07/21/1994 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
July 21, 1994
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, July 21, 1994 at 6:03 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
Miles Lance Assistant City Attorney
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 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
Two service awards were presented to City employees.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards
Clearwater Housing Authority Chairman Howard Groth presented the National Award of Merit from the National Association of Housing Redevelopment received by CHA to the Police Department
in recognition of its participation in the Law Enforcement Apprentice Program (LEAP). Mr. Groth said the CHA had requested a grant from HUD and received $50,000 which they turned over
to the City to implement the program.
The 1994 Parks & Recreation Award was presented to Morton Plant Health Systems for enhancement of leisure opportunities.
ITEM #5 - Presentations
a) Tampa Bay Partnership Pinellas - none.
b) Neighborhood Advisory Committee - Annual Report - none.
ITEM #6 - No Item
ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda
Bob Wright complained the City of Clearwater is the biggest offender of current water restrictions. He supported the use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposes and complimented
Commissioner Deegan for bringing this issue forward.
Jay Keyes announced the Clearwater Beach Breakfast Seratoma Club would be roasting Commissioner Thomas in a fundraiser to benefit UPARC on September 27, 1994, at the Holiday Surfside
on Clearwater Beach.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #8 - Public Hearing - Res. #94-49 - Authorizing placement of liens on properties for unpaid utility bills (AS)
Several property owners have delinquent accounts with the utility system for amounts over $100. As of March 30, 1994, the accounts of these property owners are at least 90 days or
more delinquent. The Utility Customer Service Division has notified these property owners of their indebtedness and the fact the City may file a lien on their property for the amount
of the delinquent account.
These property owners have also been notified by the City Clerk of the public hearing regarding their indebtedness pursuant to Chapter 32, Section 32.072 of the City Code of Ordinances.
Commissioner Berfield moved to authorize the placement of liens on properties for unpaid utility bills. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Assistant City Attorney presented Resolution #94-49 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-49 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 #9 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5662-94 - Vacating 30' right-of-way for Turner St. (f/n/a Central Blvd.) lying S of Lots 19-24, Midway Sub. and that 30' public thoroughfare
in Deed Book 1542, page 255, subject to retaining it full width as a drainage & utility easement
(Morritt Homes, V94-01)(PW)
The applicant is proposing to build low income housing and would like to incorporate the 30 foot 1/2 right-of-way into their site. The City has no existing utilities within this right-of-way.
No additional right-of-way is needed for Hercules Avenue.
Florida Power and Vision Cable have no objection provided the easement is retained as a utility easement. G.T.E. has no objection to this vacation request.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the vacation of the north 30 foot right-of-way of Turner Street (formerly known as Central Boulevard) lying south of Lots 19 through 24, as
shown on the plat of Midway Subdivision and the vacation of the South 30 foot right-of-way of Turner Street as recorded in Deed Book 1542, Page 255 both subject to retaining their full
width as a drainage & utility easement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5662-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5662-94 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. #5646-94, #5647-94, & #5648-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban & RS-8 Zoning for property located at 112 Meadow
Lark Lane, Bay View City Sub., Blk 1, S 80.75' of Lots 5 & 6, 0.17 acres m.o.l. (Kinsley, A94-14, LUP94-14)(CP)
The subject property is located on the west side of Meadow Lark Lane, approximately 1,200 feet north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and 1,000 feet west of McMullen-Booth Road. The applicants
wish to annex to obtain City sewer service for the existing single family residence, assessed value of $48,900. It is proposed to assign the same Future Land Use Plan Classification
to the property as assigned on the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, Residential Urban. The residential property in the area which is in the City has a zoning of Single-Family Residential
"Eight", and this zoning is recommended for the applicants' property. The applicants' property meets the minimum dimensional requirements for a Single-Family Residential "Eight" lot.
Lots 5 and 6 have been split, with the northern part (in the County and not being annexed) having a 47 foot frontage on Meadow Lark Lane and a 100 foot frontage on Virginia Avenue,
having a lot area of 4,700 square feet. This parcel will probably be annexed into the City at some future date. It does not meet the minimum dimensional
requirements for a lot in the Single-Family Residential "Eight" District. It is less than the required minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet and its width is less than the minimum required
width of 70 feet for a corner lot.
At their July 19, 1994 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of this request.
Mayor Garvey questioned why all of Lots 5 and 6 were not being annexed and it was indicated the rear portion of the property is under separate ownership.
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 #5646-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5646-94 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 #5647-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5647-94 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 #5648-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5648-94 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. #5640-94 & #5641-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Institutional for Parcels A, B & C; MPD Zoning for Parcels A, B, C & D; and approve Master
Plan for Parcels A, B C, & D (various properties east and west of S. Ft. Harrison Ave. and north and south of Pinellas St.) (Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc., et al, LUP94-15,
Z94-06)(CP)
Morton Plant Hospital is requesting their Main Campus and Satellite Area be rezoned a Master Planned Development District. To facilitate this, they are also requesting that all properties
within their Planning Area that do not have a Future Land Use Plan Classification of Institutional be reclassified as Institutional. Area A consists of all of the property east of South
Fort Harrison Avenue which is included in the proposed Master Plan and presently classified as Industrial Limited. Area B involves one parcel at the southwest corner of Jeffords Street
and South Fort Harrison Avenue which is presently classified as Commercial General. Area C includes six parcels along Jeffords Street and the Heart and Vascular Center site that are
presently classified as Residential/Office General.
AND
ITEM #12 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5638-94 & #5639-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Institutional for part Sec. 21-29-15, M&B 12.16 & 12.17 and abutting vacated portions
of Sheridan Ave. (Parcel A), P/SP PD Zoning, and Final Site Plan for Parcel A and Westover Sub., Blk A, together with vacated portions of Watkins Rd. and Sheridan Ave. abutting Blk A
(1250 S. Ft. Harrison Ave.)(Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc., LUP94-16, Z94-07)(CP)
The hospital is requesting this site be considered not only as part of the Hospital Master Plan, but separately as well. This proposed amendment of the Future Land Use Plan is being
submitted in order to expedite the construction of the proposed Heart and Vascular Center and associated parking.
Commissioner Thomas requested a continuance of Items Nos. 11 and 12 for 30 days.
Mayor Garvey indicated these items have been advertised and felt the public should be provided an opportunity to speak even if they are to be continued.
The majority consensus was to allow public input.
Attorney Emil Marquardt, representing Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc., questioned the need for a 30-day continuance. He said many were in attendance to speak on the master
plan and indicated a need to move forward on the Heart and Vascular Center project for the benefit of the community.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern in being handed a revised plan shortly before tonight's meeting as it did not provide sufficient time for review. He said he wished to wait to
review input from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) before making any decision. He questioned why the reviewing agencies
had not received the plan sooner.
Attorney Marquardt said the master plan has been on record since the application was filed. He said the minor changes to the plan presented tonight were requested by the City.
Attorney Timothy Johnson said the TBRPC and the DCA have had the written description of the master plan since late April. Commissioner Thomas felt what was
submitted to the state agencies was Mr. Johnson's interpretation of the project and indicated he is requesting a continuance to get more information.
The rule requiring a Commissioner's request for continuance be honored was questioned. The City Clerk indicated that while it is not a written rule, it has been standard practice of
the Commission when one Commissioner requests a continuance, the request be honored.
Commissioner Thomas said he does not support staff's position on this issue. He wished to wait until he hears from the state agencies regarding whether the Master Plan needs to meet
the requirements of a Development of Regional Impact.
Edward Mazur reviewed the changes to the site plan indicating they involved including a landscape buffer, changing the method of designating environmentally sensitive areas and locating
a pump station. He said these changes were requested by the City. He noted the typical procedure allows for first reading of an ordinance, DCA review and then second reading. He said
it could be months between ordinance readings. Mr. Mazur indicated a statement had been made by Morton Plant Hospital that they would submit a master plan before asking approval of
any project. It was not indicated the master plan had to be approved first.
Commissioner Thomas again stated his request for a 30-day continuance.
Attorney Marquardt believed there would be no response in 30 days from DCA because he felt this is not an issue to them. Commissioner Thomas responded his office was informed they
would know in 30 days. He expressed concern whether staff was receiving the proper legal advice.
Mr. Mazur expressed concern in delaying the project.
Commissioner Thomas moved that Items Nos. 11 and 12 be continued to August 18, 1994. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan
and Thomas voted "aye," Mayor Garvey voted "nay." Motion carried.
ITEM #13 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5642-94 - RM-8 Zoning for property located at 1563 & 1567 Druid Rd., Druid Groves, Blk A, E 7' of Lot 3 and Lots 4-6, 0.37 acres m.o.l.
(Bowen/Desaulniers, Z94-08)(Clearwater Community Hospital)(CP)
The subject property is located on the south side of Druid Road to the east of Clearwater Community Hospital. With the purchase of this property, the hospital will own all of the property
along the south side of Druid Road between Highland Avenue and Crest Avenue. The hospital recently acquired Lots 1 and 2 and the west 43 feet of Lot 3 (Parcel A), just to the west of
the property included in this application. Parcel A was rezoned to Multiple-Family Residential "Eight" on April 21, 1994, and a conditional use for non-commercial parking was granted
only for Parcel A (the property to the west) by the Planning and Zoning Board on April 19, 1994. The hospital now has agreements to purchase the property involved in this request.
The purchase is contingent upon the property being rezoned to Multiple-Family Residential "Eight" and obtaining a conditional use permit for noncommercial parking. The hospital intends
to use these lots for an extension of their proposed parking lot on Parcel A.
This is an expansion of the hospital site and may be considered a further encroachment into an existing single family residential neighborhood. However, leaving the property in a residential
zoning classification minimizes the land use impact of the request, and added buffer controls can be established through the conditional use permit process.
On June 14, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the hospital's request for a conditional use for noncommercial parking for the property in this application contingent upon
the property being rezoned to Multiple-Family Residential "Eight". The hospital will develop the proposed parking on the combined properties in accordance with the Land Development
Code, including landscape buffers along Druid Road and between the parking area and adjacent residential property.
The overall site plan for the hospital is being revised to include both Parcel A and the property in this application. As part of their proposed improvements, the hospital also plans
to expand their out-patient surgery facilities.
At their July 19, 1994 meeting, the Planning and Zoning board recommended approval of this request.
Commissioner Deegan stated he had a conflict of interest regarding this item as he is Chairman of the Hospital's Board of Directors.
Richard Katzeff, Executive Director Clearwater Community Hospital, said this item deals with completion of their employee parking lot.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve RM-8 zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Deegan abstained.
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5642-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5642-94 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
"Abstention": Deegan.
ITEM #14 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5571-94 - CPD Zoning for property located at 706-712 Magnolia Dr., Magnolia Park, Blk 31, Lots 6-9 (Nations Bank Florida, Z94-03)(CP)
The subject property is located in the City on the northwest corner of Myrtle Avenue and Magnolia Drive. The applicant wishes to obtain a zoning change to permit the utilization of
the existing structure for a congregate care facility with approximately 32 beds. The facility would be for adults who may need some assistance but who do not require the care offered
in a
nursing home. It is proposed to rezone the property to Commercial Planned Development. The Future Land Use Plan Classification of Commercial General would not be changed.
The zoning change would allow a maximum density of 24 units per acre, or 48 beds per acre. The recommended permitted uses for the Planned Development District are those uses permitted
in a Neighborhood Commercial District (Sec. 40.323) plus Congregate Care Facilities and Level I and II Group Care Facilities.
The applicant intends to utilize the existing structure for his congregate care facility. The walls of the structure will be lowered and the existing flat roof will be replaced with
a pitched roof . He also intends to increase the landscaping by removing some of the parking which will not be required for the new use, and to remove the arched drive off Myrtle Avenue
and landscape this frontage.
The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on this application on June 14, 1994, after which they unanimously endorsed the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment to Commercial Planned
Development to the City Commission subject to the proposed permitted and conditional uses being limited to those shown below, and that signage be as specified for Neighborhood Commercial
District, the present zoning of the applicant's property and the adjacent property to the north and south.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS PROPOSED USES
1) Permitted Uses shall be limited to:
(1) Level I group care
(2) Level II group care
(3) Congregate care
(4) Indoor retail sales;
(5) Personal services;
(6) Restaurants;
(7) Business/professional offices;
(8) Funeral homes;
(9) Accessory dwellings;
(10) Nonprofit social or community services;
(11) Multiple-family dwellings;
(12) Townhouses;
(13) Three-family dwellings;
(14) Two family dwellings
(15) Detached single-family dwellings;
(16) family care;
(17) Remote switching stations;
(18) Accessory uses.
2) Conditional Uses shall be limited to:
(1) Business services;
(2) Alcoholic beverage sales (consumption on premises);
(3) Alcoholic beverage sales (package sales);
(4) Child day care;
(5) Veterinary offices;
(6) Residential shelters; and
(7) Noncommercial parking
The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed site plan for this Commercial Planned Development and recommended that the City Commission approve the site plan subject to the
following conditions:
1. Signs and fencing/walls are subject to separate review and permitting processes.
2. The requisite building permits must be procured within one (1) year from the date of certification of the final site plan and all requisite certificates of occupancy must be obtained
within (3) years of the date of certification of the site plan.
3. A unity of title shall be recorded prior to certification of the site plan.
Mayor Garvey questioned whether this application could be considered spot zoning. Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford responded this would not be as staff worked within the allowable
land use plan classifications to address the problem.
Patrick Shaughnessy said the building has been vacant for three years and will be completely renovated and will improve the area.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve CPD zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5571-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5571-94 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 6/16/94) Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 1861 N. Highland Ave., Sunset Square Sub., Lots 1 & 4 (Stuart S. Golding Co./Sunset Square Shopping
Center, SV94-16)(CP)
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to a date uncertain. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #16 - Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 1969 Drew St., Skycrest Sub., Unit 7, Blk K, Lot 1 & W 35' of Lot 2 (Stathopoulos/Camco Center, SV94-19)(CP)
The applicant is requesting the following setback variances: (1) a variance of 4.6 feet from the required 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 0.4 foot from the Drew St. right of way,
and
(2) a variance of 5 feet from the required 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 0 feet from the east side property line.
The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Drew Street and Aurora Avenue, and is in the General Commercial zoning district. These variances are requested to permit
the existing freestanding sign to remain in its present location.
This property is developed with a small retail center, with one row of parking perpendicular to the storefronts.
The freestanding sign for the center is located in the northeast corner of the property. It is in a narrow (approximately two feet wide) landscape strip that separates this property
from the property to the east. Strict enforcement of the code would cause the sign to be relocated into an existing parking space. Parking is a premium on this site, and to lose a
space would cause a hardship on the property owner.
The existence of this sign 0.4 foot from the Drew Street right-of-way and 0 feet from the east side property line will not detract from the surrounding businesses that have conforming
signs and will not negatively affect the overall appearance of the community.
To be eligible for a variance, a request must meet all four standards for variance approval. Based upon review and analysis of the information contained in the application, staff finds
that the petitioner's request meets all of the standards. In particular, the following standards do appear to be fully met:
(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.
(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 exclusively upon the desire for economic or other material gain by the applicant or owner.
(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 materially injurious to surrounding
properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Thomas Stathopoulos verified the photographs of the existing sign presented by staff. He said it would be difficult to relocate the sign.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the decorative stanchion was lighted and it was indicated it was not.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the following variances for the subject property as these variances meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-4: 4.6 feet to
allow a freestanding sign 0.4 foot from the Drew Street r-o-w, and 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 0' from the east side property line subject to the condition that by maintaining
a sign within the street setback pursuant to this variance, the owner and applicant agree that no governmental agency shall be liable for the cost of relocating or removing the sign
in the event the property is acquired by eminent domain for road widening or any other public purpose. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #17 - Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 3158 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Sec. 16-29-16, M&B 24.08 (United Daughters of the Confederacy/Council of Service Organization-Upper
Pinellas, SV94-20)(CP)
The applicant is requesting an area variance of 56 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 120 square feet.
The subject property is located on the north side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, west of Bayshore Boulevard, and is in the General Commercial zoning district. The variance is requested
to permit the placement of a freestanding sign for the Council of Service Organizations.
This 1.8 acre property is developed with a small building for the United Daughters of the Confederacy. There is a substantial amount of open space surrounding the building. There
is no freestanding sign on this property to identify the use of this land. There is, however, a billboard that is allowed to remain until January 19, 1996.
The variance is to permit the placement of a 120 square foot freestanding sign to identify 24 community service organizations that serve the north-Pinellas area. Each of the organizations
will be identified with a 20-inch diameter circular plaque mounted to a sign background which will be chain-link construction.
Despite this proposed sign having almost double the area allowable, it is staff's position that there are special circumstances that give rise to approval of this variance. Ordinarily,
freestanding signs identify the use of property upon which they stand. This can usually be accomplished with only a few words. Twenty-four service organizations, however, cannot be
identified with a few words. Staff contends that the 120 square feet of sign area proposed is, in this case, minimal to convey the desired information.
Inasmuch as this is a noncommercial sign identifying 24 community service organizations, this sign will not detract from the surrounding businesses that have conforming signs and will
not negatively affect the community.
To be eligible for a variance, a request must meet all four standards for variance approval. Based upon review and analysis of the information contained in the application, staff finds
that the petitioner's request meets all of the standards. In particular, the following standards do appear to be fully met:
(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.
(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 exclusively upon the desire for economic or other material gain by the applicant or owner.
(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 materially injurious to surrounding
properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Commissioner Thomas said he wished the City to have a legal and binding commitment for maintenance of the sign.
Donald Bredberg, representing the applicant, indicated the organization would agree to any request relative to maintenance.
There was considerable discussion regarding who should be responsible for maintenance of the sign. Commissioner Berfield recommended each service organization sign a simple agreement
saying they would maintain their individual plaques. Mayor Garvey felt there also needed to be a commitment to maintain the sign as a whole.
In response to Commissioner Thomas' question, Mr. Bredberg said at the present time, 18 organizations will be represented on the sign. He said there are other available organizations
within the community who will want to become part of the council.
Commissioner Thomas asked staff to provide language that would ensure maintenance of the sign.
Mayor Garvey expressed concern for those organizations wanting to display their plagues and there is no space left on the sign. She suggested using Florida Resource & Opportunity Guide
as a source to provide information regarding service organizations. She questioned if it is possible to get this type information into the Welcome Center of the Chamber of Commerce.
Commissioner Deegan noted this is something done in many cities and the value of the sign is that it points out to visitors whether their organization is represented.
Discussion ensued in regard to language regarding the maintenance of the sign. Mr. Shuford suggested the following condition: the sign shall be maintained in a state of good repair
at all times with such maintenance being assumed unilaterally by any organization that has a plaque being displayed on the sign.
Mayor Garvey questioned whether the City should also expect an agreement from the applicant regarding the maintenance. Mr Shuford said in order to implement the condition, the submittal
of an agreement will be required.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern in having gaping holes between the plaques. Mr. Shuford suggested adding the following language: the spacing or grouping of the plaque shall be
maintained in a uniform manner.
Commissioner Deegan felt there needed to be an agreement between the City and the owner of the sign regarding its maintenance.
Kaye Holley, representing United Daughters of the Confederacy, said their agreement with the Council of Service Organizations, was the Council maintain the sign in a proper order.
She felt if there are more than 24 organizations requesting plaques, they could be rearranged at that time to accommodate more. She said she would not allow an unpleasing sign on their
property. In response to a question, she said there is a written agreement with the council regarding maintenance of the sign.
Commissioner Thomas asked Ms. Holley if the Daughters of the Confederacy would have a problem with being the legal responsible agent for maintaining the sign. She responded this was
not their original intent.
Commissioner Deegan asked if anyone other than the property owner could be held responsible for the maintenance of the sign. Assistant City Attorney Miles Lance responded the owner
would be the only one the City could hold responsible.
Ms. Holley said they are just volunteering their property for the sign because it is at the gateway to the City.
Discussion continued in regard to the party responsible for the maintenance of the sign. Ms. Holley agreed the Daughters of the Confederacy would be responsible but would have a legal
agreement with the council if they do not maintain the sign, it would come down.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve an area variance of 56 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 120 square feet for the subject property as this variance meets
Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-4 subject to the conditions (1) the sign shall be maintained in the state of good repair with such maintenance assumed by the property owner
and (2) the spacing of the plaques shall be maintained in a uniform manner. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and
Thomas voted "aye," Mayor Garvey voted "nay." Motion carried.
Commissioner Deegan noted this is the first time the four new standards of approval are being applied. He referred to the last sentence in this item under Staff Comments and indicated
the use of the language "minimal to convey the desired information" is not accurate.
ITEM #18 - Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 1219-1293 S. Missouri Ave., Hanousek's Sub., part of Lots 11 & 12 (Searstown Partners, LTD, SV94-18)(CP)
The applicant is requesting the following variances: (1) an area variance of 12.2 square
feet from the permitted 150 square feet to allow a primary freestanding sign with an area of 162.2 square feet, (2) a height variance of 5.3 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow
a primary freestanding sign 25.3 feet high, (3) an area variance of 5 square feet from the permitted 75 square feet to allow an auxiliary freestanding sign with an area of 80 square
feet, (4) a height variance of 9 feet from the permitted 16 feet to allow an auxiliary freestanding sign 25 feet high, and (5) a separation variance of 79 feet from the required 300
feet to allow the primary and auxiliary freestanding signs to be separated by 221 feet.
The subject property is located on the east side of Missouri Avenue, south of Jeffords Street, and is in the Commercial Center zoning district. These variances are requested to permit
the existing freestanding signs to remain.
There are two freestanding signs on this property. Each sign is too large and too high. Also, the signs do not meet the separation distance specified in the code.
Within Commercial Center zones, the primary freestanding sign can be up to 20 feet high, and the auxiliary sign up to 16 feet high. The Searstown signs have heights of 25.3 feet and
25 feet, respectively. These deviations are 27% and 56%. These are not minimum variances. Further, there is no condition unique to this property or special circumstance applicable
to warrant deviations to this extent.
The area of the primary freestanding sign can be as large as 150 square feet, and the area of the auxiliary sign can be as large as 75 square feet. The existing signs are 162.2 square
feet and 80 square feet, respectively. These deviations are 8% and 7%. These qualify as minimum variances because the deviations are slight, the signs are existing, and the cost to
the applicant to correct the nonconformity is great in comparison to the public benefit derived from making the correction.
Lastly, the signs do not comply with the 300 foot separation requirement set forth in the code. The existing separation is 221 feet. It would be possible to relocate the primary sign
to the north end of the property, thereby meeting the separation requirement; however, to do so would cause the sign to be placed away from the main entrance to the property. Also,
the cost to accomplish this would outweigh any public benefit derived from this action.
The existence of signs 25.3 and 25 feet high are not in character with signs permitted in this zone and will divert attention from other businesses and properties. The granting of
the requested height variances will detract from properties that have conforming signs and will adversely affect the appearance of the community.
To be eligible for a variance, a request must meet all four standards for variance approval. Based upon review and analysis of the information contained in the application, staff finds
that the petitioner's height variance requests do not meet the standards. In particular, the following standards do not appear to be fully met:
(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.
(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 exclusively upon the desire for economic or other material gain by the applicant or owner.
(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 materially injurious to surrounding
properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Carl Young, representing the applicant, verified the photographs of the existing signs presented by staff. He noted the largest Sears' sign has been removed. He indicated if the secondary
freestanding sign is lowered, trees would have to be removed. There is no shopping center identification at this time.
Mayor Garvey asked what the applicant will do as the trees grow larger. Mr. Young said they would thin and shape them. A question was asked if this is allowed by code and Mr. Shuford
responded the crepe myrtle would be allowed some trimming as long as its natural form is not impeded.
Commissioner Deegan asked if this property has all the signs allowed and it was indicated this is the case. He questioned if a freestanding sign would be allowed if the Sears' building
is leased. Mr. Shuford indicated that is a separate parcel currently under consideration for a Commercial Planned Development Zoning. The Commission can determine signage for CPD zoning
proposals. This parcel is not owned by the applicant.
Commissioner Deegan asked if a sign could be placed on the Sears' property dealing with the shopping center. Mr. Shuford said one could but it would use up the sign allowance for that
property.
Todd Pressman, representing Republic Bank, agreed with staff's review and accepted their recommendations.
Bill Zinzow recommended going with staff's recommendation to deny the height variances.
Commissioner Thomas offered a solution of relocating the trees elsewhere on the property.
Mayor Garvey asked how the other tenants in the center are being dealt with regarding identification. Mr. Young said they are desperate for signage.
Commissioner Deegan noted variances have been granted to allow more attached signs for the tenants because there was no shopping center identification as a whole. He questioned whether
one sign could be put up for the entire center. Mr. Young indicated if a variance is granted for the existing square footage, he said the landlord may want to consider one sign.
Mayor Garvey questioned whether this item should be continued so the applicant could work with staff.
Mr. Pressman indicated Republic Bank has lease obligations regarding signage with the owner and would want to keep them.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the shopping center ever had a sign listing all the tenants of the shopping center. It was believed there never existed such a sign. Referring to the
square footage of the Searstown sign, Commissioner Thomas asked where this sign was located. Mr. Young said on the Sears property.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the following variances for the subject property as these variances meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-4: an area variance of 12.2
square feet to allow a primary freestanding sign with an area of 162.2 square feet; an area variance of 5 square feet to allow an auxiliary freestanding sign with an area of 80 square
feet; and a separation variance of 79 feet to allow the primary and auxiliary freestanding signs to be separated by 221 feet and to deny the requested height variances for failure to
meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-4. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #19 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5633-94, #5634-94, #5635-94, #5636-94 & #5637-94 - amendment of effective date for five previously approved LUP's (RHA/Florida LUP93-37,
Touchette LUP93-36, City LUP93-39, Episcopal Church of the Ascension LUP93-26 & Wright LUP93-38, now North Bay Community Church, Inc.)(CP)
These amendments were processed in the same manner, and with the same general wording used for prior amendments. However, at the time these amendments were being finalized, the City
and the Department of Community Affairs were exchanging correspondence regarding appropriate wording for the effective date of ordinances amending the City's Future Land Use Plan.
Staff expected that ordinances finalized during this period with old wording would be accepted and processed by the Department of Community Affairs, and two such ordinances were. When
the Future Land Use Plan Amendment for RHA/Florida Properties was sent to DCA, DCA informed the City that it would not act on the amendment until the effective date provision of the
ordinance was modified. DCA further stated that in the future it would not process any Future Land Use Plan Amendments that did not include wording required by S.S. 163.3189(2)(a) for
the effective date.
Ordinance No. 5633-94 amending Ordinance No. 5516-94 (Z 93-51)
Owner: RHA/Florida Properties, Inc.
Legal: Lots 1 through 12 inclusive in Block B-3, Mary Land Subdivision, together with the vacated West one-half of Madison Avenue abutting said Block B-3
Address: 1100 Pine Avenue
Location: Two Blocks south of Court Street approximately 450 feet east of Greenwood Avenue
Ordinance No. 5634-94 amending Ordinance No. 5526-94 (A 93-27)
Owner: Donald A. Touchette, Sr.
Legal: Lot 22, Block A, Sunset Point Estates
Address: 1914 Atlantis Drive
Location: West side of Atlantis Drive, one block east of Old Coachman Road, and approximately 275 feet north of Sunset Point Road
Ordinance No. 5635-94 amending Ordinance No. 5531-94 (Z 93-53)
Owner: City of Clearwater
Legal: Lot 12, Block B, less road on the West, and North 135 feet of unplatted Block C west of the 1/2 section line, New Country Club Addition
Address 701 North Missouri
Location: Southeast corner of North Missouri Avenue and Seminole Street, across from Jack Russell Stadium and National Guard Armory.
Ordinance No. 5636-94 amending Ordinance No. 5461-93 (Z 93-10)
Owner: Episcopal Church of the Ascension
Legal: Lot 4 and South 88 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 12, Turners Subdivision
Address: 601, 605, and 607 Orange Street, and 604 and 606 Bay Avenue
Location: South of Turner Street between Orange Avenue and Bay Avenue
Ordinance No. 5637-94 amending Ordinance No. 5533-94 (Z 93-52)
Owner: Clarence S. and Florence F. Wright
Legal: Parcel A, Turtle Brooke Subdivision
Address: 3190 McMullen-Booth Road
Location: West side of McMullen-Booth Road across from its intersection with Briar Creek Boulevard
James Tuller expressed concern regarding several issues that came up previously regarding the Touchette (Ordinance #5634-94) application.
Mr. Shuford indicated this application involved a bread shop that extended the CG (Commercial General) zoning in the rear of the building. Extending the zoning simply squared off existing
non-residential properties and it was felt the expansion would result in a buffer on the north and west side of the property.
John Garakob, abutting property owner, said he thought this application had been turned down at a previous Commission meeting. It was later clarified the meeting he was referring to
was the Planning & Zoning Board meeting. He said he had not received any additional notices regarding this property. The City Clerk indicated the procedure for an application such
as this is to include both the dates for the Planning & Zoning Board and City Commission meetings on the same public hearing notice.
Mr. Tuller expressed concern regarding diminishing property values. He believed a residential street is not built to accommodate the weight of semis. Mr. Garakob said there are signs
that indicate their are no trucks allowed between 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Semis go down to Flowers Bread Company all hours of the night and do not abide by the speed limits. He expressed
concern regarding the placement of a propane tank on the property and sound barrier walls.
Mr. Shuford said the code requires either a 10-foot landscape buffer or a 7-foot fence on the west and north sides of the property. Mr. Tuller did not believe a fence would protect
against the noise from the semi's steel gate.
Mayor Garvey expressed concern the applicant was not in attendance to speak to the issue.
Mr. Shuford said the application could be approved on first reading and indicated the concerns could be addressed before second reading of the ordinance. Mayor Garvey suggested separating
this item from the rest.
Discussion ensued in regard to the surrounding properties and their zoning classifications.
In response to a question, Mr. Shuford indicated the property that has raised concern is still a vacant grass lot. Mr. Tuller expressed concern that building on this property will
cause more flooding. Mr. Shuford indicated retention will be required and the expansion will require a conditional use which would address buffering, hours of operation and design details.
Discussion ensued regarding the applicant stating there would not be any semis when this application was previously heard. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford said the subject applications
have been approved previously; however, DCA required a technical change. Commissioner Thomas requested staff verify what had been said previously regarding the Touchette application.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve amendment of the effective date for five Future Land Use Plan Amendments previously approved in Ordinances #5516-94, #5526-94, #5531-94, #5461-93,
and #5533-94 with the understanding Ordinance #5634-94 will be scheduled for second reading on August 18, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5633-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5633-94 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 #5634-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5634-94 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 #5635-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5635-94 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 #5636-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5636-94 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 #5637-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5637-94 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 #20 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5617-94 - Amending Sec. 42.26, to provide requirements for wire fences in residential zones (LDCA 94-10)(CP)
The Planning and Zoning Board, in reviewing the proposed ordinance concerning fence maintenance requirements, recommended an additional ordinance be developed to limit fence materials
in residential zoning districts. This ordinance was prompted by a board member's experience with a wire fence in his neighborhood.
The proposed ordinance would limit wire fences erected in residential areas to chain link materials only.
The Planning and Zoning and the Development Code Adjustment Boards have both recommended approval of this ordinance.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a Land Development Code amendment concerning wire fences in residential zones. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5617-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5617-94 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 #21 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5631-94 - Amending Sec. 35.11, to revise the definition of personal services, amending Secs. 40.284 & 40.304, to provide for personal
services as conditional uses in the OL and OG zoning districts, amending Sec. 41.053, establishing supplementary standards for such uses (LDCA 94-02)(CP)
At its meeting of March 3, 1994, the Commission directed staff to pursue a Land Development Code amendment which would allow certain personal services uses (specifically, beauty salons
and barber shops) in office zoning districts.
In response to this direction, staff has developed an ordinance which clarifies what personal services uses are and which provides for these uses in the Limited Office and General Office
zoning districts as conditional uses. Conditional use supplementary standards are established as part of this ordinance in order to ensure that the specified personal services uses
are compatible with both office uses within the zoning districts and uses in other surrounding districts.
Staff has also taken this opportunity to clarify the definition of "personal service" by using more "standard" language describing the use in general terms, and to add other specific
examples of personal services uses consistent with previous staff interpretations.
The Planning and Zoning Board and the Development Code Adjustment Board both recommended approval of the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Deegan questioned why a print shop is listed as a personal service. Mr. Shuford to research why it is included.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a Land Development Code amendment concerning personal services uses in office zoning districts. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5631-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5631-94 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 meeting recessed from 8:14 p.m. to 8:26 p.m.
ITEM #22 - (Cont. from 6/2 & 6/16) Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5597-94 - Amending Sec. 40.489 to establish new parking requirements for Bayfront Core and Eastern Corridor subdistricts
of Urban Center District (LDCA94-06)(CP)
This ordinance has been continued to allow staff to present further information and to provide several options for Commission consideration. At the June 16, 1994 meeting, direction
was given to retain the flexible parking options and to "grandfather" the parking for existing buildings; no consensus was reached regarding whether the downtown Clearwater parking space
requirements should be reduced from suburban standards.
Four versions of Ordinance #5597-94 have been developed to provide options for Commission consideration. All four contain amendments from the original ordinance to retain the flexible
parking options and to "grandfather" the parking for existing buildings. Version A establishes suburban parking requirements; Version B retains existing reduced parking standards; Version
C applies suburban parking standards for lodging, residential, and most public/semi-public uses, but uses reduced standards (from suburban standards) for other uses in a manner similar
to the parking requirements on Clearwater Beach, another pedestrian-oriented area; and Version D utilizes the same reduced standards proposed in Version C, but includes government offices
in the list of uses subject to suburban standards (note: this is the version recommended by the Chamber of Commerce subcommittee).
Based on the information provided in the parking study prepared by the Public Works Department and previously discussed with the Commission, staff recognizes the need for revisions
to the City's downtown parking regulations. However, staff is also concerned the proposed ordinance represents too significant a departure from the City's current regulations, possibly
creating significant roadblocks to the redevelopment of downtown Clearwater.
Staff recommends revising the ordinance to allow existing buildings to not be required to provide additional parking beyond what is currently provided, regardless of changes in use.
This would "exempt" existing buildings from the requirements, and actually provide a bonus from current code requirements, but would result in new construction meeting the revised code.
Staff recommends retention of the flexible parking options to allow sufficient parking options to allow reasonable redevelopment in downtown Clearwater.
Staff recommends some sort of reduced parking requirement for most downtown uses. Downtown Clearwater is not suburban Clearwater where immediate and convenient private parking is available
and expected to be available.
Staff recommends continued monitoring of the downtown parking situation, using the parking study prepared by the Public Works Department as "baseline" data. Pinellas County should
be contacted to discuss the study's relevance to parking deficits around major County facilities. Staff will continue to look for creative regulatory options to address potential parking
deficits.
Finally, staff recommends adoption of either Version B or C, as analysis of the parking requirements for the Municipal Services/Police Station complex leads staff to believe that suburban
parking standards significantly overstate the need for parking for government offices.
Mr. Shuford explained the four versions indicating any version would be compatible with the Planning & Zoning Board's and Development Code Adjustment Board's recommendations. He suggested
continuing whatever version is agreeable to the Commission to the meeting of August 18 and advertising the version selected for public hearing and first reading of the ordinance.
Commissioner Thomas said he was not satisfied with any one version indicating he would like to see a mixture. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford indicated suburban standards for
office use are 4.5 spaces/1,000 square feet and government office has the same standards in suburban as in regular office. Commissioner Thomas questioned what the parking requirements
at Countryside Mall would be. Mr. Shuford responded the parking requirements for a shopping center are 5 spaces/1,000 square feet; for a stand alone retail center, they are 6 spaces/1,000
square feet. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford said the downtown is more in tune with mall requirements. The wide mixture of uses in downtown allows for shared use of public parking.
Commissioner Thomas asked what the City's current standard is for hotel parking. Mr. Shuford said it is basically the same in the downtown as in the suburban areas which is one space
per motel unit and any additional spaces required as part of the accessory uses. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether this was considered to be excessive and Mr. Shuford said it
would depend upon the type of facility.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern the buildings in downtown were built with less parking than is necessary. The citizens now look to the City to build parking garages and the City
has to spend a minimum of $4500 per space. He believed the City should maintain a strict standard and allow the developer to make the choice of providing the necessary parking or paying
the City a fee which will be put into a fund to build a shared garage.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt neither Versions B nor C created more parking than what the City would have under the current standards.
Mr. Shuford indicated staff does not have the same perception of the parking problem. He said a study did show if all the uses in the downtown were filled to their capacity, there
would be shortage of parking. He noted the greatest shortage of parking is in the area of the courthouse. He expressed concern that increasing parking standards could have a dampening
effect on new development. Normally, a major retailer builds in excess of City standards. Staff
is recommending keeping something similar to the current standards. Mr. Shuford said if the Commission is concerned about a parking deficit in downtown, Version A should be selected
which sets a suburban standard.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned whether it is staff's perspective that there should be no change to current standards. Mr. Shuford said it is, as staff does not feel there is a
massive parking problem. He recommended keeping reduced standards to encourage potential development. He felt exempting existing buildings from the new parking standards would be a
major incentive to fill existing buildings.
In response to a question from the Mayor, Mr. Shuford indicated the City currently allows a payment in lieu of parking spaces.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned whether increased parking standards for areas of assembly should be reviewed. Mr. Shuford said church parking is a big issue and staff will review.
In response to a question, Mr. Shuford indicated the advisory boards recommended a previous version which did away with all flexible and reduced standards. He said staff wanted to
continue to explore options.
Commissioner Deegan asked if the CRA and Chamber of Commerce are having difficulty finding adequate parking parcels for projects. Mr. Shuford felt finding convenient parking will present
a problem for anyone who wants to develop in downtown.
Discussion ensued in regard to suburban standards dampening redevelopment efforts in the downtown and increasing the parking standards for churches. Commissioner Deegan recommended
changing the church standards to 83 and going with Version B.
Commissioner Berfield felt parking is a problem in the downtown and questioned why staff would consider a reduction in standards. Mr. Shuford said staff has an existing concept for
Clearwater Beach and felt a 50% reduction in required parking for certain types of uses was appropriate.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if any consideration has been given for transportation in downtown. Mr. Shuford said this is provided for to some extent in the flexible standards
in the current code.
Commissioner Thomas asked what the parking requirements are at Ruth Eckerd Hall. Mr. Shuford responded 2 spaces/5 seats or 2 spaces/5 persons at maximum capacity. Commissioner Thomas
questioned if there is anything in the current code that would address parking for a 2500 seat theatre in downtown Clearwater. Mr. Shuford responded 1 space/200 square feet of floor
area.
Commissioner Thomas said he liked the concept of making existing real estate more valuable by grandfathering parking standards for existing buildings. He expressed concern the
code did not adequately address the parking standards for building a 2500 seat theatre.
In response to a question, Mr. Shuford indicated the payment in lieu of parking spaces is determined by Traffic Engineering and would be subject to review every 2 years.
Commissioner Deegan moved to direct staff to come back with Version B, with increased parking standards for places of assembly. The motion was duly seconded.
A question was raised if the code covers parking standards for a 2500 square foot theatre and Mr. Shuford said it is covered. He repeated it is 1 space/200 feet of floor area. Mr.
Shuford said the parking requirement would be the same as for a strip center. Commissioner Thomas found this to be a ludicrous level. Mr. Shuford said the church issue could be expanded
to address places of assembly.
A question was raised if an auditorium could be covered under recreation/entertainment. Mr. Shuford read the definition of places of assembly.
Commissioner Deegan stated the definition of place of assembly includes a church and therefore the increased standards should apply to all places of assembly.
Upon the vote being taken on the motion; Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield and Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted "aye," Commissioner Thomas voted "nay." Motion carried.
ITEM #23 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5618-94 - Amending Sec. 40.463, to establish churches as a permitted use in the CC zoning district, amending Sec. 40.465, to establish
use limitations for church uses in the CC district (CP)
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to August 18, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #24 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5632-94 - Amending Sec. 41.053, to allow consideration of temporary uses in conjunction with outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage
conditional uses, amending Ch. 41, Divisions 7 & 8, to significantly revise existing requirements for temporary buildings, portable buildings and tents, and for temporary retail sales
and displays, amending Sec. 42.34, to delete requirements for temporary commercial parking lots as found in the section (CP)
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to September 22, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. (This item should have been continued to the second
meeting in September (9-15-94).
Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances
ITEM #25 - Ord. #5596-94 - Amending Sec. 1.12 and Ch. 15 relating to emergency management to make emergency resolutions enforceable by police and adding a gas
emergency resolution
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5596-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5596-94 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 #26 - Ord. #5620-94 - Annexation for property located at 1761 Cardinal Dr., Pinellas Terrace, Lot 68 less S 3', 0.19 acres m.o.l. (Penhollow, A94-12)
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5620-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5620-94 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 #27 - Ord. #5621-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low for property located at 1761 Cardinal Dr., Pinellas Terrace, Lot 68 less S 3', 0.19 acres m.o.l. (Penhollow, LUP94-12)
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5621-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5621-94 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 #28 - Ord. #5622-94 - RPD-E Zoning for property located at 1761 Cardinal Dr., Pinellas Terrace, Lot 68 less S 3', 0.19 acres m.o.l. (Penhollow, A94-12)
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5622-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5622-94 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 #29 - Ord. #5623-94 - Annexation for property located at 2353 Dora Dr., Rolling Heights, Lot 8, 0.28 acres m.o.l. (Moberley, A94-13)
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5623-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5623-94 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 #30 - Ord. #5624-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low for property located at 2353 Dora Dr., Rolling Heights, Lot 8, 0.28 acres m.o.l. (Moberley, LUP94-13)
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5624-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5624-94 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 #31 - Ord. #5625-94 - RPD-D Zoning for property located at 2353 Dora Dr., Rolling Heights, Lot 8, 0.28 acres m.o.l. (Moberley, A94-13)
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5625-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5625-94 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 #32 - Ord. #5630-94 - Relating to water shortages; amending secs. 32.153 & 32.159, to adopt by reference water use restrictions relating to irrigation of lawns, landscaping and
golf courses adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County which are more stringent than water use restrictions of the City for such activities; authorizing enforcement
of Pinellas County water use restrictions and the imposition of penalties for their violation
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5630-94 for second reading and read it by title only.
Lois Cormier requested the City have the same water use restriction times for the private wells as the county.
Concern was expressed in problems of enforcement as it is difficult to determine if one has a shallow well.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the rules should be the same for both the City and the County. He felt due to all the enclaves, it is difficult to make a distinction between City and
County. He believed you could tell if one has a shallow well by the pump noise.
Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5630-94 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": Fitzgerald.
Motion carried.
ITEM #33 - Ord. #5652-94 - Amending Sec. 2.066 to provide that City Manager may remove board members for excessive absences
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5652-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5652-94 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 #34 - Special Items of widespread public interest - None.
ITEM #35 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda
Jay Keyes questioned why the amended Morton Plant Hospital Master Plan did not go back to the Planning & Zoning Board. Staff responded the amendment addressed the conditions imposed
by the Planning & Zoning Board.
Lois Cormier praised the City Manager's staff, Denise Wilson, in particular, for the handling of her complaint regarding a city employee. She requested an awning at Ross Norton Pool
and umbrellas for the three picnic tables at Holt Avenue Pool.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #36-42) - Approved as submitted less Items #38, #40 and #42.
ITEM #36 - Receipt/Referral - LDCA to increase permitted height bonus for structures with parking beneath the building (LDCA 94-16)(CP)
ITEM #37 - Receipt/Referral - Preliminary Site Plan (Belleair Highlands, Blk B, Lots 1-20 & 51-54) and Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General & CG Zoning (Belleair Highlands,
Blk B, Lots 13-20 & 51-54) for property located at 510-522 Woodlawn St. and 511 & 515 Wildwood Way (Gangelhoff/Howard LUP 94-19, Z94-09) (CP) The Site Plan is to be referred to the
DRC for final approval subject to the following preliminary conditions:
1. Signs and fencing/walls are subject to separate review and permitting processes.
2. The requisite building permits must be procured within one (1) year from the date of certification of the final site plan and all requisites certificates of occupancy must be obtained
within three (3) years of the date of certification of the site plan.
3. The related final plat shall be recorded within one (1) year from the certification date of the preliminary plat or prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever comes
first.
4. The dates and conditions for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board for conditional use approval and the Development Code Adjustment Board for variance approval shall be provided
on the preliminary plat/site plan prior to certification.
5. A Unity of Title shall be recorded prior to certification of the site plan.
6. The minimum TURNING RADIUS for designated drives and fire lanes shall be 42 ft.
7. A fire hydrant assembly shall be installed not more than 300 ft. from the structure.
8. If structure requires or has installed an automatic fire sprinkler system, a fire department connection shall be installed a minimum of 15 ft. from the structure, adjacent to a paved
drive and within 30 ft. of a fire hydrant assembly.
9. Prior to certification, the Dumpster Requirement Form must be completed and returned to the City Sanitation Department.
10. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the dumpster/compactor must be visually screened, and gates must be provided with a minimum 12-foot clear opening to the front
for access by Sanitation trucks.
11. Prior to certification, a copy of the SWFWMD permit application is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review.
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review.
13. Prior to certification, the final site plan must be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Florida.
14. A Pinellas County Public Health Unit Permit, Ingress/Egress and a 10 foot Utility Easement over the proposed water mains up to and including meters, backflow prevention devices and
hydrants are required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
15. Backflow prevention devices must be installed by the City with applicable fees being paid by the owner.
16. Sidewalks are required adjacent to all street rights-of-way.
17. Handicap spaces must be adjusted to meet government standards.
18. Parking stalls and/or driveways to be adjusted to the approval of the Traffic Engineer.
19. Dimensions to be shown on the plan to denote measurements for aisles, parking stalls, entrances, etc.
20. Prior to certification, all protected trees shall be shown by size, species, and location.
21. Prior to certification, all required perimeter landscape buffers shall be dimensioned.
22. Prior to certification, the total paved vehicular use area and total interior landscape area calculations shall be expressed in square feet and as a percentage of the overall site
in the site plan data block.
23. Prior to certification, all required parking lot interior landscape areas shall be depicted by shading or cross-hatching.
24. Prior to certification, a landscape plan shall be submitted to Environmental Management.
25. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a clearing and grubbing permit and a tree removal permit (or a no tree verification form) are required.
26. Prior to certification, a copy of the SWFWMD permit application and calculations shall be provided to Environmental Management.
27. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit shall be submitted to Environmental Management.
28. Prior to certification, the site plan must reflect the use of raised curbs or protective timbers where interior landscaped areas abut pavement.
ITEM #38 - See page 31
ITEM #39 - Preliminary Site Plan for PEP Boys Automotive Center located at 1721 Gulf to Bay Blvd. (PEP Boys); accept a fee in lieu of land to satisfy the Open Space Land Dedication requirement
(CP) Authorize the DRC to approve a final site plan subject to the following preliminary conditions:
1. Signs and fencing/walls are subject to separate review and permitting processes.
2. The requisite building permits must be procured within one (1) year from the date of certification of the final site plan and all requisites certificates of occupancy must be obtained
within three (3) years of the date of certification of the site plan.
3. The dates and conditions for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board for conditional use approval and the Development Code Adjustment Board for variance approval shall be provided
on the preliminary plat/site plan prior to certification.
4. The minimum turning radius for designated drives and fire lanes shall be 42 ft.
5. Prior to certification, the Dumpster Requirement Form must be completed and returned to the City Sanitation Department.
6. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the dumpster/compactor must be visually screened, and gates must be provided with a minimum 12-foot clear opening to the front
for access by Sanitation trucks.
7. Prior to certification, a copy of the SWFWMD permit application is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review.
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review.
9. Prior to certification, the final site plan must be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Florida.
10. A Pinellas County Public Health Unit Permit, Ingress/Egress and a 10 foot Utility Easement over the proposed water mains up to and including meters, backflow prevention devices and
hydrants are required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
11. Backflow prevention devices must be installed by the City with applicable fees being paid by the owner.
12. Sidewalks are required adjacent to all street rights-of-way.
13. Handicap spaces must be adjusted to meet government standards.
14. Parking stalls and/or driveways to be adjusted to the approval of the Traffic Engineer.
15. Dimensions to be shown on the plan to denote measurements for aisles, parking stalls, entrances, etc.
16. Prior to certification, all protected trees shall be shown by size, species, and location.
17. Prior to certification, all required perimeter landscape buffers shall be dimensioned.
18. Prior to certification, the total paved vehicular use area and total interior landscape area calculations shall be expressed in square feet and as a percentage of the overall site
in the site plan data block.
19. Prior to certification, all required parking lot interior landscape areas shall be depicted by shading or cross-hatching.
20. Prior to certification, a landscape plan shall be submitted to Environmental Management.
21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a clearing and grubbing permit and a tree removal permit (or a no tree verification form) are required.
22. Prior to certification, a copy of the SWFWMD permit application and calculations shall be provided to Environmental Management.
23. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit shall be submitted to Environmental Management.
24. Prior to certification, the site plan must reflect the use of raised curbs or protective timbers where interior landscaped areas abut pavement.
ITEM #40 - See page 32
ITEM #41 - No item
ITEM #42 - See page 34
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted less Items #38, #40 and #42, and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #38 - Receipt/Referral - LDCA re revising alcoholic beverage regulations (LDCA 94-17)(CP)
At several meetings, the Commission has provided staff with direction on the preparation of revisions to the City's alcoholic beverage regulations. Staff has completed the proposed
ordinance which is felt complies with Commission direction.
Items of interest to the Commission not specifically identified in the table are:
( Various sections of the conditional use standards for approval require that no new nightclub, tavern, bar or package sales uses may be established in the North Greenwood Commercial
district.
( Only hotels or motels with 100 or more units may have nightclub, tavern, bar and package sales uses (Sections 18-20 of the ordinance)
The Commission questioned whether hearing officer procedures can be specified by the City Code. In fact, these procedures are already specified in the City code in Section 36.065.
The Commission asked whether occupational licenses could be "pulled" without action by the Municipal Code Enforcement Board.
The Commission wanted to know how many motels on Clearwater Beach that served alcohol had 100 or more units, so that the impact of the code change could be determined.
Commissioner Berfield questioned whether requiring the completion of a police background check prior to issuing a temporary license is covered in the proposed ordinance.
Discussion ensued in regard to this requirement not being clear in the ordinance. Mr. Shuford is to add language addressing this issue.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned whether the provision regarding only hotels/motels with 100 or more units may have a nightclub, tavern, bar and package sales use is applicable City-wide.
Mr. Shuford responded City-wide; however, indicated the Commission wanted to know how this would impact hotels/motels on the beach. Mr. Shuford said he will review the impact City-wide.
Commissioner Thomas moved to receive a land development code amendment revising alcoholic beverage regulations and for it to be referred for advertising for public hearings. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #40 - Preliminary Site Plan for Zeus Hotel located on Osceola Ave., between Ft. Harrison Ave. and Drew St. and Jones St. (Markopoulos)(CP)
The applicant proposes a major redevelopment and an adaptive reuse to the existing 118 dwelling units of the Osceola Inn adult congregate care facility (ACLF) into a 214 room hotel,
with a parking garage facility, a 5,027 square foot restaurant, a 16,141 square foot conference/meeting rooms, and a 512 square feet of retail area. The developer intends to raze the
southwest portions of the existing one story buildings located at the southwest quadrant of the block, to construct a six story hotel building with 30 parking spaces beneath the building
on the ground floor, and an in-ground swimming pool. The property is located in the Urban Center Core zoning district.
The proposed conference/meeting rooms will be located on the ground floor of the parking garage facility having access from Ft. Harrison Avenue. The parking facility will have five
decks with an overall height of 55 feet. The hotel will have a maximum height of 74 feet. The new hotel facility will be connected to the two existing buildings abutting to the north,
which are to remain after extensive interior remodeling. Amenity areas will be provided in the form of landscaping, artwork and a ground floor retail store.
The proposed development will require a traffic impact study to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
Staff recommends to authorize the DRC to approve a final site plan subject to the following preliminary conditions:
1. Signs and fencing/walls are subject to separate review and permitting processes.
2. The requisite building permits must be procured within one (1) year from the date of certification of the final site plan and all requisites certificates of occupancy must be obtained
within three (3) years of the date of certification of the site plan.
3. A Unity of Title shall be recorded prior to certification of the site plan.
4. The minimum turning radius for designated drives and fire lanes shall be 42 ft.
5. A fire hydrant assembly shall be installed not more than 300 ft. from the structure.
6. If structure requires or has installed an automatic fire sprinkler system, a fire department connection shall be installed a minimum of 15 ft. from the structure, adjacent to a paved
drive and within 30 ft. of a fire hydrant assembly.
7. Prior to certification, the Dumpster Requirement Form must be completed and returned to the City Sanitation Department.
8. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the dumpster/compactor must be visually screened, and gates must be provided with a minimum 12-foot clear opening to the front
for access by Sanitation trucks.
9. Prior to certification, a copy of the SWFWMD permit application is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review.
10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review.
11. Prior to certification, the final site plan must be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Florida.
12. A Pinellas County Public Health Unit Permit, Ingress/Egress and a 10 foot Utility Easement over the proposed water mains up to and including meters, backflow prevention devices and
hydrants are required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
13. Backflow prevention devices must be installed by the City with applicable fees being paid by the owner.
14. Handicap spaces must be adjusted to meet government standards.
15. Parking stalls and/or driveways to be adjusted to the approval of the Traffic Engineer.
16. Dimensions to be shown on the plan to denote measurements for aisles, parking stalls, entrances, etc.
17. Prior to certification, all protected trees shall be shown by size, species, and location.
18. Prior to certification, all required perimeter landscape buffers shall be dimensioned.
19. Prior to certification, the total paved vehicular use area and total interior landscape area calculations shall be expressed in square feet and as a percentage of the overall site
in the site plan data block.
20. Prior to certification, all required parking lot interior landscape areas shall be depicted by shading or cross-hatching.
21. Prior to certification, a landscape plan shall be submitted to Environmental Management.
22. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a clearing and grubbing permit and a tree removal permit (or a no tree verification form) are required.
23. Prior to certification, a copy of the SWFWMD permit application and calculations shall be provided to Environmental Management.
24. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit shall be submitted to Environmental Management.
25. Prior to certification, the site plan must reflect the use of raised curbs or protective timbers where interior landscaped areas abut pavement.
26. A Traffic Impact Study shall be submitted for approval by the City Traffic Engineer.
John Scott, architect, gave a presentation of the proposal. He indicated the old Osceola Inn property is being incorporated into the project. The proposal will include a parking structure,
a restaurant, meeting facilities, retail space and a pool. Access to the parking garage will be from Jones Street. In response to a question, Mr. Scott said the parking requirements
will meet suburban standards.
Commissioner Thomas congratulated the developers on the project indicating it will be an important addition to the community.
Commissioner Berfield moved to receive the preliminary site plan for Zeus Hotel and authorize the DRC to approve a final site plan subject to the conditions previously mentioned. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #42 - Preliminary Site Plan for Greenwood Condo Complex located at 1454 S. Greenwood Ave. (Asimeno Corp.)(CP)
The applicant proposes to construct three one story multi-family apartment buildings having a total of 16 dwelling units with associated parking, landscaping and stormwater retention.
The proposed multi-family residential development is a vacant parcel located on the west side of South Greenwood Avenue abutting the south property line of the existing Norton Apartments.
The subject property is zoned RM-12.
The Parks and Recreation Director recommends the Commission accept a 4% Open Space Land Dedication fee in lieu of land dedication as the area would be too small to create a new park
and there are existing developed parklands nearby which do not need open space enhancements.
Staff recommends to authorize the DRC to approve a final site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Signs and fencing/walls are subject to separate review and permitting processes.
2. The requisite building permits must be procured within one (1) year from the date of certification of the final site plan and all requisites certificates of occupancy must be obtained
within three (3) years of the date of certification of the site plan.
3. The minimum turning radius for designated drives and fire lanes shall be 42 ft.
4. A fire hydrant assembly shall be installed not more than 300 ft. from the structure.
5. If structure requires or has installed an automatic fire sprinkler system, a fire department connection shall be installed a minimum of 15 ft. from the structure, adjacent to a paved
drive and within 30 ft. of a fire hydrant assembly.
6. Prior to certification, the Dumpster Requirement Form must be completed and returned to the City Sanitation Department.
7. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the dumpster/compactor must be visually screened, and gates must be provided with a minimum 12-foot clear opening to the front
for access by Sanitation trucks.
6. Prior to certification, a copy of the SWFWMD permit application is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review.
8. Prior to certification, the final site plan must be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Florida.
9. A Pinellas County Public Health Unit Permit, Ingress/Egress and a 10 foot Utility Easement over the proposed water mains up to and including meters, backflow prevention devices and
hydrants are required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
10. Backflow prevention devices must be installed by the City with applicable fees being paid by the owner.
11. Handicap spaces must be adjusted to meet government standards.
12. Prior to certification, all protected trees shall be shown by size, species, and location.
13. Prior to certification, all required perimeter landscape buffers shall be dimensioned.
14. Prior to certification, the total paved vehicular use area and total interior landscape area calculations shall be expressed in square feet and as a percentage of the overall site
in the site plan data block.
15. Prior to certification, all required parking lot interior landscape areas shall be depicted by shading or cross-hatching.
16. Prior to certification, a landscape plan shall be submitted to Environmental Management.
17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a clearing and grubbing permit and a tree removal permit (or a no tree verification form) are required.
18. Prior to certification, a copy of the SWFWMD permit application and calculations shall be provided to Environmental Management.
19. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit shall be submitted to Environmental Management.
20. Prior to certification, the site plan must reflect the use of raised curbs or protective timbers where interior landscaped areas abut pavement.
Lois Cormier, neighborhood resident, indicated this is a sensitive area. She felt there was already too much subsidized housing in this area. She questioned why this property was
not acquired by the City for infill housing. Ms. Cormier expressed concern regarding drainage problems and noted there was a pending lawsuit against the City by the Asimeno Corporation.
She also expressed concern the final site plan for the project was not coming back to the Commission for approval.
Mayor Garvey noted the site plan is for receipt and referral and carries twenty-two
preliminary conditions imposed by the Development Review Committee.
In response to Commissioner Thomas' questions, Mr. Shuford indicated the project has the appropriate zoning for this project, it is a private development, is not being subsidized by
the City and is following the normal procedures for site plans.
Discussion ensued in regard to the final site plan coming back to the Commission.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to receive the preliminary site plan for Greenwood Condo Complex and authorize the Development Review Committee to review a final site plan subject to
the preliminary conditions previously stated, the Commission accept a four percent fee in lieu of land to meet the open space land dedication requirement with the final site plan coming
back to the City Commission for final approval. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued in regard to the pending lawsuit. Assistant City Attorney Lance said he was not aware of any but would investigate. He indicated the lawsuit may not have yet been
served.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
ITEM #43 - No item.
ITEM #44 - Res. #94-34 - Replacing Res. #94-3, accepting the Pinellas Public Library Cooperative's non-resident fee of $100 effective 10/1/94; First Reading Ord. #5661-94 - Amending
Sec. 18.04, relating to library cards, nonresident fee for use of city library and criteria for establishing residency (LIB)
Section 1 of Resolution #94-03 delineates four classes of non-resident borrowers. The Cooperative policies only provide for one class of non-resident membership.
The Cooperative policy reads: "Patrons not living within an area participating in the Pinellas Public Library Cooperative may purchase a one-year membership for $100.00 per household.
The same identification process as for a resident is necessary".
Resolution #94-34 amends the library fee for nonresidents, providing only one class of nonresident, a household card, and adopts the Pinellas Public Library Cooperative's non-resident
fee schedule of $100 per nonresident card.
Ordinance #5661-94 amends Section 18.04 of the Code of Ordinances, relating to library cards, to incorporate a provision to issue cards to eligible residents of the Pinellas Public
Library Cooperative. Residents of Clearwater who are eligible for cooperative cards are delineated under (4).
In the past, the term "resident" has included tourists and guests residing at properties within the corporate limits of Clearwater as well as City employees and their families. The
revised
Ordinance states in (6) that tourists, guests, and employees will be issued a local library card which can be used only in City of Clearwater libraries, rather than throughout Pinellas
County. The Pinellas Public Library Cooperative does not have a uniform policy regarding tourist/visitor cards; therefore libraries have established local policies ranging from free
to $20 for a 3-12 month visitor card which is only honored by the local library.
Commissioner Deegan moved to accept the Library non-resident fees. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Assistant City Attorney presented Resolution #94-34 and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-34 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5661-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5661-94 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 #45 - Follow-up report - Tropical Seascape Theme - direction requested (CP)
At the April 21, 1994 City Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to do further research into the Tropical Seascape design guidelines. Given Commission discussion at that
meeting, staff is under the impression that the Commission wants an expedited approach taken in this matter. Consequently, staff suggests the following actions:
( Establish and appoint a Tropical Seascape Design Review Committee to oversee the development of design guidelines and prepare for implementing these guidelines.
( Prepare Tropical Seascape design guidelines with the assistance of a professional architectural firm.
( Establish an incentive program for compliance with the Tropical Seascape design guidelines for FY 1994/95.
Pursuant to the first action listed above, staff has developed a draft amendment to the Land Development Code establishing a Tropical Seascape Design Review Committee. This ordinance
was modeled after the North Greenwood Design Review Committee regulations and establishes a seven member board to implement the Tropical Seascape design guidelines.
If the Commission agrees with this recommendation on the first action, staff will return with an agenda item to appoint the members of this committee simultaneously with the second
ordinance reading. This will ensure the committee has an opportunity to begin meeting as quickly as possible.
Concerning the second action indicated above, staff continues to recommend the preparation of the design guidelines by an architectural professional. Commission discussion in April
involved the possibility of staff preparation of the design guidelines using the work that had been done by the Tropical Seascape Theme Committee and the existing North Greenwood design
standards. Staff can proceed under this direction, but feels that the design guidelines should be prepared by a consulting architect for the following reasons:
1) The Tropical Seascape Theme is extremely specific in nature, limiting architectural options to one of three architectural styles - "Cracker", Victorian and Mediterranean. This specificity
allows a greater level of detail to be established in the design guidelines than is ordinarily the case for such guidelines. While the Tropical Seascape Committee did develop highly
specific proposed guidelines, the guidelines were prepared assuming "oversight" review and further modification by a consulting architect under direction from the design review committee.
2) Since staff is recommending that an incentive approach also be taken, the bid documents for the design professional should include the following required work products: cost estimates
for various facade, sign and roof improvements; and an indication of which existing commercial structures on the beach are the most critical in terms of achieving the desired Tropical
Seascape Theme so that incentive funds can be targeted most effectively. This would allow the development of an incentive program that provides the appropriate level of incentive to
achieve various types of improvements, and would provide some direction as to how to target the program to the structures that most contribute to the community character.
Staff feels that a design professional is more capable of providing the above costs and architectural determinations than existing City staff. We feel these determinations are highly
important if the incentive program is to be the most cost-effective. The estimated cost for the above work products ranges from $15,000 to $30,000. By using the Florida Center for
Community Design and Research out of USF, we may be able to reduce the costs below those indicated above. With the above products, staff feels this would be money well spent.
Finally, the creation of a special taxing district or a community redevelopment agency (CRA) in order to create a funding program that is "user-funded" will take some time. Legislative
action would be required to create a DDB-type district, and a CRA approach will require a redevelopment plan and County Commission approval. This will likely impede our ability to offer
an incentive program at the outset of Theme implementation. Staff will continue to pursue this for possible implementation in FY 95/96.
If the Commission directs staff to get the incentive program "off and running" as
expeditiously as possible, staff will pursue options for the establishment of an interim incentive program to ultimately be replaced by a more "self-sustaining" funding source in subsequent
fiscal years. Staff suggests that the amount of money to be set aside for this program should be decided after the consultant completes the design guidelines work products and after
the design review committee has had an opportunity to provide a recommendation regarding funding.
If these approaches are acceptable to the Commission, staff will proceed accordingly. We note, however, that an additional City employee will be needed to staff this new theme implementation
program, starting in the FY 1994/95 fiscal year. As mentioned previously, staff suggests selecting an employee at the level of the new Plans Reviewer position (SAMP Pay Grade 05 - $27,379
- $42,437). This would be an annual budgetary cost, but could possibly be paid for, fully or in part, from the "self-sustaining" incentive fund in subsequent budget years.
Mr. Shuford said there has been a lot of interest expressed by the beach residents for implementation of this theme. He noted in order to take on the project additional staffing will
be necessary. Mayor Garvey questioned whether volunteers could be used. Mr. Shuford felt professional architectural assistance would be needed to help with the development of the design
guidelines.
Mayor Garvey questioned whether the direction regarding the South Mandalay Redevelopment Area should be determined before an outside consultant is hired and incentives established.
Discussion ensued in regard to appointing a design review committee and letting them make a recommendation whether they need outside professional assistance.
Commissioner Deegan stated he did not support "jumping into" a special taxing district or forming a CRA at this time.
Mr. Shuford stated the proposed Plans Reviewer would be responsible for design guidelines for Downtown as well as Tropical Seascape. Commissioner Thomas said he did not want to combine
the two.
Mayor Garvey questioned whether there was any opportunity to get a grant from the Convention Visitors Bureau for incentives.
Commissioner Berfield moved to receive and refer the draft code amendment establishing a Tropical Seascape Design Review Committee. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #46 - Staff report re Special Zoning Study - Lakeview Road (CP)
Properties located on the south side of Lakeview Road between the CRX rail line and Ewing Avenue currently have a varied zoning pattern that does not correspond very well with existing
uses of the property. Staff has been contacted by two property owners in this area who are unable to expand their business operations because of the existing zoning restrictions. As
a
result of this property owner interest in a revised zoning pattern, staff is requesting authorization from the City Commission to proceed with a small scale zoning study.
This will be the second such special zoning study to be authorized by the Commission this year. Previously, the Commission has authorized the study of the north side of NE Coachman
Road between Drew Street and Belcher Road. The results of this first study will be presented to the Commission in August.
The subject study area along Lakeview Road has some fairly direct zoning problems. The existing nonresidential zoning fails to provide for either existing uses or likely future uses
of the property. However, the existing zoning pattern does protect surrounding low density residential uses from intensive nonresidential uses. Staff feels that the "solution" to this
problem is relatively simple. The new Infill Commercial zoning district, used initially in the No. Ft. Harrison Avenue area, can be used to provide the range of uses necessary for the
nonresidential area to thrive, but will also provide zoning protection to surrounding low density residential uses. We would, however, recommend one additional change to our code requirements
to better protect residential uses in this area. This change involves using zoning district lines to restrict property access in order to protect surrounding residential development.
This is described in greater detail below.
In most communities, zoning district boundaries are run along the centerline of roadways. However, in some communities, a different approach is utilized - residential zoning boundaries
are run along one side of the road right-of-way. This approach allows regulations to be developed that keep nonresidentially zoned property from being accessed across residential zoning
boundaries. For example, a commercial zone across the street from a residential area might have the commercial zoning boundary located on one side of the street right-of-way, with the
residential zoning boundary including the entire street right-of-way. With the regulation described above, no access to the commercial property could occur from the "residentially zoned"
street.
In communities where it is used, this regulation is qualified by allowing access to "residential" streets if no other "nonresidential" access is available. In Clearwater, it might
be appropriate to also allow access to occur through a conditional use permit process, unless no other access is reasonably available. This would allow for some flexibility in unusual
access arrangements.
If the City pursued such regulation, and staff recommends that we do, we will need to perform a survey to determine which streets would ultimately be zoned "residential streets" and
which would be zoned "nonresidential streets." This is a long range study that should be placed in the Central Permitting work program for FY 95/96. In the interim, however, this regulation
would help with both the small scale zoning studies currently being prepared.
For the Lakeview Road study area, if the residential zoning boundary was shifted to the north side of the Dempsey Street right-of-way, and no new nonresidential driveways were permitted
from Dempsey Street, there would be increased protection for the residential uses on the south side of Dempsey Street. A proposed schedule for study and ordinance preparation and consideration
is provided below.
As a city like Clearwater reaches full development, it is important to address the inevitable conflicts between land uses as available land is used up. This is why, even though many
of the "big" planning issues in Clearwater have been resolved, (e.g. where major thoroughfares are, where infrastructure is placed, generalized zoning patterns, etc.) there is still
a strong need for careful redevelopment and infill planning in order to minimize these types of land use conflicts.
Commissioner Thomas moved to receive the preliminary staff report concerning a special zoning study and to authorize staff to prepare a study and associated code amendments. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #47 - Res. #94-54 - Expressing the intent of the Commission to exercise its municipal powers to construct a municipal gas system into Pasco County and to finance that expansion
as well as further expansion within Pinellas County by an issue of Gas System Revenue Bonds not to exceed $26.75 million and to hold a public hearing (GAS)
Because of the delay which the Gas System has experienced in securing intergovernmental agreements in Pasco County, it is now proposed to split the $35 Million Gas System Revenue Bond
Issue which was passed on first reading at the City Commission meeting of April 7, 1994, as Ordinance 5564-94 (Issuance of Gas System Revenue Bonds) into two (2) separate bond issues.
Gas System Revenue Bond Issue 1994A in the amount of $8.25 Million is the downsized version of Ordinance 5564-94 and will be scheduled for second reading and advertised for public hearing
at the City Commission meeting of Thursday, August 4, 1994, together with a resolution to authorize the competitive sale of up to $8.25 Million of bonds as Gas System Revenue Bond Series
1994A. This issue will cover the first three (3) year capital expenditure budget (FY 1993-1996) for the Pinellas county portion of the Clearwater Gas System Strategic Plan for 1993-2000
which was originally approved by the City commission in the budget session on August 10, 1993, and later confirmed by Resolution 94-21 (Gas System Bond Reimbursement Declaration of Intent)
at the City Commission meeting of February 28, 1994.
Gas System Revenue Bond Issue 1994B in the amount of $26.75 Million will cover the remainder of the originally planned $35 Million Bond Issue. This will include the Pasco County gas
expansion as well as the remaining portion of the Pinellas county gas expansion. Issue 1994B will be scheduled for first reading and advertised for public hearing at the City Commission
meeting of Thursday, August 18, 1994. It will be scheduled for second reading and advertised for a second public hearing at the City Commission meeting of Thursday, September 1, 1994.
The resolution for competitive sale of Gas System Revenue Bond Series 1994B which will cover the first two (2) years of Pasco County gas expansion (FY 1994-1996) will be scheduled as
soon as the Pasco County portion of the Bond Issue can be validated, most likely in late Fall, 1994. The projected amount for Gas System Revenue Bond Series 1994B is $8.30 Million.
The remaining $18.45 Million of bonds under Issue 1994B will be requested in future Gas System Revenue Bond Series as required to accomplish the goals set forth in the Clearwater Gas
System Strategic Plan.
Adoption of Resolution #94-54 expresses the intent of the Commission to proceed with Gas System Revenue Bond Issue 1994B and provide for a public hearing as required by Florida
Statutes.
In response to Mayor Garvey's question, Chuck Warrington, Gas Manager, indicated he believed the City still can obtain the Pasco County agreement.
Discussion ensued in regard to People's Gas having decided they would like to move ahead in Pasco County and having filed a Public Service Commission territorial dispute. This will
cause the PSC to select between the City and Peoples Gas. In response to a question, Mr. Warrington indicated they would not go forward with any bond issue until they have all approvals.
Commissioner Thomas moved to express Clearwater's intent to proceed with the Pasco County natural gas expansion and to finance same with Gas System Revenue Bonds. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
The Assistant City Attorney presented Resolution #94-54 and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-54 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 #48 - Other Pending Matters - None.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
ITEM #49 - Other City Attorney Items
a) Res. #94-47 - Relating to emergency management; approving the form of a standard proclamation and nine standard resolutions which may be utilized to declare and to confirm a state
of emergency; rescinding Res. #88-32
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve setting up a series of forms that will automatically be used with certain modifications to save time and to be more efficient in cases of emergency.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Assistant City Attorney presented Resolution #94-47 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-47 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 #50 - City Manager Verbal Reports
a) Scheduling City Attorney Candidate Interviews
The City Manager reported the City Attorney Assessment Center results will be available August 3, 1994. Individual Commission interviews with candidates, if wanted, will be scheduled
for August 12, 1994. The Commission will determine the short list of candidates August 15, 1994.
The City Manager reported there will be a Jolley Trolley schedule change and asked the Commission direction regarding advertising the change early. There was no problem indicated regarding
early advertising.
ITEM #51 - Commission Discussion Items - None.
ITEM #52 - Other Commission Action
Mayor Garvey referred to a letter from Mr. Zinzow regarding the CERTF recommendation regarding lighted sign bases. Mr. Shuford indicated the sign issue is agendaed for August 18, 1994.
Commissioner Berfield asked consideration be given to adding a Commission policy regarding continuation of items. Consensus was to add language to Commission Rule 12 addressing one
time continuances by a Commissioner to a date certain.
Commissioner Thomas referred to architectural drawings of the design of the City of Naples' garage which he had distributed to the Commission. He requested discussion regarding whether
this is appropriate for the parking garage to be constructed with the Municipal Services Complex be agendaed for the next meeting. He questioned when the Charter Review Committee report
would be available. It was indicated it would be distributed tomorrow.
ITEM #53 - Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m.