The URL can be used to link to this page

05/19/1994 CITY COMMISSION MEETING May 19, 1994 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, May 19, 1994 at 6:00 p.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Fred A. Thomas Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Sue A. Berfield Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Commissioner Also present: Elizabeth M. Deptula City Manager Kathy S. Rice Deputy City Manager William C. Baker Assistant City Manager Paul Richard Hull Assistant City Attorney Scott Shuford Central Permitting Director Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was offered by Reverend Dennis MacAleer of Trinity Presbyterian Church. 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 Three service awards were presented to City employees. ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards Proclamations: Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week - 6/6-12/94 Safe Boating Week - 6/5-11/94 ITEM #5 - Presentations a) Code Enforcement Review Task Force The members of the Code Enforcement Review Task Force were recognized and thanked for their efforts in reviewing the code enforcement techniques used by the City. Commissioner Thomas moved to disband the Code Enforcement Review Task Force. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. b) Clearwater Bombers Bruce Kaufmann stated he has taken over the Clearwater Bombers' operation and has started from ground zero. He handed out a packet of information to the Commission. He stated the board of the Bombers is made up from various members of the community and he is trying to development a strength of the Bombers through the community. The total projected expenditures for the 1994 year is $103,790. He indicated the Bombers contribute to the economy of the City and provide ballpark to ballpark advertising for Clearwater. He also reported six players that have visited Clearwater while playing with other teams want to move to Clearwater and play ball in this location. He reviewed the income projections stating the total is $153,080. He reviewed corporate sponsorships and his progress to date in meeting his goal. He stated the Clearwater Bombers are alive and he intends to make them into the world class ball club they have traditionally been. He is negotiating for the 1996 tournament to be played in Clearwater. He is requesting the Commission approve disbursement of the $10,000 grant contained in the City's budget for the Clearwater Bombers and the $10,000 maximum challenge of $1 for every $10 raised through corporate sponsorships. Commissioner Deegan questioned the status of previous debts. Mr. Kaufmann indicated he understood they have been paid. He stated while he has asked for, he has never received the books from the Bombers organization. He indicated some of the debt has been turned into corporate sponsorships and corporate sponsors are receiving what they are promised when they make their donations. As he finds additional debt, he addresses it. He wishes to return the good name to the Bombers and to Clearwater. He stated very few of the corporations have complaints regarding the Clearwater Bombers. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the $103,790 expenses includes salaries for players. Mr. Kaufmann indicated it did. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the $50,000 surplus in anticipated revenues would be invested into the Bombers. Mr. Kaufmann indicated it would. In response to a question, he did indicate the $20,000 from the City was included in the $153,080 anticipated revenues. Commissioner Deegan complimented Mr. Kaufmann stating his presentation and effort thus far are quite different from what was presented last year. He stated as long as Mr. Kaufmann will assure the old debts will be taken care of, he is comfortable. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the $10,000 grant in the budget for the Clearwater Bombers and the matching grant of $1 for every $10 obtained in corporate sponsorships to a maximum of an additional $10,000. The motion was duly seconded. The City Manager requested the funding source for the $10,000 matching grant be identified. Commissioner Deegan amended his motion to add that the matching grant would be funded from the unreserved, undesignated fund balance. The seconder accepted the amendment. Upon the vote being taken on the amended motion; Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye," Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay." Motion carried. The Bombers players in attendance were recognized. ITEM #6 - Approval of Minutes Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 21, 1994 as corrected by the City Clerk. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 5, 1994, 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 Myrna Young, representing the third annual March for Jesus, reviewed the program and stated they needed approval of the route proposed. Mayor Garvey expressed concerns this would close Cleveland Street, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on a Saturday. It was pointed out only one lane was to be closed. Ms. Young indicated the actual March would only last approximately 40 minutes, not the entire hour. She indicated the intersection at Ft. Harrison and Osceola Avenue will be closed just long enough for the procession to cross the street. Mayor Garvey questioned who would be paying the cost. Ms. Young indicated they would. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the closure and route along Cleveland Street for the Third Annual Walk for Jesus. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Steve Saliga indicated he is a booster for veterans. He reported the Confederate Airforce from Midland, Texas has brought in three vintage aircraft to the St. Petersburg/Clearwater airport and encouraged all who could to go see them. Sarah Adler thanked the Commission for the beautification on the beach and Island Estates. She expressed surprise regarding the newspaper article regarding plans for a new Memorial Causeway Bridge. She was concerned the cost would be paid by the taxpayers and a toll. She felt the bridge would gobble up the bluff. She stated the State does not feel it is a urgent need and requested the Commission consider what the proposal would do. Mayor Garvey pointed out only one Commissioner has suggested the toll bridge and that the City pay for the project. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM #8 - Public Comment re Renewal of Franchise with Vision On February 21, 1980, the City granted a franchise to Vision Cable of Pinellas (Vision) for the installation, operation and maintenance of a cable communications system within the City. The franchise was for a period of 15 years. The City is now in the process of renewing this franchise with Vision. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations require renewal negotiations take place with the current franchisee. As part of this process, the City will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to Vision. The City will review their response to the RFP. Specific terms of a franchise renewal will then be negotiated. A public hearing must be held before the RFP is issued to receive public comment concerning future cable related community needs and interests, and concerning the performance of Vision during the current franchise period. These comments will be considered in preparing the RFP. David Campbell stated Vision claims the 1992 Cable Act has made them adjust his bill upward 13 percent. He felt he was being gouged by Vision hiding behind that act. He questioned if Vision could be trusted. He stated over two years he has been requesting CSPAN-2 and has been told it is not feasible. Edward Kutta expressed concerns that Clearwater would be granting Vision a monopoly. He stated a lawsuit has been filed against the Cable Company which needs to be looked into. He questioned why the citizens are responsible for paying a franchise fee instead of Vision having to absorb that cost. George Sanchez, an attorney stating he represented several citizens, stated they were opposed to renewal of the franchise. He requested the lawsuit be examined. He stated Vision has jacked up their rates while the act they are claiming provided for this, contains exceptions to contracts that were in existence. He expressed concerns that it took seven years to receive financial information from Vision when it was required to be filed annually. He questioned if the City was sure it has collected all the revenue it is entitled to under the Vision Cable franchise. Doug Graska stated he is a 37 year resident of Clearwater and is in favor of renewing the franchise. He stated he has personally witnessed the input to the community by Vision. He indicated he is on the Board of Directors at the Long Center and is grateful for the work Vision had done with them. He stated he also participates in the Upper Pinellas Association of Retarded Citizens and Vision provides many hours of programming regarding that organization's programs. Wray Register indicated she was in favor of the franchise. She praised the service Vision provides. She thanked the Commissioners, that were in place, who had the foresight to grant Vision their franchise. Gerald Daugherty stated it was correct that Vision provides excellent service and contributions to the community. He felt however there needed to be a review to make sure they were in conformance with their contract. He questioned if the payments being made to the City include revenue from pay per view and other services. Mark Alexander, representing Ruth Eckerd Hall, supported renewal of the franchise. He stated the Hall receives very great support from Vision and Vision is very active in the community. H. Patrick Wheeler requested the Commission take a hard look at the renewal of the contract. He stated from all he is reading, the City is not getting its fair share of the revenue. He indicated he too has requested CSPAN and has gotten no response. He also reported a lawsuit has recently been filed. He provided a copy of that lawsuit and asked the Commission to investigate it. Richard Boyle stated for the past several years he has been involved with Countryside High School sports and that Vision provides excellent coverage of those activities. He stated they do an outstanding job covering all high school athletics. He felt the community was lucky to have Vision. He stated when the new rates went into effect, his bill was reduced by 30 percent. He requested the Commission renew the franchise. Steve Saliga spoke in opposition stating he did not feel citizens should have to pay in order to get basic service which provides access to local government. Gerald Daugherty spoke stating the production truck provided by Vision for high school sports is included in the franchise agreement. ITEM #9 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5615-94 - Vacating northerly 1' of the 10' drainage & utility easement lying along the southerly side of Lot 18, Windsor Woods Sub. (Duthie, V94-05)(PW) The applicant has a pool which encroaches approximately 0.9 feet into a 10 foot drainage and utility easement and the decking another 2.8 feet. The City has no existing utilities within this easement. This request has been reviewed by the various city departments and divisions concerned and there are no objections. Florida Power, General Telephone and Vision Cable have no objection to this request. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the vacation of the northerly 1.0 foot of the 10 foot drainage and utility easement lying along the southerly side of Lot 18, Windsor Woods Subdivision. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5615-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5615-94 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 #10 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5598-94, #5599-94 & #5600-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1912 East Skyline Dr., Skyline Groves, Lot 57, 0.20 acres m.o.l. (Buenaga, A94-07, LUP94-07)(CP) The subject property is located at the southwest corner of East Skyline Drive and Raymont Drive, one block north of Sunset Point Road. The applicants wish to annex to obtain city sewer service. The abutting street right of ways for East Skyline and Raymont are both in the City, as is Lot 56, the adjacent lot on the west. The lots in Skyline Groves which are in the City have a future land use classification of residential urban (7.5 u.p.a. max.) and RS-8 zoning. The Countywide future land use classification for this parcel is residential low (5 u.p.a. max.). Although this subdivision has a mixture of future land use classifications, it is proposed to assign the same classification as on the Countywide Plan, residential low, and RS-8 zoning. Later this year, staff will be getting back with the Pinellas Planning Council to try to establish a single future land use category for this subdivision (residential urban), and for other subdivisions with multiple land use categories. On May 3, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed this request. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve annexation, a land use plan amendment to Residential Low and RS-8 zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5598-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5598-94 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5599-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5599-94 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5600-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5600-94 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 Ords. #5601-94, #5602-94 & #5603-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Institutional and P/SP Zoning for property located at 3110 McMullen Booth Rd., Sec. 21-28-16, M&B 23.12, 0.75 acres m.o.l. (City, A94-08, LUP94-08)(CP) The subject property is located on the west side of McMullen Booth Road, immediately north of the Countryside Sports Complex. The property was recently purchased by the City for expansion of parking for the complex. On May 3, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed this request. Pinellas Planning Council (PPC)/Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) and Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) review is required. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve annexation, a land use plan amendment to Institutional and P/SP zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5601-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5601-94 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5602-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5602-94 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5603-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5603-94 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 #12 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5604-94, #5605-94 & #5606-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban and RS-8 Zoning for property located at 608 Madera Ave., Del Oro Gardens, Lot 9, 0.21 acres m.o.l. (Schmidt, A94-09, LUP94-09)(CP) The subject property is located on the southwest corner of San Mateo Street and Madera Avenue, one block east of McMullen Booth Road and approximately 1,520 feet north of Drew Street. The applicant wishes to annex to obtain city sewer service for her existing family residence. On May 3, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed this request. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve annexation, a land use plan amendment to Residential Urban and RS-8 zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5604-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5604-94 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5605-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5605-94 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5606-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5606-94 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 #13 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5607-94, #5608-94 & #5609-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and RPD-E Zoning for property located at 1404 Orange St., Sunny Park Groves, Blk G, Lot 17, 0.16 acres m.o.l. (Lowe, A94-10, LUP94-10)(CP) The subject property is located on the north side of Orange Street, approximately 430 feet east of S. Hillcrest Avenue and 1,050 feet south of Lakeview Road. The applicants wish to annex to obtain city sewer service for their existing single family residence. The lots of Sunny Park Groves which are in the City have a future land use classification of residential urban and RS-8 zoning. It is proposed to assign the applicants' property the same classification as on the Countywide Map, residential low and to assign RPD-E zoning, which has the same dimensional requirements as RS-8. On May 3, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed this request. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve annexation, a land use plan amendment to Residential Low and RPD-E zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5607-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5607-94 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5608-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5608-94 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5609-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5609-94 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 #14 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5610-94, #5611-94 & #5612-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban and RS-8 Zoning for property located at 3136 San Mateo St., Del Oro Gardens, Lot 23, 0.16 acres m.o.l. (Herndon, A94-11, LUP94-11)(CP) The subject property is located on the north side of San Mateo Street, approximately 500 feet east of McMullen Booth Road and 1,670 feet north of Drew Street. The applicants wish to annex to obtain city sewer service for their existing single family residence. On May 3, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed this request. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve annexation, a land use plan amendment to Residential Urban and RS-8 zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5610-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5610-94 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5611-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5611-94 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5612-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5612-94 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 #15 - (Cont. from 4/21/94) Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5590-94 & #5591-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General and CG Zoning for property located at 509 Bayview Ave. & 508 Meadow Lark Lane, McMullen's Bayview, Blk 3, Lots 1 & 2 and south 1/2 of r-o-w to north, 0.59 acres m.o.l. (R. Roy Meador, TRE, LUP93-43, Z93-54)(CP) The applicant has requested this item be continued. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #16 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5614-94 - CPD Zoning for property located at 1297 S. Missouri Ave., F.E. Hanousek's Sub., portion of Lots 11 & 12 (Sears Roebuck & Co., Kash n' Karry Food Store, Z94-05)(CP) The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Missouri Avenue and Lakeview Avenue. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to facilitate his proposed development of a 50,000 square foot "Kash n' Karry Superstore" and two outparcels. The former main Sears building will be razed, but the former 7,900 square foot automotive center building is to remain (outparcel #1). Outparcel #2 is located on Missouri Avenue at the northwest corner of the property. It is presently part of the shopping center's parking lot. This outparcel is proposed to have a new 6,600 square foot building. The main parcel, and each of the proposed outparcels, will have the required associated parking on their parcel. The design provides for cross access traffic circulation between the main parcel and the outparcel on the applicant's property as well as the adjacent shopping center to the north, Searstown. Both the DRC and the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the parking arrangements for the site. The proposed superstore will contain grocery, meat, pharmacy, deli and sundry departments. There would also be an attached liquor store. Planned Development zoning allows signage to be tailored to meet site conditions. In this case, staff recommends the Commission establish the following signage requirements for this property: two freestanding signs along Missouri Avenue frontage, with the primary site identification sign being 150 square feet and 20 foot tall and an auxiliary sign being 75 square feet and 20 foot tall; for the Lakeview Road frontage, one 75 square foot, 20 foot tall freestanding sign. Attached signage should be: for the primary site, attached signage in conformance with the requirements of CC zoning (up to 150 sq.ft. of attached sign area per road frontage per occupancy), and for the two outparcels, attached signage should be in conformance with the requirements for CG zoning (up to 64 sq.ft. of attached signage per road frontage per occupancy). The above recommended signage requirements were reviewed by the DRC and the Planning and Zoning Board. Preliminary conditions for approval of the site plan are attached to these minutes as Exhibit A. Open Space Land Dedication fees are exempt as the proposed development is less than 50% of the existing square footage. On May 17, 1994 the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed the proposed rezoning for Kash n' Karry and simultaneously approved two conditional use permits to allow alcoholic beverage sales associated with the grocery store and accessory package sales store. The Board accepted staff's recommendation regarding the rezoning except in the area of sign allowances. They recommended in favor of the applicant's requested sign allowances. Staff has no problem with the signage requested by the applicant as it does not exceed the number, height or area of freestanding signs allowed for the property under its current zoning and is less than what would be allowed for the property under current zoning for attached sign area. Under current CC zoning, the property is allowed a total of 4 signs, 2 each oriented to Lakeview Road and Missouri Avenue. Each frontage is eligible for one 150 square foot, 20 foot tall primary sign and one 75 square foot, 16 foot tall auxiliary sign. The applicant wants to retain the ability to erect these 4 signs, but to orient 1 of the Lakeview Road auxiliary signs to Missouri Avenue. This should not present an aesthetic problem due to the size of the property frontage and the fact there are two outparcels proposed; the signs will be in keeping with the scale and pattern of development. Concerning the attached signs, the current zoning would allow up to 150 square feet of signage for each occupancy. The signs located on the Kash n' Karry building itself, due to its setback, could be up to 337.5 square feet, based upon application of the sign bonus formula. The applicant is therefore requesting less attached signage than allowed. Scott Shuford reported the conditional uses for alcoholic beverage have been approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated in negotiations regarding the sign requirements, staff feels what is being requested is appropriate as it is less than what would be permitted in a commercial center zone. Bruce Kaschyk, representing Kash n' Karry reviewed the project stating they would be demolishing the existing Sears building and constructing a new building. The new development will meet landscaping and stormwater retention requirements. Leonard Moffet, stated he lives four houses from the proposed store and there is a great need for it. He felt Kash n' Karry was an excellent store, would bring work to the community and help fill up the vacant stores in Searstown. Charlotte Feicht spoke in favor of the development. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve CPD zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mayor Garvey questioned if there was a need to approve the site plan tonight. Mr. Shuford indicated the site plan is being reviewed at this stage and will be approved at second reading. Commissioner Deegan questioned there being nothing in the agenda item regarding signage. Mr. Shuford indicated this would also be addressed at second reading. Commissioner Deegan questioned if a variance would be required for the signs. Mr. Shuford indicated it would not as for a planned development, the Commission designates the signage for each individual development. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5614-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5614-94 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 #17 - (Cont. from spmtg 4/19/94) Public Hearing - Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 19320 & 19246 US19N, Sec. 19-29-16, M&B 14.03 & 14.04 (Charlie Harris Pontiac, Inc./Johnson Assoc., Inc., SV92-75)(CP) The applicant has requested this item be continued. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #18 - (Cont. from spmtg 4/27/94) Public Hearing - Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 2339 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Sec. 18-29-16, M&B 31.05, 31.06, & 31.071, together with Lokey FBC, Lot 2 (Nell M. Lokey, TRE/Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc., SV 93-35)(CP) The applicant has requested this item be continued to June 16, 1994. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to June 16, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #19 - Public Hearing - Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 400 Cleveland St., Earl & Tates' Sub., Lots 1, 2, 7, 8 & 9, less alley between (AmSouth Bank/Sign Works/Collins Signs, SV94-07)(CP) The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the placement of signs near the top of the AmSouth Bank building: 1) an area variance of 50.8 square feet from the permitted 52.1 square feet to allow 102.9 square feet of attached signs on the north building face; 2) an area variance of 71.6 square feet from the permitted 0 square feet to allow 71.6 square feet of attached signs on the east building face; and 3) an area variance of 75.2 square feet from the permitted 48 square feet to allow 123.2 square feet of attached signs on the west building face. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and N. Osceola Avenue, and is in the UC(C) zoning district. Downtown buildings are allowed attached signs for each street frontage. The AmSouth Bank building fronts on three streets: Laura Street on the north, Cleveland Street on the south, and Osceola Avenue on the west. Presently there are signs at street level on the south and west building faces, each measuring 20.3 square feet. In addition to these two street level signs, the applicant wishes to place three signs near the top of the building as follows: 102.9 square feet on the north face; 71.6 square feet on the east face; and 102.9 on the west face. None of the signs are higher than 100 feet above grade. Consequently, no additional area is permitted based on height above grade. The variances requested are substantial. The sign area requested on the north face is 97% greater than allowed by code. The request for the east face is infinite given the lack of street frontage on the east. The request for the west face is 157% greater than allowed by code. These are not minimum variances. Further, there is no condition unique to this property that warrants variances of this magnitude. There are many multiple story buildings downtown. To encourage the placement of signs near rooftops through variances will serve to degrade the architecture and aesthetics of this important and sensitive area of the City. The placement of 197.6 square feet of attached sign area in excess of the code allowance is not in character with signage permitted for downtown and diverts attention from other downtown buildings and uses. The granting of these variances will detract from businesses that have conforming signs and will negatively affect the appearance of downtown and the City. Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance approval. Mr. Shuford indicated the applicants have modified their request so that a somewhat smaller variance is being requested. He stated the smaller variances being requested are in relative proportion to the variances that have been granted for the Barnett Bank building. The amended request would be as follows: 1) a variance of 23.6 square feet from the 48 square feet allowed to permit a sign of 71.6 square feet on the north building face; 2) a variance of 71.6 square feet from the permitted zero square feet to allow a 71.6 square foot sign on the east building face; and 3) a variance of 43.9 square feet from the permitted 48 square feet to allow a 91.9 square foot sign. He indicated he could support approval of these amended variances. Pamela Cox, representing AmSouth Bank, stated she has been meeting with staff. She indicated AmSouth wishes to keep with the intent of the City's code. She distributed pictures that were representative of the signs to be placed on the building. She stated the reduced request will meet the building's needs. Commissioner Thomas asked several questions regarding the comparison of the AmSouth Bank request to those variances that were granted to Barnett Bank. Mr. Shuford indicated it would be proportional to what was granted to Barnett Bank but not the same square footage. He also indicated AmSouth is asking for a third sign which Barnett Bank did not. Commissioner Thomas questioned if only two signs were allowed, whether or not this would be closer to the Barnett Bank approval. Mr. Shuford indicated it would. Commissioner Thomas questioned which was the least important of the three signs. Ms. Cox indicated the sign on the north elevation would be the least important, however, she stated AmSouth has three frontages while Barnett Bank did not. Mr. Shuford indicated the total square footage granted to Barnett Bank was 248.6 square feet and that being recommended for AmSouth is 255.4 square feet. Commissioner Deegan questioned why the second sign was noted as not being allowed. Mr. Shuford indicated that when there is frontage on additional streets, they allow signs to wrap around the corner of the building. He stated AmSouth has used the sign allowances for the south side of the building. Harry Cline, attorney representing AmSouth, stated AmSouth does have three street frontages while Barnett Bank does not. He stated there was some discussion regarding the Drew Street corridor and the bank wished to be visible from that area. He stated there is a hardship due to the building being in the Urban Core. He stated the actual size of the letters is smaller than that allowed on Barnett Bank and Sun Bank. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a variance of 23.6 square feet to permit a 71.6 square feet of attached signage on the north building face, a variance of 71.6 square feet to allow 71.6 square feet of attached signs on the east building face, and a variance of 43.9 square feet to allow 91.9 square feet of attached signs on the west building face. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Deegan questioned how a hardship had been demonstrated. Mr. Cline indicated it is difficult for a building in the Urban Core as pole signs are not allowed. He stated a building has to identify itself to the walking customer as well as the driving customer. He felt there should be separate sign regulations to deal with high rise buildings in the Urban Core. Commissioner Deegan stated this would apply to all buildings within the downtown area and would not be unique. Mr. Cline indicated his building was unique as the code has been drafted for smaller buildings and not high rises. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. ITEM #20 - (Cont. 5/5/94) Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5557-94 - Amending Sec. 45.24 to revise standards for approval of variances (LDCA 94-01)(CP) Staff has researched variance approval standards from a number of different communities. For the most part, these standards are similar to those contained in Clearwater's Land Development Code. There is varying language, but most sets of standards contain references to unnecessary hardships. The standards also generally contain comments concerning: 1) "Unique" or "peculiar" circumstances; 2) references to the variance being consistent with the intent of the regulations of the comprehensive (general) plan; and 3) not based on financial concerns or returns. Based on a desire to establish objective standards which reflect the City's current variance approval practice (which is to grant variances that are reasonable or "make sense"), along with a commitment to simplicity of language, staff developed Ordinance #5557-94 largely from the San Diego, California requirements. It should be noted, however, that completely objective standards are not part of any community's approval standards; all rely on a judgement factor as to what is "reasonable," whether that determination is based on "unique conditions," "practical difficulties," or "undue hardships." Variance approvals are judicial in nature, which, by definition, involves "judgement." The standards being proposed now recognize no zoning code can anticipate all possible circumstances, and, consequently, some form of relief is necessary, consistent with a determination of what relief is reasonable. The variance standards proposed in the ordinance are: 1) There are special circumstances that apply to the land or buildings that are peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district; 2) The strict application of the provisions of the code would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings; 3) The variance is not based primarily upon a desire for economic or other material gain by the applicant or owner; and 4) The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code and comprehensive plan and will not be injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. On March 15, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed the proposed changes to variance standards subject to the following: delete proposed standard for approval #3, and add the word "materially" to proposed standards for approval #4 in the portion of the sentence "... will not be materially injurious to ...". The Board felt the standard for approval #3 did not add any additional control for the City, and could continue the confusion relating to the current, similarly worded standard for approval. The Board also felt the term "injurious" needed further clarification, in keeping with previous code language which referred to "substantial" impacts. On May 12, 1994 the Development Code Adjustment Board endorsed the proposed ordinance subject to the following changes (changes underlined): first sentence, after title for section 45.24, to read: A variance shall not be granted unless the application and evidence presented clearly supports all of the following conclusions:, (1) to read: There are special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions applicable to the land or buildings, and that such circumstances are peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district.; (2) to read: The strict application of the provisions of the code create a hardship situation, depriving the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings.; (3) to read: The variance is not based exclusively upon the desire for economic or other material gain by the applicant or owner.; and (4) to read: The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and will not be materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Staff recommends amending the ordinance as suggested by the DCAB, as it provides additional specificity that may minimize successful appeals of Board actions. Mr. Shuford reviewed the proposed changes and the Planning and Zoning Board and DCAB recommendations. He stated basically the proposed ordinance provides the same protection as the current code while doing so in more succinct understandable language. Commissioner Deegan complimented staff on their proposal. Regarding the DCAB's recommendations, he stated he thought the recommendation provided a big improvement regarding the economic gain from a variance, however, he had a problem with adding back any references to hardship. He felt any inconvenience is considered a hardship and he agreed with staff's original recommendation, that reasonable use be considered. Commissioner Thomas stated he preferred staff's original proposal. The proposed amendments were reviewed with the Commission indicating their preferences. In response to a question regarding why the new language was being recommended for variance #2, Mr. Shuford indicated the Legal Department had stated the specificity would be more desirable and would provide a better chance for upholding a decision should a case be appealed. Commissioner Berfield indicated the Pinellas Planning Council had received a court opinion to that effect. Commissioner Thomas questioned if this would be the appropriate location in the code to address doing away with the hearing officer and having appeals come to the Commission. Mr. Shuford indicated this would not be the appropriate section. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a land development code amendment concerning variance standards. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Deegan moved to amend Ordinance #5557-94 on page 1: in the introductory sentence, after "support", insert "all of" before "the following conclusions"; delete the proposed new subsection (1) and substitute the following: (1) There are special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions applicable to the land or buildings, and such circumstances are peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district; in the proposed new subsection (3), delete "primarily" and substitute "exclusively"; and in the proposed new subsection (4), insert "materially" before "injurious to surrounding properties". The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5557-94 as amended for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5557-94 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. Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances ITEM #21 - Ord. #5562-94 - Amending Sec. 35.11, to create a definition for utility facilities; amending various sections within Ch. 40, to provide for utility facilities as permitted uses in IL and P/SP districts and as a conditional use in all other zoning districts; amending Sec. 41.053, to establish supplementary conditional use standards for utility facilities (LDCA 93-23) The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5562-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5562-94 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 #22 - (Cont. from 5/5/94) Ord. #5563-94 - Amending Sec. 35.11, to create definitions for collector, local, minor arterial and major arterial streets; amending Sec. 40.104, to provide for Level I Group Care Facilities as a conditional use in the RS-8 district; amending Sec. 41.053, to establish supplementary conditional use standards for Level I Group Care Facilities in the RS-8 district (LDCA 94-03) The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5563-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5563-94 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 #23 - Ord. #5589-94 - Amending Sec. 42.21, to provide for revised requirements for nonconformities (LDCA 94-05) Commissioner Thomas moved to amend Ordinance #5589-94 on page 2, in Section 42.21(5)(a), insert at the end of the first sentence, ", and there are no substantial good faith efforts to re-establish the use during this period." The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5589-94 as amended for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5589-94 as amended 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. The meeting recessed from 8:50 p.m. to 9:03 p.m. ITEM #24 - Special Items of widespread public interest - None. ITEM #25 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda John Doran indicated he was providing financial statements to the Jolley Trolley Corporation at no charge. He expressed concern that the headlines in the Tampa Tribune could cause people to infer that there was an attempt to "cook the books". He stated this is not being done. He stated if the Commission did not want him to provide the pro bono services to the Jolley Trolley, to tell him so. He questioned if the Commission had any problems with him. The Mayor indicated she had no problems with Mr. Doran but based on newspaper articles, she had asked for information. Commissioner Thomas thanked Mr. Doran for his pro bono services. Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated he too had written a letter requesting information from the President of the Jolley Trolley Corporation. CITY MANAGER REPORTS CONSENT AGENDA (Items #26-28) - Approved as submitted. ITEM #26 - Receipt/Referral - RM-8 Zoning for property located at 1563 & 1567 Druid Rd., Druid Groves, Blk A, Lots 4-6 & E 7' of Lot 3, 0.37 acres m.o.l. (Bowen/DeSaulniers, Z94-08)(CP) ITEM #27 - Receipt/Referral - LDCA re personal services uses in Office zoning districts (LDCA 94-02)(CP) ITEM #28 - Receipt/Referral - LDCA re temporary uses (LDCA 93-22)(CP) Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT ITEM #29 - Receipt/Referral - Land Use Plan Amendment to Institutional, P/SP Zoning and Preliminary Site Plan for property located at 1250 S. Ft. Harrison Ave., Sec. 21-29-15, M&B 12.16 & 12.17 and abutting vacated portions of Sheridan Ave., 5.4 acres m.o.l. (Morton Plant Hospital Associates, Inc., LUP94-16, Z94-07)(CP) The subject property is located in the City, southwest of the intersection of Pinellas Street and S. Ft. Harrison Avenue. The property is part of the Main Campus of the Morton Plant Hospital. The future land use plan and zoning atlas amendments are being requested to enable the applicant to replace the existing structures on Parcel A with a new Heart and Vascular Center (HVC) and to construct a five level parking garage on Parcel B. These are the same uses as proposed on the Master Plan. The hospital is requesting this site be considered not only as part of the Master Plan, but also separately. This proposed amendment of the future land use plan is being submitted in order to expedite the construction of the proposed HVC and associated parking. This site is under ten acres, and therefore eligible for expeditious review by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The Master Plan will have to be submitted as part of a semi-annual submission to the DCA requesting concurrence in amending the City's Comprehensive Plan. This is a more time consuming process. Upon finalization of this request, this planned development district will stand alone. When the Master Plan is approved, this site, along with all other property included in the Master Plan, will be governed by the Master Plan. Pinellas Planning Council (PPC)/Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) and Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) review is required. AND ITEM #30 - Receipt/Referral - Land Use Plan Amendment to Institutional for Parcel A-C, Master Planned Development Zoning for Parcels A-D and Proposed Master Plan for Parcels A-D for various properties east & west of S. Ft. Harrison Ave. and north & south of Pinellas St., 44.2 acres m.o.l. (Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc., et al., LUP94-15, Z94-06)(CP) This request is the long awaited Morton Plant Hospital Master Plan. It consists of several zoning atlas and land use plan amendments, along with a long range site development plan. The Master Plan for the long term development of Morton Plant covers two areas, the Main Campus and a Satellite Area. The Main Campus runs from Clearwater Harbor on the west to roughly one block east of S. Ft. Harrison Avenue. West of Ft. Harrison Avenue, the northern limits run along Jeffords Street jutting north at two locations to take in lots on the north side of Jeffords. At Ft. Harrison, the northern boundary drops a block to the south, to Grand Central Street, and continues one block east to Hamlet Street. The boundary line then runs south jutting back and forth across Hamlet for two blocks to the projection of Tuskawilla Avenue, which is the southern boundary east of Ft. Harrison Avenue. West of Ft. Harrison, the Town of Belleair borders the Main Campus on its southern side. Within the Main Campus there are three small enclaves (Limited Office zoning) which are not owned by Morton Plant and not included in the Master Plan. Within the Main Campus, the portion shown as Area D has a future land use plan classification of Institutional. The classifications for Area A (Industrial Limited), Area B (Commercial General), and Area C (Residential/Office General)) are all proposed to be amended to Institutional and would be able to be assigned zoning of Master Planned Development. The portion of Area C at the southwest corner of Pinellas Street and S. Ft. Harrison Avenue is covered. Once approval of the Master Planned Development for the entire site occurs, this area will be formally incorporated into the associated zoning and Master Plan for the Hospital. The Satellite Area included in the Master Plan lies east of Ft. Harrison Avenue and runs from the old railroad right of way on the west to the Seaboard Coastline Railroad on the east, and from Magnolia Drive on the north to Grand Central on the south. This parcel is not directly connected to the Main Campus but is included in the proposed Master plan. It is intended to change the future land use plan classification for the Satellite Area from Industrial Limited to Institutional and amend the zoning atlas from Limited Industrial to Master Planned Development. The Master Plan shows the location of existing and proposed facilities as well as the proposed dimensional restrictions for the Master Plan property. Staff will examine the appropriateness of these restrictions in meeting neighborhood compatibility objectives during its review. Staff anticipates requiring the submittal of additional information concerning setbacks, site lighting, traffic generation, and buffering from the Hospital to determine if further restrictions/conditions are needed to insure use compatibility. The future land use plan and zoning atlas amendments are being requested to enable the Hospital to utilize the planned development approach for their entire site. This will permit the City to review the long range development plan (Master Plan) for the Hospital. It will also provide the City and neighboring property owners with the opportunity to evaluate the effects the proposed development will have upon adjacent property and public facilities. By utilizing the planned development approach, the City and surrounding property owners will be aware of proposed future development, and the Hospital will have reasonable assurance that it will be able to meet its long range needs. The Master Plan, as finally approved by the Commission, will serve as the guide for future development of the Hospital. Pinellas Planning Council (PPC)/Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) and Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) review is required. Mr. Shuford recommended these two items be considered together. He stated the Heart and Vascular Center (HVC) addressed in Item #29 will become a part of the master plan. He stated receipt and referral of these two items will begin an indepth review of the Master Plan. He referenced a request from Commissioner Thomas to continue this item to determine whether or not the Master Plan should follow the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) procedures. He stated staff has determined that it is probably not a DRI but will research further. Commissioner Thomas stated he would hold in abeyance his request to continue this item if the receipt and referral were conditioned upon the State issuing an opinion regarding whether or not it is a DRI. Commissioner Deegan requested Mr. Shuford explain a DRI. Mr. Shuford indicated a DRI procedure assures comprehensive management takes place for a development that has regional impact. He stated the State has a formula to determine whether or not a development meets the criteria of a DRI. In Clearwater there are two DRIs, the Sheraton Sand Key, which has not been be pursued, and Park Place on SR60. He stated according to the recent ELMS legislation, DRIs will be a thing of the past in a few years. He stated if Morton Plant Hospital were developing from the ground up, it would be a DRI, however, much of the existing development is grandfathered. Commissioner Thomas indicated he was hopeful it was not a DRI, however, he felt a binding letter of interpretation should be given to the City. He referenced a letter from attorney Tim Johnson, whose opinion is that the Morton Plant development is not a DRI. He stated Mr. Johnson has been employed by the hospital and an unbiased opinion is needed. Commissioner Thomas also pointed out what he considered to be an area of conflict regarding the number of beds. He stated the rehabilitation center is being calculated as nursing home beds versus hospital beds. He reported there are conflicting opinions on the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC). He also felt stormwater and noise generation from the proposed energy center needed to be addressed in the site plan procedure. Emil Marquardt, attorney representing Morton Plant Hospital, indicated the retention and noise issues would be adequately covered in the site plan process. He stated those two issues have nothing to do with a DRI procedure. He stated the Master Plan for Morton Plant has been worked on for some time and some questioned whether or not a DRI would be triggered. He stated they were confident that no DRI would be triggered, however, due to the receipt of a letter from Sheila Bent of the TBRPC, regarding this question having been raised, the hospital decided to have someone else look at this process. Tim Johnson was engaged to review this as he is considered an expert on the DRI procedure. Mr. Marquardt stated they are still confident that the DRI procedure will not be triggered and a letter to TBRPC has so indicated. There has been no further contact by TBRPC. He stated to request a letter of interpretation is a long, laborious exercise and the delay would hurt the construction of the HVC. He stated delays would be costly to the hospital. Commissioner Thomas stated in the letter to TBRPC, Morton Plant had indicated it would provide more detailed information. He questioned if it had. Mr. Marquardt indicated this had not been done due to the fact they were confident the DRI process would not be triggered. Commissioner Thomas felt Morton Plant was trying to skirt the DRI issue. Tim Johnson, hired as special counsel to Morton Plant regarding the DRI issue, stated if the City follows the law, it will not be asking the Department of Community Affairs for a letter of binding interpretation. Mr. Johnson indicated 50% of his practice is DRIs and he has been involved in 15 to 20 in the six counties surrounding Tampa Bay. He stated there would be nothing worse than for Morton Plant to begin construction and then, through a challenge, find out they are a DRI. He stated he has no doubt this is not a DRI. He reported the statutes set out several thresholds regarding what constitutes a DRI. Every threshold that could apply has been examined and the Master Plan for Morton Plant Hospital is clearly not within those thresholds. He also stated the development does not meet the criteria that would provide conditions under which the City could request a binding letter of interpretation. He indicated a binding letter is not issued by the hospital but rather, the State of Florida, and is binding only on the State. He stated anytime Morton Plant wishes to change its Master Plan, it will have to come to the Commission for approval. He stated the local issues of stormwater retention and noise generation by the generators for the energy system will be thoroughly investigated through the site plan process. A delay would be detrimental to Morton Plant. To request a letter of binding interpretation would call for thousands of dollars being expended by Morton Plant for nothing. He reiterated the City does not have the authority to request a binding letter of interpretation. He stated he is absolutely sure this opinion is correct. Commissioner Thomas indicated his request for a binding letter of interpretation, was that this be something voluntarily provided by Morton Plant, not from the DCA. Mr. Johnson indicated the only way an opinion could be issued by the DCA was through a binding letter of interpretation. Commissioner Thomas felt the Commission had the right to ask the DCA for a letter. Mr. Johnson indicated the City may or may not get an answer. He stated, essentially the statute states if you are in doubt regarding whether or not a DRI applies, to apply for the letter. He stated he is not in doubt regarding this not being a DRI. Commissioner Berfield questioned if somewhere during the process it was determined that a DRI would be required, if the project would be stopped. Attorney Johnson indicated it would be. Attorney Johnson further reiterated the DCA is well aware of Morton Plant's plans. Mr. Johnson also stated if somewhere during the process, it was found a DRI would be required, Morton Plant would have recourse with Mr. Johnson as he has provided the opinion that they are not a DRI. Mr. Marquardt stated he understood the Commission's concerns and the hospital has every intent of meeting the codes regarding run-off, landscaping, parking, etc. Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns that the Master Plan did not address run-off. Mr. Marquardt indicated it would be addressed through the site plan process. Commissioner Berfield pointed out the Master Plan is not a final site plan and specific site plans will be coming forward for development of portions of the Master Plan at which time run-off will be addressed. Mr. Shuford agreed that each element of the plan, when it comes forward as a site plan, will have retention and treatment at each site. Commissioner Thomas stated he felt this had to be looked at as an entire picture. He requested the Commission ask the DCA regarding whether or not the Master Plan is a DRI, that it be assured that 100% of the stormwater run-off is addressed and the noise from the energy generators be addressed. Mayor Garvey stated the run-off retention and noise generation issues would be dealt with in the site plans. She did not feel there was a need for a DCA decision. Mr. Shuford indicated staff would try to increase the Commissioners' level of comfort regarding whether or not a DRI would be required. He assured them stormwater and noise would be addressed through the site plan procedure. Ed Mazur, working with Morton Plant, stated the drainage plan at a DRI is conceptual and not site specific. He stated a year ago, while working on the Master Plan, it was determined it was not a DRI, however, a master drainage plan has been submitted to staff. He indicated Morton Plan is only 40 acres of hundreds of acres in that particular drainage basin. He stated Clearwater's redevelopment ordinance is more strict than the State's requirements and water quality will be addressed as each site is planned. Commissioner Deegan stated he was convinced Commissioner Thomas' concerns would be addressed and staff will continue to investigate whether or not this is a DRI. Commissioner Deegan moved to refer the request for a land use plan amendment to Institutional and P/SP Zoning for the subject property to the City Clerk to be advertised for public hearing and for the preliminary site plan to be referred to the DRC for review with final approval to come back to the Commission AND a land use plan amendment to Institutional for Parcel A, B, and C, and Master Planned Development Zoning for Parcels A, B, C, and D of the subject property to the City Clerk to be advertised for public hearing and for the proposed Master Plan (concept plan) to be referred to the DRC for review with final approval to come back to the Commission. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Thomas referenced a comment that had been made by staff during the discussion that individuals had standing to request a DRI. He indicated they did not. He stated the only way was for the Commission, as a group, to ask for an opinion. Commissioner Thomas moved to amend the motion to include that whether or not it was a DRI be confirmed by the DCA, that 100% of the stormwater run-off is retained and the noise from the energy generators be addressed. There was no second. Upon the vote being taken on Commissioner Deegan's motion, the vote was; Commissioners Berfield, Fitzgerald and Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye," Commissioner Thomas voted "Nay." Motion carried. ITEM #31 - Clearwater Beach "East Shore" area redevelopment plan On April 21, 1994 the Commission requested staff develop several redevelopment options for the area bounded by Marianne Street on the south, Baymont Street on the north, the Gulf of Mexico on the west, and Clearwater Harbor on the east. For simplicity in describing this area, staff is referring to it as the South Mandalay Redevelopment Area. Mr. Shuford indicated staff has proposed some universal goals for the project as well as options to include small scale, on-site/off-site and major redevelopments. He stated tonight is just to provide concepts to the Commission. He stated the universal goals for the redevelopment are: 1) improve the pedestrian connection between the East Shore/Poinsettia area and both Mandalay Avenue and the Beach; 2) improve the pedestrian environment along all redevelopment area streets; 3) increase parking opportunities in the redevelopment area; 4) improve public access to Clearwater Harbor; 5) increase private investment in the redevelopment area; and 6) create an identity for the redevelopment area in the context of the identity of Clearwater Beach. Slides were presented to depict the options staff was presenting to the Commission. (Detailed information regarding the options were provided to the Commission in a report titled: Clearwater Beach "South Mandalay" Redevelopment Area Plan, Preliminary discussion of options. The small scale option would provide for no public/private partnerships and no major facilities other than possibly parking garages and a waterfront park. Components of the small scale option are: the Papaya Street promenade, in which Papaya Street is made into a pedestrian only promenade, this would provide an area for art festivals, outdoor cafes, etc.; the Baymont Street walk, which would provide for 15 foot wide sidewalks, interconnect the beach with the harbor, no back-out parking/pedestrian streetscape, would provide landscaping and widen sidewalks in conjunction with a comprehensive street improvement program; parking garages on the north and south ends of the redevelopment area; the Papaya Street waterfront park at the eastern terminus of Papaya Street to interconnect with the street mall/promenade; Harbor Walk, a linear boardwalk interconnecting all waterfront properties in the area; and redevelopment area identification to create an identity of sorts for the redevelopment area. The on-site/off-site option would include all those things under the small scale option but could have a public function moved into the area, such as the civic center and/or extending Memorial Causeway into the civic center area. Four options for major redevelopment would call for removal East Shore Drive, the inclusion of new hotels and conference centers in the area, possibly mixed uses, including retail on the ground floor of parking garages and would require private investment as well as the City. Mr. Shuford indicated staff could begin on the small scale options. He stated for the larger options, detailed redevelopment plans are needed and will require special expertise. Commissioner Deegan applauded staff's suggestions. He stated the Commission needed an opportunity to digest all the material that had been presented and this should be put on at a future date for discussion. Commissioner Thomas suggested Mr. Shuford make presentations to the Clearwater Beach Association, the Chamber of Commerce and other community groups. Commissioner Deegan suggested this could be included as an information item on the special meeting which has been called for June 7. Consensus of the Commission was for Mr. Shuford to make his presentation to area groups and return to the Commission at a later date for discussion. ITEM #32 - Youth Diversion Mini Grants The City Manager gave staff the ability to compete for monies up to $1,500 to provide programs for youth all over the City this summer. Thirty-One applications were received. Eighteen were selected to receive the grants, attached to these minutes as Exhibit B. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve 18 applications for "Youth Diversion Grants For Clearwater" for a total not-to-exceed amount of $27,000 remaining from the monies budgeted from last year's Summer Youth Program and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Deegan cautioned, due to this being funded by money left over from last year's Summer Youth Employment Program, this should be considered a one time occurrence and not an ongoing program. ITEM #33 - Res. #94-28 - revising fee schedules re conditional uses, variances, site plans, plats, rezonings and land use plan amendments (CP) The Commission has directed staff to look into its "planning related" fees. In comparing Clearwater's variance fees with other communities in 1991 and 1994 it was noted that our variance fees are substantially higher than others. However, information recently (late 1993) collected by Pinellas Park indicates most of Clearwater's other fees are relatively consistent with those charged by other larger cities in Pinellas County. Staff has taken Commission direction to adjust the City's fee schedule to reflect a development services philosophy, and recommend a number of fee revisions to make the transformation from a "cost recovery" to a "customer service" system. These recommended fees do not fully cover the costs involved in processing an application, but represent reasonable, nominal fees for the types of requests, based on fees charged by other local governments and staff's judgement as to what level a fee must be charged to avoid entirely speculative requests. The Commission should be advised staff will likely see a significant drop in revenue from these adjustments to the fee schedule, but the number of requests may rise as a result of the fee reductions. Due to these variables, it is very difficult to ascertain the budget impact of a fee reduction of this sort. Staff is amending the code continuously to revise regulations to eliminate unnecessary procedural requirements and to "legitimize" frequently granted variances. These activities will also reduce the number of applications processed and, consequently, fee revenue. Mr. Shuford reviewed staff's recommendation. Commissioner Thomas referenced that this would be almost a 70% reduction in revenue. Mr. Shuford indicated it would be a substantial reduction, however, staff is trying to be customer friendly. Commissioner Thomas indicated he was pleased with the proposal as a lot of complaints had been lodged regarding the size of variance request fees. Commissioner Deegan indicated he was not concerned regarding the City subsidizing development fees. He stated taxes are paying for this service. Although he liked what was proposed in general, he saw no need to amend the fees for plat reviews and land use plan amendments as the fees currently being charged are comparable to that of other municipalities. Commissioner Thomas stated he liked the idea of being user friendly and if revenues are found to drop too much, this can be adjusted in the future. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the change to the fees for planning related items. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Deegan moved to amend Resolution #94-28 to leave the charge for review of subdivision plats at $890 and the fee for a zoning amendment and land use plan amendment on the same property at $685. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney presented Resolution #94-28 as amended and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-28 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, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #34 - Other Pending Matters a) Res. #94-39 - establishing City's intent to reimburse Florida Gas Transmission Project costs incurred while building a new Natural Gas Gate Station in Pasco County; authorizing City Manager to sign letter of reimbursement Clearwater Gas System (CGS) has been negotiating with Florida Gas Transmission (FGT) for a new natural gas Phase III Gate Station (supply receipt point) in Pasco County. CGS and FGT have determined the new station should be located on SR52, some 7 miles east of US19, where FGT's new pipeline will be the closest to US19 in Pasco County. FGT estimates the new station will cost approximately $250,000, which includes acquisition of the land, and all materials, labor and equipment. The standard procedure is to have FGT build the station and for the City to reimburse FGT for the actual cost of building it. FGT proposes to build the station at the same time they are installing the new pipeline through Pasco County. Their projected in service date is December 31, 1994. In order to build the station, FGT must file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) a "Notice of Intent." In the filing, there has to be a "Letter of Reimbursement" signed by the City and FGT. FGT has already executed 15 to 20 letters of reimbursement with other Phase III customers. Once FGT files the Notice of Intent with FERC, there is a 45 day notice period in which to receive comments from other interested parties. The City's letter will contain contingency language which states the agreement will become null and void if the City is unsuccessful in securing an interlocal agreement with Pasco County and receiving validation of the Pasco County bond issue. CGS has submitted to FGT a final draft of the letter of reimbursement, which the City's Legal Department has requested a change in the language of one paragraph concerning the indemnity clause. The letter should be ready to be signed by the end of this week or early next week at the latest. In order to expedite the process of filing the City's Letter of Reimbursement, FGT's filing of the Notice of Intent, and the 45 day FERC clock for any interventions, staff requests the Commission authorize the City Manager to execute the Letter of Reimbursement on the City's behalf. Adoption of Resolution 94-39 will accomplish this. The Assistant City Attorney presented Resolution #94-39 and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-39 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. b) Direction re Municipal Services Building ballot question The City Manager sent a memorandum to the Commission on May 16th outlining issues she felt needed to be addressed regarding revitalization of downtown. She felt it was imperative the momentum being generated by such things as Stein Mart moving into downtown be capitalized upon in order to facilitate downtown revitalization. Her concerns regarding continued use of the Annex property were also addressed. Due to the deteriorating conditions of the building, she felt employees should be moved to another facility as well as her belief that the property would be more marketable if the building were razed and the site cleaned. She expressed concerns regarding the proposed referendum regarding the construction of the Municipal Services Building. She recommended canceling that referendum and moving forward on the Municipal Services Building. This recommendation is made also in the light of the Commission's decision at the Capital Improvement Project Session to combine the Municipal Services Building with the public safety/police department construction and a shared parking garage. In summary, her recommendation is to cancel the September referendum, move everyone from the Annex building immediately into something similar to the Sunshine Mall, prepare the Annex site for development, build the new Municipal Services Building and police station and completely finish the Bayfront Mart building (Maas Brothers). Ms. Deptula indicated the management team shares these concerns and recommends not holding the referendum in September. Bob Wright indicated he was surprised to read in the newspaper regarding a $22 million project for a combined Municipal Services Building/Police Department. He stated the Coalition of Homeowners supports the Municipal Services Building only when and if the Annex property is sold. He agreed the new police department was a number one priority. He questioned how the cost of the Municipal Services Building had risen to $11 million. He felt the City needed to hire an architect and an engineer to lay out the specifications for the buildings and then submit the construction for competitive bidding. He felt the police department should be paid for by Penny for Pinellas funds as originally planned. He felt the Municipal Services Building and the garage should go to referendum. He stated to do otherwise shows utter disregard for the citizens of Clearwater. Ms. Deptula indicated the City Clerk had provided information regarding the $11 million figure. It took the estimate as last provided by Dean Rowe, project consultant, subtracted the City Hall renovations, and added such things as the mechanical upgrade, purchase of land, telephones, landscaping and moving expenses. That total came to $11,060,000. The City Clerk had recommended a ballot question for building the Municipal Services Building at approximately $11 million. Mayor Garvey expressed concerns regarding what would be done should the referendum fail. She stated that the City would then be continuing to work in dilapidated buildings and would not be consolidated. Commissioner Thomas referenced a $700,000 figure provided for the purchase of the Bilgore property from the CRA. He stated the value of the land has dropped and he felt a current appraisal should be used and the City purchase the land from the CRA for that amount. He stated this issue has been studied for over two years and when a decision is delayed, it becomes more complicated than necessary. He stated the current police department is a rat's maze and that all other needs of the City need to be met. He stated it would be bad business to piece meal the issue. He stated continued delays are costing the citizens more money. Commissioner Thomas moved to rescind the calling of a referendum for the construction of the Municipal Services Building. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Fitzgerald strongly objected to this course of action. He stated the City Manager's letter has not fully analyzed the true cost. He was concerned the public was not going to be allowed to have the information and input. He questioned suddenly abandoning the Annex with no idea of what cost would be involved. He stated to change the Commission's direction regarding the referendum undercuts public trust. Commissioner Deegan stated he too objected to the motion. He stated the public had been told there would be a referendum and they expect to have input. He agreed with the general intent of the City Manager's letter. He stated the public may feel that the Commission is trying to get around the intent of the Charter. He has difficulty justifying an office building as being a public welfare issue and meeting the exemption in the Charter. He stated the public is convinced that a new police station is needed and that if the public were informed of the need, they would also support the Municipal Services Building. Mayor Garvey stated she would support the motion. She stated the City has been talking about consolidation for a number of years and it was time to move forward. She stated the fact that there is a different concept now of combining the Municipal Services Building with the Police Department justified canceling the referendum. Commissioner Thomas stated he believed there was widespread public support for the issue and if the public did not want the Commission to go forward, the Chambers would be filled with people expressing objection to canceling the referendum. He stated he had heard from a number of people that the Commission had been derelict by not moving forward. Commissioner Berfield stated she had supported not going to referendum in the past. She stated the public has had an opportunity for input. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield and Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye," Commissioner Deegan and Fitzgerald voted "Nay." Motion carried. Commissioner Thomas moved to direct the City Manager to move as expeditiously as possible to build a public safety/police department and Municipal Services Complex with a shared parking garage on the Bilgore property and current police department property and parking lot. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield and Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye," Commissioner Deegan and Fitzgerald voted "Nay." Motion carried. Commissioner Thomas moved to direct the City Manager to find a location for all employees in the Annex combined with utilities customer services employees in a rentable facility, at a reasonable price, in the simplest manner possible and to move quickly to clean the Annex site for development. There was no second. Commissioner Berfield moved that the City Manager be directed to look at a location for displaced city employees and to bring that information to the Commission for approval. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed grave concern as no analysis has been completed. He stated the Annex is not untenable. While he agreed with the need to move employees from the utilities customer service building, he stated the Annex was still usable. Mayor Garvey questioned how long it would take to build the new Municipal Services Building. Mr. Baker indicated it would take approximately four months to begin and a year and a half to build the facility. Commissioner Thomas indicated it would be better to have the Annex site cleared as it would be easier to market. He felt it was critically important to have the East End properties developed. Commissioner Deegan questioned whether or not there was a plan to move the employees from the Annex should a deal be struck with Western Reserve as currently under discussion. Ms. Deptula indicated that a plan had been developed for a 45 to 60 day time frame to vacate the property, however, those plans had not been detailed. Commissioner Deegan felt the Annex was serviceable. He also indicated he felt the employees in the Annex should be asked what they think. Laurie Diane Kaye stated she lives a block and a half from the Annex. She stated had she realized the Commission was canceling the referendum she would have spoken in opposition. She reported that circumstances in her neighborhood have deteriorated and people are moving out as they are fearful due to crime in the area. Commissioner Berfield amended her motion to direct the City Manager to look for areas where the City might be able to locate employees in the event they are needed to be relocated from the Annex and to have this information available. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns that by combining the Annex employees with the utilities customer service employees it would delay moving individuals out of the utility building. Commissioner Thomas felt it would be more cost effective to move all the employees into one facility. Commissioner Deegan felt leaving the employees in the Annex would more than make up the cost of renting a facility. He again stated he felt the employees in the Annex should be asked for their opinion. Commissioner Berfield withdrew her motion and the seconder agreed. It was the majority consensus to direct the City Manager to investigate options for relocating city employees and to bring that information back to the Commission. c) Interlocal Agreement with Belleair Bluffs for Fire Chief Services Questions were raised at the May 16th Commission meeting regarding the difference between Assistant Fire Chief Pidala's actual pay and the dollars Belleair Bluffs will reimburse to the City of Clearwater. It is proposed Assistant Chief Pidala spend the first two hours of each work day at the City of Clearwater. These hours would be spent having the payroll completed, collection and review of both Fire and EMS reports, review and documentation of incidents of previous dates and reports on both equipment and staffing. He would begin at Station #48 and have all the information at Station #45 prior to 8 a.m. He would then report to Belleair Bluffs to continue his workday. The time spent at the City would be approximately 27% of his workday on a daily basis. Assistant Chief Pidala will continue to work on special projects for the City, including union negotiations, development and implementation of lieutenant's exam, and emergency preparedness with the Emergency Coordinator. These special projects would consume about 20% of his work week. During the period of time covered by the interim agreement with Belleair Bluffs, Assistant Chief Pidala will attend the Governor's Hurricane Conference for four days. This was scheduled by the City of Clearwater. He also plans to take at least five days of vacation during the specified time frame. Several meetings he will attend for Belleair Bluffs are the same meetings he would attend for Clearwater, including the County 911 Users meeting, Operation Chiefs meeting, PAL's meeting, and monthly CME's. Belleair Bluffs now proposes to reimburse Clearwater $3,200, of Mr. Pidala's pay and fringe benefits. This amounts to about 57% of his Clearwater salary. He would spend no more than that amount of time at Belleair Bluffs. Assistant Chief Pidala's working under this interim agreement would provide shared benefits for both cities. The City of Clearwater receives partial payment of his salary to help offset any loss of productivity and the City of Belleair Bluffs acquires time to decide what to do with its fire department. This is a win-win situation for both cities. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the interlocal agreement for Fire Chief Services with Belleair Bluffs. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. d) (Cont. from 5/16/94) Purchase of one 1994 3/4-ton GMC 4x4 pickup truck from General GMC Truck Sales, West Palm Beach, FL, for $17,552.501 (GS) These trucks are no longer available from any vendor. This item was withdrawn. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS ITEM #35 - First Reading Ordinances a) Ord. #5587-94 - Amending various code sections regarding certain appointive boards and committees to change term of office from 3 years to 4 years Commissioner Thomas suggested waiting on amending the terms of office until the Charter Review Committee had finished its review and the term of office for Commission members was established. The City Clerk indicated the ordinance establishing four year terms for advisory boards had already been adopted. This ordinance simply changes the individual sections of the code for each board to coincide with the previous ordinance. Commissioner Deegan questioned the status of the Environmental Advisory Committee. The City Clerk indicated an ordinance has been drafted which would make the EAC a permanent board of the City, however, it has not been brought to the Commission for final action. Commissioner Deegan questioned including the Downtown Development Board in this ordinance. He felt it was inappropriate as the DDB is an independent agency. Consensus of the Commission was to delete reference to the DDB in the ordinance. The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5587-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5587-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Thomas. "Nays": Garvey. Motion carried. ITEM #36 - Other City Attorney Items - None. ITEM #37 - City Manager Verbal Reports The CommUNITY Campaign is requesting to make a presentation before the Commission. The Commission expressed concerns they did not have enough information about this group and they were asking for financial support. It was the consensus of the Commission the City Manager meet with them on a staff level to determine whether or not a presentation was warranted. The City Manager announced invitations had been sent out only today for the police memorial service to be held at 10 a.m., tomorrow morning. She apologized for the lateness of the invitations. Commissioner Fitzgerald and Commissioner Thomas stated regretfully they had other commitments. ITEM #38 - Commission Discussion Items - None. ITEM #39 - Other Commission Action Mayor Garvey questioned whether or not the Commission wished to take action regarding the Dials offer to pay a lump sum of $2,500 and cancel the remainder of the 5466.66 debt due to the Dials loss of a suit brought against the City. The Dials have been making $100 per month payments. In a memo to the Commission, Assistant City Attorney Hull indicated approving this would allow closure of the account and allow staff to cease monitoring and processing of the payments. In response to a question by Mayor Garvey, it was indicated this has come before the Commission before with the Dials first requesting the entire debt be forgiven and then interest be forgiven. Commission has denied the former requests. Assistant City Attorney Hull indicated this would entail forgiving part of their debt. Commissioner Thomas moved to accept the lump sum payment as proposed. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Deegan pointed out that during the last discussion, the Commission had questioned why this debt should be forgiven. He stated the Dials had taken the City to court and lost. Commissioner Thomas felt this is a nuisance and more trouble than it is worth. Commissioner Deegan pointed out the Finance Department is keeping track of the account and that is part of their job. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioner Thomas voted "Aye," Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion failed. Commissioner Berfield noted that in today's Tampa Tribune, a headline had indicated Clearwater had ruled against a developer's plans. She stated it was not Clearwater but the County. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned reference in the minutes of the Marine Advisory Board that a $3 port charge is not paid to the City of Clearwater. The Deputy City Manager indicated many were under the impression the port charge was coming to the City. She stated, however, it is not. The City Manager pointed out that the Cruise Ship is not using any city facility. She stated the port charge may be to the marina at which they dock, however, there are no funds to the City of Clearwater from the Empress Cruise Lines other than standard sales tax and occupational license fees. It was requested this be clarified. This will be discussed with the Cruise Line when they appear before the Commission for extension of the six month trial of their alcoholic beverage variance. Commissioner Deegan referenced a memorandum from Assistant City Attorney Lance regarding public hearing notices for sign variances and language that could allow the Commission to approve larger variances without having to be readvertised. The City Clerk and Central Permitting Director indicated staff has reviewed this but wishes to address the public hearing notices in a more comprehensive manner. Commissioner Deegan reported that four months ago, the Pinellas Sports Authority, to which he has been appointed by the Commission, merged into the Sports Committee of the Convention and Visitors Bureau. He stated the Sports Authority is still responsible for the bonds on the dome. He stated there has been a lot of discussion regarding the proper role for the Sports Authority. He stated it has been discovered that Sports Authority members are not being notified of meetings of the Sports Committee of the Convention and Visitors Bureau. He stated when this was brought to the Convention Bureau's attention, cooperation was not forthcoming. He stated he will keep the Commission informed. Mayor Garvey questioned if the Commission wished to include citizen participation in the downtown partnership. There was no consensus to do so. Mayor Garvey questioned if the Commission would return to a read file concept in which certain correspondence is not copied to all Commission members. She referenced the listing of activities at each city facility and advisory board minutes. In response to a question, Ms. Rice indicated read files are provided when reports or other issues call for it but there is not a standard read file. Commissioner Deegan concurred the Commission is getting things it does not really need, however, he felt advisory board minutes should continue to be sent to the Commission. It was the consensus the activities listing could be placed in the read file. Other items will be placed in the read file as the Commission determines. ITEM #40 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. (5/20/94)