changed to reflect an effective date of July 1, 1994. Joe Evich expressed concern in approving a baler and equipment operator conceptually. He favored percentage caps on rates. He expressed concern regarding this being a competitive market and the City not winning all 800 customers as hoped. He questioned whether there is any history on other municipalities that have gone into the recycling business. He referred to a negative cash flow in the start-up years and felt this project should be an Enterprise Fund. He expressed concern the proposition is a risky one. Mayor Garvey said there has been a full blown presentation on the recycling program and its implementation will hopefully result in a cost reduction to the City. Mr. Brumback pointed out the residential and commercial recycling programs are two separate cost centers. Mr. Baker pointed out that Clearwater has been involved in recycling for a number of years; they are just starting up with competition and have to be ready to play the market. Mr. Brumback said they are hoping to operate on a regional basis. Commissioner Deegan asked if the County or the City of Dunedin will be requiring Clearwater to register as a recovered materials dealer. Mr. Brumback said staff would check. The amendments to be made at second reading of Ordinance #5506-94 are as follows: On page 4, Sec. 32.313. Registration. delete subsection (6); on page 7, Sec. 32.322. Commercial Recycling. paragraph 1, line 7, change "Solid Waste Division" to "City Manager." The word "base" to be added before the word "rates" and to change the 30% cap to a 50% cap to read as follows: "Commercial recycling base rates will be set out in Appendix A to this code, and such base rates may be amended from time to time by resolution adopted by the city commission. The city manager may adjust the rates upwards or downwards in order to compete effectively with private recovered materials dealers operating within the City; however, the rates may not vary more than 50 percent above or below the base rates approved by the city commission unless the rates are first approved by a resolution establishing a revised base rate schedule." On page 11, change the effective date to July 1, 1994. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5506-94 on first reading with the understanding the above changes will be made at second reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": Berfield. ITEM #27 - Receipt/Referral - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and RS-6 Zoning for property located at 407 Dora Dr., Rolling Heights Sub., Lot 16, 0.21 acres m.o.l. (Callaghan, A93-28, LUP93-40)(CP) The subject property is located on the east side of Dora Drive approximately 2,550 feet east of Belcher Road and 870 feet north of Drew Street, where Lorena Lane intersects Dora Drive. The applicants wish to annex to obtain City sewer service. The lots in Rolling Heights, in the City, are assigned Single Family Residential "Six" zoning. It is proposed to assign the same zoning to the applicant's property. Commissioner Deegan moved to receive the petition for annexation, land use plan amendment to residential low and zoning atlas amendment to single-family residential "six" for the subject property and refer the request to the City Clerk to be advertised for public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #28 - Other Pending Matters - none. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS ITEM #29 - Other City Attorney Items The City Attorney announced his desire to meet with the Commission in closed session regarding the Carrasquillo v. City case. An attorney/client session was set for January 20, 1994 at 4:30 p.m.; alternate date January 14, 1994 at 1:00 p.m., prior to the Commission meeting with the Pinellas County School Board. The City Clerk is to provide a map indicating the location of the School Board Administration Building. ITEM #30 - City Manager Verbal Reports Interim City Manager Deptula referred to a letter received from the Chi Chi Rodriguez Foundation inviting the Commission to a meeting on January 12, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. regarding Glen Oaks Golf Course and pointed out if more than one of the Commissioner attends, the Sunshine Law requirements will have to be met. Only the Mayor will be attending so there will not be public meeting problems. Ms. Deptula pointed out this issue will be coming before the Commission at a later date. She wished Acting Assistant City Manager Baker a Happy Birthday. ITEM #31 - Commission Discussion Items - none. ITEM #32 - Other Commission Action Commissioner Thomas referred to a memo from the Downtown Development Board Chairperson recommending the replacement of the "Art Colony" signs with "Downtown Shopping District" signs. Commissioner Deegan said the DDB is developing a logo which he felt should be included on the signs if they were changed. Consensus was to remove the existing faces of the signs and to replace them with the "Downtown Shopping District" signs when the DDB logo is developed and can be included. Commissioner Deegan requested the Commission be provided the logo once it is developed. Commissioner Thomas requested Commission direct staff to analyze deteriorating properties in the North Greenwood area to see if they can be obtained and developed as a park with the "Crab Tree" as the focal point. It was felt the North Greenwood Association should be involved. Commissioner Deegan requested the scope be broader and requested staff develop concepts for alternatives to deal with the issue. Commissioner Thomas agreed it could be studied for economic development as well. He requested staff be more creative than just adding police officers. Deputy City Manager Rice reported a number of deteriorating buildings have been targeted for demolition. Commissioner Fitzgerald gave an update on the Mayors' Council indicating the majority of the council indicated their support of the annexation of enclaves to Curt Kiser. The Council discussed teen curfews and requested cities think about a standardized approach. He referred to a letter from the Brooker Creek Preserve asking for support for the sale of city property. It was indicated this referred to a portion of the City's sludge farm being sold to Hillsborough County as an ELAPP site. Commissioner Deegan pointed out it is difficult to provide immediate feedback to BAC recommendations as there has been a delay in receiving the minutes. He requested staff provide BAC recommendations from previous meetings. Commissioner Berfield questioned whether Code Enforcement Review Task Force members resigning should be replaced. Ms. Rice pointed out only a few issues remain to be addressed. Consensus was to not replace members. ITEM #33 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:16 p.m.