The URL can be used to link to this page

ANNEXATION LARGO/BELLAIRE - 12/99 Annexation: Largo/Bellaire 12/99 '" 7~h-.5o Se.C~M' Pull fllV" f/J bQ ArAlJv CITY OF CLEARWATER ( January 11, 2001 ~ Mr. Allen Haislip 1755 S1. Anthony Drive Clearwater, FL 33759 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 RE: Annexation of Property Located at 1755 S1. Anthony Drive, OS/29/16/94410/003/0050 Dear Mr. Haislip: As you will recall this past summer you received information from us regarding your property being voluntarily annexed and becoming part of the City of Clearwater. At that time you indicated your approval to have your property annexed by the City and receive the benefits of City services. We are now preparing the applications for annexation of 22 enclave properties and have scheduled public hearings with the Clearwater City Commission to approve the voluntary annexations. The schedule of public hearings for these annexations is indicated below: Community Development Board Hearing City Commission Meeting - First Reading City Commission Meeting - Second Reading February 20, 2001 March 15,2001 April 5, 2001 There is no cost to you for the annexation process due to the fact that the City of Clearwater is initiating the annexation. Prior to each meeting you will receive an official public hearing notice from the City of Clearwater that will provide you the time and location of the public hearings. You are welcome to attend and participate in any of these public hearings. After the City of Clearwater Commission public hearings are complete, the annexations will be forwarded to the Pineiias Pianning Councii for review and a public hearing. You will be notified when this public hearing is scheduled. If you have any questions or need more information do not hesitate to call Etim Udoh, Senior Planner, at (727) 562-4578. Sincerely, 4lUtc'~~~ Cynthia Tarapani, AICP Assistant Planning Director cc: Ralph Stone, Planning Director Etim Udoh, Senior Planner David Gildersleeve, Wade-Trim O:\E Ow. O:\E FliTliRE. BRL'J\ J ACNGST, MAYOR-CmlMISSlor;ER J.B. JOHNSON, VICE ?VIAYOR-COM~llSSIor;ER ED HART, COMMISSI01\ER * BOB CL~RK, CmL\llSSIOi\ER ED HOOPER, COMMISSIONER "EQUAL EMPW)';\1E:\T A'\O AFFIRMATIVE ACTIO\' EMPLOYER" . . pflJ&t? UI,$? _ . .11 ~ ~,I}Frllf;$J~~~" ,\_\ ~rir,'"v#I.tI'/)).." f!t'~~ ,.' rdfo",&<"';:' ::,\\,. ",:,~",.1'" ~- i.~~," \ II /n'~ ;II ~ ~.';'." ,,~,,\~, ""f" ,- S="" , > . \i?t""e:~i; ~. .q;,~onrpCft.c.. ~....~ ...."'..>. ~r. ~t~J'~t' '!""" 1A1fi"\:1,.',t'. ;;; 11 1"-"-'1'7 . .~, ".$.'. CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 NGE pLANNING ~~ENr }W'IEW e'OJVISION ~OOD SERVICES Development Review Committee Meeting (DRC) are now processing 22 applications for annexation of enclave properties including property at 1755 St. Anthony Drive. A review of your application is scheduled for ary 26,2001 with the Development Review Committee (DRC). meeting will take place at 9:30 a.m. in the Planning Department conference room on second floor of the Municipal Service Building located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue learwater. You are welcome to attend and participate in this meeting. The meeting ~nda is enclosed. i~ou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (727) 562-4578. Planner DRC Meeting Agenda BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER J.B. JOHNSON, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER ED HART, COMMISSIONER * BOB CLARK, COMMISSIONER ED HOOPER, COMMISSIONER "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" February 11, 2000 (~ SU~CT: LARGO " '., . .,-~ .. - (II/ruff /tnl '( ~ I~{c) ~, 0:905 PI. O...........'......l......C1 ~"~Iv .{....-' :s ~~I;;I.... 52 City of Largo, Rorida Post Office Box 296, Largo, Florida 33779-0296 ANNEXATION O~S / / To Whom Tt,.}1ay Concern: _. ~/ Enclosed please find your copies of Ordinance No's. 2000-22, 2000- 26, 2000-27, 2000-28 and 2000-29 along with a copy of the map of the annexed area. If you should have any questions regarding the enclosed annexations do not hesitate to contact me at (727)587-6710. Sincerely, CITY OF LARGO ~J~ Donne Free City Clerk's Office 11'11 II =--\ . .Hi '1 I i I I -1': H -----: ' ~ ILL, II ] "... t- NVl IY I U I ----"I 1-----11 y . ----' ~ rnm ~' . I -:=.~.~i-- -~ I L~II~u,.-rlJrlIHRI i II __ V 4~'~1!' '.1. ~ ~TifACIHE GT ~. I ~ ! }- DlTTl Lm d \ r := ITIID ~ IH-\. (~4-y1A I V ' :=,) , I-- \ I.. I Wr.,y I---- I R I i I 1 I ~ L- I I I--....... I~ I '" NURSERY RD I i I i -- "- I-- ll-W~ ~ IA ~)e- bAKPDIJ CR17I--W r-~ ~ L-b: I ----" - --+ - ,'" ~ _ !~r/~/ ~~ ~) WV/ ~~~ L- ~ ~(J I ') ~ e-- ~ f?ELLEAIR R01 v / / // :: ,\;:.,/ " ,.~ ,- " ,. c:: ' " , .. ,..- ..' ' +- " ~,7~;: N I;:{<' >..,;." -~ Ii..-- ."',;, \ ' ';":.:,' l.'.": ,)0 Ii..-- :':'.': ~..: ,j ,y ~:;;::.t. \\\ i I , il'I~' I !' i ! i II\~~ u... I I I I I I ) [ I I I IlLU >--- >--- L- ~ i~~:' ~ 'v/ I III, I I" , . l.~ L- J:f L,.;; t? ffin - [l BA~BAijA 1 R /-. ti 11 . ... . ;';( '., ~( .... .. .......( .. - ,-.-." Case: A5 - 45 - 99 Subject: Jurg Weiss Annexation Location: 2140 Belleair Road 24-29t15{)000<Y4400600 and R-O-W 1 I I I I' i.~ 1- ~ f--__ I~ '~~~= ~ ~w --.; ~ -kJ: f---J]5 ~ . ./-~ r-~ ~ ~~~,I ; ::, I [3.CC. r- Will ~;' I I ~,=i- I I~/ 1,,"1--- ('\i t- , J~ '- \..-.J I r-~ J. r-.. a: I- en ~ ~ \_/ ~ ~~ a: E ~1) 1:2 ~ ~ ~ ) - / ""-/ I-- I-- .I............. W//~ Subject Property Largo City Limits I I I--- L ~ a: ~ t-- W "-- I- t-- ~ ~ ~J: o z ~ v ~ r:\ [) I r~ ~I--~ I I rill I -:.. V-U........,IL--, \1 -, f- I ~ f- ffiffiIBjl 2~ f-, f-- I- I l- I f-- N ~ Scale: 1" ~ 500' . . /1/11Jv ~t:tr/U5 /acefJ Utfv .----;7~ijijl JUj{ ~ /Z.~2>::~.. - ~~ /~~ ~1Z,?~-~\~{~ I/IJIRI~ 8q flan - /{!.;f:. /}J#Jjpv!: ~ ~Ji'!L - /~ 1tJr~ ~ 1ra1r?5J~ 84X' fr,j7p#?'7:J~d" fO /"k Ji!:h- 'd:~M.f A?~ ~tI~lWJ1- ~ tat;v 4ur~ h/ti /I /6 t:;7~ ~~ ~?~ -a/!?J'ft#jo~ /~/~ ~?h?/~ ~?L/ee /D >>J4?iL --~~/~ ~ .--- ---........ ~/ ~-~ 10. 11. RECREATION FACILITIES: LIBRARIES: e e Annexation into the City of Largo would present recreational opportunities at reduced cost to the residents of the property. As residents of the City of Largo, all persons can enjoy the programs offered through the Recreation and Parks Department at in-City rates. The Largo Library is a member of the Pinellas County Cooperative and, therefore, it is open and available to all persons living within Pinellas County regardless of the location of their residence. 12. OTHER COMMENTS: None. e e MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION REVIEW A5-45-99 PPC ANNEXATION NO.: CITY: GENERAL LOCATION: REVIEW COMMENTS: ACREAGE: 14.2453 acres, m.o.1. Largo Northwest corner of Belleair Road and Belcher Road. 1. CONTIGUITY: The property is contiguous along its south side to the existing City boundary, making the property legally eligible for annexation. 2. ENCLAVE: 3. WATER: 4. SEWER: The property is not part of an enclave; nor does the annexation of this property create an enclave. Formal concurrency approval for water service capacity will be required as part of the site plan review process for any future development of this property. The property is adjacent to the City of Largo Sewer District. As a part of the annexation agreement, the City has agreed to "construct a lateral sewer line on Belleair Road to the PROPERTY in order to provide sanitary service to the PROPERTY line." 5. SOLID WASTE: The property currently contracts with private" solid waste collectors. Upon annexation, private collection could continue until such time as the contract between the property owner and the private collector terminates. At that time, the City of Largo would initiate solid waste collection service. 6. TRANSPORTATION: The property is located on the northwest corner of Belleair Road and Belcher Road and formal concurrency approval for traffic impacts will be required as part of the site plan review process for any future development of this property. 7. POLICE: 8. FIRE: 9. E.M.S.: Upon annexation, the City of Largo Police Department will serve the property in place of the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office. The property is adjacent to the Largo Fire District. Upon annexation, City of Largo Fire Rescue would provide fire and rescue services. EMS service is provided to this property through the countywide EMS system. e o 1905 p/ ,... o '~ ~.~;p ~ "< ~1::::l1 Q -J .... . .... .,;" City of Largo, Rorida Post Office Box 296, Largo, Rorida 33779-0296 e . , Community Development Department Richard P. Goss, A.I.C.P., Director Administration (727) 587-6749 Licenses/Permits (727) 587-6712 Inspections (727) 587-6711 FAX (727) 587-6765 November 15, 1999 Mr. David P. Healey, AICP, Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Ste 850 Clearwater, FL 33755-4160 Re: Proposed annexation by the City of Largo Case no. A5-45-99: Jurg Weiss property Dear Mr. Healey: Please be advised that the City of Largo will be annexing the above referenced property pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes. For each property which is ten acres or more in area (excluding right-of-way), the PPC's Municipal Annexation Review form has also been completed and enclosed. Public meetings/hearings for this annexation are scheduled before the Largo City Commission on December 07, 1999, and January 04, 2000. The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, and all necessary municipal services are available to serve existing development. If an annexed property is identified as a nonconforming use with respect to either Pinellas County or City of Largo land use regulations, the annexation ordinance will ensure the property owner's right to maintain its existing legal, nonconforming use status. If you need any further information, please feel free to contact me at 587-6749. S-\.,i:{\er~le. {) '1\ \..'\. 1\ \\) ~rc '. I Richard P. Go 5, AICP Director RPG/JO/es enclosures /home/comdev/dev _services/annex/1999/ A5_ 45 _ 99/PPC _anxJtr e e t'M- U.".I.. < ;ilarwater c Interoffice Correspondence Sheet TO: MAYOR AUNGST AND COMMISSIONERS CITY OF CLEARWATER CITY COMMISSION FROM: RALPH STONE, PLANNING DIRECTOR RE: PROPOSED CITY OF LARGO ANNEXATION DA TE: NOVEMBER 29, 1999 I am wrItmg to provide you with background information regarding the City of Clearwater's annexation policies as they relate to the proposed City of Largo annexation on the north side of Belleair Road. The City of Largo proposes to annex approximately 14.2 acres located at the northwest comer of Belleair Road and Belcher Road. The City of Largo has scheduled public hearings on December 7, 1999 and January 4, 2000 to consider this matter. As you are aware, the City of Clearwater has an interlocal agreement with Pinellas County which was approved on January 14, 1992. The agreement established a formal Clearwater planning area according to a map and legal description and granted Clearwater the ability to plan for all property within the planning area, whether or not specifically in the city boundaries (Copy of Planning Area Map attached). In addition, the agreement allows a simplified process for voluntary annexation applications that are 10 acres or less in size. The simplified process eliminates the Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Agency review if the property is annexed into the City with no change to the plan category as on the Countywide Plan. The City of Clearwater has honored the interlocal agreement through planning for all property in its planning area and pursuing annexations of properties only when located within the planning area. The City of Largo's proposed annexation is clearly within the City of Clearwater's planning area as Belleair Road is the southern boundary of Clearwater's planning area. The proposed annexation can currently be served by the City of Clearwater water and sewer services. The Planning Department believes that this proposed annexation is inconsistent with the City's approved planning area and is in direct conflict with the planning area concept to promote long range, consistent, non-duplicative provision of services in this very urbanized county. The City Manager and I have met with David Healey, Executive Director of the Pinellas Planning Council and expressed our concerns about this proposed annexation. Mr. Healey also expressed grave e e concerns regarding the inconsistency of the proposed Largo annexation with Clearwater's planning area agreement and with sound planning principles. The Planning Department recommends that the City Commission approve a resolution opposing the proposed City of Largo annexation for the reasons cited above. Further, we recommend that the Commission authorize the City staff to express these concerns at the public hearings to be held by the City of Largo and in subsequent hearings with the Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority. I will be available at the work session to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Attachments: City of Clearwater Planning Area Map (from Interlocal Agreement) City of Largo Staff Report on the Belleair Road Annexation cc: Michael Roberto, City Manager John Asmar, Planning and Development Services Administrator Richard Baier, Public Works Administrator EXHIBIT B " e , , ',/ [.~ 'III , ---~~ 'PI I ~ W , ': '. ~ < J . I .~. 0 1! I" , II ~ . . ~ ~ II : z: ~ ~ \ I I ' . I., . H. I . ~. . . II, I . .. I' . . , : <: ...J , I · H' U Ii I ~ . . o IOl !:- ~~.. . ~ wo. ..,. . . ~ .., 't ~ ! · /,.j. ! ! . -- 0 _ _ _ __. ___ --;.0; :;....... ."''''=''':''":-.'.'''''''''''''-.....-" =.-. -= I - , . o 0 c: . . . -"" ~ ....,.... G: \ " AID.) i r ... ,...... r...~/.......... ,,..-'\V' /;~'1.... ~:!.Z -I- 1 '---- '-'./ L..~l" .-..., ,.;:'<.-:=),;.~- I t:C'r'\. ~ '0.- . - ,_v ~ r /'~. <..- V I ;'?;ft~...'''. ~ II C ----- ;--. ~_ _--: I ~ _ _ ~~h _ \ :~ o . . . I : . . -1 I I .___.. o 6 Q 0:3IJCJ14 ~ .-...--.---- ...-..- ...----. .- L t' .,", From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: fI1~)w4un1~ ~M-~JP IDr~ /O///1~1!~ h:ur 1~fJl}f.Itrvj/ f/1pYlo?h~~ I will make contact with Chuck Kearns regarding the issue of the fire district however, I'm not sure of any current provision in the agreement to specifically address this issue. Herald, Rowland Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:50 PM Akin, Pam; Carassas, John; Stone, Ralph Hardin, Cyndi; Horne, Bill FW: !!! largo annexation in the clearwater planning area Hardin, Cyndi The geographic boundaries of our fire district are defined in the Agreement, therefore I'm inclined to agree that any redefining of those boundaries would necessitate an amendment to the Agreement and include an approval by the County Commission. The compensation we currently receive is not directly related to the geographic footprint of the district. However, because the formula for compensation is tied to a comparison of property values between incorporated fire district and unincorporated fire district, any annexation by Largo (or Clearwater) will reduce the percentage of county funding the Fire department is eligible for. This assumption does not include any fluctuation in property values. Of additional concern for me, is that because we (as do all providers in the County) participate in an "automatic aid" and "closest unit dispatch" agreement, the responsibility for providing Fire and EMS services to the area in question would not automatically fall to Largo. The spirit of these agreements is to provide emergency services from a closer unit in a neighboring jurisdiction "as needed", when the primary first-responder was busy elsewhere. To compel Clearwater to provide regular service as a primary first-responder because we may be geographically closer, in the absence of funding, would seem to conflict with the intent of the agreement. However, because the language of the current agreement didn't anticipate or address these type issues, strict interpretation of the Agreement may require us provide the service. Pam, because John led the legal effort for the current agreement, I've directed this to your attention for interpretation of the language in that Agreement. By the way, I've never received copies of the executed agreement that took effect 10/1. Ralph, I'm not sure if any of this helps but I'll try and get a response from the County Fire Coordinator and make additional comments before 2pm tomorrow if appropriate. If you have any questions, my extension is 4326. Please let me know if you need additional information. -----Original Message----- From: Stone, Ralph Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 10:55 AM To: Akin, Pam; Baier, Richard; Herald, Rowland; Hardin, Cyndi Cc: Roberto, Michael; Asmar, John Subject: ! ! ! largo annexation in the clearwater planning area met just now w mike roberto, comm. hart and david healy, ex. dir. of the pinellas planning council reo the proposed annexation of 14 acres north of belleair and west of belcher by the city of largo; this parcel is in our water, sewer; planning and fire districts; mike has directed me to draft a letter from him to largo, ppc and the board of county comm. indicating our opposition to this annexation; he has asked that the letter cover 1 )any legal recourse we might have under the state annexation legislation 2)effect of the interlocal agreement for planning area 3)effect of our interlocal fire district agreement(note-dave healy thinks the county has to approve this type of encroachment into our fire district based on the recent agreement) 4)effect of our interlocal agreement reo the sewer district and 5) the water service area mike has requested that i provide him a draft by end of day tomorrw; could each of you assign to the most appropriate staff and have them email me specific language i can transport into the letter by 2pm tomorrow; if you have any questions reo the annexation being propose please call me or cyndi hardin thanks for your help; sorry for the short notice 1 . e Hardin, Cyndi From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Stone, Ralph Thursday, December 02,199910:55 AM Akin, Pam; Baier, Richard; Herald, Rowland; Hardin, Cyndi Roberto, Michael; Asmar, John ! ! ! largo annexation in the clearwater planning area met just now w mike roberto, comm. hart and david healy, ex. dir. of the pinellas planning council reo the proposed annexation of 14 acres north of belleair and west of belcher by the city of largo; this parcel is in our water, sewer; planning and fire districts; mike has directed me to draft a letter from him to largo, ppc and the board of county comm. indicating our opposition to this annexation; he has asked that the letter cover 1)any legal recourse we might have under the state annexation legislation 2)effect of the interlocal agreement for planning area 3)effect of our interlocal fire district agreement(note-dave healy thinks the county has to approve this type of encroachment into our fire district based on the recent agreement) 4)effect of our interlocal agreement reo the sewer district and 5) the water service area mike has requested that i provide him a draft by end of day tomorrw; could each of you assign to the most appropriate staff and have them email me specific language i can transport into the letter by 2pm tomorrow; if you have any questions reo the annexation being propose please call me or cyndi hardin thanks for your help; sorry for the short notice 1 ~~b · /, h/;1;;"7. 0fP/(;--{tuJ~ tluJt{;-Iol3#ht;/ -f-~It>~r ___ ~ tJPj~~~12L( _Cl~Io~_~?~ -~~tL an ~ ~ tJ)f frtk /h~ClUA liffJ; Ojal~/Il ~r II ~ ~kz)Zl1y /~ tJj fjt':~ ?/.~"7tr ?IJ if' ~ t:J~ ---Fto I?ftu ~ {by cJlu@-: ftflt~Z/" ~ ~mo~~~~ e e Stone, Ralph From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Thursday, December 02, 19994:36 PM Stone, Ralph Akin, Pam Annexation of Property within Clearwater Planning Area by City of Largo Importance: High The annexation of property which falls within the Clearwater Planning Area by another municipality may violate the intent of the Interlocal Agreement entered into between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County. In addition, such an annexation would need to be carefully scrutinized for consistency with the Countywide Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by Pinellas County Ordinance No. 89-4. Finally, Florida Statutes Chapter 171 contains certain threshold requirements for municipal annexations, including that the proposed area be reasonably compact and that the annexing municipality must prepare a report setting forth plans to provide urban services to the area, including each major municipal service. Ralph--the above is without seeing the annexation proposal, if you forward same to me I will examine it for any other points... 1 ""," ,"~~~LoF rl/;", \'~ \).......",,~;-- ,.,'J.::;. ",I ~,...~-:. ,~..\ II, ..-:" o. ~~.,' . -.. :C'"): _'c~. c:x:: ..~~ Q~ ..~.:~ ~\ ':.~-., ...~~,.. _ "'" l' .... 'If. "H'" ~~l ,....)1TE~" II. I"". - C . ITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLE\Rw.mR, FLORlDA 33758-4748 Ow HAll, 112 SOl.rn OSCEOL-\ :\\"E:"LE, CLL\RWATER, FLORlOA 33"756 TELEPHO:"E (727) 562.40'10 FAX (-:"2') 562-4052 Ow CO\l\USSIO:" December3, 1999 The Honorable Mayor Tom Feaster Gty of Largo Post Office Box 296 Largo, Florida 33779-0296 The Honorable Chairperson Sallie Parks Board of County Commissioners 315 Court Street, Room 501 dearwater, Florida 33756 The Honorable Councilmember Robert Kersteen Chairman, Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 dearwater, Florida 33755-4160 Dear Mayor Feaster, Chairperson Parks and Chairman Kersteen: I am writing in regard to the proposed annexation (2140 Belleair Road, Case A5-45-99) by the City of Largo north of Bellem- Road adj,lCent to the municipal boundaries of the City of Clearwater and within the City of Clrurwater's Planning Area, water, sewer and fire districts. The Gty of Clearwater opposes the proposed annexation and would like to share with you our concerns in preparation for the upcoming pubic hearings on this matter. The City of Clearwater believes that the proposed annexation by the Gty of Largo violates or is inconsistent with the lnterlocal Agreement between the Gty of Clearwater and Pinellas County; the lnterlocal Agreement among the Cities of Largo, Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg and Pinellas County ("the Tri-Cities Agreement"); Water and Sewer Service Area; the Fire Services Agreement with Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority; and with Florida Statutes regarding municipal annexation. The specific bases for our objections are described below. lnterlocal A~eement between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County On January 14, 1992, the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County entered into an agreement that established a formal Clearwater planning area according to a map and legal description. The lnterlocal agreement granted Clearwater the ability to plan for all property within the planning area, whether or nor specifically in the city boundaries. In addition, the Agreement grants the City of Clearwater the ability to annex properties within the designated planning area and simplified the annexation process provided no change in the Future Land Use Plan is proposed. O:"E On. O:"E Fl"TlRE. BRi-\." J. AC:->GST, !v1AYORcCml\!1SSIOI'ER ED HOOPER, VICE !v1AYORcCO.\IWSSIO:->ER ED H.\RT. Cml.\!1SSIO:->ER * BOB CL\RK, CO\\\IISSIO:->ER JB. JOH:->SO:->. Cml\IISSIO:->ER "EQl...IJ. E\\Pl.m~.\E:"T ."'-'\0 AFFIR-\L-\T1\"E ACTIO:" E'~?LO,TR" - e The southern edge of dearwater's Planning Area is generally Belleair Road; however, there are several parcels south of Belleair Road which, according to City records, had previously been annexed and were included in the Planning Area. These parcels south of Belleair Road were annexed by dearwater beginning in 1950 with the last annexation south of Belleair Road approved in 1989. There has been some speculation that the City of dearwater annexed properties south of Belleair Road after the 1992 agreement. Both the City derk's office and the Planning Department research this and found that no annexation to dearwater south of Belleair occurred after the interlocal agreement. The property proposed for annexation by the City of Largo is north of Belleair Road and clearly within the Clearwater Planning Area as defined by the 1992 Agreement. If the proposed annexation were approved, it would represent an intruSion into Clearwater's Planning Area and a potential violation of the Interlocal Agreement. Interlocal A eement amon the Cities of Lar 0 Pinellas Park St. Petersb A~eement") and Pinellas CO\ll1 "the Tri-Cities On November 13, 1990, the Cities of Largo, Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg and Pinellas Comty entered into an agreement which established the T ri-City Extraterritorial Planning Area. Similar to the City of Clerrwater's Interlocal Agreement with the ColUlty, the Tri-Cities Agreement also granted the three cities the ability to include the planning area in the individual city's plans and to annex property within the planning area in a simplified process provided no change in the Future Land Use Plan is proposed. The important feature of this agreement is that the Extraterritorial Planning Area establishes Belleair Road as the northern bolUldaty reflecting dearwater's Planning Area beginning north of Belleair Road. The proposed annexation, if approved, would represent an intrusion into dearwater's Planning Area and a potential violation of the Tri-Cities Agreement. Fire Services A~eement with Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority On October 1, 1999, the City of dearwater entered into a ten-year agreement with the Pinellas CO\ll1ty Fire Protection Authority which establishes a specific geographic area within which dearwater will provide fire protection service, whether or not the property is within the City bonndaries. The Fire Service Agreement is necessary since Pinellas Connty does not have a fire department and therefore, cannot serve unincorporated properties. In general, the municipality located closest to the unincorporated properties has an agreement with the Fire Service Authority to provide the service. The general bonndaries of dearwater's exclusive fire service area are Curlew Road on the north to Belleair Road on the south and from Clearwater Bay to Old Tampa Bay. In addition to the fire service agreement, Clearwater and many other fire departments have an automatic aid agreement which provides response when the primary fire department is not able to respond or when additional service is needed for an event. The location of the proposed annexation will most likely trigger the need for the City of Clearwater to respond for an event. FlUlding for the fire service is based on a formula comparing property values of unincorporated areas served by the City as a relationship to incorporated property values. Therefore, if this property is annexed by the City of Largo, the City of Clearwater may be required to respond but will not realize the additional funding necessary to pay for the fire protection services. Although there are mechanisms in place to avoid any disruption in fire protection, the proposed annexation is in conflict ""1th the public purpose of the Fire Protection Authority to provide comprehensive fire protection in Pinellas County. In addition, the funding formula would reward the City of Largo by annexing the property while other agreements would compel the City of Clearwater to respond in an emergency without fair funding rettuned to dearwater. . . . e Water and Sewer Service Area In addition to the above-cited issues, the proposed annexation property is in both the City of Clearwater's sewer and water districts. The City of dearwater developed long-range utility plans based on the botuldaries of the sewer and water districts and has entered into fmancing arrangements and expended funds to provide utility service to the sewer and water service districts. The City also believes that the proposal is inconsistent with the Sewer Service Area agreement between the City of Clearwater and the City of Largo which also defmes Belleair Road as the service area botuldaty. dearly, the combination of these points leads to the conclusion that a great deal of effort regarding a wide range of services has been expended to develop sensible well- planned municipal botuldaries. In the absence of these kinds of botuldaries and agreements, local governments and its citizens are hanned through inefficient expenditures for services and/ or litigation that should be avoided. The City of Clearwater believes that the proposed annexation is inconsistent with State law and will review legal options that preclude the proposed annexation. In summary, the City of Clearwater opposes this proposed annexation by the City of Largo and requests the City to carefully consider these objections. Sincerely, 13~ j . Jh... .;5r- Brian J. Atulgst Mayor cc: City of Clearwater Commission Members Michael Roberto, City Manager Pamela Akin, City Anomey - . . Hardin, Cyndi From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Herald, Rowland Friday, December 03,19995:27 PM Wilson, Denise A. Hardin, Cyndi; Stone, Ralph FW: Draft letter Denise, on the first line I've removed the language referring to "a second" agreement because there have been more in the past. Otherwise, the remainder of that section is accurate. -----Original Message----- From: Hardin, Cyndi Sent: Friday, December 03,19994:15 PM To: Herald, Rowland Subject: Draft letter Rowland, I have forwarded the entire letter but would like your comments on the fire service part only. Thanks. ~ Roberto Itr re Largo am.doc . e Hardin, Cyndi From: Sent: To: Subject: Clayton, Gina Friday, December 03, 1999 11: 16 AM Hardin, Cyndi; Stone, Ralph Annexation Ordinances Mark Ely asked me to pass on the following information to you regarding the Belmont Trail and Walgreen an nexations/rezonings. 1. Ord. #4251, approved on 12-18-86 - annexed the Belmont Trailer Park and vacant area west of Walgreen's. Ord. #4236, passed on 12-18-86 rezoned this property. 2. Ord. #4764, approved 4-20-89 - annexed Walgreen property. Ord. #4766 rezoned property on 4-6-89. Note difference in date. On one of Mark maps, the zoning of South Rich Dr. appears "As of 1-14-85" - . . Clearly, the combination of these points leads to the conclusion that a great deal of effort regarding a wide rage of services has been expended to develop sensible well- planned municipal boundaries. In the absence of these kinds of boundaries and agreements, local governments and its citizens are harmed through inefficient expenditures for services and/or litigation that should be avoided. The City of Clearwater believes that the proposed annexation is inconsistent with State law and will review legal options that preclude the proposed annexation. In summary, the City of Clearwater opposes this proposed annexation by the City of Largo and requests the City to carefully consider these objections. Sincerely, Brian 1. Aungst Mayor cc: City of Clearwater Commission Members Michael Roberto, City Manager Pamela Akin, City Attorney . . . Interlocal Agreement between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County On January 14, 1992, the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County entered into an agreement that established a formal Clearwater planning area according to a map and legal description. The Interlocal agreement granted Clearwater the ability to plan for all property within the planning area, whether or nor specifically in the city boundaries. In addition, the Agreement grants the City of Clearwater the ability to annex properties within the designated planning area and simplified the annexation process provided no change in the Future Land Use Plan is proposed. The southern edge of Clearwater's Planning Area is generally Belleair Road; however, there are several parcels south of Belleair Road which, according to City records, had previously been annexed and were included in the Planning Area. These parcels south of Belleair Road were annexed by Clearwater beginning in 1950 with the last annexation south of Belleair Road approved in 1989. The property proposed for annexation by the City of Largo is north of Belleair Road and clearly within the Clearwater Planning Area as defined by the 1992 Agreement. If the proposed annexation were approved, it would represent an intrusion into Clearwater's Planning Area and a potential violation of the Interlocal Agreement. Interlocal Agreement among the Cities of Largo. Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg and Pinellas County ("the Tri-Cities Agreement") On November 13, 1990, the Cities of Largo, Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg and Pinellas County entered into an agreement which established the Tri-City Extraterritorial Planning Area. Similar to the City of Clearwater's Interlocal Agreement with the County, the Tri-Cities Agreement also granted the three cities the ability to include the planning area in the individual city's plans and to annex property within the planning area in a simplified process provided no change in the Future Land Use Plan is proposed. The important feature of this agreement is that the Extraterritorial Planning Area establishes Belleair Road as the northern boundary reflecting Clearwater's Planning Area beginning north of Belleair Road. The proposed annexation, if approved, would represent an intrusion into Clearwater's Planning Area and a potential violation of the Tri-Cities Agreement. - . . Fire Services Agreement with Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority On October 1, 1999, the City of Clearwater entered into a second ten-year agreement with the Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority which establishes a specific geographic area within which Clearwater will provide fire protection service, whether or not the property is within the City boundaries. The Fire Service Agreement is necessary since Pinellas County does not have a fire department and therefore, cannot serve unincorporated properties. In general, the municipality located closest to the unincorporated properties has an agreement with the Fire Service Authority to provide the service. The general boundaries of Clearwater's exclusive fire service area are Curlew Road on the north to Belleair Road on the south and from Clearwater Bay to Old Tampa Bay. In addition to the fire service agreement, Clearwater and many other fire departments have an automatic aid agreement which provides response when the primary fire department is not able to respond or when additional service is needed for an event. The location of the proposed annexation will most likely trigger the need for the City of Clearwater to respond for an event. Funding for the fire service is based on a formula comparing property values of unincorporated areas served by the City as a relationship to incorporated property values. Therefore, if this property is annexed by the City of Largo, the City of Clearwater may be required to respond but will not realize the additional funding necessary to pay for the fire protection services. Although there are mechanisms in place to avoid any disruption in fire protection, the proposed annexation is in conflict with the public purpose of the Fire Protection Authority to provide comprehensive fire protection in Pinellas County. In addition, the funding formula would reward the City of Largo by annexing the property while other agreements would compel the City of Clearwater to respond in an emergency without fair funding returned to Clearwater. Water and Sewer Service Area In addition to the above-cited issues, the proposed annexation property is in both the City of Clearwater's sewer and water districts. The City of Clearwater developed long-range utility plans based on the boundaries of the sewer and water districts and has entered into financing arrangements and expended funds to provide utility service to the sewer and water service districts. The City also believes that the proposal is inconsistent with the Sewer Service Area agreement between the City of Clearwater and the City of Largo which also defines Belleair Road as the service area boundary. . . December 3, 1999 The Honorable Mayor Tom Feaster City of Largo Post Office Box 296 Largo, Florida 33779-0296 The Honorable Chairperson Sallie Parks Board of County Commissioners 315 Court Street, Room 501 Clearwater, Florida 33756 The Honorable Councilmember Robert Kersteen Chairman, Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 Clearwater, Florida 33755-4160 Dear Mayor Feaster, Chairperson Parks and Chairman Kersteen: I am writing in regard to the proposed annexation (2140 Belleair Road, Case A5-45-99) by the City of Largo north of Belleair Road adjacent to the municipal boundaries of the City of Clearwater and within the City of Clearwater's Planning Area, water, sewer and fire districts. The City of Clearwater opposes the proposed annexation and would like to share with you our concerns in preparation for the upcoming pubic hearings on this matter. The City of Clearwater believes that the proposed annexation by the City of Largo violates or is inconsistent with the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County; the Interlocal Agreement among the Cities of Largo, Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg and Pinellas County ("the Tri-Cities Agreement"); Water and Sewer Service Area; the Fire Services Agreement with Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority; and with Florida Statutes regarding municipal annexation. The specific bases for our objections are described below. - . . &~/~~v r4tw- 11~~~fh1/7q-~~/?)'~ 0ilrfe tmll~~1f I/l;r~ ~ tlu4rJ1;>>tfVI1~3 -~&~OJm&;- i . ~ c,,, I ----.....;: i I I --1\ _~II 1-"" I-NV( lY I rir- ---L! - ~ [JJ]]j =1 =-~-~~L. "IL-L.!.lU!1loR' II ~ ~~- ~l\r~C~B ~T CJ)\ \ I !!jpHI ~I NIf> [j)F1l - ITTTTl ~r~ \ I I = L.IJJJJ ~ I~\. <C)~1A I ~)i\ rlF ,/ =,1 1____\ l.l....,;.....J.. W:~y ---- --- ~ I \\ NURSERY RO ~.ili~m:~~f2~ I IIIIII i ~~ s \) "1 :3;- =~I ~. / I \~_~J- .~~ ,\'i-- (\ _ 1- l) ~ I Ill'....' -III L I I y~i~f -pR I ITT Il I - - --- -=< l !/' ~ l~ I. C6.Wt\.~ ~, . I P=\I'-- 6 It (L..-...... . .'. Lv o.~. , I I ' . [ '"'" a: l- CJ) ~ \\ ~ 1-~' :r (~ ~ \;') ~ r- - l/ l~ C<>~O:f- I~ I / \~ -~ 7 ~ -~ i ~~~~ /W Iii _ f- J -43 ~ (-/I~I (..~\ ) 'JAKP Oil [R (/1 I _ ===ii ~ +....~ I ---j; _~ ---( ~ \ UJtI\ ~r I ,;/ -' ~ f.-- '-. I /-1 {7 ---: - l ~ c.~ :: ~~ ! ~ w' r ~-~ ~ ROt .~ / A/ 7 _,__ . .it 1/'. ~_€:.... u ..- ,. ~r~'~ r---- l7 -<-~/; :) I . .:= . C LU - - -'I ( ;~ l) I~~~ ~;: rtJ I ""- ~~ ~ BELLEAIR ,. ~. <: ,. ,. '. ...:~u I., '. -}~ I, ;:~. ': I.'.' ;:,:} ." ,. .;:.:' I_ .J ~ , . ' ' ;.., . . I I f---I ! <~ ~I BARBA~I qR i I i II I I . ~_:'.. '..'- .. >',J':;. \ .'; .:':;... . -..:...; . ...:', ~ .,.:. ..:.;:......,.~ -' ..~ r:-~ :~~ . '. - :J ':I: , ~ ~ (j I . . . .. . Case: Subject: Location: AS - 45 - 99 Jurg Weiss Annexation 2140 Belleair Road 24t2W15'0000Q/44G0600 and R-O-W Cw Al'f/( V///b1 Subject Property Largo City Limits I I \ 7 ~ -i~1.I- ~ --: f) g~ ( (, '-- L-- f------ f--- I-- L f---J a: ~ w I-- ~ I- )-1-- ~ fr ~;:- z ~ v I-- L- ~ f-- f-- f-- f-- t--- !--- t--- !--- I I i Z/ )- Jl, L--~ \ie-' I--- J I r \\"-.:.. J ~ ~ nT1lll1TJ f- '~ f- DIIlIIIIJ:= N ~ Scale: '" = 500' ....J . . Quillen, Michael From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hardin, Cyndi Monday, December 06, 1999 4:46 PM Quillen, Michael Stone, Ralph Proposed Largo Annexation As you probably know, we are in a war (at least minor skirmish) with the City of Largo re their proposed anenxation at the northwest corner of Belleair Road and Belcher. I will bring you a map of the proposed site. I need to know exactly where the closest City of Clearwater sewer and water lines are that could serve this property. Also, Largo is claiming that the developer came to the City of Clearwater and was told that we could not serve them with either sewer or water. Anyone in your shop remember any conversations about this? Any and all help greatly appreciated. The first public hearing is tomorrow (sorry for the short notice) Tuesday, at 7 pm. Thanks Mike. C ---- SC t..L\ ~J : (' . . '- - r --\- J ~ e \.\~o. l r- ~ \$eJ c.\, e r I t'-.. ~'l:',...~ \ c~ \- . . ~ Ct..) C \~ fy,tf. l'~\~ D., . _ ~ .... c +- 5,- \; ~t.+- Drof~( \---j) f..' . !\. '::\ "L" f+-.- 't- \ 0 '" ". '\1.,-- . \ 1\ - c::~-o.r-(\.-f.."~ f'. t' \~'--1 \.~ .. h COI'-"e.. t\'lOV' ...u 0 .)lo.l \':... c k.o.ll ~ w \'-L't{- 'J (~a.. \J I ..J . - . .... 3 \,.~.tI.> .' h \' \\::- . 5\t'~ t c,l'. ( ~.'-'t>J~~ L ~ r- ~ \)C'- \.._. iT 300 _ J" \ \j' ......-k.. f\ C \ \J x.. "-..;- i... \ l ' '-s-r-~' , --!> \ ~ tJ ~.o (' ("-0. v.' I J ' b \ C.~ -k. , ~.....~.-r- \-.-d CL C:.; '- lAC) ~ \\,-~0 ~ .'". ,~l ~ ~ -:~' , ,( j ~ . ) '~r- t- ~y: \);' ~ r ':J l' d' ~'\ i__. t (-o,.. ,,,{) (" E' c~<".\ (' \ \') . ~ .,~ LL ;). . ~ ~ ~c. v~ "'--ct ~ ;-" ?e \c\.-.~~ t .s. _ \... \ 'I Gl}",t- \k. ~J 4>- '\ r. ~ IJ C:. \..~. . (~,-'\..l:,,\ P()b ~ ~ U C '- j 5 ( c~ ~ ~r I \ t. 1-- ,~'fJ~ ~ r \j .. \) ~ <jro.", ,t--'j L ('"n \....,.(,0 i- re Ci J"'-.~ -.. ( .~ c~, ~j'--'.J I\;\-t c '> ct<",-,- ".-\- S"r\l".C (",,- · j 4-. d 8e.lc ~~r LC) tl \ ~J .~4-.. _ . 1- <;. .'d. ~ '-~ \:) 0 ---- . ~l-..u I. fo..\ ~(" UJ-e.::. t- Q- ~lc~~: :[I 4' \ '0 (( C ( '.J I..A- S\'J.~ Co ,- ~J -' I n \b" "* J '\ "'N-, tyQ\,~r e.(....~ 1- \ rh ~.tte 6-..,-..r ~ Vj~J ~\ f, C 'J -l 'th StG\~ {)\ p I"" L) \ l.d' (~tJJc.l<.::![ nL.r 0 t-- 8 ...J.th:~r \a . 4-. eJi.si- 5~e ,..... Ul. ,_ ') 0'\ C.-\-......lU nY\.! J U '#-' ^ ~ D ~tJ"'-l-3 <;'~e. ~, i.)Q. .'--_~lV ~_\ (). C; I , C "'~ ;\-j LL',,1"F So ~\1., , i. h ~ ~ ~f IY-- I U J Q..,) 1;-" . \ --\-..- ( ~ c..: ~ hI' '-f 1 e v"'--\.) \...\. (.l--\ l:: --f--,,\ tL) \. b i-- L \.) ,-J. ~e\ ~'<<<J '-l .~ ~ If- - ~ E: lb'-'''''- eo . .. .~ - -{...~ f'..-t. (.,~ e....... ~ ~C-€.. ~ c.~(\.. \cl ~"''..iE... C'., ~~ \J.JQ... '-~; (::. '-' LDC.~~~^' L\.)\~ ~---~~ ,~.+-- J G- t.A-- eC'c'\"\~ 1 +-- f'>. c)s.~ l b l (( J SQ. .....u ~F f'-....tJ' , 0ft-\Oh'5. AJ ~~r I ---- \ I - :~------~--.: c~lt_\~~ ~: f--. i f---;-7~+:.L I f--i (5 - W ~ ,-- f--1 I : I I ~ 5~ I f-- _n ,-[ffi I-r--- , I , , , I,~ Ii:) '--- ~ I-~ r-----1-- , " <{ ~ ~ ~-- I i I I I I I : I """3 ~-=- ~-l \) 1 ~. . I I =~ I Ii ;;: ~JZ;-.> L- _I en '--"<:" 1 ~ I ",,'/ li '\ 7 ' A:i ~bt '\ 1- ..... E- (\ \-- .~ ~) ~ l) - '- ~~ ~ - - L....- _ [ ~-_.,_._~._._._---~ .- 1 J i I : 11_'j ---~ , }, ~J. ~,J.-+...; ~::::I "l-NV( lY i l ~I ~ :~ = [[[[Ij =-+ 1-:=~~.3~W V ~=.' ~*ACHE ch en':- - fffiE' ~r1 \ - ~ ~\ _ W 'f--\- , /1 I.t L I l.. rvv. "y . l.[U.1. JI.J.! 1 IH~' I I' BA C~l,v N~ (i)f <CATA I .u -, -'! -\ : -. , c \, NURSERY RD I I I ~ LW ...:,. ~\ Il-L~ I- ~,,('i'f:J .~'ILt\-r::" :-- _ ~ -_.._-~ ~- - en - w~ i c- L-- I P: - '-~ I () f~'\\H"te 5 &~e-p ~ \ J ~.~~lG 11 '\0 (,'1:/ S j r~1 V .,-ti,~ 2~;i l I I I I I I I i I (It C-f'-. 'N~ e.. ~ ...... I , , I, ;:=r=: =t f-- ....J I-- -:;: f-- r-- f-- r-- r-- r-- f----- ~ ~ - i ~t=:j~ _ J r=~d= i/ jl rr IV '--- LJ f:I~I: '-- / ~ = I Jl~ . ] fJ;--\'v" 1'", '-t~ ~ k ~-r- -K f-- :JAKADIJ C R I ~' r - u~ I~~~~ - W ~~ ~ ,--~ BELLEAIR ROtL 777// .. .. ," I ,..., :". ,. .... ... ~ .. ::......~. .. .....\ ~f-----...,. l7 . _ . . t--:-. .'~ ' . .. fl I...~ 'c...r ""'\ :~ j: ...): ;: ~.-:~. ': '..:- ..' ~ -., .. .\ , >.'~ ~ ; ,,~.:-. :. . . .ss ~i:.:;, ~\ ;". ... ~ :....~~..~ -';:/~Y -:-... ./1. \\\ . .~ , ~I i c. I BARBARA I qR i "~ I I III I I i I / ~ "/ f{ \ \(,.-, '- f- I \\~ '- == rmrrrrT):= .J, - DJJIIJJJJ f- - :J =-1 .- Ci _. . Case: Subject: Location: AS - 45 - 99 Jurg Weiss Annexation 2140 Belleair Road 24-2S15-0000CY4400600 and R-{)-W r7//b1 ,~~. {i/ r ;( Subject Property N ~ Largo City Limits Scale: 1. - 500' . . 1. Reaffirm to the City of Largo that the City of Clearwater interlocal agreement with Pinellas County establishes the southern boundary of the City of Clearwater at Belleair Road and request the City of Largo to recognize this boundary by not annexing the subject property. 2. Request that Pinellas County take action to enforce the Tri-cities interlocal planning area agreement that establishes the City of Largo northern boundary at Belleair Road. 3. Initiate legal action based on all available grounds to preclude the annexation ofthe subject property into the City of Largo. . . ;/J)M)111 =ir!hm~ /O/~.~-~&P~~~~,~ ~c~ -t?I1tJt1f':!~~,50-14~ 4!r.a'5f; -~~~J7u,// I~~ + ftt~~ . flUP. Jz.9Pfit ~ ~.P'4~ /?t#iajtJ ~~ hiLlh /!h72r~~ ()Ju) ?fI;/~~~~Cf? - ~~VPA A/cB -/~ ~ -r#J~ ~~./tar~tYJle ~ ~//W- ~~/,A?/~v~~$uJ -I17htJ ~ ~~~OJ.~Y. t#M~~:be ~'/ilt'P ~~b lJ~kMl'~~ ~tIh~a~d~-/~~--~ ~~ MrJjj; J;tlbJ~~~~ . rJ/W " ~ -' -"~ '(II ~~~~tlo~~ ~-~~~~~~? ~-/~~ /7f~~~47?x:~ @Imtt>>t 4j#~- ~py;~~ thM.t tJiu ,,-1:{uJ:Kltd ~~ ~q ~ ~/y~~~.ij// ~~;lr ?!:~ UWw . fJlt7rL~ ~/#/ I 0J4 ,;' AIW ~ l~oo1J ~ 3J~ ~ ~u~A-. . . /t~l--Z %1);~ - ~d)~~-~~ ~ ~ML blJ4Jt7h~~l>l:? I/JIINI- jf~ ramm-dl&ltJ;zrtt#ttl7J?~ /()@ ~ ~l'-1I~ ~ ~ />>jpYdi9 /Jitt;~~h ~~~W1N4.0rtlj ~U; &/ 0J;tJ~ h4ae;,/;~~~ ;he -fJ'o vap~ JtJO)W~ ~~r qp~ iap~U?Y;IV ~~.#7j4Y: /~ //:I;IiI!?:: ~/ ~,,~~~ ~~!tuj:J (;u;5 ~j;dl?U& ~/~nfJ~) /)J~~./~~ ~/Yai?~ I1Jte ~ JJJJtJl,/?.f'Z- 1tJatz:;j~~Uo ~tJtd>1?'r'&m~ ~-~~~~7f/p)?kP~~ ~aa~tf)J ~ /UI/~-~ dial t1/-d/?~ ~~)-.9 ~ -1O&~-~U4//~ ~ -dUYCM ~JfrM~-gv~~Ah~ l~tJItfJ/ ~~~~:. ~~ . . /t~ 1--~ ~ aflU:?~~~ -tfr~~...tf? /tItY &/j naPjo ~/t;I;u ~~ ~-tidtc/U/.~~ l7}~ ~d'?? /"?t!Iw ~~ ? --~~~ . - ~11~tutr~tU'/At?~~~ ~ 12/eJ- ~/ ~~&:?J7JU-WZ( ~ IUJ 1ft~ ~ duto UuJVf- O!w A;)t:/u/}o ~~3>~ ~ /ItM~ /?~t:#;CI~.. ~. ~-I7f~ ~~m~~r ~~~r ~tJ--aa~#~~~"5 //f//;W//- ~/h/:~~~~;I/ j;~1ftp/ /r,tldJJQt?o&" IWI'~~ AJ ~U . - ~/Ufk ~ M?f!J/~1 )/lIt)t$~ 1l/W~~?){SUe &JuJauy- tPn( ~~ /~wYltJ /JJ;:r~ up u/~ ~i&~ )JJtJ///)AJ~ ~~~ /-/0 ~ //}ZfP . . It q.qr te~ A resolution of the City of Clearwater City Commission directing the Administration and Legal Department to oppose the annexation of property north of Belle air Road and west of Belcher Road into the City of Largo and providing an effective date Whereas, the City of Clearwater has become aware of a proposed annexation of property by the City of Largo that is north of Belleair Road and west of Belcher Road; and Whereas, this property is in the City of Clearwater Planning Area as identified in the adopted interlocal planning area agreement between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County; and Whereas, this property is outside of the City of Largo Planning Area as identified in the adopted "Tri-cities" interlocal planning area agreement between the City of Largo, the City of Pine lIas Park, the City of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County, which defines the northern boundary of the City of Largo as Belleair Road; and Whereas, this property is in the City of Clearwater Sewer Service Area as defined in the interlocal agreement between the City of Clearwater and the City of Largo; and Whereas, this property is in the City of Clearwater Fire District as defined in the Fire Services agreement between the City of Clearwater and the Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority; and Whereas, this property is in the City of Clearwater Water Service Area; and Whereas the City of Clearwater has the ability and capacity to provide the above defined services to this property; and Whereas, the Pinellas County Planning Council staff has issued an annexation report which finds that the City of Largo does not have the ability to serve the subject property; and Whereas, the Pinellas County Planning Council-Planners Advisory Committee has found that the City of Largo does not have the ability to serve the subject property; and Whereas, the City of Clearwater reaffirms the southern boundary of the city as Belleair Road as indicated in the adopted interlocal agreement with Pinellas County; and Whereas, the State of Florida annexation statute and the Tri-cities interlocal agreement provide enforcement mechanisms to preclude the proposed City of Largo annexation. Now Therefore Be It Resolved that the City of Clearwater City Commission directs the City Administration and Legal Department to take the following actions: . . jt.//ii 94 ff(!.. jI~ :z: ~(!ht1p~ (f;/~ri7J.e~ ~ ~ tnnt-. /t) 'J7nC: ~ ~ ku10 , at( ~lt;m ~ tUL 1N?~--tJ/uJa( htjfVt! fl~ h~or?M:u Zhp;~ '?/;at:... ~~ /ltJUI.e;o~1rtt/1M ~~) tv/II~ ~ 1Jt4;pd-,t dJ a!~~ ~1o~Phj d-~ Uuf;~~~~~ . ~ I-plNd -riD~ ~~ flttt;t /D ~ /h/:3/J1)~ t/h1I~ /) ~ kla/t)~ /~ ~ I-h/"~~we~ ~ ptJ);rMufUf-- ~~~/JCUJ /h'{;iJlfi} - 7jtl~ 11l1~7ifb1Z /~ ~//VA/4::/-~/7;;;.~ &.J/~ rw~ ~/'l;?rt1Y t!!l~W 4h7j? )J1)1JY tbif0>J!Jf$ jJVtI~-~ftl /l) ~ ~.;5 ~~/ ~ t- IkptJU/J1h' ~'4' ?Y~~7-~ 5- ~ddntf?hr~' ~ -&aJ ~/?a6- I- ~ ~p;;~ /h41,L ~aozu- - &U/~ 7 - ~h~ . . -0"'- ~ ~vtIM1~ t:ifi:t aft2b/6 - ~ ~~aa:. I11tJh?JJ1-tlJaIL ~ 5~. I-I ~ ~ no . . It.l? --2. ~.- jJP~ ~ h/AA>~~~~ IU:fl- ~;;7 )h;wJ pN:f%ttJh ~ - :/h///lH) /I-~ ~tJ/u;~~,IJn, ~ ~tJ/w~~k'//;j/R ~ ~ 8? flaz t4lJ~~t?/JJ/ ~ c8" ? . . /t,~~11 . tJl!~~ ~~~ M~~ ~/h -pz/iJyCa6-t(/J1 po~)t1J ~~ tt UUp tV/(/p ~lk?hJ~dJ djtJ;/J'fI/h ~t:;- f?tm?- Wh~~ #4 tl/Ulyi>~ pM~ . . City of Clearwater Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Cyndi Hardin, Assistant Planning Director J Mike Quillen, Assistant Director ofEngineerinf \ FROM:. COPIES: Mahshid Arasteh, City Engineer SUBJECT: Property at Northwest Comer of Belle air and Belcher Roads DATE: December 29, 1999 This memorandum is to provide information on the location of City of Clearwater water and sanitary sewer facilities in the vicinity of the subject property. Water: Water service is available at three different locations. a) An 8" water main on the west side of Belcher Road, immediately adjacent to this site. b) A 6" water line on the east side of Belcher Road. c) A 16" water main on the north side of Belleair Road which interconnects with a 16" Pinellas County water main. The recommended connection point would be to the 8" line on Belcher Road. Sanitary Sewer: There are three different options available to connect to City sanitary sewer. a) A City manhole on the west side of Belcher Road in front of Belleair Garden Apartments, approximately 450' north of the site. This is a shallow manhole and a private pump station and force main would be required to connect. b) A City manhole on Wistful Vista Drive, approximately 300' east of the site. This is also a shallow manhole and a private pump station and force main would be required to connect. c) A private manhole in the Belcher Pines complex immediately north of the site. This manhole ties in to the City sanitary system on Belcher Road via a private pump station and force main. It is approximately 150' north of the property line and is 5' deep. There is a slight possibility that a gravity connection could be made to this manhole, but more likely a pump station and force main would again be required. A private easement between the two property owners would be necessary. The recommended connection point would be to the City manhole on the west side of Belcher Road. I have not found anyone in this Department who would have said that sewer or water service was "not available" for this property. Various inquiries have been made over the past few years, at which times staff has explained the available options. Hopefully this information is of assistance. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me x4743. -- . ! /.-- ~ J:I#- t /M#/@/ ~ -~.ban~ W~) ~ lIpf/FcXC~~/Z( h)1e. ~~OM//h/?~~ ~/~. . ~ r;tU( ~~ iqaltU/7lf); !ittbr . ~, ~ ~ ?i ~ ~/fZ pJ:C!. tU# ~?tua t>>t m~ </~. ~ ~-~~ftr>M A~ tXJatJm)- ~fPy~Kkh~~. rlJlf -r 5 -- / ~ ~ ~ . . !1--~ ~-'~}'~t)j,{pP$tJ?m ~ mfI~~-/PY~~ /1J;~- ~IJ ttuJlO ~~,Ut? /JJ/~' in~~ ~~/7~ ~ -" .1d";?Jm p~ - /fJlEZ ~t1e~/JX)Y/:;-~ ~a I fim~ ~~ p /dn1~ flJf fUJ ~tK' /1;;~~f-~ ~ '?- /(1 ~ / /M47wt 1k1/7 ~ · 4~~ -~~~~#;1r- /1/~;-9o ~~ ;JtiU #J ~btJ .~~ r e;~1 Puj~i3r&#$t%r I%me. ~ dflft-y.IV ~ ~/h btd; ~ a' Iio ~ /J;d>. .-- Pk)J111?f ~ f?D ~/t;M/k) ~~/ba;;;Jiv~ g /!!%/1I??C/uj/~~~~~ #~~~/J'L-I- /J(),r,4~ /zJ~ Wn~/~J:;:~~~ ~1:?t'lI/la'hl ~~. ~ - . l~tIP; ~&~~A -~A. /tI(/~-~Mt-~i1I? ~~/1~ cJ} ~(j,~~~ ~1tdC -~ /w.>~4tJMaf~ ~ tlMtI/tt)~~~/h t{/$j jWi-- ~ t:JP..- ~x. ~..i, ,- -fIJ baM/ItJ~~~~~ ~CtJ;Jp~ t:::fe ~ c1!- ~ ~ ~~/J1if/r-/hU4~ ~-~~~~IV~~ :/1J /)(# puG ~ /YJ /h~ II: Uw ~~~ af ~ ~// ~ iMP ~ ~ U!',;)4/;,){ /r t7:? ~ fJ/uJ#~ ~ ZX--~~ Imk~~:Io~~ ~~~n~7Jt~~~~~ yy~~..... ~; ~ /rt::Md~) h~ , /~-I-~/p;~ f1/J ' ~ ~~ -f;tjf3 a~ fJ6J/7p 47/1'17 ~ t?M ~a/ ~~ ~~ ~~~-tb/?W- &j ~x e. 41. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 164.1052, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater hereby states its intention to initiate the conflict resolution procedures provided by the Florida Governmental Conflict Resolution Act prior to initiating court proceedings against the City of Largo to resolve the following conflict: Whether the City of Largo lawfully adopted Ordinance No. 2000-17 in view of the provisions of the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County, the Tri-Cities Agreement, and other Agreements relating to service districts, and whether said Ordinance meets the requirements contained in Florida Statutes Chapter 171 for annexation of the subject property. However, in the event that it becomes necessary to file a certiorari petition or appeal from the City of Largo's action prior to the conclusion of conflict resolution proceedings under the Act in order to meet time deadlines for filing such proceedings, the City Attorney is hereby directed to so proceed and to seek a stay or abatement of any such action until the conclusion of conflict resolution proceedings. Section 2. The City Manager is hereby directed, within five (5) days after passage of this Resolution, to send a certified copy of this Resolution and the letter required by Florida Statutes Section 164.1052(1) to the City Manager of the City of Largo setting forth in said letter the minimum requirements contained therein. Such letter and Resolution shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of Januarv ,2000. Approved as to form: ~I~ Attest: Pamela K. Akin, City Attorney . ~~{-~~ E. Goudeau, City Clerk - 0 1 hereby cerdfy that thi., is II true ~d ~Nrccl ~;py of the original !! it apccm In It.c floes of the Cit" of Cle~rwaler. Witncss 'my hand ~r.d' official sc:!l of tl~~ Cit r,rl=ic:lr "al~r. Till: oayof . 20~ 2 Resolution No. 00-09 e. -. Mr. Steven B. Stanton Page Two January 25, 2000 No other governmental agencies are currently in conflict with the City of Clearwater on this issue. The City objected to the proposed annexation both through testimony of staff at the public hearings and by letter of the mayor. Pursuant to law the City has thirty (30) days to file Petition for Certiorari challenging the annexation. The City has adopted Resolution 00-09, a certified copy of which is enclosed, stating the intention of the City of Clearwater, Florida to initiate conflict resolution procedures as provided under the Florida Governmental Conflict Resolution Act. The City of Clearwater proposes that a conflict assessment meeting be held as provided in Florida Statutes 9164.1053 at 1:30 p.m. on February 22, 2000, in the Third Floor Conference Room, Clearwater City Hall, 112 Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. The City of Clearwater suggests that the City Manager, City Attorney, and Planning Director for the City of Largo, and the City Manager, City Attorney, and Planning Director for the City of Clearwater be present for the Conflict Assessment Meeting. If such time and location is not convenient, we are willing to schedule an alternative time and location to occur within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, pursuant to law. V~ry truly yours, Michael J. Roberto City Manager MJRlgr cc: Fred E. Marquis, Pinellas County Administrator ,. e. -. . RESOLUTION NO. 00-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, STATING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO INITIATE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEDURES WITH THE CllY OF LARGO, FLORIDA PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION ACT; SPECIFYING THE ISSUES OF CONFLICT WITH THE CllY OF LARGO; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE A STATUTORILY MANDATED LETTER AND A CERTIFIED COpy OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF LARGO; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Largo, Florida on January 4, 2000, adopted Ordinance No. 2000-17, annexing an approximately 14-acre tract of real property to the north of Belleair Road; and WHEREAS, the subject property is within the Clearwater Planning Area established by an Interlocal Agreement dated January 14, 1992 between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County, and is outside the City of Largo Planning Area established by a similar Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Ordinance appears to violate an Interlocal Agreement dated November 13, 1990 among the Cities of Largo, Pinellas Park, and St. Petersburg and Pinellas County [the "Tri-Cities Agreement1 establishing a Tri-City Extraterritorial Planning Area; and WHEREAS, the property is within the City of Clearwater Sewer Service Area, Water Service Area, and Fire District, and the City of Clearwater has the ability and capacity to provide said services to the property; and WHEREAS, the Pinellas County Planning Council staff and Planners' Advisory Committee have found that the City of Largo does not have the ability to serve the subject property, and the Pinellas County Planning Council has.on December 15, 1999 voted to approve its staff recommendation; and ' WHEREAS, the action of the City of Largo violates the provisions of Florida Statutes Chapter 171 regarding the ability of the annexing municipality to provide services to the annexed property; and WHEREAS, the action of the City of Largo materially adversely affects the City of Clearwater; now, therefore, Resolution No. 00-09 -. .. ~~. j -""'" .,, (.I\L'" " t' ,\oJ""." ,lit # ,~_\ ~ ,""'" ~~- ..\L~,lt' #';;:/ i-:" " ~ \' ~... ';--" .. ~..' "~"ffrn\ ~ ':. :C"":) :-==-~. . ~: ....~....~~.. ..-? _. .' r>.:: .. . T .L"}',. ..,' """-,' -..:.r !f.'-":," "~~" #', ~Tt?'. "I "1.11..1". C I T Y 0 F C LEA R \1(/ ATE R CI1Y MASAGER POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLE.~R""ATER, FLORJOA 33758-47-iS CITY HALL, 112 SOL:TH OSCEOL~ AVE;';CE, CLE.\R'X',\TER, FLORIDA 3r56 TELEPHONE (727) 562.-\0-10 FA-X (727) 562-4052 January 25, 2000 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT f='ll ~~. ~\P~ 5 ~ ~~~, Mr. Steven B. Stanton City Manager City of Largo P. O. Box 296 Largo, Florida 33779-0296 Re: City of Clearwater's Intention to Initiate Conflict Resolution Procedures Prior to Initiating Court Proceedings to Resolve Conflict Dear Mr. Stanton: Pursuant to Florida Statutes 9164.1051 this letter along with the attached resolution shall serve as notice of the City of Clearwater's intent to initiate conflict resolution procedures. On January 4, 2000, the City of Largo adopted Ordinance 2000-17 annexing an approximately 14-acre tract of real property to the north of Belleair Road. The property is within the Clearwater planning area established by Interlocal Agreement between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County and is outside the City of Largo planning area. The property is within the City of Clearwater's sewer service area, water service area, and fire district. The action of the City of Largo violates the provisions of Florida Statute 9171 regarding the ability of annexing the municipality to provide services to the annexed property. This action of the City of Largo materially adversely affects the City of Clearwater. Therefore, the conflict to be resolved is whether the City of Largo lawfully adopted Ordinance No.2000-17 in view of the provisions of the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County, the Tri-Cities Agreement and other Agreements relating to services districts, and whether said Ordinance meets the requirements contained in Florida Statutes Chapter 171 for annexation of the subject property. OSE CITY. OSE FUTl'RE, BR[A.'1 J. At:NGST, MAYOR-CmlMIssIONER ED HOOPER, VICE ~iAYOR-COMMISSIONER ED HART, Cml~lISSIONER @ BOB CL-\RK, COM~HSSIONER J.B. JOflNSO'l, JR., CO~t~lISSIONER "EQI',-\L L1PLOl~,~E\7 ,.\SD AFFIF~\L\Tl'.1: ACT:C': E'.IPLOYEK" Annexation: Largo/Bellaire 12/99 ,"""" ..'~~~LOF Tilt"" ....t~ OJ.....""JC';-- .. '" ".., ~....~,::. ~~"~'\~"" --:, 9.- .. -....,,,.... - - - ':. " ~~r-~-~~~: _~'. .. .~l\,;:'~1ll -;~" .' ~~~. _ #", It ~ - 'Jf. ,,,.... ~~ ..\ .........)1TE~,.,.. · 'III" . C ITY OF . CLEARWATER POST OFFICE Box r-i8, CLE.'>JN'\TER, FLORID.... 33758-4748 Cny HALL. 112 SOCTH OSCEOLA AVE:\CE, CLEARWATER. FLORID.... 33756 TELEPHO:\E (72) 562-4050 FAX (72-:) 562-4052 Cny COMMISSIO:-; December3, 1999 The Honorable Mayor Tom Feaster City of Largo Post Office Box 296 Largo, Florida 33779-0296 The Honorable Chairperson Sallie Parks Board of COtUlty Commissioners 315 Court Street, Room 501 deaIWater, Florida 33756 The Honorable Councilmember Robert Kersteen Chairman, Pinellas Planning Council 600 develand Street, Suite 850 deaIWater, Florida 33755-4160 Dear Mayor Feaster, Chairperson Parks and Chairman Kersteen: I am writing in regard to the proposed annexation (2140 Belleair Road, Case AS-4S-99) by the City of Largo north of Belleair Road adjacent to the municipal boundaries of the City of Clearwater and within the City of Clearwater's Planning Area, water, sewer and fire districts. The City of CleaIWater opposes the proposed annexation and would like to share with you our concerns in preparation for the upcoming pubic hearings on this mauer. The City of deaIWater believes that the proposed annexation by the City of Largo violates or is inconsistent with the Interlocal Agreement between the City of CleaIWater and Pinellas County; the Interlocal Agreement among the Cities of Largo, Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg and Pinellas County ("the Tri-Cries Agreement"); Water and Sewer SeI'\~ce Area; the Fire Services Agreement with Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority; and with Florida Statutes regarding municipal annexation. The specific bases for our objections are described below. Interlocal A~eement between the City of CleaIWater and Pinellas County On January 14, 199~ the City of CleaIWater and Pinellas County entered into an agreement that established a formal CleaIWater planning area according to a map and legal description. The Interlocal agreement granted CleaIWater the ability to plan for all property within the planning area, whether or nor specifically in the city boundaries. In addition, the Agreement grants the City of CleaIWater the ability to annex properties within the designated planning area and simplified the annexation process provided no change in the Furore Land Use Plan is proposed. O:-;E 011'. O:-;E FCRRE, BRl\.'\ J. AC'\GST, ~1.WOR-CO\I\\!~':O'\ER ED HOOPER, VICE ~hYOR-CO\I\\lSSIO'\ER ED HART. CO\I~\ISSIO:'\ER * BOB CL-\RK. CO\I.\\lSSIO:\ER J.B. JOH:\SO:'\. COW,\ISSIO:\ER "EQL\L E\lPLOY'.IE\T ....S!) ,\FF1R.\L\TIVE .\c-~')\ E\\PU'YER" . . The southern edge of Clearwater's Planning Area is generally Belleair Road; however, there are several parcels south of Belleair Road which, according to City records, had previously been annexed and were included in the Planning Area. These parcels south of Belleair Road were annexed by Clearwater beginning in 1950 with the last annexation south of Belleair Road approved in 1989. There has been some speculation that the City of Clearwater annexed properties south of Belleair Road after the 1992 agreement. Both the City Oerk's office and the Planning Department research this and found that no annexation to Clearwater south of Belleair occurred after the interlocal agreement. The property proposed for annexation by the City of Largo is north of Belleair Road and clearly within the Clearwater Planning Area as defmed by the 1992 Agreement. If the proposed annexation were approved, it would represent an intruSion into Clearwater's Planning Area and a potential violation of the Interlocal Agreement. Interlocal A eement amon the Cities of L 0 Pinellas Park St. Petersb Agreement") and Pinellas Crun "the T ri-Cities On November 13, 199~ the Cities of Largo, Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg and Pinellas Comty entered into an agreement which established the Tri-City Extraterritorial Planning Area. Similar to the City of Cleuwater's Interlocal Agreement with the County, the Tri-Cities Agreement also granted the three cities the ability to include the planning area in the individual city's plans and to annex property within the planning area in a simplified process provided no change in the Future Land Use Plan is proposed. The important feature of this agreement is that the Extraterritorial Planning Area establishes Belleair Road as the northern boundary reflecting Clearwater's Planning Area beginning north of Belleair Road. The proposed annexation, if approved, would represent an intrusion into Clearwater's Planning Area and a potential violation of the Tri-Cities Agreement. Fire Services Agreement with Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority On October 1, 1999, the City of Clearwater entered into a ten-year agreement with the Pinellas Coonty Fire Protection Authority which establishes a specific geographic area within which Clearwater will provide fire protection service, whether or not the property is within the City boundaries. The Fire Service Agreement is necessary since Pinellas County does not have a fire department and therefore, cannot serve unincorporated properties. In general, the municipality located closest to the unincorporated properties has an agreement with the Fire Service Authority to provide the service. The general boundaries of Clearwater's exclusive fire service area are Curlew Road on the north to Belleair Road on the south and from Clearwater Bay to Old Tampa Bay. In addition to the fire service agreement, Clearwater and many other fire departments have an automatic aid agreement which provides response when the primaIy fire department is not able to respond or when additional service is needed for an event. The location of the proposed annexation will most likely trigger the need for the City of Clearwater to respond for an event. Funding for the fire service is based on a formula comparing property values of unincorporated areas served by the City as a relationship to incorporated property values. Therefore, if this property is annexed by the City of Largo, the City of Clearwater may be required to respond but will not realize the additional funding necessary to pay for the fire protection services. Although there are mechanisms in place to avoid any disruption in fire protection, the proposed annexation is in conflict with the public purpose of the Fire Protection Authority to provide comprehensive fire protection in Pinellas County. In addition, the funding formula would reward the City of Largo by annexing the property while other agreements would compel the City of Clearwater to respond in an emergency without fair funding returned to Clearwater. .. . . Water and Sewer Service Area In addition to the above-cited issues, the proposed annexation property is in both the Gty of Clearwater's sewer and water districts. The Gty of GeaIWater developed long-range utility plans based on the boundaries of the sewer and water districts and has entered into fmancing arrangements and expended funds to provide utility service to the sewer and water service districts. The Gty also believes that the proposal is inconsistent with the Sewer Service Area agreement between the Gty of Clearwater and the City of Largo which also defmes Belleair Road as the service area boundary. Gearly, the combination of these points leads to the conclusion that a great deal of effort regarding a wide range of services has been expended to develop sensible well- planned municipal boundaries. In the absence of these kinds of boundaries and agreements, local governments and its citizens are harmed through inefficient expenditures for services and/ or litigation that should be avoided. The Gty of CleaIWater believes that the proposed annexation is inconsistent with State law and will review legal options that preclude the proposed annexation. In smnmary, the City of Clearwater opposes this proposed annexation by the Gty of Largo and requests the Gty to carefully consider these objections. Sincerely, 13~ j . th-. ;;r- Brian J. Aungst Mayor cc: Gty of Clearwater Commission Members Michael Roberto, Gty Manager Pamela Akin, Gty Anomey . . OO~905 Pz 'l;' ...l.-e. <~''''''I.. ~ -l .... ;; .... ~ Citv of Largo Florida Post Oftfce Box 296, Largo, ~orida 33779-0296 7:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION AGENDA DECEMBER 7. 1999 COMMISSION CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Invocation - Commissioner Mary Laurance B. Pledge of Allegiance III. CEREMONIAL A. Recreation and Parks Department Accreditation Presentation IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Agenda - Regular Meeting of December 7, 1999 B. Minutes - Regular Meeting of November 16, 1999 C. Minutes - Special Meeting of November 23, 1999 V. CITIZEN COMMENT (Any item except public hearings.) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Procedure for public hearings: motion to hear item; reading of item; motion to adopt/deny; discussion: public input/ Commission action.) A. Ordinances Second Reading: 1. Ordinance No. 2000-11 - A Voluntary Annexation of Chili's Restaurant Located at 5430 East Bay Drive, Largo, Upon Petition by Kimco Largo 139, Inc., and Brinker Florida, Inc., Case No. A5-37-99 2. Ordinance No. 2000-16 - A Voluntary Annexation of a Vacant Tract of Land Located Approximately 900 Feet East of US 19 N on the North Side of 142nd Avenue N Upon Petition by Wayne D. Wallace, Case No. A5-39-99 3. . Ordinance No. 2000-20 - . Amending the FY 2000 Community Development Department Budget Adopted by Resolution No. 1692 by Appropriating $100,000 of the Un designated General Fund Balance to the Community Development Department for the Purpose of Funding Two Economic Development Associate Positions and Associated Equipment and Operating Costs ., VII. CONSENT DOCKET A. Authorization to Renew Grant Funds from the Department of Community Affairs, 2000 Stop Violence Against Women Grant Program, in the Amount of $83,711 B. Approval of Commission Travel Expenses in the Amount of $721.52 Incurred by Vice Mayor Robert Jackson and Commissioner James Miles While Attending the Florida League of Cities Legislative Conference Held in Orlando, Florida, November 18-19, 1999 C. Authorization to Purchase 75,000 Pound Lift from Stertil-Koni/Omer, U.S.A., in the Amount of $62,862 per State of Florida SNAPS Agreement #0751489 D. Authorization to Issue a One-Year Blanket Purchase Order for Publications, Trade Books, Audiovisual Materials, and Other Library Services from Baker and Taylor, Inc., for an Estimated Expenditure of $125,000, Ingram Library Services, Inc., for an Estimated Expenditure of $80,000, the Gale Group for an Estimated Expenditure of $55,000, Recorded Books, Inc., for an Estimated Expenditure of $22,000, and EBSCO Subscription Services for an Estimated Expenditure of $20,000, in Accordance with Florida State Contract #715-001-96-1 E. Authorization to Purchase Two Toro Triplex Tee and Greens Mowers, from Wesco Turf, Inc. in the Amount of $32,990 in Accordance with City of St. Petersburg Bid. No. 5548 F. Authorization to Purchase Three Toro 72 Inch Rotary Mowers, From Wesco Turf, Inc. in the Amount of $31,500, in Accordance with State of Florida Contract No. 515-630-99-1. G. Resolution No. 1700 Amending as Hereinafter Set Forth Certain Sections of the Official City of Largo Legislative Policies Manual H. Resolution No. 1701 Accepting a Highway Beautification Grant and Authorizing a Highway Landscaping Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement for West Bay Drive with the Florida Department of Transportation I. Approval of Bid Exemption and Award of Contract to Designs and Development to Conduct an Analysis of the Largo Cultural Center and Prepare Business Plan and Staffing Model in the Amount of $16,000 J. Authorization to Settle David Upton's Worker's Compensation Claim for $23,000 K. Appointment of Barbara Sofarelli as a Member of the Code Enforcement Board L. Appointment of Commissioner Martin Shelby as the City of Largo's Representative to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council from December 7, 1999, Through April 4, 2000 , VIII. OTHER ~ISLATIVE MATTERS . A. Authorization to Revise Personnel Rules and Regulations B. - Approval of the Proposed Northward Extension of 119th Street to 16th Avenue S.W. by Pinellas County C. Circulation of Petition for Approval of, and Financial Contribution for, Implementation of Traffic Improvements on Valentine Trail D. Approval of the Proposal to Operate the Largo Golf Course Snack Bar by Nick Lalios and Authorize Staff to Negotiate a Contract in the Amount of $6,000 for One Year E. Approval of the Lease Extension to Mid America Festivals Corporation Through June 1, 2000 F. Approval of Renovation of Highland Pool and Proposed Design of the Pre-School Activity Pool and Award of Contract to Bacon Group, Inc. G. Approval of Change Order No.8 to Contract No. 99-C-587, Largo City Hall Renovation, to J. Kokolakis Contracting, Inc., in the Amount of $98,392.35 H. Ordinances First Reading: 1. Ordinance No. 2000-17 - A Voluntary Annexation of Property Located at 2140 Belleair Road, Clearwater, Upon Petition by the Owner, Mr. Jurg Weiss, Case No. A5-45-99 2. Ordinance No. 2000-21 - A Voluntary Annexation of Property Located at 15579 US Highway 19 North, Case No. A5-44-99 IX. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COMMISSION, BOARDS, ADMINISTRATION, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY X. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE TO PUBLIC: City Charter Section 2.11 (c) requires a minimum prevailing Commission vote of 4 to effect action. Consequently, any non-Citv-initiated action attempted which does not receive a vote of 4, either for or against, is subject to reconsideration upon written request. By Commission policy, consideration of Citv-initiated items, resolutions and ordinances resulting in a lack of 4 votes, either for or against, shall be continued (including public hearing, if any) at the next regular meeting. No items, except those of an introductory nature to be considered at a later date, shall be added to the Commission meeting agenda except by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the seven (7) member Commission. The public may speak on all items listed on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak on an agenda item shall fill out a Speaker's Card and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the issue being heard by the Commission. Public debate by individual speakers from the audience shall be limited to three (3) minutes. Representatives of recognized groups shall be limited to ten (10) minutes, and total debate on a single issue shall be limited to thirty (30) minutes. Only one (1) presentation per person per issue shall be allowed. Speakers will confine their comments to the agenda item being discussed. Discussion from the public shall be considered only after the Commission has debated the issue. The Chair shall recognize all speakers and all comments shall be directed to the Chair. Questions from the public will be directed by the Chair to the City Manager, who will respond or direct the question to the appropriate staff person. If the question cannot be answered at the meeting, the Chair will direct the City Manager to provide the information at a later date or schedule a meeting with the citizen. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Governing body with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City of Largo is committed to providing reasonable accommodation for access for the disabled. Anyone needing assistance with regard to a City Commission meeting should contact the City Clerk's Office (587-6710) or Library T.D.D. Line (587-6778) at least one week prior to the meeting. FROl1 Panason i c FAX SYSTEM . PHONE NO. : . Dec. 14 1999 10:48AM P6 EXHIBIT "A" PROPERTY PINtlLAS COUNTY rLA __ ~~. ~~:.,~I< _ 1.~?~e_ PC; 42S Parcel Identification Number(s): 24/29/15/00000/440/0600 Legal Description: B~GIN AT'THI SOUTHBA5T (5~) CORNER or SECTION 24, TONN$Bp.1 2~ SOUTH,' RANC! lS'EASt RUN THENCE NOR~H EIGHTY~!ICHT D~GR&ES, TW! -tHRE! ~INUTES, TW!NTY-THRES SECONDS NESt (N 880 23' 23- w) ONI ~SANO TWENTY-TWO AND SIx'tY-NINE HUNDRE'J:'HS (1022.69) FSET: 'I'll EN ,N()R'1'H ONE En~;C:;~.!i.J!:' .NINB MINUTES, FIFTY-ON! SECONOS EAST (N 010 q9' ;1" B) THRtE "UNDRED....SEYBMTY..NINI'AND'.S~V~NTY-SlXHUNDRE'1'.HS .(~791. '761 PSBT: tHINCS NO~'1'8 IIGHTY-NIN! DBGREES, FIPTY-THREE MINutES, r~rtY+ON! SECONDS eST (N 890 53' Sl" lI) PO'-TY-.EIGHT AMD SIXTY Ht1M~RST'S (48.60) PBET: THENCE NORTH ZERO DEGREES, SIX MINUTIS, Nx~e S$CONDS !AS~ (N 004 06' 09- B) EIGHTY-SIX AND TW8NT~ KUHDR!~ns (9G.20) FEET; THENCE SOUTH BICHTY-BICHT DeGREES, THi~TY-rIVE MINUTES, inIRtY-THRE! S!CON'DS EAST (S..88(1 35' 35" E) 1:'HIRTY-PIVE AND ONE HONDRPttHSf(3S.011 rB'~'t; TaBNCE IfORTH ZERO DEGREES. SIX MINUTES, NINE SBCO~S E1ST eN 000 06' 09- E) ONt HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT (19B.00) FEET:; TniNC! SOUTH EIGHTY-EICHT DECREES, TIJIRTY-THREB MINUTES, TEN S!COND$ EAST (5 880 33' 10- B) THREE BUNDRP;D FIFTY-SIlt I.NO TWENTY-SEVeN Ht1NDRISTIlS (356.27) FIET; THEMe! SOUTH ZERO DEGRE!S, FIV! MINUTES, POURtEEN SECONDS WEST (S 000 OS' 14- W) TW~NTY-'IVE AND FIFTY HUNdR!~~S (25. 50) F!ET: TH!NC~ SOU~H SIVENTY D!GR~&S, THIRTY-SIX MINOTSS, tl1TI- TWO SECONDS EAST (S 100 35' 52- IS) rIVE RUN OR ED SIXTY-FOUR AJD . POURTY-ONE HUNDR!THS (564.41) FEET: THENCE SOUTH EIGBTYW~ICHt DEGRE- ~S, 'tHIRTY-THREE .MINUTES, TEN .SKCONOS EAST (5 860 33' lOE)IONE HUNotU:D PORTY 040.00) r1!:ET: TRENCE SOUTH 2ER.O DEc;REES, HE hINUTE, FORTY-ON! SECONDS EAST (5 00. 01' 41- E) FOUR HUND~Eg SI.!y-tHREE AND FOR~Y HUNnR!TRS (463.40) rEET TO POIN~ OF BEGINNING. I . _ AND BELLEAtR . I LESS BELCHER ROAD/RIGHTS-OF-WAY OVBR TaE EAST FIFTY (& SO) F~ET AND OVE~ THB SOUTH PIrTY (5 50) PEe~ RESPtCTIVELY, I; LIS'S tSA.'! CI.tUII 'A_ell. It'!CO.~!D %R 0" 14'83 P 2.55 or TB~ .U~Ll:C , P.ICOIUII 01' nIlELr..A5 eOONTY, I't.OP.ID1. I : ~ .. \.:> 1-. '"- · l~do:J ., o !~~~~w~rn\! L____ I -------.----J Pi 6.'.:::';<C DEVEWPMENT SEfW:CES L______5:11'( OF CLFt,Rw^,n"R Page 4 FROll Panasonic FAX SYSTEM. . Dec. 14 1999 10:45AM P5 PHONE NO. '. SIGNATURE BLOCK: INDIVIDUA ~IN~LLAS COUNTY rLA Or~.RtC.8K 10708 PG 42S OWNER: 7 BY: ~/~r OWNER NOT .ARIZA TlON: INDIVIDUAL STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS The forp"oIng in~lT\lment was acknowledged before m. this /L.Jjay of (}.!:r2 ber J 99 'L by , Jrt4 fUe./ss I who llil/are personallv kno~n to ~] or (has/haye] produced . .... . as identification). \.. ~;;W'V21t[~h~ . Notary Pub!' My COin~i '~n expires: IH",~ ~,~ C,." :I,,~ ~,\(,,'iJ.,...... C.f~ ~ ~ ...:..lI-\'5SI0N~"'.'I'J ~ ~ · ~'" EO '. ~ ~ .....<:J .~, 'l<'s ~. ~ .:- .~ ~.- ;o~ ~~ ~ ==. : ~ ~ foP. :. = . :r: ..... _ : * = ~a ~ #CC i98'63 !!f:~ ,-::;.It.. .~~ \~'" {.6~QQtT>~ ..r.,..'~ ~ ~ ;&- AS~ FaJn-lnt\l~;~ <<." ~ ~: u~ ........~, ~ ~,,~ ltC. ST"tt. ~,,~ :l11""'UI"""~ CITY OF LARGO 6y: ~ ' Stev~ on, City Manager ATTEST: Diane Brun r, )y Citds ii, ..... (9 ~'f ...,.... ...";; it ;:::.. .....~..4'.. ...- .'" (Otiln~...--" 6-__. ,\\.\\.,~~",,,~ DEe I 4 /999 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisa7Zday of 16.7~~. .1991-, by STEVEN B. STANTON, as City Manager of the CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA. a municipal corporation, and he acknowledged before me that he executed the instrument on b~b.aIJ otthe C IIY ,tI~ js personally known to me. I~ I<~ ~~ Notary Public My commission expires: (Seal) ".Io'~;"~1 ~i<!!"'~.. DoMe R. Free g..f ~'Ji,~ :"~ Mf COMMISSION iJ CC561481 ~IREC ~~~fi August 25, 2000 ".P.r.,f>Yf'" BONOEo 1HIl\IlROUAlI/ lHSUIWICC, INC. Page 3 FROII Panasonic FAX SYSTEM . . Dec. 14 1999 10:44AM P4 PHONE NO. , PINELLAS COUNTY rLR. OFr .REC,BK 10708 PG 427 Sectlon 22-35 (a) of the CITY'S Code of Ordinances, as may be amended from time to time. C. The CITY wlll construct a lateral sanitary sewer line from the existing sanitary sewer line on Belleair Road to the PROPERlY in order to provide sanitary service to the PROPERTY line. The cost to run this lateral sanitary sewer line will be borne by the CITY. provided however, the cost does not exceed $25,000. The OWNER understands and agrees that the CITY will not extend the sanitary sewer line on to the PROPERTY. D. The CITY will permit the OWNER to erect a six (6) foot high chain link fence on the property line provided the OWNER maintain the visibility triangle as provided for in the Development Codes for the CITY. E. The OWNER may use the PROPERTY for such uses as permitted by Pinellas County A~E Zoning Classification which currently exists on the PROPERTY, including the provision for having horses for private use. This provision to allow the uses of the property consistent with the County A-E Zoning Shall remain in effect while the now existing OWNER maintains ownership of the PROPERTY. Once ownership of the PROPERTY is transferred, the uses of such PROPERlY shall be consistent with the Residential Suburban Land Use Designation or other such land Use Designation as may be applied to the PROPERTY. F. There is an existing 66.6' X 31' structure (barn) located adjacent to the westem PROPERTY line which is shown on Exhibit "8" hereto. The OWNER will be allowed to reconstruct this structure (barn) in the existing location, subject to the OWNER obtaining all necessary building permits. G, The OWNER will be permitted to construct a 2000 square foot guest house in addition to the main house that is to be erected on the PROPERTY subject to the OWNER meeting all other development standards and obtaining all applicable construction permits. The OWNER wilt not be required to plat the property as a condition of constructing the guest house. 4. The PARTIES agree that mandamus, specific performance, or injunctive relief (either prohibitory or mandatory, both temporary or permanent) are the appropriate remedies in the event of breach, whether actual or anticipatory, of this AGREEMENT. In the event of any litigation arising out of this AGREEMENT, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. 5. This AGREEMENT shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the PARTIES and their respective heirs, successors, or assigns, and shall run with the land. This AGREEMENT will be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. 6. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall be construed as requiring construct or install any sanitary sewer lines or other improvements or extend such publiC improvements to sen/ice the PROPERTY. 7. This AGREEMENT embodies all agreements and representatio promises, terms, conditions or allegations other than those contai supersedes all previous communications, representations and r e verbal between the PARTIES. This AGREEMENT may be mo i led 0 by all PARTIES. PLA NNING & DEVELQr;;-;. . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this AGR EMENT t~be e~,*,~ day and year first above written. fTY OF. .~...-..,...._....-" Page 2 FROll Panason i c FAX SYSTEM ~---- . ,,"\, n '.' \ ' . Dec. 14 1999 10:42AM P3 ) PREPARED BY: City A.llorney. AND RErURN TO: . City Clerk I City of Largo Post Office Box 296 Largo. Florida 33779-0296 , \IJ f' r (" NNEXA TION AGREEMENT ~Lc- \::J"j-j ,.--J ~~-'352S46 OCTS-K2Sio1.f5i p~ ,5J~~ 'we..J p ~NEI..I..A5 co IIllI \ . '~fN\' \.IIIII.III_.~ -- \.0 "r":\ 'O?\~, - - -'- .- Of" c:.'- -. -- ~v.NN\N~_~", 1\(,\=.5 . _, This Annexation Agreement (AGREEMENT) made and entered into this /1 7'# day of ()t.1'J)#;~ ,199:t., between the CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida. 225 First Avenue SW, Largo, Florida (CITY) and Jura Weiss. 2140 Belleair Road. Clearwater~ EL 337fuL (OWNER). together hereinafter referred to as the (PARTIES). (AddteaaotOwn6f) RECITALS WHEREAS, the OWNER fully warrants thatthe..oWNER h_Qi9~ t~~.~irnple title to the real property located in an unincorporated area of Pinellas County, Florida, and being more particularly described on Exhibit "A" (PROPERTY) which is attached hereto and made a part hereof: and WHEREAS, the PARTIES have determined that annexation of the PROPERTY would be extremely beneficial to both PARTIES and that the PROPERTY currently meets the requirements of voluntary annexation into the CITY as found in Ch. 171. Fla. Stat.; and WHEREAS, the OWNER is desirous that the PROPERTY be annexed into the municipal boundaries of the CITY and the CITY wishes to annex the PROPERTY; and. WHEREAS, the OWNER is willing to execute a document pursuant to Ch. 171, Fla. Stat. (PETITION) to facilitate the annexation of said PROPERTY. AGREEMENT NOW. THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of $10.00 and other valuable considerations, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the PARTIES agree as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein and made a part hereof. 2. The OWNER hereby warrants. covenants and agrees as follows: PA~ ES.!:I.- I, A. OWNER possesses fee simple title to the PROPERTY and, as such. has the full right and lawful A~~~l!L1 f'P authority to enter into this Annexation AGREEMENT. DR: ~19 ___ OS __" ........ B. NT _-1 P FE SS,.----^-, ~. !TF ,"'_ PIC ___ D. OWNER understands that this AGREEMENT will be filed on the PROPERTY in the Public I {EV Records of Pinellas County. Florida, and runs with the land. The OWNER further agrees not to TC TAL It!, S(J ~ 1 )'equest annexation of nor grant the right to annex, the PROPERTY into any municipal corporation ~ CK 3AL JJ-' other than the CITY.. .... - CHG/\MT - 3. OWNER, shall contemporaneously with the execution of this AGREEMENT immediately execute and deliver to the CITY a PETITION for voluntary annexation of the PROPERTY into the CITY in accordance with the provisions of eh. 171. Fla. Stat. The City hereby covenants and agrees as follows: A. When sanitary sewer is available to the PROPERTY, the in-City sanitary sewer connection charges shall be applied to the PROPERTY in accordance with Section 22-36 (a) of the CITY'S Code of Ordinances. as may be amended from time to time. 6. In-City monthly sanitary sewer rates shall be applied to the PROPERTY in accordance with FROl1 Panasoni c FAX SYSTEM . . Dec. 14 1999 10:41AM P2 PHONE NO. " o \905/if. o 'i~;~. c- ........:1;rr~~ ~ ......." ..:....'.'i/i.F ,~ ~ .::i:><!\ ,'y', d ~,:.,... ~~~. -1 '~~~I;;I.... >- City of Largo, Florida Post Offjc~ HOll 296, Largo, Floridll 33779-0296 THRU: Jane Hayman. City Attorney Steven Stanton, City Manager Diane Bruner, City Clerk m Richard P. Goss, Community Development Director'\t \ Jame. M. Madden, Ecnnnmic Develnpment Admini,tm'o, ~' October 18, 1999 TO: (routing order) FROM: DATE: RE~ Annexation Agreeroent/Petition . .lure: Weiss Property Transmitted herewith is one original Annexation Agreement. City Attorney -> City Manager: Review the contents and, if approved, affix your signatures in the spaces provided. The agreement should then be transmitted to the City Clerk for her signature. City Clerk: The City Manager's signature should be notarized in the appropriate space provided on the agreement- The original signed agreement should be retained by the City Clerk for the City's official records. Please provide a photocopy of the signed document to Community Development for further processing. Thank you for your assi.stance and cf.'>Operation with this annexation. If you have any questions or comments regarding the attached documents, please refer them to Jim Madden at extension 7209. JMMles '\;-~~~- \, \~\ l D \\ n \ \ DEe \ d \999 \, ;::~, \J l\\ ---> I l ------- -~~;l I ~ r. OC\!Ei,OPMtl" " PlA"/,!:~,,CI c!" Co..._ , SER\'\Ct S ...' C1r (~,\ i' h ~,'. , attachments /hOme/eomdev/de,,_services/annex...agree/1999/weiss/rteCityAtty _Mgr ... . PHONE NO. : . Dec. 14 1999 10:40AM Pi FR01 : Panasonic FAX SYSTEM .. o \905 F.l. 0\... .<t',.,~ :.:':':';,~~ ~ t:I::...::;~,~:~ 17 ~ ~ ....,"'~,;.> d ,,~- ~ ..~~ril.... ? City of Largo Florida Post offfce Box 296, Largo, iltorida 33779.0296 ::.-:::- -:-::: FAX COVER SHEET TO: G (3) r ~ 0'cf) ~ ) FROM: Diane L. Bruner LOCATION: (\ ~\I of' C\~l~J~:~r LOCATION: City Clerk's Office ( TELEPHONE NO: TELEPHONE NO: (727) 587-6710 FAX NO: ~bd-- '-\S i-b PAGES TO FOllOW: -cs FAX NO: DATE: (727) 586-7420 \?J'\ \. \ 1.\ \ ~ 9 Comments: ro [E(C[E~~[E ~l U~ I ,Dr iDEe 1 4 1999 I.=J ! PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER FROl1 : Panason i c FAX SYSTEM e .. PHONE NO. ~ Jan. 03 2000 i2:08PM Pi o c?, 1:5 to ~ ..<.1-r:r.~ ~ "~~" " L......::'~ ~I;nlll ~ ~ .... . .... ~ City of Largo, Florida Post Office Bo~ 296, Largo, Florida 33779-0296 FAX COVER SHEET TJ: C:t'"~l) y ffi-~~.?/ I L( )CA TION:, TI ;lEPHONE NO: FJ\X NO: S-6:L - ~ S- 7 (p , PJ\GES TO FOLLOW: .1-- FROM:. :2J~Q.u'~ he E- LOCATION: City Clerk's Office TELEPHONE NO:-1 722 } _.58 7 - 67 1 0 FAX NO: ( 727) 5.86 -7 4,20 DATE: d//P1/f?'??, C< lmments: : -r \i -~ ~ ,J.. : ,- \ ,~ I FRO! 1 Panasonic FAX SYSTEM - PHONE NO. e Jan. 03 2000 12:05PM P3 NOTICE TO PUBLIC: City CI7aner Section 2.11(c;) reqvires a minimum prevailing Commission vote of 4 to effect action. Consequently, Iilny nOI1-Clrv.initiatect ac;tfcm attempted which does not receive a vore of 4, either for or against, i$ svoject to reconsideration upon written request. l3y Commission policy. consideration of City-initiated items, resoluOOns and ordinances resulting in s lack of 4 votes, either far or against. shall be continued (including public hearing, if any) at the next regular meeting. No items, f}XCf<!pt those of an Introductory nsture to be considered at a later date. shall be added to the Commission meeting agenda except by a two. thirds (213) vote of the seven (7) mamber Commission. The public may speflk cm mJ items listed on the li!genda. PefSOtl$ wishing to speak on an agenda item shall fill out a Speaker's Card lima submit it to thB City Clerk priar to the issue being heard by the Cammi$$ian, Pl.lblic debate by inaividval speak8rs from the audience shall be limited to three (3) minutes, RepMsentallves of recogni2ed groups shall be limited to ten (10) minutes, and totsl debato on a single issue shall be Iimit8d to thirty (30) minutes. Oniyone (1) presentation per person per issue shall be allowed. $peake($ will confine their comments to the aggnda itgm ooing discussed, Oiscl.JssJon from the public shall b8 consid9rod only after the Commission has debated the issue. The Chair shall recognize all speakers and sll comments shall be directed to the Chair. Questions from the public will be dir8Cted oy the Chair to the City Manag9r. who will respond or dlroct the question to the tlPPr'Opriste staH person. If the qu~stian cannot be answered at the meeting, the Chair will diMet the City MantJger to provide the information at a later dats or schedule a meeting with the citizen. Any person who decidi:?$ to appeal any decision of the Goveming body with respect to any matter considered at this mBeting will nsed a r~ord of ths proceedings, which ~eord Includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City of Largo Is committed to providing Masonabls accommodation for access for th8 disabled. Anyone nB8dlng assistance with regard to 1/1 City Commission meeting shOlJld contact the City Clsrk's OffJes (~87-6710) or Ubrary T.D.D. Une (587-6778) st least one week prior to the meeting, !folt~~w~~. U r.JAN 10 L ----J .....:) PLANNING & DEVELOPM SERVICES ENT .______~~?tc CLEARWATER FROI1 PHONE NO. Jan. 03 2000 12:05PM P2 PanaSonic FAX SYSTEM J I I e . ,---- ... ...... , ~. f~""".. PLANNING & DEVELOPM,=~i~ SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER o \905 P.t. r.... .... 0 V ..':~~ ~ ~ .\ 1'7;7 ,V" ~ ~-~ d -1 ....Iil.... ::> t1itv of Largo Florida p~ OfKce Box 296, Largo, iltorida 33779.0296 I~ ~0~w ~,' ,..-.,\ I' !I I J, I )' I ; i: i.- / I JAN 1 ')nrn ~,---~/ CITY COMMISSION AGENDA 7:00 P.M. JANUARY 4. 2000 COMMISSION CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER II. INVOCA TlON AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Invocation - Commissioner Jean Halvorsen B. Pledge of Allegiance III. CEREMONIAL A. Recognition of Largo Golf Course Employee Gordy Gundle IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Agenda - Regular Meeting of January 4, 2000 B. Minutes. Regular Meeting of December 14, 1999 V. CITIZEN COMMENT (Any item except public heariJ'lgs.) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Procedure for public hearings: motion to hear item: reading of (tern; motiOn to adopt/deny; d,i$cussiDn: public input/Commission action.) A. Ordinances Second Reading: 1. Ordinance No. 2000-17 . A Voluntary Annexation ot Propet1y Located at 2140 Belleair Road. Clearwater, Upon Petition by the Owner, Mr. Jurg Weiss. Case No. AS-45-99 A Partial Vacation of Easement Located at 1927 Oro Court. Largo. Case No. YS-Q3.99 2. Ordinance No. 2000-18 - VII. CONSENT DOCKET A. Authorization to Purchase a Speed Oetection/Monitoring Trailer in Accordance with Bid No. 99-8-615 from Kustom Signals in the Amount of $14,440 B. Approving the Elimination of certain Work from Requiring a Building Permit and Directing $taft to Prepare an Amendment to the City's Fee Ordinance Incorporating the Proposed Fee Changes C. Authorization to Contract with St. Petersburg Junior College Corporate Training Center to Develop and Implement Leadership Training for the Police Department in the Amount of $26,713 FRO 1 Panasonic FAX SYSTEM . PHONE NO. . Jan. 03 2000 12:09PM P2 O. Authorization to Purchase Two New Flat Bed Dump Trucks from Atlantic Ford Trucks in the Amount of $97,950 in Accordance with State Contract #070-700-230 E. Award of Bid No. 99-B-642, Agricultural Chemicals to Southern Agricultural Insecticides in the Estimated Amount of $52,303.90. Southern States Cooperative, Inc. in the Estimated Amount of $39,660.12. and to Harrell's F9rtilizQr in the Estimated Amount of $30,418.13 F. Award of Bid No. 00-8..(;57, One 72 Inch Zero Tuming Radius Mower, to Royal Edger and Mower in the Amount of $14,967.15 G. Award of Bid No. 00-8-661, Truck Brakes and Related Parts, to Fleet Products. Inc., in the Estimated Annual Amount of $20,000 H. Award of 81d #00-8-667, Emergency Lighting Systems. to C.ntral Public Safety for 14 Whelen Lighting Systems in the Amount of $20,927.90 VIII. OTHER LEGISLATIVE MATTERS A. Award of Contract to Wade Trim. Inc. for Phases 2 and 3 Design of East Side of Largo Central Park in the Amount of $78,845 B. Annual Revlew of Non-represented Education Incentive Program C. Approval of Purchase of New City Hall Nstworking Equipment from Alltel in the Amount of $146,097.12 D. Authorization to Award Contracts for Miscellaneous Engineering Services E. Final Ranking of Consultants for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Equipment Inventory Project and Authorization for Staff to Proceed with Cost and Scope Negotiations F. Final Purchase Agreement, Including Attorney's Fees, for Delashaw Property. G. Ordinances FIrst Reading: 1. Ordinance No. 2()()()'13 - A Voluntary Annexation of Prop9rty Located at 2086 Long Bow Lane Upon Petition by the Property Owner, Case No. AS.46.99 2. Ordinance No. 2000.19. Adopting a Revlsed Comprehensive Development Code for Consistency with the City's 1999 Comprehensive Plan 3. Ordinance No. 2000.23 - Amending the FY 2000 Public Works Department Budget by Appropriating $92,000 of the Undeslgnated Transportation Impact Fee Fund Balance for Improvements to 10151 Street 4. Ordinance No. 2000.24. Amending the FY 2000 Community Development Department Budget by Appropriating $12,000 of the Undesignated General Fund Balance for the Purchase of a Compact Pickup Truck 5. Ordinance No. 2000.25 - Amending the FY 2000 Recreation and Parks Department Budget by Appropriating $300,000 of the Undesignated Local Option $ales Tax Fund Balance to Design and Construct a New Bath House at the Highland Pool H. Approval of Donation in the Amount of $1,500 to the Pine lias Trail Torch Event for the Millennium Scheduled for January 8, 2000 IX. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COMMISSION, BOARDS, ADMINISTRATION, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY X. ADJOURNMENT , JAN ('\, \ -~ ~l();-::;~'~~~( PlP-~~\~;Nv & LJI.- 'to- S'=R'j\CE:3 ..... - ~ ~. ~ .- -, T r: :-~ r"'l,-y n~ CLL...,ri"4~"~ . ~_..,..,. I \ \ I e e 01905 Pz L:!::;O. .........t;I.- % "< ~'I?; d ~ ....Iil.... ~ Citv of Largo Florida Post Offfce Box 296, Largo, F4.orida 33779-0296 CITY COMMISSION AGENDA 7:00 P.M. JANUARY 4. 2000 COMMISSION CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Invocation - Commissioner Jean Halvorsen B. Pledge of Allegiance III. CEREMONIAL A. Recognition of Largo Golf Course Employee Gordy Gundle IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Agenda - Regular Meeting of January 4, 2000 B. Minutes - Regular Meeting of December 14, 1999 V. CITIZEN COMMENT (Any item except public hearings.) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Procedure for public hearings: motion to hear item; reading of item; motion to adopt/deny; discussion; public input/ Commission action.) A. Ordinances Second Reading: 1. Ordinance No. 2000-17 - A Voluntary Annexation of Property Located at 2140 Belleair Road, Clearwater, Upon Petition by the Owner, Mr. Jurg Weiss, Case No. A5-45-99 2. Ordinance No. 2000-18 - A Partial Vacation of Easement Located at 1927 Oro Court, Largo, Case No. Y5-03-99 3. Ordinance No. 2000-19 - Adopting a Revised Comprehensive Development Code for Consistency with the City's 1999 Comprehensive Plan e , e CONSENT DOCKET I VII. t A. Authorization to Purchase a Speed Detection/Monitoring Trailer in Accordance with Bid No. 99-B-615 from Kustom Signals in the Amount of $14,440 B. Approving the Elimination of Certain Work from Requiring a Building Permit and Directing Staff to Prepare an Amendment to the City's Fee Ordinance Incorporating the Proposed Fee Changes C. Authorization to Contract with St. Petersburg Junior College Corporate Training Center to Develop and Implement Leadership Training for the Police Department in the Amount of $26,713 D. Authorization to Purchase Two New Flat Bed Dump Trucks from Atlantic Ford Trucks in the Amount of $97,950 in Accordance with State Contract #070-700-230 E. Award of Bid No. 99-B-642, Agricultural Chemicals to Southern Agricultural Insecticides in the Estimated Amount of $52,303.90, Southern States Cooperative, Inc. in the Estimated Amount of $39,660.12, and to Harrell's Fertilizer in the Estimated Amount of $30,418.13 F. Award of Bid No. 00-B-657, One 72 Inch Zero Turning Radius Mower, to Royal Edger and Mower in the Amount of $14,967.15 G. Award of Bid No. 00-B-661, Truck Brakes and Related Parts, to Fleet Products, Inc., in the Estimated Annual Amount of $20,000 H. Award of Bid #00-B-667, Emergency Lighting Systems, to Central Public Safety for 14 Whelen Lighting Systems in the Amount of $20,927.90 VIII. OTHER LEGISLATIVE MATTERS A. Award of Contract to Wade Trim, Inc. for Phases 2 and 3 Design of East Side of Largo Central Park in the Amount of $78,845 B. Annual Review of Non-represented Education Incentive Program C. Approval of Purchase of New City Hall Networking Equipment from Alltel in the Amount of $146,097.12 D. Authorization to Award Contracts for Miscellaneous Engineering Services E. Final Ranking of Consultants for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Equipment Inventory Project and Authorization for Staff to Proceed with Cost and Scope Negotiations F. Final Purchase Agreement, Including Attorney's Fees, for Delashaw Property. G. Ordinances First Reading: 1. Ordinance No. 2000-13 - A Voluntary Annexation of Property Located at 2086 Long Bow Lane Upon Petition by the Property Owner, Case No. A5-46-99 2. Ordinance No. 2000-23 - Amending the FY 2000 Public Works Department Budget by Appropriating $92,000 of the Undesignated Transportation Impact Fee Fund Balance for Improvements to 101 st Street 3. e Ordinance No. 2000-24 - - ,) H. Amending the FY 2000 Community Development Department Budget by Appropriating $12,000 of the Undesignated General Fund Balance for the Purchase of a Compact Pickup Truck Ordinance No. 2000-25 - Amending the FY 2000 Recreation and Parks Department Budget by Appropriating $300,000 of the Undesignated Local Option Sales Tax Fund Balance to Design and Construct a New Bath House at the Highland Pool Approval of Donation in the Amount of $1,500 to the Pinellas Trail Torch Event for the Millennium Scheduled for January 8, 2000 4. IX. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COMMISSION, BOARDS, ADMINISTRATION, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY X. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE TO PUBLIC: City Charter Section 2.11 (c) requires a minimum prevailing Commission vote of 4 to effect action. Consequently, any non-Citv-initiated action attempted which does not receive a vote of 4, either for or against, is subject to reconsideration upon written request. By Commission policy, consideration of City-initiated items, resolutions and ordinances resulting in a lack of 4 votes, either for or against, shall be continued (including public hearing, if any) at the next regular meeting. No items, except those of an introductory nature to be considered at a later date, shall be added to the Commission meeting agenda except by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the seven (7) member Commission. The public may speak on all items listed on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak on an agenda item shall fill out a Speaker's Card and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the issue being heard by the Commission. Public debate by individual speakers from the audience shall be limited to three (3) minutes. Representatives of recognized groups shall be limited to ten (10) minutes, and total debate on a single issue shall be limited to thirty (30) minutes. Only one (1) presentation per person per issue shall be allowed. Speakers will confine their comments to the agenda item being discussed. Discussion from the public shall be considered only after the Commission has debated the issue. The Chair shall recognize all speakers and all comments shall be directed to the Chair. Questions from the public will be directed by the Chair to the City Manager, who will respond or direct the question to the appropriate staff person. If the question cannot be answered at the meeting, the Chair will direct the City Manager to provide the information at a later date or schedule a meeting with the citizen. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Governing body with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City of Largo is committed to providing reasonable accommodation for access for the disabled. Anyone needing assistance with regard to a City Commission meeting should contact the City Clerk's Office (587-6710) or Library T.D.D. Line (587-6778) at least one week prior to the meeting. - . . PINE~~AS COUNTY r~A orr ,REC,BK 10B07 PG ~56 PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 55, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN S 00'42'04" E, ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 24, A DISTANCE OF 244.04 FEET; LEAVING SAID WEST PROPERTY LINE, THENCE RUN N 89'17'56" W, A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 30; THENCE RUN N 00'42'04" W, ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 30, A DISTANCE OF 229,35 FEET; LEAVING SAID WEST BOUNDARY LINE, THENCE RUN N 89'17'56" W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N 00'42'04" W, A DISTANCE OF 443.67 FEET; THENCE RUN S 89'35'24" E, A DISTANCE OF 365,38 FEET; THENCE RUN S 00'24'36" W, A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 23, OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST, OF SAID "PINELLAS GROVES", AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING [P.O.B.]. CONTAINING 35,625.03 SQUARE FEET, OR 0.8178 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ALSO KNOWN AS TAX ROLL PARCEL 10 NO, 30/29/16/70326/400/2400, AND AS DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "A." Section 2. That the above-described property shall be annexed with a land use designation of Rural Residential, and that the above-described property shall be included within the Management District. Section 3. That the Largo City Commission hereby formally and according to law accepts the dedication of all easements, streets, parks, plazas, places, rights-of-way, and other dedications to the public which have heretofore been made by plat, deed, or user within the area so annexed. Section 4. It is the intention of the Largo City Commission that each provision hereof be considered severable, and, if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days after final enactment. APPROVED ON FIRST READING January 18, 2000 PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING February 1, 2000 ATIEST: ~44Y~ Mayor 2 . - ---,.---------------- / / I ',. ''', ./' ( P KENT PLACE o EXHIBIT . An Ord, IF: 200~29 Subject: Hitesh & Anini Patel (A5-03-00) Location: 2427 Kent Place 3cr2S1&7032&'4002400 ,.r- "- / ' ( \._,J VA /' ( o . r/ / ~ Subject Property , City of Largo PIN€LLAS CO OrrREc.8K UNTY rLA 1080'7 PO 3~'7 CENTRAL AVE DRAINAGE w ~ Q. (/) ~ t ;. '" ~.' ~ l' N ~, Scale: ,. - 300' , u ,::! ~o '" ..::<: o .... -u -0 E (] :='I 3" 8 ::.J - I \-0 U ~ ~..: i=: :s ~-o ~ .... .... :='I g.JN;-;- U ~ ~..... ~ 0 ~ 0 u :>, co !>C ,=: .= 0 ~ <:Uo......J . . 00-037037 ~~8- 8-2000 229~ PIN~LLA$ CO 8K 10807 PG 355 111111I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ORDINANCE NO, 2000-29 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA, ANNEXING THE WITHIN DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND LOCATED AT 2427 KENT PLACE, PINELLAS COUNTY. FLORIDA, AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO THE PETITION AND APPLICATION OF THE LANDOWNER(S); INCLUDING SAID LAND WITHIN THE CITY'S MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WITH CITY LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL; REDEFINING THE CORPORATE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF LARGO TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 171, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, a petition by the landowner has been duly filed with the City Commission of Largo, Florida, seeking annexation of the property hereinafter described into the corporate limits of the City of Largo; and 3 WHEREAS, all requirements of Chapter 171 have been complied with, and the planning procedures MGES set forth in the Interlocal Agreement between Pinellas County, Florida, and the cities of Largo, Pinellas ACCT~ Park, and St. Petersburg, Florida, dated November 13, 1990, have been met, the owner(s) of land having REC 15'.,.} consented to be voluntarily annexed; now, therefore: DR219 I~~ THE CITY OF LARGO HEREBY ORDAINS: F~~ E Section 1. That the City of Largo. acting by and through its City Commission. under the authority P..'C of Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, hereby annexes into the corporate limits of the City of Largo, Florida, REV and accordingly redefines the boundary of said city, so as to include the following: TOTAL 15: hJ All that tract or parcel of land lying and being in the County of Pinellas, Florida, to wit: . CK BAl ~ AMT (S~ 11 PORTION OF LOTS 23 AND 24, OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 16 ~ EAST, OF 'PINELLAS GROVES', ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 55, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST; THENCE RUN S 89'35'24" E, ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 30, A DISTANCE OF 335.38 FEET: LEAVING SAID NORTH BOUNDARY LINE, THENCE RUN S 00'24'36" W, A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 23, OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST, OF 'PINELLAS GROVES", ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 55, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING [P.O.B.]. FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING, RUN S 00'16'05" E, A DISTANCE OF 413.22 FEET, THENCE RUN N 89'33'31' W, A DISTANCE OF 298.96 FEET; THENCE RUN N 00'42'04" W, A DISTANCE OF 413.11 FEET; THENCE RUN S 89'35'24" E, A DISTANCE OF 302.08 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 124,148.00 SQUARE FEET, OR 2.8500 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH ALL PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, LYING IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF, AND WEST OF, AND ADJACENT TO, THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING, RUN N 89'35'24" W, A DISTANCE OF 302.08 FEET; THENCE RUN S 00'42'04' E, A DISTANCE OF 413.11 FEET; THENCE RUN N 89'33'31' W, A DISTANCE OF 18.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 24, OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST, OF 'PINELLAS GROVES', ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN WHEREAS, all requirements of Chapter 171 have been complied with, and the planning procedures set forth in the Interlocal Agreement between Pinellas County, Florida, and the cities of Largo, Pine lIas 3 Park, and St. Petersburg, Florida, dated November 13, 1990, have been met, the owner(s) of land having ~CSTI. ~ggsented to be voluntarily annexed; now, therefore: "'" h:J .;1.3 0 RECL<:..... OR219 THE CITY OF LARGO HEREBY ORDAINS: OS INT FEES ~~ REV u ~ '\. 6 .:/l o~ - u E U ~ 2 ~ 8 ~.": d-. ~u r-- c:: . r-- ~ ~\O C"J '- '- 0'\ M 8JN- ~, >< c..t., .... - 0 ....oQ:lO u >. ~ ::::.~ 0 ;; -<UQ.,....J . 00-03703~~8- 8-2000 2 PIN~llA5 CO 8K 10807 PO I Iltill IUI II 11II1 11111 lUll 11I11 111111111 Ilti . 29!tM 352 ORDINANCE NO. 2000-28 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA, ANNEXING THE WITHIN DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND LOCATED AT 1850 JUANITA COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO THE PETITION AND APPLICATION OF THE LANDOWNER(S); INCLUDING SAID LAND WITHIN THE CITY'S MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WITH CITY LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL LOW; REDEFINING THE CORPORATE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF LARGO TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 171, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, a petition by the landowner has been duly filed with the City Commission of Largo, Florida, seeking annexation of the property hereinafter described into the corporate limits of the City of Largo; and FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING, RUN S 00'06'28" E, ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 7, OF SAID "ROSETREE OAKS UNIT II", A DISTANCE OF 144,29 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE RUN S 89'39'04" E, ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 7, A DISTANCE OF 146.53 FEET, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE RUN N 00'19'40" W, ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 7, A DISTANCE OF 121.79 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF JUANITA COURT, THE SAME ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE RUN 48.67 FEET, ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID JUANITA COURT, THE SAME ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 7, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 45.00 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N 59'20'47" W, AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 46.33 FEET, TO THE NORTH CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; LEAVING SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, THENCE RUN S 89'53'32" W, A DISTANCE OF 106.24 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. . . PINEllAS COUNTY rlA, Orr,REC,BK 10B07 PG 3S3 CONTAINING 20,516.66 SQUARE FEET, OR 0.4710 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ALSO KNOWN AS TAX ROLL PARCEL 10 NO. 30/29/16n7085/000/0070, AND AS DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "A." Section 2. That the above-described property shall be annexed with a land use designation of Residential Low, and that the above-described property shall be included within the Management District. Section 3. That the Largo City Commission hereby formally and according to law accepts the dedication of all easements, streets, parks, plazas, places, rights-of-way, and other dedications to the public which have heretofore been made by plat, deed, or user within the area so annexed. Section 4. It is the intention of the Largo City Commission that each provision hereof be considered severable, and, if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid. the remainder of the Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days after final enactment. APPROVED ON FIRST READING January 18, 2000 PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING February 1, 2000 ATTEST: , .............,,\~, ...... OF L", "1 ...'"-<...... ........ "Yr.'" ~v' ,"~POf:;-',~O" dtO L~ C., n~k'~ .. ay '--v;;r ... ... : I.. ._ '.. .'- I,. ..... ........ ._ '".,,i:o{ OR \0 ~...,--- ''\\ \\,..."...... c:-X-5:ir~ Mayor 2 ~ I; I ~ ! ~!--,'-/ I I, . : ii r-~ i I . 1\ I: '\, i I : I I ~ I \: ' i i i) ~ , . . PINELLRS COUNTY rLR Orr.REC,8K 10807 PO 354 LW~ IF E a: LW f- U) LW I U Z ~ a: w f- U) w I U a: o a f- a: :J o U w U Z w a: :J :5 f- a: :J o U ,~ I "'""" I \~-- I~\~ c[~~ r /1~) ( !/ ,---1 .' ! !!~, : ' \ \ ~ Z <( :J -, \1 I, / /1 / I / LAKE / ; I / : I ~ EXHIBIT "A" Ord, IF: 2000-28 Subject: Robert & Marqaret Blomberq (A5--02~) Location: 1850 Juanita Court 302~&77085QOOO070 r / / ~ Subject Property ,. '~1 City of Largo N ~ Scale: " - 300' , ~ :J \ .- .... '- o :Jl o~ -0 ...0 E U 0\ .3 ~ 8 ~ .: d-, eJ) U r-- = - r-- '0 ~Jl\C ;:;; ... ... 0\ 8j<'1;-;- a.>. ><....... ... - 0 "'OQ:lO ~ >, e.o =.: 0 ;; ~UQ.,-J . . 00-03703~ rEB- 8-2000 229~ PINELLAS co BK 10807 PG 349 111111I11111111111111111111111111111111I1111111111 ORDINANCE NO. 2000-27 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA. ANNEXING THE WITHIN DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND LOCATED AT 1810 SOUTH BELCHER ROAD, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO THE PETmON AND APPLICATION OF THE LANDOWNER(S); INCLUDING SAID LAND WITHIN THE CITY'S MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WITH CITY LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN; REDEFINING THE CORPORATE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF LARGO TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 171, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, a petition by the landowner has been duly filed with the City Commission of Largo, Florida, seeking annexation of the property hereinafter described into the corporate limits of the City of Largo; and 3 WHEREAS, all requirements of Chapter 171 have been complied with, and the planning procedures PAGES set forth in the Interlocal Agreement between Pinellas County, Florida, and the cities of Largo, Pine lIas ACciaO'~jtlPark, and St. Petersburg, Florida, dated November 13, 1990, have been met, the owner(s) of land having REC f5CQ consented to be voluntarily annexed; now, therefore: 0A219 OS ~ THE CITY OF LARGO HEREBY ORDAINS: !NT FEES MTF PIC REV Section 1. That the City of Largo, acting by and through its City Commission, under the authority of Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, hereby annexes into the corporate limits of the City of Largo, Florida, and accordingly redefines the boundary of said city, so as to include the following: TOTAL /5. ()O All that tract or parcel of land lying and being in the County of Pinellas, Florida, to wit: . CK BAL ..-cd ::HG # TWE NORTH 170 FEET OF THE WEST 280 FEET OF THE EAST 330 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST; THENCE RUN N 89'21'17' W, ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BELCHER ROAD [COUNTY ROAD 27], AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING [P.O.B.]. FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING, RUN N 89'21'17' W, A DISTANCE OF 280.01 FEET; THENCE RUN S 00'15'28' W, A DISTANCE OF 170.20 FEET; THENCE RUN S 89'21'17" E, A DISTANCE OF 280.Q1 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BELCHER ROAD [COUNTY ROAD 27]; THENCE RUN N 00'15'28' E, ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID BELCHER ROAD A DISTANCE OF 170.20 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 47,657.09 SQUARE FEET, OR 1.0941 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ALSO KNOWN AS TAX ROLL PARCEL ID NO. 25/29/15/00000/410/0100 , AND AS DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT 'A.' Section 2. That the above-described property shall be annexed with a land use designation of Residential Suburban, and that the above-described property shall be included within the Management District. Section 3. That the Largo City Commission hereby formally and according to law accepts the dedication of all easements, streets, parks, plazas, places, rights-of-way, and other dedications to the public which have heretofore been made by plat, deed, or user within the area so annexed. . ~ PIN~LLRS COUNTY ~LR Orr.R~C.8K 1080? PO 350 1 Section 4. It is the intention of the Largo City Commission that each provision hereof be considered severable, and, if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days after final enactment. APPROVED ON FIRST READING January 18, 2000 PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING February 1, 2000 A TIEST: J~~ Mayor 2 . ~ PIN~LLAS COUNTY rLA OrrR~C,8K 10807 PG 3~1 t ~~~~ L I \ -- '-~~-- - I I , ALICE WRENS WAY " ) 0: i , R 0 LONG BOW LANE -0 ! 0 , _3: : , , 0: , i LU -W I : I I , I i , , , . I 'W ~ 0: a: w :J: g--.. W CD , '1 J LONG tjUW lANE , lANCASTER, DRIVE " tr:, ':( t., I. "'-: ",~ ~ " , ~t \~~" ~ t: iJ,' ' ~ "'-v [WATERQAK 1-3: -~ a: -0 DRIVE ;I ~ I ' , N I WATERGAlE' I ,'.'. COtJn' " . WATERSIDE DRIVE , -I' .' ~ " \", " .~ ,'. ~'," L' ....,.. '.~\ ,.~, .'",,'~ ' . " , """''''''',':f, 2':.:f'.,i:.; , -......r;:- ," - ~t,~, "" , , /____ 1,: "--i-.. : ,r , '-.../"',,~+- -, -,.,..... . . , -~ o 1--0: W ~ I--- ~I~ V-- ., ,'"~ T"'l . ..,~.; f>i~ ;,,"'\ ,- , ,).',:~.." ;' !.o', ',0";",1-::,,," ~;;: , .10' ".. <. < "1. ~;.~., . ~.: ~4,' ,.,....' }.;. "': . ~.J I.~ . ~., " ,;. ,,', "i...._'1 ....',. DRIVE. . f I r------..~ .,i.''''. '" . ,..; f;" . '_.: 1'--'" \. I I \ :i ...,. I '\ EXHIBIT "A" Ord, #: 2000-27 Subject: John & Sharon Peters (A5-01-OO) Location: 1810 Belcher Rd 2Si29115OOQOO14100100 r / / ~ Subject Property ~+ :';. , I City of Largo " N ~, ~.t'":' Scale: l' - 300' . . Exhibit B (Ordinance 2000-26) PIN~LLAS COUNTY ~LA 0~~,R~C.8K 10807 PG 348 Residential Estate land use: A PORTION OF LOT 17, OF "SHERWOOD MANOR", ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, PAGES 6 AND 7, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST; THENCE RUN N 89'21 '17" W, ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHI;AST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 1,337.90 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25, THE SAME ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE RUN N 89'21'18" W, ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 342.40 FEET; LEAVING SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE, THENCE RUN S 00'38'42" W, A DISTANCE OF 35.70 FEET, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 17, OF "SHERWOOD MANOR", ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, PAGES 6 AND 7, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINElLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING, RUN N 88.52'15" W, ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 17, A DISTANCE OF 350.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N 39'04'34" W, A DISTANCE OF 209.49 FEET; THENCE RUN S 88'52'15" E, ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 17, A DISTANCE OF 350.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LONG BOW LANE, THE SAME ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17; THENCE RUN 44,10 FEET, ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,293.00 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S 23'31'07" E, AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 44,10 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWEST RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF SAID LONG BOW LANE; THENCE RUN 119,79 FEET, ALONG SAID SOUTHWEST RIGHT.OF-WAY LINE, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 201.48 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S 41'31 '40" E, AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 118.03 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE, THE SAME ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT.OF-WAY LINE OF NOTTINGHAM LANE; THENCE RUN 49.90 FEET, ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 123.00 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S 46'56'17" E, AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 49.56 FEET, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 53,863.93 SO. FT. OR 1.2365 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Preservation land use: A PORTION OF LOT 17, OF 'SHERWOOD MANOR", ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, PAGES 6 AND 7, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST; THENCE RUN N 89.21'17" W, ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 1,337.90 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25, THE SAME ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE RUN N 89.21'18" W, ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 342.40 FEET; LEAVING SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE, THENCE RUN S 00'38'42" W, A DISTANCE OF 35.70 FEET, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 17, OF "SHERWOOD MANOR", ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, PAGES 6 AND 7, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N 88.52'15" W, ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 17, A DISTANCE OF 350.00 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING, RUN N 88'52'15" W, ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 17, A DISTANCE OF 173,04 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17; THENCE RUN N 30'09'21" W, ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 17, A DISTANCE OF 187,22 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17; THENCE RUN S 88.52'15" E, ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 17, A DISTANCE OF 134.11 FEET, THENCE RUN S 39.04'34" E, A DISTANCE OF 209.49 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 24,571.57 SO.FT. OR 0.5641 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 25/29/15/80712/000/0170. . ~ELLAS COUNTY ~LA. 0~~REC.8K 10807 PO 346 \ NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17; THENCE RUN 44.10 FEET, ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,293,00 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S 23'31'07' E, AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 44.10 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID LONG BOW LANE; THENCE RUN 119.79 FEET, ALONG SAID SOUTHWEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 201.48 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S 41'31'40' E, AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 118.03 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE, THE SAME ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF NOTTINGHAM LANE; THENCE RUN 49.90 FEET, ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 123,00 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S 46'56'17' E, AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 49.56 FEET, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 78,435.50 SQUARE FEET, OR 1.8006 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 25/29/15/80712/000/0170 AND AS DEPICTED ON EXHIBIT "A." Section 2. That the above-described property shall be annexed with land use designations of Residential Estate (up to 1.0 unit per acre) and Preservation, as generally depicted on Exhibit "B," and that the above-described property shall be included within the Management District. Section 3. That the Largo City Commission hereby formally and according to law accepts the dedication of all easements, streets, parks, plazas, places, rights-of-way, and other dedications to the public which have heretofore been made by plat, deed, or user within the area so annexed. Section 4. It is the intention of the Largo City Commission that each provision hereof be considered severable, and, if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days after final enactment. APPROVED ON FIRST READING January 18, 2000 PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING February 1, 2000 ATTEST: ~ Mayor City Clet\ . " ..... .' ", ~ ....... .:' I", <ORIO~..--- "\\",,..,""..... 2 · QU~ I ~~ " r-'- >-- 1- 0~ - ~ "l4r ~~ -r:f1 ~ --- 7 := ~(I ~/" t ~ rove r~ ~. -1~ ~ )N~ :~ ~ /II ~'~ r*-~) ( ~jf ') ~ --\ ~ ->(V #L ~~ ~~~,l \~~ ~ngle Family ~~ ~~~ LONG ~ BOW ~' Single Family ~ \ I~~ ,/ ~ )( ~' ~ . j;l VI - BELlEAIR ROAD 1 I >-- '~ L.- - '-- --.. l== ~~~~~v/ - -~'~ I - >-.-- ~ ~~ --- ~ - ';" f--- r:' - I-- - - --rIJ .;, ,. . t' .= l*l=' >:'Il'&~r,~ = ~::=: ;r.; ~I'~." . ~ _ ~ ~~~ ~ lS ~ I I l '~;c~: ',.' R~~[[1I' ~dJ \ ( 17'! o '\ f \; EXHIBIT "A" Ord. #: 2000-26 Subject: Richard Leandri (A5-48-99) Location: 1798 Long Bow Lane 25-'2s-1 M30712-GOOO170 ,........ -----------/ 1 I ~~r ~(~ C7 '7 '-..... rr \ yr----... ~-r- \/ ( ~y } ,;.. , "!if t;)-, , "4' -" :; " / l \ v ". ' \7 1 . -.- ",AI ~ '\......... I I I LANE )- I ~ -r. " . =_." c" "'.J ,,' <, f-- 1I'Ir~ ~ F. .., , . l,.r_1 " ~ I--- '" r ~/ \ \ . BRT DIWE ,~.r~ t.~ ", "'-~ It _:7- ~ \ o 'TJ 'TJ"lJ .... ;Uz fTIfT1 or r ID:D ~U) -0 - 00 IDC OZ ""-i -< "lJ (;)"T! r :D la). A. "" ~ a:: ~[ !'\Of Ie' 'A~. :.. iH , ' i! i! / 'i ~ } ~ I - I I Ir=: N l' Scale l' = 500' , t.) ,: '> 6 .;/'; i:i't - t.) EO ~ .= ~ ~, t.) - - ~U ~ c _" r-- ~ ~\OC') 5~~t"fi :.J..JC'l,. '.). ><..... ... - 0 ... 0"" 0- '.) >.- OJ) .=:= 0 ~ ~uQ.,..J . 00-0370tlt~E8- 8-2000 2 PINELLRS CO 8K 10807 PO 11111111111111111111111111I11111111111111111111111 . 29f11M 345 ORDINANCE NO. 2000-26 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA, ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED AT 1798 LONG BOW LANE. AND LEG ALL Y DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 25/29/15/807121000/0170, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LARGO. FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO THE PETITION AND APPLICATION OF THE LANDOWNER; INCLUDING SAID LAND WITHIN THE CITY'S MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WITH CITY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL EST ATE (UP TO 1.0 UNIT PER ACRE) AND PRESERVATION; REDEFINING THE CORPORATE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF LARGO TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 171, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 171, Horida Statutes, a petition by the landowner has been duly filed with the City Commission of Largo, Horida, seeking annexation of the property hereinafter described into the corporate limits of the City of Largo; and WHEREAS, all requirements of Chapter 171 have been complied with, and the planning procedures set forth in the Interlocal Agreement between Pine lias County, Horida, and the cities of Largo, Pine lias Park, and St. Petersburg, Horida, dated November 13, 1990, have been met, it having appeared to the Largo City Commission that the owner of land within said area to be annexed voluntarily consented to such annexation, and that said petition should be approved by the affIrmative vote of the Largo City Commission; now, therefore: Section 1. That the City of Largo, acting by and through its City Commission, under the authority of Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, hereby annexes into the corporate limits of the City of Largo, Florida, and accordingly redefines the boundary of said city, so as to include the following: PAGES L/ All that tract or parcel of land lying and being in the County of Pinellas, Horida, to wit: ACCT/~'~ AECj.q....W DR219 __ OS INT -bL- FEES ~ MTF PIC REV COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST; THENCE RUN N 89'21'17. W, ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 1,337.90 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE lOTAV?--" -0 NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25, THE SAME ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE - SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE RUN N 89'21'18. W, C~ :~i j9: 5(J ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID "' I. SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 342.40 FEET; LEAVING SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE, THENCE RUN e...- S 00'38'42. W, A DISTANCE OF 35.70 FEET, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 17, OF "SHERWOOD MANOR., ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, PAGES 6 AND 7, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE CITY OF LARGO HEREBY ORDAINS: LOT 17, OF .SHERWOOD MANOR., ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, PAGES 6 AND 7, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING, RUN N 88'52'15. W, ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 17, A DISTANCE OF 523.04 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17; THENCE RUN N 30'09'21. W, ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 17, A DISTANCE OF 187.22 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17; THENCE RUN S 88'52'15. E, ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 17, A DISTANCE OF 484.11 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LONG BOW LANE, THE SAME ALSO BEING THE 1 , ,---'" I f..... L 0 ! " ~i .:~ I"ll"l nr . r m:D , ~ Ul '\ I I ,'----i I 1 -0 DO me oz -,J--i -< "lJ Q" r :D lo). ll- ll- ~ a: ~ ~ CJ) 13 I~ I ~o I ,5~ ,r , c'---,(.) , I U-.J I I ULMERTON ROAD i I I ! :~ S3ESI EXHIBIT "A" Ord. #: 2000-22 (Case #A5-47-99) Subject: Stonv Pointe Development Corp Location: 1755 20th Avenue SE 02l.3CY15QOOOCY4200200 02l.3CY15'7043414000600 & 0701 N 87//.(1 Subject Property City of Largo l' Scale " = 500' ~ . . ~ PINELLAS COUNTY rLA. Orr.REC,8K 10807 PO 343 CONTAINING 839,970.47 SQUARE FEET, OR 19,2831 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, ALSO KNOWN AS TAX ROLL PARCEL 10 NOS, 02/30/15/00000/420/0200, 02/30/15/70434/400/0600, AND 02/30/15/70434/400/0701 AND AS DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "A." Section 2, That the above-described property shall be annexed with a land use designation of "Industrial General" and that the above-described property shall be included within the Management District. Section 3. That the Largo City Commission hereby formally and according to law accepts the dedication of all easements, streets, parks, plazas, places, rights-of-way, and other dedications to the public which have heretofore been made by plat, deed, or user within the area so annexed. Section 4. It is the intention of the Largo City Commission that each provision hereof be considered severable, and, if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days after final enactment. APPROVED ON FIRST READING January 18, 2000 PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING February 1, 2000 ATTEST: S City Clerk1' 1905 \ " \t ...... ..... ~ ., ~ ...... .. ...., (OR 1011-,........... ,\\,....,,,,...... c7A2.->>~ Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: 2 , -11 t,) 'J ~ "'" ."" '-' _J; ~-t - t,) E w ~ 3 ~ 8 ~::::: ~ ~w r- t: -.,... t""-- :s ~ \C) C"'. ~ I... ~ (""""", gjN_ t,). :< [.l, ~ ~ 0 .. ti ~oo ?n ,;::.= 0 a <Uo.-l . 00~7033 FE8- 8-2000 2 PINELLAS CO 8K 10807 PO 11111111111111111111111111I11111111111111111I11111 .29"M 342 ORDINANCE NO. 2000-22 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA, ANNEXING THE WITHIN DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAKE A VENUE AND 20TH A VENUE SE, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO THE PETITION AND APPLICATION OF THE LANDOWNER, STONY POINTE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; INCLUDING SAID LAND WITHIN THE CITY'S MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WITH CITY LAND USE DESIGNATION OF INDUSTRIAL GENERAL; REDEFINING THE CORPORATE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF LARGO TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 171, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, a petition by the landowner has been duly filed with the City Commission of Largo, Florida, seeking annexation of the property hereinafter described into the corporate limits of the City of Largo; and .3 p~~~ I d'ti.2..3 () WHEREAS, all requirements of Chapter 171 have been complied with, and the planning procedures ReCJ6~'J set forth in the Interloca1 Agreement between Pine lias County, Florida, and the cities of Largo, Pine lias 0R219 Park, and S1. Petersburg, Florida, dated November 13, 1990, have been met, it having appeared to the OS T .argo City Commission that the owner(s) of land within said area to be annexed voluntarily consented 'NT to iiUch annexation, and that said petition should be approved by the affIrmative vote of the Largo City ~~ Cemmission; now, therefore: :E~ ~ THE CITY OF LARGO HEREBY ORDAINS: TOTAL / .s.d C Section 1. That the City of Largo, acting by and through its City Commission, under the authority . CK BAL _.uf.!:hapter 171, Florida Statutes, hereby annexes into the corporate limits of the City of Largo, Florida, CHG AIM'! "neJ accordingly redefines the boundary of said city, so as to include the following: 5.c<.' ~ All that tract or parcel of land lying and being in the County of Pine lias. Florida, to wit: A PORTION OF LOTS 5-7 AND LOTS 10-12 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 30 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, OF "PINELLAS GROVES", ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 55, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 30 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 2. TOWNSHIP 30 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST; THENCE RUN S 88'52'23" E, ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 2, A DISTANCE OF 352.14 FEET; LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY LINE, THENCE RUN S 01'07'37" W, A DISTANCE OF 97.26 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF A 175.00' WIDE FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION RESTRICTED- ACCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING, RUN S 71'15'07" E, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT.OF.WAY LINE OF A 175.00' WIDE FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION RESTRICTED.ACCESS RIGHT-OF.WAY, A DISTANCE OF 837.43 FEET; LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF.WAY LINE, THENCE RUN S 01'24'07" W, A DISTANCE OF 924.84 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 20TH AVENUE SE; THENCE RUN N 88'47'51" W, ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID 20TH AVENUE SE, A DISTANCE OF 799.01 FEET; THENCE RUN N 01'28'19" E, A DISTANCE OF 611.15 FEET; THENCE RUN N 88'49'25" W, A DISTANCE OF 1.95 FEET; THENCE RUN N 01'29'20" E, A DISTANCE OF 566.16 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF A 175.00' WIDE FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION RESTRICTED-ACCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. I AGENDA ITEM: VI B. MEETING DATE: December 15,1999 - , PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Planners Advisory Committee Roster RECOMMENDATION: Council Receive PAC Roster for 2000 BACKGROUND: The Planners Advisory Committee (PAC) is established in the Special Act to provide a vehicle for input to the Council from the local government planning directors. The Bylaws of the Planners Advisory Committee call for the annual update of their membership roster and for submission of this roster to the Council. It is recommended the Council receive and place on record the attached PAC membership roster for 2000. I PINELLAS PLANNING COUNClLACTlON: COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION: 1:IUSERSIWPDOCSIMISCITEM\REGITEMSIDEC99PJ'CIOOROSTER.PAC 1 e e APPENDIX I 2000 PLANNERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman Vice - Chairman- Clearwater Dunedin Gulfport Indian Rocks Beach Indian Shores- Largo Oldsmar Pinellas County- Pinellas Park - Safety Harbor - St. Petersburg - St. Pete Beach - Officers Members Rep. -Cyndi Hardin, Asst. Planning Director Alt's. -Gary Jones Rep. - Kevin Campbell, Director of Community Services Alt's.-Robert lronsmith, Dir., Community Redevelopment - Jeff Dow, Planner II Rep. - Richard Kephart, Planner Alt. -Mike Konefal, Planning & Development Supervisor Rep. -Vacant, Community Development Director Rep. - Michael Nadeau, Building Official Rep. - Rick Goss, Director of Community Development Alt. - Erik Bredfeldt, Asst. Community Dev. Dir. Rep. - Nick Staszko, Community Development Director Alt. - Marie Dauphinais, Planning Administrator Rep. - Brian Smith, Planning Director Alt's. - Gordon Beardslee, Planning Administrator; - Paul Cassel, Dir. Dev. Review Services; - John Cueva, Program Planner Rep. - Tom Shevlin, Asst. Comm. Dev. Dir. Alt's. - Bob Bray, Planning Director; - Wayne Wells, Zoning Coordinator Rep. - Ron Pianta, Planning Director Alt. - Ronald Rinzivillo, Associate Planner Rep. -Steven W olochowicz, Director Development Services Department Alt's. - Dave Goodwin, Manager Planning Programs Division - Rick MacAulay, Planner II, Planning Programs Division Rep. - Chris Brimo, Dir., Licens., Inspect., & Planning Alt. - Vacant e e to Seminole Rep. -Mitch Bobowski, General Services Dir. Alt. -William Vola, Code Admin./Asst. Fire Marshall Tarpon Springs - Rep. - Walter Fufidio, Planning & Zoning Director Alt. - Olga Sowchuck, Planner II Ex-Officio Member Pinellas County School District - Rep. - James Miller, Director Real Property Mgmt. e e Local Government Representative! Alternate Name Phone/Fax Numbers Clearwater Cyndi Hardin, Rep. 562-4052 Gary Jones, All. Dunedin Kevin Campbell, Rep. 738-1877 Fax:738-1943 Robert Ironsmith, All. 738-1807 Jeff Dow, All. 738-1857 Gulfport Richard Kephart, Rep. 893-1086 Fax:893-1080 Mike Konefal, All. 893-1000 Indian Rocks Beach Indian Shores Mike Nadeau, Rep. 595-4020 Fax:596-0050 Email:N ADEA U9999@ao1.com Largo Ric Goss, Rep. 587-6749 Fax:587-6765 Erik Bredfeldt, All. Oldsmar Nick Staszko, Rep. 813-855-4693 Marie Dauphinais, All. Pinellas County Brian Smith, Rep. 464-4751 Fax:464-4155 Gordon Beardslee, All. same Paul Cassel, Rep. 464-3888 Fax:464-3981 John Cueva, All. same Pinellas Park Tom Shevlin, Rep. 541-0756 Fax:541-0780 Bob Bray, All. Wayne Wells, All. Sl. Petersburg Steven Wolochowicz, Rep. Dave Goodwin, All. 893-4868 Fax:892-5001 Rick MacAulay, All. 893-7283 same St. Pete Beach Chris Brimo, Rep. 367-2735 Safety Harbor Ron Pianta, Rep. 724-1555 Ron Rinzivillo, Alt. Seminole Mitch Bobowski, Rep. 391-0204 William (Bill) Vola, All. Tarpon Springs Walter Fufidio, Rep. 942-5611 Olga Sowchuck, All. Pin. Co. School Disl. Jim Miller, Rep. 547-7286 Fax:547-7227 DISloSURE OF INTEREST STATEMEI PINELLAS COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL CASE NUMBER * ATTACHMENT 2 SUBMITTING GOVERNMENT ENTITY: Pinellas park PPC OR CITY/TOWN CASE NUMBER: CW 99-47 / LUFA 99-6 PROPERTY OWNERS/REPRESENT A TIVE: Name: William & Barbara Argyros. 11007 66th Street N. Largo, FL 33773 Name: Name: ANY OTHER PERSONS HAVING ANY OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: Interests: Contingent: _ Absolute: Name: Specific Interest Held: INDICATION AS TO WHETHER A CONTRACT EXISTS FOR SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: Contract is: Contingent Absolute All Parties To Contract: Name: INDICA TION AS TO WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OPTIONS TO PURCHASE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: All Parties To Option: Name: N/A Name: ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION WHICH APPLICANT MAY WISH TO SUBMIT PERTAINING TO REQUESTED PLAN AMENDMENT: * NUMBER TO BE ASSIGNED BY PLANNING COUNCIL STAFF e e EXHIBIT "A" PINELLAS FARMS, SOUTHEAST 1/4, EAST 150.05 FEET OF THE WEST 303.50 FEET OF THE SOUTH ~ OF FARM 64, LESS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYj SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 30 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST,. PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. ORDINANCE NO. 2644 i' e e THAT PARCEL LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT nAif WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. SECTION TWO: That the City Council does hereby certify that this Ordinance is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and elements thereof adopted pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. SECTION THREE: That all Ordinances, or parts of Ordinances in hereby repealed insofar as the same affect this Ordinance. conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance be and they are SECTION FOUR: That this Ordinance shall become effective 31 days after adoption. If challenged within 31 days after adoption, the Ordinance shall not become effective until (i) the issuance of a final order by the Department of Community Affairs finding this Ordinance to be in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes,.. or, if the decision on the compliance thereof is challenged, then the date that a final order is issued by the Administration Commission finding the same to be in compliance in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and (ii) the adoption of this Ordinance~ by the Countywide Planning Authority. - 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2644 ~, e e PUBLISHED THE 15th DAY OF October 1999. FIRST READING 14th DAY OF October , 1999. PUBLIC HEARING THE 28th DAY OF October , 1999. ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF October I 1999. AYES: (5) Council Members: Bailey,ButlertTaylor,Williams and Mayor Mischler NAYES: (0) ABSENT: (0) ABSTAIN: (0) APPROVED THIS 28th DAY OF October I 1999. ATTEST: t, ., , ,~\ ~ 'Ot . -, : . f , J, ;' 'J " - 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2644 e trTTACHMENT 1 NUV - 9 ,~ Ci1y ot PINELLAS PARK FLORIDA 6051 78TH AVE, . P,O, BOX 1100 PINELLAS PARK. FL 33780-1100 PHONE . (727) 541-0700 FAX . (727) 541-0780 November 4, 1999 Mr. David Healey, Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street! Suite 850 Clearwater, Florida 33755-4160 RE: LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT - LUPA 99-6 - ORDINANCE NO. 2644 Dear Mr. Healey: The City Council adopted the above referenced Land Use Plan Map amendment adopted on October 28, 1999. Attached is a copy of the adopted Ordinance, backup material, and application for Countywide Future Land Use Plan Map Amendments. This material is being sent to you for adoption by the Countywide Planning Agency. If you require any further information, please contact me at (727)541-0756. Sincerely, ~y~' Thomas L. Shevlin Assistant Community Development Administrator TLS/dsh Attachments pc: Jerry Mudd, City Manager Michael Gustafson, Community Development Administrator ... W PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER r:. e e ORDINANCE NO. 2644 AN OR:>INANCE AMENDING THE LAND USE PLAN MAP FOR THE CITY OF PINELLAS PARK BY PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE IN THE LAND USE ON A CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "An ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6651 102ND AVENUE NORTH; CERTIFYING CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (LUPA 99-6) WHEREAS, the City of Pinellas Park, Florida, finds that it is in the public's interest to change the City's Land Use Plan Map designation from Commercial General (CG) to Industrial Limited (IL) on a certain parcel of land generally located at 6651 102nd Avenue North, and more particularly described herein; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council for the City of Pinellas Park, Florida, have reviewed and held public hearings on said request; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinellas Park, Florida, has, by the adoption hereof, authorized the transmittal of a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Pinellas Planning Council/Countywide Planning Authority, with a request that the Countywide Future Land Use Plan Map be amended consistent therewith; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINELLAS PAR~, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE: That the City Council of the City of Pinellas Park hereby amends the City's Official Land Use Plan t-1ap and changes the following described property from Commercial General (CG) to Industrial Limited (IL): - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 2644 a. SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-47 - City of Pinellas Park Table 3 MPO 2015 Cost Feasible PlanfTransportation Improvement Program Roadway Existing Classification MPO 2015 Classification TIP Scheduled Improvements None 102nd Avenue N. - 66th Street N. to 62nd Avenue N. 66th Street N. - Bryan Dairy Rd. to 102nd Avenue N. 66th Street N. - 102nd Avenue N. to 78th Avenue N. 2 lane divided collector 2 lane divided collector 6 lane divided principal arterial 6 lane divided principal arterial None 6 lane divided principal arterial 6 lane divided principal arterial None Notes Re: Traffic Tables: 1. Traffic volumes are expressed in vehicle trips per day (vtpd) 2. Traffic standards are the trip generation rate standards in the Rules. 3. Traffic estimated for undeveloped parcels is added to existing condition analysis. 4. Traffic estimated for developed land is accounted for in the MPO adopted traffic count (1997 Transportation Level of Service Report). 5. Traffic estimated for future conditions based on Future Land Use Plan category is accounted for in the MPO adopted future volumes. 6. Level of service for both existing and future conditions is based on the MPO refined level of service procedures. 7. Cumulative impacts based on FLUP amendments approved after January 1, 1996. 8. Levels of Service (LOS) are defined as follows: "A" A free flow condition. "B" A stable flow condition. "C" A relatively satisfactory traffic condition with good operation speeds. "D" An unstable traffic flow condition with only tolerable operating speeds. "E" An unstable traffic flow condition with momentary stoppages from congestion. "F" A forced-flow condition in which the facility acts as storage for vehicles backing up from a downstream bottleneck. SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-47 - City of Pinellas Park Table 1 Trip Generation Comparison Existing Countywide Plan Category vs. Proposed Countywide Plan Category Existing Plan Category Status Plan Size in Acres Traffic Std. Total Trip Generation Category (vtpd/ac) (vtpd) Vacant CG 1.12 465 520 Total 520 Proposed Plan Category Status Plan Size in Acres Traffic Std. Total Trip Generation Category (vtpd/ac) (vtpd) Vacant IL 1.12 170 190 Total 190 e SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-47 - City of Pinellas Park Table 2 V olume and Level of Service Comparison Existing Condition Roadway W lout With Amendment Link Amendment # Current Volume LOS Volume LOS 102nd A venue N. - 66th Street N. to 7570 9,862 D 9,842 D 62nd A venue N. 66th Street N. - Bryan Dairy Rd. to 7260 37,096 B 37,030 B 102nd Avenue N. 66th Street N. - 102nd A venue N. to 7270 37,096 B 37,030 B 78th Avenue N. Future Condition Roadway W lout With Amendment Link Amendment # Volume LOS Volume LOS 102nd A venue N. - 66th Street N. to 7570 9,863 D 9,843 D 62nd A venue N. 66th Street N. - Bryan Dairy Rd. to 7260 45,725 D 45,659 D 102nd A venue N. 66th Street N. - 102nd A venue N. to 7270 42,760 D 42,694 D 78th Avenue N. ~ :z ::> o u = " ::> o '" o '" ~ !i! ~ GULF'Of'WEXICO TAMPA BAY FIGURE 1 CASE NO. CW99-47 ~ ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPHICS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE PINEWS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, JIM SMITH Produced by IIEDIT V2.1, Copyright 1991,1992 Pinella. County, Florida Property Appraiser. All RiChts Reserved. e _ A _^__'~---__/----'.-- __i--_A---,'-,--," ,'__,-----'-----'~-~-_- IL _ _ _ . . . . .......,,-..J.........,.l.--.-; ............"............./\....../\._/.J'. ......../........,............................''-/. "- IL Aj~" '.A';, '-;, '-.- '.-'- '.;,A-,- -~ --_.'"-"~-~----._.......... -------- - z ~'~ ~. BE r- ffU ,,-t'l/ , ~ IL >- w W 0: >- (f) I f---- IL I >--- <.D <.D I--- IL I @ CG ~ ~~ NORTH 102 1 - RIM CG - - --.J '"'''''' AVENUE INS INS o 0: CG 1u.M ~ I/QOTH AVE ~ I J~ I I I J '-: I I~: '00'" '" z " =: I\~ ~~! :1; ----f---- e-- ~ :r r6 I I ~ I I ~ <D ;---:= ~ ~ ____ 99TH AVE N ~ SSTH AVE N V I II / II RU ~ 1I11 I II 11CG CG I I RM ~~ <( ;:; 98TH CG I-- z I-- w I-- Z RI <( I-- --! I >--- '" I-- <.D I-- v~- IQOTH Ave: N Z V; ~ - J~!F-- -- - -I-- 2 ~ RLM C::\j I AvENUE Z ~ <( ii: I >--- I ~ I I - - --f-- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----~ _.1_'--- ----- ----- ----- ----- R/OS CASE NO. Clf99-47 PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM: Commercial General (CG) TO: Industrial Limited (lL) ACREAGE: 1.12 [~] PI~~~~ED~':.~~I~p~E.:.~~~~: mOMSER. J~ 'MITH GRAPHICS CREATED USING MEDIT VERSION 2.1 @ FIGURE 2 & SCALE: I" = 400' C~. .. ..: ... ..: J ~. - . .. - " '., if . ~ ' ..~ ---i~ ~~ , " ' -.~ t~! ~ ,,;,' .., t:_~~~ r .... Jt l. '~.' ~'~~.--':' )T "~I .." .'. . "._.~ -...::.:.:~~ -. ~.~~.~ '.~, ~'" I . . '; ! 13' ,I : ~.:.~ 1 .t, ':> .' ; J! I -'~. .,' , ~"f:)tJ. '.' . ., .) .' ~-:....r .' ~'<l"~. :. .' .' '._.1'J'[1;.~ " "'G~""""" !. ':l..! ';f""-..~ ., l I. -r 1 ' f....,.~ .' -1. .~.).~ I ,I ~~ . ,...~r..:..... !jl - , : ;:~: .. 1~. , L-'.J~'. . . . '. .. -. . --~ e .a. fcBr: '.<' ,';~,~.,.'; w"" ;-. } .. - - - t~[:t i', ,; <'.,. ::<>~,~ - " , ,-''i WN~ 'N~IL~' ;;~l' , ." .. '. :.d'" , .~~' 'F-AJ.J ?J.......A,JJ fjJJj,-' ..~,. . : ./.> .':"',. ::.::~~,/,~;!"..,:'.: ....'.'< .... '~ ,....., .',.,'.'" ,:" '''W ~:,:; ""~".3r'::"':., .:" .'. .,::', . ';..:':', ,,",; ..... ." ;. .> :,~: 1<; .;' '" ".' .'\} ., .,:& . "~';' '. ; r;:;'-~:,'::,. " ; ,'; , ,.. ',y . ',' " .' ...:, :"'~>' ..i' '" . . ~... ",::1, -,"'(.. l~;::~:~ ',,' .': ., ....,.;".',',....., ~,;'~ _ <: : i': . , ."",11:" ... ',,~.. . :,.~., ...... ;:: :. .". "" ,; ':''''''" t" :. , ..: ,,:'. .'" ~. .....'....... ~{:f. -:=;:>~-::~'~'7":-' <.; IL I. ~. .~. .,"" .,':\., .. "': :: ;;;,/'>> .'>: ,.... '. .'.'. i,i, ". .... CG .",;' ':' .: "'. .. .>, '. ,.,,:/'.: . .,......:.-. "'. '..- - .... .,.-.::,.:. ;:"".' ';:" . . ...., .'. '.' ,.:.:~ '. '. ~ . > I :. '. " ,'. :-.' :"'. '"," w. :ri .', ....; ~ 146. .... .;.....,...... .... .' ',." ..~"; '. " ..:,' "". .. . ..:",:;. ..... '. ";: ,." '. :,,,.,, . '.::., . '. ','. . """" .:, ., " ,.. . : .:....... '<." .:,' <'. '.: '. .,.': 1'.-- .', ~ ... .':. . ," '. ..,..... ..".... >< . ...': <<, . ...... , .~-- <;,,~""; ," ,:" ~ -. '..", , 1 ",' . ,,-: ,,;:-_' ',3 R1 ,. ~ ," ';:.:::. ". ',' ..,.. "':.:. ., ','. " .. :". :.,'. .'. ., . '. -::...,' ".,'.': ":.' - ... ;I: /.:' . '::DIS' ;,';,.'.~:::i'. ';iNs,"'<~ <~',m: :.::, .'.' '.' .' ':'. ." .',":. ~ . '. ~ ;,.; " ,,' -",:. .::.;:,.. a' .' "~,.' .: ~ I ~ ...... . .....,.< . ....... ...C." ...........q.: '.' . a: '. .....;:..~.. .,.... ." v -.L I I . . . . .' .." ...... ., ....~.. ," "'I I i:,' " ;",,:>,;;';,'J.. t.f "r; ....If..'.I.' ;'~ 1. ,.' ;; ."~~~ , ':,.:{. :f "'r A~; .;:.,"' ...< ~ ,1' .. ...;. ,:It ::: '= < .<, ..... .,: :"11 ~~< ." I' .... " .. ...... .'iI:; ". .-. ~ ; .. . ': : , c 'N~. ,r ': .. ....:. ,.:r '. ::: s: .,,: ~ ~ ~. · J .~'.' ..... i j 19l'~- " ..r-- u' .>1 ." ,; ~in:r -:.;, ~ ~ .';;.. "'. ,.' ..- '. --- ~ . : ':n~ '. "'it'.,:,.;'" AV(k v~1 Jl;" -..,p: ':~.:n>:.'<-.,': H':~ ~"" .' ......':...,,>:'..'1I8m. ,:t':J .".' ---- .. :.i'.' .....,. .,~. W ,J. .....' .1I,(J:; t~";J,~[.~~t:,,.::-/.::}.:.':a/~ . '." FIGURE 4 CW99-47 t',') CITY OF PINELLAS PARK ~ SCALE, 400' ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPHICS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF PINELLAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER. JIM SMITH GRAPHICS CREATED USING MEDIT VERSION 2.1 @ SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-47 - City of Pinellas Park This portion of 102nd A venue N. is currently classified as a 2 lane divided collector and is scheduled to remain the same under the MPO's 2015 Long Range Plan. The 1997 Level of Service (LOS) on 66th Street N. between Bryan Dairy Rd. and 78th Avenue N. is "B", with or without the amendment. The projected 2015 LOS is "D", with or without the amendment. This portion of 66th Street N. is currently classified as a 6 lane divided principal arterial and is scheduled to remain the same under the MPO's 2015 Long Range Plan. Water/Sewer - The Pinellas County Water System services the subject area. The water supply and wastewater demands attributable to the existing and proposed plan categories are summarized below. Existing Gallons/Day (GPD) 1,610 Proposed GPD 1,903 Net Change GPD +293 According to the Countywide Plan Standards, the existing Commercial General Countywide Plan Category creates a demand for 1,610 gpd of water. The proposed Industrial Limited designation would create a demand for 1,903 gpd, resulting in a potential increase of some 293 gpd of water. However, since the property is vacant, the actual increase in water consumption of approximately 293 gallons per day will be a functions of development of the subject property. Additionally, the South Cross Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant (operated by Pinellas County) services the subject area. The South Cross Plant has a capacity of 28.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and an average daily flow of 20.4 mgd. Adequate capacity exists to accommodate the potential demand generated by this amendment. Environmental - The subject area does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas that would require separate classification as Preservation on either the City or Countywide Plan Maps. F. Related Planning Considerations Land Use - The subject site is vacant and is proposed to be developed with a 15,000 sq.ft. building to accommodate an light industrial use. 5 Jl SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-47 - City of Pinellas Park It should be noted that this amendment would appear to constitute spot zoning, in as much as it will be surrounded by land designated as Commercial General. However, the larger area west and north of the subject parcel is designated IL and includes many industrially developed parcels. Also, it is the intention ofthe City of Pine lIas Park that as the City annexes the properties to the north and west of the subject parcel that those annexed properties would be reclassified as Industrial Limited, so as to reduce the amount of land designated as Commercial General on the north side of 102nd A venue. The City should collaborate with Pinellas County in the interim to ensure that these parcels are designated IL. The proposed IL Countywide Plan designation is generally compatible with the surrounding plan designations which include CG to the north, east and west, and as stated earlier, IL to the west and north, beyond the immediate adjacent parcels, and is compatible with the surrounding existing uses which are predominantly heavy commercial and light industrial. In summary, the proposed amendment to Industrial Limited is generally consistent with the Countywide Rules and Policies and the subject area is an appropriate location in which to apply the Countywide Plan Standards. 6 Jl SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-47 - City of Pinellas Park III. LIST OF FIGURES & ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 Location map Figure 2 Existing Countywide Plan Category/Subject Area - Black & White Figure 2A Existing Countywide Plan Category/Subject Area - Color Figure 3 Black & White Aerial Figure 4 Jurisdictional Boundaries Table 1 Trip Generation Comparison - Existing Countywide Plan Category vs. Proposed Countywide Plan Category; Table 2 V olume and Level of Service Comparison; Table 3 MPO 2015 Cost Feasible Plan!Transportation Improvement Program Attachment 1 Local Government Request for Plan Amendment Attachment 2 PPC Disclosure of Interest Form 7 SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-47 - City of Pinellas Park II. BACKGROUND Location: North side of 102nd A venue, 267 ft. west of 66th Street. Purpose: To allow for a light industrial use. Parcel Number: S 18/30/16-69768-400-6411 A. Land Use Considerations Existing Use: Vacant Adioining Use: The adjoining plan and existing use characteristics are as follows: Countywide Plan Categories North: Commercial General South: Residential Low Medium; Commercial General East: Commercial General West: Commercial General Jurisdiction (Pinellas County) (Pine lIas Park) Existing Land Use Vacant; Auto Repair Multi-family; Texaco Station Nations bank Vacant (Pinellas Park) (Pinellas County) B. Compatibility and Consistency with the Countywide Plan Map Category Consistency The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the portion of the Countywide Rules regarding the "Purpose and Locational Characteristics" for the IL plan category which state the following: · Purpose - "...to depict those areas of the County that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in a limited industrial manner; and so as to encourage the reservation and use of consolidated areas for industrial use in a manner and location consistent with the surrounding use, transportation facilities, and natural resource characteristics." · Locational Characteristics - "...generally appropriate to locations with sufficient size to encourage an industrial park type arrangement with provision for internal service access in locations suitable for light industrial use with minimal adverse impact on adjoining uses; and served by the arterial and thoroughfare highway network, as well as mass transit." C. Consistency of Local Government Comprehensive Plan Standards and Zoning Designations Countywide Plan Standards - The Countywide Plan Standards applicable to the IL Countywide Plan Category are as follows: 3 ... A SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-47 - City of Pinellas Park · Transient Accommodation Use shall not exceed 40.0 units per acre. · Non-residential uses shall not exceed a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.65 or Impervious Surface Ratio (lSR) of 0.85. · Other Standards - A planned industriaVmixed use project which constitutes a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) or which comprises not less than fifty (50) acres may include secondary Institutional; TransportationlUtility; Retail Commercial; Personal Service/Office Support; CommerciaVBusiness Service; Commercial Recreation; and Transient Accommodation uses ... City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning - The City will designate this parcel IL on its future land use map. The City's IL plan category has a maximum FAR of 0.55 and an ISR of 0.75 which is consistent with the Countywide Plan Standards. The parcel is proposed to be classified as Light Industrial (M -1) under the City's Land Development Code. The M-1 zoning classification would allow a maximum FAR of 0.55 and an ISR of 0.75 which is consistent with their comprehensive plan. D. Countywide Plan Policies The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the following policy of the Countywide Plan: · Land planning should weigh heavily the established character of predominantly developed areas when changes of use or intensity of development is contemplated. E. Infrastructure and Environmental Impacts Traffic Impacts - Traffic characteristics for current and projected conditions are summarized in the accompanying tables attached to the end of the staff report (See Tables 1-3). Based on a comparison of existing and proposed Countywide Plan Categories, the existing Commercial General Countywide Plan Category generates approximately 520 vehicle trips per day (vtpd), while the proposed Industrial Limited Countywide Plan Category will generate approximately 190 vtpd, a net decrease of 330 vtpd. However, since the site is vacant, traffic will increase upon development of the site. The 1997 Level of Service (LOS) on 102nd A venue N. between 66th Street N. and 62nd Street N. is "D", with or without the amendment. The projected 2015 LOS is "D", with or without the amendment. 4 PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ~Fl AGENDA MEMORANDUM "'~C I AGENDA ITEM: V B-4. I MEETING DATE: December 15, 1999 SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan Map From: Commercial General - CG To: Industrial Limited - IL Area: 1.12 acres CASE: CW#99-47 JURISDICTION: City of Pinellas Park (LUP A 99-6) RECOMMENDATION: Council, Based on Accompanying Findings (I. A through F), Recommend to the Countywide Planning Authority That The Proposed Amendment to Industrial Limited be Approved. Separately and In Addition, Council Recommend That Pinellas Park and Pinellas County Collaborate in Processing Amendments to the Parcels to the North and to the West Ensuring That They Are Changed from CG to IL. I. FINDINGS Based on the background data and analysis in this report, the following findings are submitted for consideration as the basis for the recommendation for approval of the amendment request to Industrial Limited: A. Land Use Considerations - The subject area is vacant. The proposed IL designation is generally compatible with the surrounding existing land uses. B. Compatibility and Consistency with the Countywide Plan Map Category - The IL Countywide Plan Category is generally compatible with the surrounding Countywide Future Land Use Plan Map (Countywide Plan Map) designations, which include CG to the north, east, and west and a larger IL area to the west and north. I PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION: I COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION: I: IU SERSI WPDOCSILUIC ASESI99-4 7. rr wpJ ... SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-47 - City of Pinellas Park The application of the IL plan category to this site is generally consistent with the "Purpose and Locational Characteristics" of the IL Countywide Plan Category. C. Consistency of Local Government Comprehensive Plan Standards and Zoning Designations - The City's standards for the plan category are consistent with the Countywide Plan Standards. The City's proposed zoning designation for this site is consistent with the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Plan (Countywide Rules). D. Consistency with Goals, Policies, and Economic Assumptions of the Countywide Comprehensive Plan (Countywide Plan Policies) - The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the Countywide Plan Policies for the IL Countywide Plan Category. E. Infrastructure and Environmental Impacts - The existing water, sewer, and traffic infrastructure is adequate to support the demands generated by the proposed IL designation. - There are no environmentally sensitive lands that would require separate classification as Preservation. F. Related Planning Considerations - The subject site is vacant and is proposed to be developed with a 15,000 sq.ft.light industrial use. - It is the City's intent that as the properties to the north and west of the subject property are annexed they will be amended from Commercial General to Industrial Limited, so as to reduce the amount of land classified as commercial on the north side of 102nd A venue. The City should collaborate with Pinellas County in the interim to ensure that these adjoining parcels are redesignated IL. - The amendment area is not located within the Coastal High Hazard Area. In consideration of and based upon these findings, it is recommended that the proposed amendment to Industrial Limited be approved. 2 DII,OSURE OF INTEREST ST A TEME! PINELLAS COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL CASE NUMBER * ATTACHMENT 2 SUBMITTING GOVERNMENT ENTITY: Oldsmar PPC OR CITY/TOWN CASE NUMBER: CW 99-50 (OA) / LV. 99-003 PROPERTY OWNERS/REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Corporate Controller Inc. 412 Shore Dr. E. Oldsmar, FL 34677 Name: Name: ANY OTHER PERSONS HAVING ANY OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: Interests: Contingent: _ Absolute: Name: Specific Interest Held: INDICATION AS TO WHETHER A CONTRACT EXISTS FOR SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: Contract is: Contingent Absolute All Parties To Contract: Name: INDICATION AS TO WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OPTIONS TO PURCHASE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: All Parties To Option: Name: N/A Name: ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION WHICH APPLICANT MAY WISH TO SUBMIT PERTAINING TO REQUESTED PLAN AMENDMENT: * NUMBER TO BE ASSIGNED BY PLANNING COUNCIL STAFF e e The location of the property, fronting on SR 580-B (St. Petersburg Drive) is an appropriate location for an Office zoning designation and is consistent with the development to the west. 9. The amendment will result in enhancing the health, safety or welfare of the citizens of Oldsmar. The rezoning will provide continuity with the Office property located to the west. 10. The amendment will further the expressed purposes of the Land Development Code. The applicant proposes to develop the property with an office use. According to the Land Development code, the OF zoning district is established to provide suitable areas for professional business office facilities. Office general uses should be established along major traffic facilities. Therefore, due to the location of the property fronting SR 580-B (St. Petersburg Drive) rezoning the property to Office will meet the intent of the Land Development Code. 11. The amendment will not in any way deter the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning is consistent with the following goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Oldsmar Comprehensive Plan: Future Land Use Objective 1.1- As an ongoing objective the city shall ensure that 100% of land uses associated with development are compatible and shall be coordinated with future land uses based upon topography, soil conditions, and the availability of facilities and services, in terms of both the land and surrounding uses and overall public interest. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above discussion, staff recommends approval of the rezoning from Residential Single Family (R-2) and Residential One, Two & Three Family (R-3) to Office (OF). PLANNING BOARD: The board met on October 13, 1999 and recommended approval of the rezoning from Residential Single Family (R-2) and Residential One, Two & Three Family (R-3) to Office (OF). (Vote: 6-1) Prepared by: Marie Dauphinais Planning Administrator cc: File City Clerk for the October 13, 1999 Planning Board meeting and the October 19, 1999 City Council meeting lU99-003 REZ99-00.t -6- Wallacc Rezoning and land Use e e 10. The amendment will not adversely or unreasonably affect the use of other property in the area The amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties. The proposed Residential/Office General land use is compatible with the existing Residential/Office General development to the west. 11. The amendment will not deter the improvement or development of other property in the area. The amendment will not deter the improvement or development of other property in the area. The proposed amendment will permit Residential/Office General development fronting on St. Petersburg Drive. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above discussion staff recommends approval of the land use amendment from Residential Urban to ReSidential/Office General and Preservation. PLANNING BOARD: The board met on October 13, 1999 and recommended approval of the land use amendment from Residential Urban to Residential/Office General and Preservation. (Vote: 6-1). REZONING REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of approximately .79 acres (34,750s.f.) from Residential Single Family (R-2) and Residential One, Two & Three Family (R-3) to Office (OF). DISCUSSION: This request for a rezoning was evaluated pursuant to Article III, Section 3.15.3 Standards For ADDroval. Oldsmar land Development Code. 1. The available uses to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property in question and compatible with the existing and planned uses in the area The subject property will be developed with an office use which is consistent with the Office zoning designation to the west. 2. The numerical and dimensional development requirements which govern the development of property will sufficiently safeguard the integrity and character of the area. The applicant is requesting a rezoning from Residential Single Family (R-2) and Residential One, Two & Three Family (R-3) to Office (OF). The applicant has submitted a concept plan for the proposed office use which generally meets the requirements of the Office district with regard to setbacks, landscaping and parking. If the rezoning to Office is approved the applicant will be required to LU99-003 REZ99-004 -4- Wallace Rezoning and Land Use e e submit a site plan which meets the required setbacks in the OF zone (Front- 40', side - 10', rear -20') and additional Land Development requirements which will sufficiently safeguard the integrity and character of the area. 3. The amendment will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner The amendment will not constitute a grant of special privilege. The zoning designation of the property to the west is Office, therefore the request is consistent with the existing office development. 4. The amendment will not conflict with the needs of the neighborhood or the city. The.amendment will not conflict with the needs of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed rezoning request is consistent with the office development to the west and is bordered by Bedford Street, which will provide a sufficient separation from the Residential One, Two & Three Family zoning district to the east. 5. The amendment will not adversely or unreasonably affect the use of other property in the area The amendment will not deter the improvement or development of other property in the area. The proposed amendment will permit Office development fronting on SR 580-B (St. Petersburg Drive). 6. The amendment will not deter the improvement or development of other property in accord with the existing zoning and development regulations The amendment will not deter the improvement or development of other property in the area. The Office zoning category is compatible with the surrounding property. 7. The amendment will not adversely burden public facilities, including the traffic carrying capacities of streets, in an unreasonable or disproportionate manner. There is sufficient potable water supply and facilities to continuously serve the development. The City of Oldsmar has a 60 million-gallon per month capacity for potable water. The current daily demand of the City from Pinellas County and the St. Petersburg Water System is below available capacity. There is sufficient sanitary sewer capacity available to serve the property. The Oldsmar Wastewater Treatment Plant has a capacity of 2.25 million gallons per day (MGD) and an average daily flow of 1.00 mgd. The Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently operating at less than 60% of its capacity. Access is available from SR 580-B (St. Petersburg Drive) and Bedford Street. $. The district boundaries are appropriately drawn with due regard to locations and classifications of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements, and the natural environment. LU99-003 REZ99-004 -5- Wallace Rezoning and Land Use e e BACKGROUND: The property is zoned Residential Single Family (R-2) and Residential One, Two and Three Family (R-3) with a land use designation of Residential Urban. The applicant is requesting a land use designation of Residential/Office General and Preservation with a zoning designation of OF (Office). SURROUNDING LAND USE: The subject property is currently vacant. Access is available from St. Petersburg Drive and Bedford Street. The site is surrounded by the following land use designations: north - across St. Petersburg Drive, Residential Urban with a zoning designation of Residential One, Two and Three Family (R-3) and Residential Single family (R-2) and is developed with residential uses; east- Residential Urban land use with a zoning designation of Residential One, Two & Three family and is developed with residential uses; west - Residential/Office General with a zoning designation of Office and is developed with office uses; south, Residential Urban land use with a zoning designation of Residential Single Family and is developed with the residential uses. LAND USE REQUEST: LU99-003 - A land use amendment from Residential Urban to Residential/Office General and Preservation. DISCUSSION: The request was reviewed against the following standards outlined in Section 3.14.4 of the Land Development Code: f.. The amendment will further implementation of the comprehensive plan consistent with the goals, objectives and policies contained herein. The amendment is consistent with the following goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Oldsmar Comprehensive Plan: Future Land use Objective 1.1 - As an ongoing objective the City shall ensure that 100% of the land uses associated with development are compatible and shall be coordinated with future land uses based upon topography, soil conditions, and the availability of facilities and services, in terms of both the land and surrounding uses and the overall public interest. 2. The available uses to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property in question and compatible with the existing and planned uses in the area The subject property will be developed with an office use which is consistent with the Residential/Office General land use to the west. The applicant owns Lot 3,4,5, & 6, Block 55 RMO. However, the applicant is requesting a land use amendment of Lot 6, Block 55 RMO to Preservation because this lot directly abuts single family residential development. Amending the land use of Lot 6, Block 55 to Preservation will provide an additional buffer between the proposed office use and the residential single family development to the south. 3. Sufficient potable water supply facilities will be available to continuously serve the property. LU99-003 REZ99-004 -2- Wallace Rezoning and Land Use e e There is sufficient potable water supply and facilities to continuously serve the development. The City of Oldsmar has a 60 million-gallon per month capacity for potable water. The current daily demand of the City from Pinellas County and the St. Petersburg Water System is below available capacity. 4. Adequate sanitary sewer facilities, including treatment capabilities, will be continuously available to serve the property. There is sufficient sanitary sewer capacity available to serve the property. The Oldsmar Wastewater Treatment Plant has a capacity of 2.25 million gallons per day (MGD) and an average daily flow of 1.00 mgd. The Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently operating at less than 60% of its capacity. 5. Sufficient traffic-carrying capacity will be continuously available to serve the property. The concept plan, submitted as part of the application package, indicates that access to the property will be via St. Petersburg Drive and Bedford Street. The traffic generated from the proposed Residential/Office General property should be adequately accommodated on St. Petersburg Drive and staff recommends that access be limited to St. Petersburg Drive. 6. The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment. Permitting Residential/Office General at this location will require 50% of the area to be devoted to open space thereby limiting the pervious surface coverage. In addition, any development of the property will require city site plan approval and approval from other permitting agencies 7. Adequate public facilities such as schools, parks, and libraries will be continuously available to serve the property. There are adequate public facilities available to serve the development. 8. The amendment will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner The amendment will not constitute a grant of special privilege. The land use designation of the property to the west is Residential/Office General therefore the request is consistent with this proposed office development. 9. The amendment will not conflict with the needs of the neighborhood or the city. The amendment will not conflict with the needs of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed land use and rezoning request is consistent with the office development to the west. Permitting an office use fronting SR 580-B (St. Petersburg Drive) may be a more appropriate use at this location. In addition, Lot 6, Block 55 will be amended to Preservation which will provide an additional buffer between the proposed office use and the residential properties to the south. LU99-003 REZ99-004 -3- Wallace Rezoning and Land LOse e e Section 2. That the City of Oldsmar's future land use map and Comprehensive Plan shall be amended or is hereby affIrmed to conform to the classifIcation herein. Section 3. The effective date of this plan amendment shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs finding the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163.3184, F. S., or the date a fmal order is issued by the Administration Commission fmding the amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Chapter 163.3184, F.S. PASSED ON FIRST READING: } / - 3 '- I 7 PASSED ON SECOND READING AND ADOPTED: Jeffrey S. Sandler, Mayor City of Oldsmar ATTEST: Lisa A. Lene, City Clerk City of Oldsmar APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~U<<#~ ~omas J. Tras , Esquire City Attorney City of Oldsmar TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CASE NO: APPUCANT: LOCATION: LU99-003 REZ99-004 e e STAFF REPORT Bruce T. Haddock City Manager Nicholas Staszko Community Development Director October 4, 1999 Land Use amendment from Residential Urban to Residential Office /General and a Rezoning from Residential Single family (R-2) and Residential One, Two & Three Family (R-3) to Office. LU99-003 REZ99-004 David Wallace St. Petersburg Drive (SR 580-B) & Bedford Street (Block 55, Lots 3,4, 5 & 6) PROJECT LOCATION -1- Wallaee Rezoning and Land Use City"of Q{dSmar e ATTACHMENT 1 'To pTUtect the community ani! enfumu tnt tpuJUty oj life tlirouoli customer cmentd pu6& serviu. 100 State Street West. Oldsmar, Florida 34677-3655. (813) 855-4693. FAX (813) 854-3121 . SUNCOM 552-7550 November 5, 1999 David Healey, AICP Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleaveland Street Suite 850 Clearwater, Florida 33755-4160 RE: Land Use Amendment from Residential Urban to Residential Office/General Case No LU99-003 Dear Mr. Healey: The City of Oldsmar requests a review of the Land Use Amendment submitted by David Wallace. The City of Oldsmar Planning Board held a public hearing on October 13, 1999 and unanimously recommended approval of the request to the City Council. The Oldsmar City Council conducted a public hearing on Ordinance 99-15 on November 3/ 1999 and approved the Land Use Amendment on first reading. Please schedule the attached amendment at the earliest convenient time for review by the Council. If you are in need of additional information please contact me at 855-4693. Nicholas Staszko, AICP Community Development Director Enclosures: Staff Report dated October 4, 1999 Ordinance 99-15 Council-9vfanager (jovemment ,,..---------- . e e ORDINANCE 99-15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OLDSMAR AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COIvfPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY; TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 28 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST, AND AS FURTHER DESCRlBED IN EXHIBIT 1, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY. 79 ACRES, FROM RESIDENTIAL URBAN TO RESIDENTIAL OFFICE/GENERAL AND PRESERVATION, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. WHEREAS, the property described herein is currently undeveloped, and WHEREAS, the Residential/Office General and Preservation land use designation proposed for the property described herein will be consistent with the prevailing development pattern, and \VHEREAS, the Planning Board for the City of Oldsmar held public hearings and duly considered the classification of the property described herein and made its recommendation to the City Council, and \VHEREAS, the City Council did agenda and discuss in public meetings, the proposed land use amendment of the property described herein, and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of city staff presentations and public hearings concerning classification of the property described herein the City Council did find from the facts presented to the City Council, that said classification would protect and preserve the public health, safety and \velfare, and would promote the integrity of the area; now, there fore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OLDS~fAR, FLORIDA, IN SESSION DULY AND REGULARLY ASSEtvIBLED: Section 1. That the future land use element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Oldsmar is amended by establishing the land use classification for the property herein described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto, as Residential Office/General and Preservation. , t I 'I' t, ;".i [\U HEr;::~~ "0 ;.ItS A rRUE AND Si)P~i c; emF . l:~ ~_ THE G1TY~j"". ~. __ ....~ ~. el1 ,;. c:\! RLM RLM -_.~ ---~ .......----...-) STATE STREET CG , :.tV--- rn rn~ DARTMOUTH AVE w ::> ______J.______ z ~ INS << w ::l Z ~ ----8 << o o o ~ '" <( - - - -- - - -- - -- o w z a: -- V BUCKINGHAM AVE ~---~- ~ , w , Z () ,- R.~ Q ~ o > ------- ------ ....J CD WATER "'---. "'---. FIGURE 2B CW99-50(OA) PROPOSED PRESERVATION & SCALE: 400' ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPHICS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF PINELLAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER. JIM SMITH GRAPHICS CREATED USING MEDIT VERSION 2.1 @ r- Jft .;,'~- . - --- 6b ~ :z ;:> '" u :: ~ ::> '" '" '" '" ~ !i! '" ~ . . CU11 Of' MEXICO TAMPA BAY FIGURE 1 CASE NO. CW99-50( OA) ~ ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPHICS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE PINEllAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, JIM SMITH Produced by "'EDIT V2.1, Copyright 1991,1992 Pinella. County, Florida Property Appraiser. All Ri.hts Reserved. ----- c~~-~ '\,~ '. IWI RLM -..~ "'~ ......--......) CG , , ~U--- , , , STATE STREET rn rn 0 > W -.l ::> ro _ _ __ _ _.J_. _ _ ___ z w DARTMOUTH AVE > INS <[ w ::> z 0 w w ----R 0 z > 0 c: <[ ~ :>< ------ --- --- <[ 0 - - - - ~- --- -- - BUCKINGHAM , ~EJl , , w -~:-:-:'ij--:-- ' z ~" - - - --- - -. - - -- 0 > - - - - --- - - - --- W ..J > ro <[ ---...... ---...... CASE NO. CW99-50(OA) PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM: Residential Urban (RU) TO: Residential/Office General (R/OG), Preservation (P) ACREAGE: 0.79 [~I PI~~~:D~~~.!':lo~p~,~?~~~,~ APPWS". Jm SWTH GRAPHICS CREATED USING MEDIT VERSION 2.1 0 FIGURE 2 & SCALE: 1" =400' SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-50 (OA) - Oldsmar III. LIST OF FIGURES & ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 Location map Figure 2 Existing Countywide Plan Category/Subject Area - Black & White Figure 2A Existing Countywide Plan Category/Subject Area - Color Figure 2B Proposed Preservation Figure 3 Black & White Aerial Attachment I City Transmittal Letter & Staff Report Attachment 2 PPC Disclosure of Interest Form 3 e PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCI AGENDA MEMORANDUM 'A/NARY VIEWOf:O WLY I MEETING DATE: December 15, 1999 I I AGENDA ITEM: V B-3. SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan Map From: Residential Urban - RU To: ResidentiaVOffice General - R/OG; Preservation - P Area: 0.79 acres CASE: CW#99-50 (OA) JURISDICTION: Oldsmar (LU 99-003) RECOMMENDATION: Council, Based on Accompanying Finding, Recommend to the Countywide Planning Authority That The Proposed Subthreshold Amendment be Approved Pursuant to the Official Acceptance Process. 1. FINDINGS Based on the background data and analysis in this report, the following finding is submitted for consideration as the basis for the recommendation for approval of the amendment request: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with Division 5.3 of the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Rules (Countywide Rules), the purpose of which is to recognize and provide for amendments of the Countywide Plan Map that are minor in nature and have relatively minimal intergovernmental impact or affect on the policies and objectives of the Countywide Plan. In particular, this amendment qualifies as a "Type A" subthreshold amendment and is eligible for approval under the official acceptance process. In consideration of and based upon thisfinding, it is recommended that the proposed amendment be approved. InNELUSPUNMNGCOUNCnAcnOM I COUNTYWIDE PUNNING AUTHORITY ACTION: L\U SERS\ WPDOCSILU\C ASES\99- 500A.old. wpd SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-50 (OA) - Oldsmar II. BACKGROUND The subthreshold amendment to the Countywide Plan Map as set forth herein has been submitted to the Council for Official Acceptance per Division 5.3 of the Countywide Rules, as amended. LOCA TION: Southwest comer of St.Petersburg Dr. and Bedford St. PARCEL NO. N 23/28/16-63936-055-(0030-0060) EXISTING USE: Vacant PROPOSED USE: Office SUBTHRESHOLD TYPE: "A" Section 5.3.3.2.1 of the Countywide Rules defines Type A amendments as those amendments of one (1) acre or less, irrespective of the plan classification or category from which and to which the amendment is sought. The amendment is subject to an annual aggregation limit of 30 acres or less. This amendment totals 0.79 acres and will be applied to Oldsmar's 30 acre aggregation limit for calendar year 1999. This amendment, together with previous Type A amendments, totals 0.79 acres. It is the policy of the Council, consistent with the purpose, procedure and threshold determinants of the Countywide Rules, that subthreshold amendments will be removed from the official acceptance procedure only for substantive reasons related to the Countywide Plan and Rules. The City Commission, acting as the applicant local government, gave initial approval on November 3, 1999, to amend the City's Future Land Use Map, subject to approval of the corresponding plan designation by the Countywide Planning Authority, and authorized this application for amendment of the Countywide Plan Map. 2 ...J LU #SSe-Ub ORD 99-22 PASCO CO.TY LINE e e -.l \. " ....... '. LC :..:n: .,-- :€ RM-8 G> . j o ,.... I ~ a: RM-15. ~.- + //- - \- \ ~ /' ~ ----- + ':-. \( LC - - '. \ . \ \ e. ". \ ..tJ.. .' \ ('..:,: \ I \...\'v' \ .' \ +, I ....~~ ::5~,'- T~I~^ \ r l~\ ~~~rE 1\ I;. .'\\~..> ~ \jIC \ 1_' lRPD-7.5,<.,. iL~l .~: _d.\ ~Ii, i ....~,~~~.-.'. -.. ., --J / b:..~;-.\........\~...~..,.~'t."..,...! \., ~ __ '-~' I --- .....,-.'" , ,.,., . .... 0 \. TP - I' fr.-tot . _N'~. .''''. .... 40',-'" __'" '.:.J . i~--nE~~~;~;;'~l:' . V t':';'r~~'~~' '~I '," . :~ ""~~~~11'" "" "J :I;p~~'~j ,:.~. ~~J" - - . . ~ 'w . . i '" . -::~ .., '''~.. -. "l "\' r~ .,.,. ~k .,.... ..... ~ k~ -~ .. .. ."I(~~" ..";:- \ u....... "II ,.-. . ~" -' , : .: cr. I. 0 i. " '.1:" q /.... . II" \ ~ I .." I '. .: \ ,_!.. -.. '.! ., . 11 .. j . .. Ii 10 I..... r::.:: .19 _ U,:::':'._'..:.., LIVE ()A L( QTO&::&::T ... " ; : ',~01: '11.:.::'!.::'j r' """j' Z/LU #99-05 - ORD 99-22 ""c'-'~""'"il ABR PROPERTIES, INC. ~f.'~)..~r~:~~::'~ FUTCU~EC~A~ ~~~JI:~~~~~:~foENT ~ I-~. - .,_. ..~. ,~ 'H;,^'~ .... P. PRESERVATION _ 11.5 AC M.O.L. ~~ t:~:::~>:~:~~_:~,,'.':>_l~~~'. - , 1" - . "i' .: . ~:.~_~~_, "----,... .... '. ...,' . . "'. .... ". ;;;..,----- , - , .. :t,:.1:"'RM' s....., + I~~~~..~ '~...:...!~~~, ......'.r~~;. ~---.---:..:=:_.--==__:. - ~. I 1\ r. \. " & . - - + , " - I " 'M&tI,5( "" I~ ,- - " \ -, ' , J -' - LC t." , '------...... 'I, .......:_.,..1 II " ...........1..\.. I " - ~- .... , -- ~/,:;\. /I~__, \ /' \ - -- , '""'Crt \--- \ ~ SAl.. T ., T . ../ .;. DIAoSURE OF INTEREST ST A TEMEI PINELLAS COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL CASE NUMBER * ATTACHMENT 2 SUBMITTING GOVERNMENT ENTITY: Tarpon Springs PPC OR CITY/TOWN CASE NUMBER: CW 99-49 (OA) / Ord. No. 99-22 PROPERTY OWNERS/REPRESENT A TIVE: Name: ABR Properties, Inc 34125 US Highway 19 N. Palm Harbor, FL 34684 Name: Name: ANY OTHER PERSONS HAVING ANY OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPER TY: Interests: Contingent: _ Absolute: Name: Specific Interest Held: INDICATION AS TO WHETHER A CONTRACT EXISTS FOR SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: Contract is: Contingent Absolute All Parties To Contract: Name: INDICATION AS TO WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OPTIONS TO PURCHASE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: All Parties To Option: Name: N/A Name: ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION WHICH APPLICANT MAY WISH TO SUBMIT PERTAINING TO REQUESTED PLAN AMENDMENT: * NUMBER TO BE ASSIGNED BY PLANNING COUNCIL STAFF e e IV. BACKGROUND The ABR PlAZA site contains approximately 74 acres. From a land use plan perspective the site contains three discrete portions: · To the North, approximately 5 acres are located within the Anclote River channel · The West 39 acres, the subject of this application, are located in the CG, Commercial General Land Use Plan category. · The East 30 acres are located in the R10G, Residential Office General Land Use Plan category. Those East 30 acres were the subject of Ordinance 97-10 amending the Land Use map from Residential Medium to the aforesaid R10R. In order to accommodate the office park permitted under the D.R.1. development order, it was necessary to amend the Countywide Plan in a like manner to the City of Tarpon Springs' plan. The Pinellas Planning Council approved the 1997 amendment from residential to office subject to the future initiation of a plan amendment on the West 40 acres of the ABR site to reflect wetlands and water bodies. This requirement was incorporated at Section 5K of the development order. This application is the fulfillment of ABR's obligation with respect to the filing of such amendment. V. IMPACT ANALYSIS The amendment of approximately 11.5 acres from commercial to preservation generally reduces the impact on public facilities and services. In the instant case, the maximum development is established by the D.R.1. development order and will include 400,000 square feet of office and 50,000 square feet of commercial. The master plan of the site, Map H to the development order, already indicates the portions of the site included within this application as preservation. Of course, the development order could expire or otherwise be abandoned without the office park being constructed. In such an event, this amendment would reduce traffic generation, potable water consumption and wastewater generation. VI. COUNTYWIDE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS If approved by the Local Planning Agency and the Board of Commissioners, this Ordinance will be forwarded to the Pinellas Planning Council for a comparable Countywide plan amendments. VII. STANDARD FOR REVIEW Section 207.03(C), LDC requires that all Comprehensive Plan amendments meet the standards of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Ordinances '99/PZC ORD 9922.doc 2 - e e This is a legislative action as opposed to quasi-judicial. Municipalities are given a fairly wide discretion in deciding the suitable land use designations. Issues which need to be examined when considering the designation of land use categories include transportation, the availability of the City to provide facilities to serve the property at maximum permitted density or intensity, and the environmental impacts of such designation. The designation of this parcel from CG to P will result in preservation of 11.5 acres of natural resources inc,luding wetlands and water bodies. Exhibit Map showing location of proposed amendment xc: Joseph Lukason, ABR Properties Subject File ZlLU #99-05 Ordinances '99/PZC ORD 9922.doc 3 - e e Section 2. MAP AMENDMENT That the future land use map series of the Future land Use Element of the Tarpon Springs Comprehensive Plan is amended from Commercial General "CG" to Preservation "P" within a i:39.3 acre parcel of land in Section 6, Township 27 South, Range 16 East, the subject parcel being a portion of the ABR Plaza Development of Regional Impact. The distribution of CG and P is shown graphically on Exhibit "A". It is based upon preliminary wetland jurisdictional information prepared by King Engineering Assocs. of Clearwater and is subject to minor adjustment without further amendment in accordance with an environmental resources management permit issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Section 3. TRANSMITTAL That, prior to adoption at second reading, a copy of this Ordinance shall be forwarded to the Pinellas Planning Council pursuant to Section 5.1.2 of the Countywide Plan Rules and a copy shall be forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Rule 9J-1 t F.A.C. The DCA transmittal shall be as part of the first submittal for calendar year 2000. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE The effective date of this Ordinance shall be: the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs finding the amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Chapter 163.3184, F.S.; or the date a final order is issued by the Administration Commission finding the amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Chapter 163.3184, F.S. 2 ORDINANCE 99-22 e e City of Tarpon Springs, Florida STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & ZONING BOARD/LPA FROM: PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JUNE 28, 1999 (PLANNING & ZONING BOARD) JULY 27, 1999 (BOC WORK SESSION) AUGUST 3, 1999 (FIRST READING) SECOND READING AFTER DCA REVIEW SUBJECT: ORD 99-22 - AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR 11.5 ACRES WITHIN THEABR PLAZA DRI FROM "CG", COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO "P", PRESERVATION. I. APPLICATION Amending the Future Land Use Plan to designate approximately 11.5 acres FROM CG, Commercial General TO P, PreseNation. The Preservation is limited to wetlands and open bodies of water. The final distribution of commercial and preservation is subject to the wetland jurisdictional determination when an environmental resourc~s management permit is issued by SWFWMD. II. APPLICANT: ABR Properties, Inc. 34125 U.S. Highway 19 Palm Harbor, FL 34684 III. PROPERTY INFORMATION Location: Portion of the ABR PLAZA Development of Regional Impact (D.R.I.) The property is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 19, south of the Anclote River. This amendment is limited to the West :1:39.3 acres. The East :1:34.7 acres were the subject of a Land Use Plan amendment to R10G and P in 1997. Zoning: GB, General Business Tax Parcel #: 06/27/16/89388/00010420 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: North East South West Zonina I FLUP RPD7.5 I RU GB I R/OG AE(Pinellas Co.) I RU LC/P Existina Use Anclote River, Riverwatch Vacant ABR property Tarpon Glen MHP Anclote River Ordinances '99/PZC ORD 9922.doc 1 e e ATTACHMENT 1 (3~w&~~~cV~ 324 E. PINE STREET P.O. BOX 5004 TARPON SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34688-5004 (813) 938-3711 FAX (813) 937-8199 October 19, 1999 David P. Healey, Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 Clearwater, FL 33755-4160 RE: AMENDMENT TO COUNTYWIDE PLAN Dear David, Ordinance 99-22 is an amendment to the Future Land Use map series which redesignates approximately 11.5 acres from Commercial General to Preservation. This map amendment is a follow up action to CW 97-25, approved by the PPC on May 21, 1997. Said amendment contained the following supplemental condition: The City initiate a further plan and zoning amendment to the balance of the DRI property not" included in the subject amendment, at the time the Development order is authorized, to reclassify the Commercial General area to reflect the Preservation and Water/Drainage Feature per the approved Development Order, The Development Order for ABR PLAZA, DRI #232, became effective in November, 1998 and contained a condition that the developer submit the instant amendment application. The City hereby requests the initiation and consideration of a like amendment to the Countywide Plan. The distribution of Preservation and Commercial General is based upon the preliminary information of Exhibit "H" of the D.O. When the jurisdiction determination of the wetland limits is available, we will request a map adjustment as appropriate. If any clarification or additional information is required, feel free to contact me. //: e e ORDINANCE 99-22 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TARPON SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF 11.5:!: ACRES WITHIN THE ABR PLAZA DRI FROM "CG", COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO "P", PRESERVATION; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL AND THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on May 21, 1997 the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) approved Case #CW97 -25 amending the Countywide Land Use Plan from RU to R10G and P for 30 acres located on the East one-half of the ABR PLAZA Development of Regional Impact (D.R.I.) parcel; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the F'PC recommended that the City of Tarpon Springs initiate a plan amendment to redesignate the wetland areas in the West one- half of the ABR PLAZA D.R.1. parcel from CG to.p; and WHEREAS, Section 5(K) of Resolution 98-76, the Development Order for the ABR PLAZA D.R.1. established a condition that ABR Properties, Inc. must submit the instant amendment as initiated by the PPC on May 21, 1997; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 1999 ABR Properties, Inc. submitted an application to amend approximately 11.5 acres in Section 06/27/16 from CG to P; and .. WHEREAS, the distribution of Commercial General and Preservation is based upon a preliminary wetland determination and will be further refined through the annual map adjustment procedure when an Environmental Resources Management permit is issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board in their capacity as Local Planning Agency for the City of Tarpon Springs conducted a public hearing on this Ordinance on June 28, 1999 and voted unanimously to recommend approval; and, WHEREAS, published legal notice of this Ordinance has been provided pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 166, F.S. and Article XII of the Land Development Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS, FLORIDA: Section 1. FINDINGS That the Board of Commissioners find that this Ordinance is consistent with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. SUBJECT AREA ~ ~ :z: ::> o u = '" ::> ~ i ~ !i! CULrOF' . "EXleo TAMPA MY nGURE 1 CASE NO. CW99-49(OA) ~ ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPHICS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE PINEUAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, JIM SMITH Produced by "'EDIT V2.1, Copyright 1991,1992 Pinellas County, Florida Property Appraiser. All Rights Reserved. CASE NO. CW99-49(OA) PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM: Commercial General (CG) TO: Preservation (P) ACREAGE: 11.5 [~] PI~~~~ED~~~!::I~p~E~?~~!E~TY "'EMSER. OM S~TH GRAPHICS CREATED USING MEDIT VERSION 2,1 @ RM p .R/o./Jt , ,"" " I ,'~ , , , R/OG cc; as ~ Vi ::> CG ;;> ....... f- : :-------------------------------r- - =- :: RU : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ' , , , FIGURE 2 ~ SCALE: 1" = 400' SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-49 (OA) - Tarpon Springs Ill. LIST OF FIGURES & ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 Location map Figure 2 Existing Countywide Plan Category/Subject Area - Black & White Figure 2A Existing Countywide Plan Category/Subject Area - Color Figure 3 Black & White Aerial Attachment 1 City Transmittal Letter & Staff Report Attachment 2 PPC Disclosure of Interest Form 3 . e PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCII~ AGENDA MEMORANDUM I AGENDA ITEM: V B-2. I MEETING DATE: December 15,1999 SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan Map From: Commercial General - CG To: Preservation - P Area: 11.5 acres CASE: CW#99-49(OA) JURISDICTION: Tarpon Springs (Ord. No. 99-22) RECOMMENDATION: Council, Based on Accompanying Finding, Recommend to the Countywide Planning Authority That The Proposed Subthreshold Amendment be Approved Pursuant to the Official Acceptance Process. I. FINDINGS Based on the background data and analysis in this report, the following finding is submitted for consideration as the basis for the recommendation for approval of the amendment request: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with Division 5.3 of the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Rules (Countywide Rules), the purpose of which is to recognize and provide for amendments of the Countywide Plan Map that are minor in nature and have relatively minimal intergovernmental impact or affect on the policies and objectives of the Countywide Plan. In particular, this amendment qualifies as a "Type E" subthreshold amendment and is eligible for approval under the official acceptance process. In consideration of and based upon this finding, it is recommended that the proposed amendment be approved. I PINEUAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION: I COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION: !:IU SERSI WPDOCSILUICASESI99-490A.lS. wpd . SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-49 (OA) - Tarpon Springs II. BACKGROUND The subthreshold amendment to the Countywide Plan Map as set forth herein has been submitted to Council for Official Acceptance per Division 5.3 of the Countywide Rules, as amended. LOCATION: Northeast comer of Seaboard Coastline Railroad and US Highway 19 N. PARCEL NO. S 06/27/16-89388-000-0450,0480 (portions) (use 0420 for legal) EXISTING USE: Vacant PROPOSED USE: Preservation SUBTHRESHOLD TYPE: "E" - Section 5.3.".2.5 of the Countywide Rules defines Type E amendments as those amendments of any size to the Water/Drainage Feature, Recreation/Open Space and Preservation plan categories, except from Preservation to Recreation/Open Space which is considered a Type B subthreshold amendment. The amendment is not subject to the annual aggregation limit of 30 acres or less. It is the policy of the Council, consistent with the purpose, procedure and threshold determinants of the Countywide Rules, that subthreshold amendments will be removed from the official acceptance procedure only for substantive reasons related to the Countywide Plan and Rules. The City Commission, acting as the applicant local government, gave initial approval on August 3, 1999, to amend the City's Future Land Use Map, subject to approval of the corresponding plan designation by the Countywide Planning Authority, and authorized this application for amendment of the Countywide Plan Map. 2 e e ATTACHMENT 2 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST STATEMENT PINELLAS COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL CASE NUMBER * SUBMITTING GOVERNMENT ENTITY: South Pasadena PPC OR CITY/TOWN CASE NUMBER: CW 99-48 (OA) / Res. No. 99-24 PROPERTY OWNERS/REPRESENT A TIVE: Name: City of South Pasadena 7047 Sunset Dr. S. South Pasadena, FL 33707 Name: Name: ANY OTHER PERSONS HAVING ANY OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: Interests: Contingent: _ Absolute: Name: Specific Interest Held: INDICATION AS TO WHETHER A CONTRACT EXISTS FOR SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: Contract is: Contingent Absolute All Parties To Contract: Name: INDICATION AS TO WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OPTIONS TO PURCHASE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: All Parties To Option: Name: N/A Name: ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION WHICH APPLICANT MAY WISH TO SUBMIT PERTAINING TO REQUESTED PLAN AMENDMENT: * NUMBER TO BE ASSIGNED BY PLANNING COUNCIL STAFF e. e '. .." .: "',/' . / . ~.... ...:..... :":'- Area 2 I ~ I I ! I I ! i ! i I -.-...- I : I I .' I '. i i I I ! I ! i i I I I I I I I . . I ! ..' .... ,:.., I ....,- ! I j. ~ .' "'. i ; i '. " I . .! , I , I I " ORD 99-02 EXHIBIT B RES 99-24 EXHIBIT A-4 ..' ....: .... 0". e I PUBLIC WORKS HOUSE LEGAL DESCR TION The southern portion (as depicted in lined area) of Lot 10, Block 111, PASADENA CN TI1E GJLF SECTICN "C", as recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 15, Public Records of Plnellas County, Florida. ~ U. (hI) 18 ... .. .; .. ,~ " ....;1 . . . . . .. . :.: I : .It,. ~,t. ;p.;J ;;. AI. ".. ~ ~ 11.1'., r ' , . f.1..r. '. ~ E ~: ~.11 t . r....v. : <;';" I /f.. f,. I~ ,.l{.( , s R." pf"'co7L.5/J " 5 U ~ Sf( f)RiVe-'" "'il\-<f - - d'tl'~/)f/ fZ ~ V''''f , ~ N /,f J: ORD 99-03 EXHIBIT A RES 99-24 EXHIBIT A-7 ~ .~ " ~ ~ ~ e e ORDINANCE NO. 99-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-35, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WHICH IS A PART THEREOF, TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON APPROXIMATELY 0.28 ACRES LOCATED AT 7015 SUNSET DRIVE SOUTH FROM INSTITUTIONAL/PUBLIC TO RECREATION/OPEN SPACE, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City intends to demolish its public works office located at 7015 Sunset Drive and to combine the property with the property located at 7021 Sunset Drive and two existing City parks for the purpose of creating a larger City park; and WHEREAS, increasing Recreation/Open Space is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, this amendment qualifies as a small scale amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3187. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Commission of the City of South Pasadena, Florida: SECTION 1. The Future Land Use Map which was originally adopted as part of Ordinance No. 89-35 is hereby amended to change the future land use designation of Institutional Public to Recreation/Open Space on 0.28 acres located at 7015 Sunset Drive South and legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. SECTION 2. The City's Future Land Use Map shall be modified to reflect that the parcel identified as area 2 on the map attached hereto as Exhibit liB" has the land use designation Recreation/Open Space. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective 31 days after final adoption, or if challenged, shall become effective when the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission issues a final order determining this amendment to be in compliance. ~d ilk Fred Held, Mayor ATTEST: Dian~~{ji ft~ ORD 99-03-1 RES 99-24 EXHIBIT A-5 e e ORDINANCE NO. 99-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-35, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WHICH IS A PART THEREOF, TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON APPROXIMATELY 0.25 ACRES LOCATED AT 7021 SUNSET DRIVE SOUTH FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM TO RECREATION/OPEN SPACE, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City purchased 0.25 acres of property on May 14, 1999; and WHEREAS, the site purchased abuts other City owned property and is to be developed into a City park; and WHEREAS, this amendment qualifies as a small scale amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3187. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Commission of the City of South Pasadena, Florida: SECTION 1. The Future Land Use Map which was originally adopted as part of Ordinance No. 89-35 is hereby amended to change the future land use designation of Residential Low Medium to Recreation/Open Space on 0.25 acres located at 7021 Sunset Drive South and legally described on Exhibit "N' attached hereto. SECTION 2. The City's Future Land Use Map shall be modified to reflect that the parcel identified as area 1 on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "B" has the land use designation Recreation/Open Space. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective 31 days after final adoption, or if challenged, shall become effective when the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission issues a final order determining this amendment to be in compliance. tfti!l1i~/ Fred eld, Mayor ATTEST: ORD 99-02-1 RES 99-24 EXHI BIT A-I - e e 7021 SUNSET DRIVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 17, LESS THE NORTH 70 FEET, BLOCK Ill, PASADENA-ON-THE-GULF, SECTION "C", SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 15, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. ORD 99-02 EXHIBIT A RES 99-24 EXHIBIT A-3 - ,_ I !_ J e e A TT ACHMENT 1 ce'1l 0/ Ymdi q;~ 7047 SUNSET DRIVE SOUTH SOUTH PASADENA, FLORIDA 33707-2819 PH: (727) 347-4171 FAX: (727) 345-0518 October 20, 1999 David P. Healey Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 Clearwater, FL 33755-4160 Dear Mr. Healey: The City Commission at their October 12, 1999 Regular Commission Meeting passed Resolution No. 99-24 requesting a map amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Map to reflect a change in the City of South Pasadena Future Land Use Map. A copy of Resolution No. 99-24 is enclosed. Si\,erelY, , h-1f'uL~~ ~~ Diane E. Orloff, CMC/AAE City Clerk DEO:nh Encs. ,-' e e RESOLUTION NO. 99-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, FLORIDA, REQUESTING A MAP AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO REFLECT A CHANGE IN THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA FUTURE LAND USE MAP WHEREAS, the City adopted two small scale amendments to change the designations on 0.53 acres owned by the City from residential low medium and institutional public to recreation/open space and that amendment has becomes effective on October 15, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Countywide rules require the City and Countywide Future Land Use Maps to be consistent; and WHEREAS, the total acreage of this future land use map amendment is 0.53 acres bringing the total number of acres changed using small scale amendments within the past twelve months in the City of South Pasadena to 1.13 acres. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Commission of the City of South Pasadena requests that the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Agency amend the Countywide Future Land Use Map to reflect the amendments adopted in Ordinances No. 99-02 and No. 99-03 attached hereto as Exhibit "A". PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS I2th DAY OF October , 1999. $;; /~e,/ Fred Held, ayor ATTEST: ~<<"//d t1~ Diane E. Orloff, City Clerk THIS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. y.rrn* RES 99-24 . N ~ . \ '.~ "" ~ z ::> o u :I: '" ::> ~ o III ~ !i! TAMPA BAY FIGURE 1 CASE NO. C1f99-48(OA) ~ ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPHICS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE PINEllAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, JIM SMITH Produced by NEDIT V2,1, Copyright 1991,1992 Pinella. County, Florida Properly Appraiser, All RiChls Reserved, , , L.________...J , , , , ~----~--.- , , ,-- - -- 1rAif~~--- --I - - - -- ----- , , , ' ,,/;/ ~;/",,,,, WATER CG RLH '-~ , CASE NO. C1f99-48( OA) PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM: Residential Low Medium (RUf). Institutional (INS) TO: Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) ACREAGE: 0.53 I~ PI~~~~,,~yr:.~!.:.I~p~E~?~~~'~ APP~SER, JIM SMITH GRAPHICS CREATED USING MEDIT VERSION 2,1 ClI FIGURE 2 ~ SCALE: 1" = 400' SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-48 (OA) - South Pasadena III. LIST OF FIGURES & ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 2A Figure 3 Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Location map Existing Countywide Plan Category/Subject Area - Black & White Existing Countywide Plan Category/Subject Area - Color Black & White Aerial City Transmittal Letter & Staff Report PPC Disclosure of Interest Form 3 I I I I . I ~ I PI YELLAS PLANNING COUNC~C R .?~ARY FOR ~ AGENDA MEMORANDUM ~W ONLY I AGENDA ITEM: V B-1. I I MEETING DATE: December 15, 1999 I SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan Map From: Residential Low Medium - RLM; Institutional- I To: Recreation/Open Space - RIOS Area: 0.53 acres CASE: CW#99-48 (OA) JURISDICTION: South Pasadena (Res. No.99-24) RECOMMENDATION: Council, Based on Accompanying Finding, Recommend to the Countywide Planning Authority That The Proposed Subthreshold Amendment be Approved Pursuant to the Official Acceptance Process. /. FINDINGS Based on the background data and analysis in this report, the following finding is submitted for consideration as the basis for the recommendation for approval of the amendment request: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with Division 5.3 of the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Rules (Countywide Rules), the purpose of which is to recognize and provide for amendments of the Countywide Plan Map that are minor in nature and have relatively minimal intergovernmental impact or affect on the policies and objectives of the Countywide Plan. In particular, this amendment qualifies as a "Type E" subthreshold . amendment and is eligible for approval under the official acceptance process. In consideration of and based upon thisfinding, it is recommended that the proposed amendment be approved. I PlNELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION: I I COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION: I 1 I :IV SERSI WPDOCSILVICASESI99-480A. spa. wpJ SUBJECT: Case #CW 99-48 (OA) - South Pasadena II. BACKGROUND The subthreshold amendment to the Countywide Plan Map as set forth herein has been submitted to the Council for Official Acceptance per Division 5.3 of the Countywide Rules, as amended. LOCATION: North side of Sunset Dr., 150 ft. west of Bignonia Avenue S. PARCEL NO. N 30/31/16-67518-111-0170, 0180 (portion) EXISTING USE: City Public Works PROPOSED USE: City Park SUBTHRESHOLD TYPE: "E" - Section 5.3.3.2.5 of the Countywide Rules defines Type E amendments as those amendments of any size to the Water/Drainage Feature, Recreation/Open Space and Preservation plan categories, except from Preservation to Recreation/Open Space which is considered a Type B subthreshold amendment. The amendment is not subject to an annual aggregation limit of 30 acres or less. It is the policy of the Council, consistent with the purpose, procedure and threshold determinants of the Countywide Rules, that subthreshold amendments will be removed from the official acceptance procedure only for substantive reasons related to the Countywide Plan and Rules. The City Commission, acting as the applicant local government, gave initial approval on October 12, 1999, to amend the City's Future Land Use Map, subject to approval of the corresponding plan designation by the Countywide Planning Authority, and authorized this application for amendment of the Countywide Plan Map. 2 e o 1905 Pz 01i~ -Q;':l~ .~ ~ ~I:::::I Q -J .... . .... ~ City of Largo, Florida Post Office Box 296, Largo, Florida 33779-0296 e ; i Community Development Department Richard P Goss, ALC,P., Director November 15, 1999 Administration (727) 587-6749 Licenses/Permits (727) 587-6712 Inspections (727) 587-6711 FAX (727) 587-6765 Mr. David P. Healey, AICP, Executive Director PinelIas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Ste 850 Clearwater, FL 33755-4160 Re: Proposed annexation by the City of Largo Case no. A5-45-99: Jurg Weiss property Dear Mr. Healey: Please be advised that the City of Largo will be annexing the above referenced property pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes. For each property which is ten acres or more in area (excluding right-of-way), the PPC's Municipal Annexation Review form has also been completed and enclosed. Public meetings/hearings for this annexation are scheduled before the Largo City Commission on December 07, 1999, and January 04, 2000. The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, and all necessary municipal services are available to serve existing development. If an annexed property is identified as a nonconforming use with respect to either Pine lIas County or City of Largo land use regulations, the annexation ordinance will ensure the property owner's right to maintain its existing legal, nonconforming use status. If you need any further information, please feel free to contact me at 587-6749. sr~~' t'. l) ~,(L v \ I Richard P. Go's, AICP Director RPG/JO/es enclosures Ihomelcomdev/dev _services/annex/1999/ A5_ 45_99/PPC _anx_ltr e e MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION REVIEW PPC ANNEXATION NO.: A5-45-99 CITY: GENERAL LOCATION: REVIEW COMMENTS: ACREAGE: 14.2453 acres, m.o.!. Largo Northwest corner of Belleair Road and Belcher Road. 1. CONTIGUITY: The property is contiguous along its south side to the existing City boundary, making the property legally eligible for annexation. 2. ENCLAVE: 3. WATER: 4. SEWER: The property is not part of an enclave; nor does the annexation of this property create an enclave. Formal concurrency approval for water service capacity will be required as part of the site plan review process for any future development of this property. The property is adjacent to the City of Largo Sewer District. As a part of the annexation agreement, the City has agreed to "construct a lateral sewer line on Belleair Road to the PROPERTY in order to provide sanitary service to the PROPERTY line." 5. SOLID WASTE: The property currently contracts with private solid waste collectors. Upon annexation, private collection could continue until such time as the contract between the property owner and the private collector terminates. At that time, the City of Largo would initiate solid waste collection service. 6. TRANSPORTATION: The property is located on the northwest corner of Belleair Road and Belcher Road and formal concurrency approval for traffic impacts will be required as part of the site plan review process for any future development of this property. 7. POLICE: 8. FIRE: 9. E.M.S.: Upon annexation, the City of Largo Police Department will serve the property in place of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. The property is adjacent to the Largo Fire District. Upon annexation, City of Largo Fire Rescue would provide fire and rescue services. EMS service is provided to this property through the countywide EMS system. e e 1 O. RECREATION FACILITIES: Annexation into the City of Largo would present recreational opportunities at reduced cost to the residents of the property. As residents of the City of Largo, all persons can enjoy the programs offered through the Recreation and Parks Department at in-City rates. 11. LIBRARIES: The Largo Library is a member of the Pinellas County Cooperative and, therefore, it is open and available to all persons living within Pinellas County regardless of the location of their residence. 12. OTHER COMMENTS: None. ~ ::> 8 :I: g ~ 2 ~ nGun 1 CASE NO. ANNEXATION REVIEW 99-10 LARGO ~ ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GlW'mcs PREPARED BY THE OrnCE OF THE PINEWS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, JI)( SMITH Produced by YEIlIT V2.1, Copyricht 1991,lgg2 Pinella. County, Florida Properly Apprai.er. All Rlchb Re.erved. e e I III I I I II I T ~ 0: 8ARcr1.ONA CAlvE r 11 : L.J I " I I RS I .. RS i RS "') i . C., - - - ~ ~ f-- ~1-- IS "!'Jj' 51-- w - - RS :::::- RS ~ '!I '!' - ~ = ~ - h a RS . OAKA[)IA. CAlVE '-- I I - - ~ R iG - ==- ...- .~ A = ; ..... C7 1'" ~ ~!i r-:-::;:.::: = r - " .p. fo- RS ~ ,-r-~.. -oJ \/ ~@' - " @ ~ ~ RS RS - i-- IRS !l I ~ \J WATER RS " ~ IIEU.E"R WUAU R/f I L lU( It - I I I I ImJ I~/ .......-.----....---- :RU C'-j::::~ ~~~ IIAA8ARA CAlVE ...- .' I j" I IjRL -', I-- I 1 I-- r\ """'1 --.,... '~"-.... ;:;' INS T~ w:- i I ~III ===; I PDo.O RO<> f-- m '",><>,,' '--:"L ."" '-- ~ ,..:,::.:., _0: f-- on "" ALICE ~.~_ r-r ~ 1 ----- I-- --:;-.,-.t.' I '-- I Rl 1\ Er I ~ IU ,-,,:,...- :" :\ FIGURE 2 ANNEXATION REVIEW 99-10 LARGO _ CITY OF CLEARWATER CITY OF LARGO ~ SCALE: 600' ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPIDCS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF PINEILAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER. JIM saaTH CRAPIDCS CREATED USING MEDIT VERSION 2.1 0 .. e SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo 9. Recreational Facilities: The City is currently providing adequate recreation facilities. The level of service will be maintained for the area to be annexed, based on the City's Comprehensive Plan standards. This annexation has the potential to result in approximately 52 new residents within the City (22 units X 2.34 persons/unit) and would place a burden on the Largo Recreation Department proportionate to this potential population increase. 10. Libraries: The City's library is located at 351 East Bay Dr., and could provide service to this area. The only change caused by annexation of the site will be that the existing millage (ad valorem) levied for County Library Services (Co-op) (currently .5 mills) will be eliminated the City will now pay for library service to the area from their general fund with the use of the additional revenues received from the City of Largo millage (currently 3.4000 mills). This annexation would result in approximately 52 new residents within the City (22 units X 2.34 persons/unit) and would place a burden on the Largo library system proportionate to this potential population increase. 11. Other Comments: The subject annexation area is located entirely within the City of Clearwater Planning Area, water service area, wastewater treatment plant area, and fire district as set forth in Clearwater's Comprehensive Plan and interlocal agreements between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County. The proposed annexation represents the extension of Largo's municipal jurisdiction into that area planned for, served by, and proposed to be annexed by the City of Clearwater. This annexation represents a clear conflict with the available means by which a municipality can logically plan for its ultimate boundaries as Clearwater has done in this case and is counterproductive to the efficient delivery of services and meaningful intergovernmental coordination. Largo should reconsider and not proceed with this annexation. 5 A It SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION REVIEW PPC ANNEXATION REPORT: No. 99-10 CITY: Largo (A5-45-99) ACREAGE: 14.24 Acres (0.046% of City) GENERAL LOCATION: Northwest corner of Belleair Rd. and Belcher Rd. REVIEW COMMENTS: 1. Contiguity/ComDactness: The site is contiguous to municipal boundaries on the site's southern boundary. However, the site has more of its periphery adjacent to the City of Clearwater. The site is contiguous to Clearwater to the north and east. Additionally, annexation of the site into Clearwater would be more compact (as defined in Chp. 171, F.S.) than if it were annexed into Largo (See Figure 2). The site is not currently an enclave nor would its annexation create an enclave. 2. Water: Citywide Capacity: While there will be no additional water impact directly associated with the annexation, water consumption could increase by approximately 5,334 gallons per day (gpd) (based on 8.89 acres X 2.5 units /acre X 240 gpd/unit) upon development of the subject site. Additionally, whether or not the subject site is annexed or not, the subject site is located entirely within the City of Clearwater water system service area and will remain as such. Moreover, the City of Clearwater Intergovernmental Coordination Element Goal No. 27 states that the City of Clearwater seeks to coordinate the delivery of urban services and annex all of the property in its water service area. Given this goal and the associated judicial rulings relative to the City of Clearwater's authority to require annexation as a condition of providing water service, the City of Largo cannot provide water service to this site absent Clearwater's specific agreement to provide water service. The City of Largo does not own or operate a water service/delivery system and therefore cannot provide water to the subject area. Largo receives its water service from Pinellas County. Pinellas County's water service area is currently south of Belleair Rd. 3. Sewer: Citywide Capacity: Whether or not the site is annexed, the subject property is located entirely within the City of Clearwater's sanitary sewer district. Wastewater treatment would normally be provided by the City of Clearwater's East Wastewater Treatment Plant, which has an average daily flow of 3.34 million gallons per day (mgd) (FY1995), and a capacity of 5.0 mgd. 3 e e SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo While there will be no additional sewer impact directly associated with the annexation, sewer use could increase by approximately 5,334 gpd subsequent to development of the subject site. Additionally, since the proposed annexation is outside of Largo's defined sewer service area and within Clearwater's defined sewer service area, the City of Largo is may be precluded from extending sewer lines outside the City of Largo's legally defined sewer boundaries into Clearwater's sewer'service area in order to serve the subject site. 4. Solid Waste: Collection of solid waste can be provided by the City of Largo. The City has an interlocal agreement with Pinellas County for the disposal of solid waste. All of the City's solid waste is disposed of at the Pinellas County Resource Recovery Plant. 5. Transportation: The site is located on the northwest corner of Belleair Rd. and Belcher Rd. The Level of Service for the portion of Belcher Rd. from Belleair Rd. to Nursery Rd. is LOS E and LOS B from Belleair Rd. to East Bay Dr. The Level of Service for the portion of Belleair Rd. that serves the subject site is LOS F from Keene Rd. to US Highway 19. Because the site is not developed, additional traffic impacts will not be generated as a result of this annexation, but could occur as a result of subsequent development. Belleair Rd. is currently a County road (CR 116) and this annexation would not affect the County's jurisdiction or responsibility for maintenance of the road. 6. Police: This area is now served by the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office; however, upon annexation, the City of Largo can assume responsibility for police protection. This annexation is expected to result in approximately 52 new residents within the City (22 units X 2.34 persons/unit) and would place a burden on the Largo Police Department proportionate to the increase in area/population represented by this site. 7. Fire: The area proposed to be annexed is currently within the Clearwater Fire District. While the fire district boundaries will not formally change, annexation will affect the fire and rescue services that are currently being provided, because the City of Largo proposes to take over those responsibilities. After annexation, the fire service millage collected in unincorporated Pinellas County for the City of Clearwater, would be eliminated and the subject property would be assessed the City of Largo millage (currently 3.4000 mills), a portion of which is dedicated to funding the Largo Fire Department. 8. Emergency Medical Service: EMS is already provided to this site and the current countywide EMS millage of .7130 would continue to be levied on an ad valorem basis to support this service which is provided on a countywide basis. 4 I AGENDA ITEM: IV B. AGENDA MEMORANDUM I MEETING DATE: December 15,1999 SUBJECT: Annexation Report No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo RECOMMENDATION: Council, Based on the Accompanying Finding No.3, Adopt a Finding that the City of Largo does not have the Ability to Provide Water and Sewer Service to this Area and Authorize this Finding be Transmitted to the City. Further, given that this site is located entirely within the City of Clearwater Planning Area, and also within the water, sewer, and fire service areas of the City of Clearwater, it is recommended that the City of Largo not annex this property, absent formal agreement with the City of Clearwater to provide said services. BACKGROUND: Section 5( 12) of Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, requires the Council to review and make a recommendation to the affected municipality for each annexation of ten (10) acres or more as to the ability of the municipality to provide municipal services to the territory to be annexed. Annexation No. 99-10 is a 14.24 acre tract (comprised of 8.89 acres of upland, 3.36 acres of water, and 2 acres of Belcher Rd.) located on the northwest comer of Belleair Rd. and Belcher Rd. The subject area is currently vacant. The annexation's final public hearing before the Largo City Commission will be held on January 4, 2000. The City of Largo has indicated in its staff report that either it will provide, or agreement with another service provider will be obtained for: water, sewer, solid waste collection, police, fire, and Emergency Medical Services. City recreational and library facilities will also be available to this area. I PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION: I COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION: 1:\USERS\ WPDOCSILU\CASES\99 ANNlANN99-1 0, lar, wpd e e SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo See attached annexation review form for details of each municipal service to be provided. Based upon the accompanying data and analysis, staff submits the following findings for consideration regarding the subject request: 1. The subject property is contiguous to the existing City boundaries on the subject properties southern side. The property is also contiguous to the city of Clearwater on its northern and eastern sides. 2. The City has the ability to provide police, fire, solid waste disposal, recreation, and library services for the site being annexed. Emergency Medical Service will continue to be provided on a countywide basis. 3. The City does not have the ability to provide water or sewer service to the site. 4. The parcel is within the City of Clearwater Planning Area and has been designated on Clearwater's Future Land Use Map pursuant to Chp. 163.3171(1) and 163.3177(6)(a), F.S., and as set forth in the Interlocal Agreement between the County and Clearwater. 5. The subject parcel is located outside of the area delineated under the Tn-Cities Interlocal Agreement between Largo, Pinellas Park, St.Petersburg, and the County. 6. The parcel is classified Residential Suburban and Water/Drainage Feature under the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and is not proposed to change as a function of this annexation. Based on the considerations set forth in this report and the accompanying findings, it is recommended that the Council find the City does not have the ability to serve the subject annexation area as to water and sewer pursuant to Chapter 88-464, Section 5(12). Additionally, Largo should not proceed with this annexation absent formal agreement with the City of Clearwater to provide said services. 2 e .' .' ." ----< ~ \ 1lM ;;?;;; "'~ r-- T/U /,7 ./ .' - 1lM ./0 / ,'3/7 f! '" . ~ ~:= I :Pr/ 1lM .. mm..y I ..' . m /. j7 j ..~~.~--~ = ~ ~ ~+- -::..~:;: ( . :" ..... = tD- ~V 1lM ~ ~ T/U .' ......;. 1--:-:= ~ C;;, ~ RIO -:- T'T~'~L-l,J h- ----T : r^ ~ : : , i.. .,:1. ~ ---+ i ":~ ~;;;o;" ~ ., ." ..j, ~ ~__J 1WI '., '^ lunuu, "'i :"1-1 ' . . ,".- . '.,:, '. ...',:. .- I...:......... . ....;, . !}.~.~E,~ - ~ . " : . .,' ........~T(,:...d...r ~.;: . .'e ......, .' .. ...., ...... I........ (:,1Ri: llJ~ .....j.. .~.~..b.f:J~. : L'<',' .............. ':,,", --::-:. ~------.CGu----..---- L..' . :. ". '.' "" :.~': L :' ":":"" ,>",." ': .'..: I '.. :' ........ ,'."'. . '" ..; :. ' ... ;z -, U .'{ . '. .'. ...... '.',' ",:; t I \ '.' '.,',",':::,,:" .:.,." ;. .- "']ill ....,: . .... I": :, ~r-- RH . 1,;..' ..." I::::"" .'.' '. RH "'I-- '" ' '" .' . .', . .,'" ~ O<nT ,~....,.,. ." I I I . ...... CG . / ----- um I .. ......' ",', :.m..,-'. ==' - · " : ' ---l_ .',~ !II!I/- . ,'.... .. ~ >- ti ~_ 1: .'"..' -'- ,.", I!' . ~:': \ ~- . ....:.... ..,. .:. ....... ... " '.".':'. ,;- l'.-:::'-":'" ..,.".' '. " '" .... ~ ", " ..,' ... . ....... '.: :.::0. ..' . .,' , ' ,.: ",.. , ;: " ........ :'.," ;,:!: CG . ,; "'.'" .,.. '."'. '. ..... ....pJ-, , . .L..... . ",'" ."'~ BOULE:\lI\AO A T! .... ",.:. o CG .:.: ":0 ~ ....:..v ..' " ,.ttr. .... . . .. /1\ /R Ii f-- m.m___.._ - ~ INS 7/11.. U_'_.n... 'YEW, ;. f-- CN Z - - -~ _-m - ~-! -'=- CN Z I I INS 1--- , ,,'. 'iIM . .' IRL I I '41TH AVEN.E N III I T/U II. FIGURE 2 ANNEXATION REVIEW 99-9 LARGO f<.,:' ..1 em OF LARGO ~ SCALE: 600' ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPHICS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF PINELLAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER. II}( SMITH GRAPHICS CREATED USING MEDIT VERSION 2.1 @ ~ 11/23/1999 13:31 7275875755 COMM DEV e PAGE 02 e o \905 PI_ c'.::-u~ .Q;-, ~ -< ~~I~~ ~ ....Iiil.... ~ City of Largo, Florida Post Office Box 296. Largo, Florida 33779-0296 Community Development Department Richard p, Goss, A,I.C.P" Director AdminIstration (727) 587.6749 Ucenses/PermitS (727) 587-6712 Inspections (727) 587-6111 FAX (727) 587-6765 November 19, 1999 Mr. David P. Healey, AICP, Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Oeveland Street. Ste 850 Clearwater, FL 33755-4160 Re: Proposed annexation by the City of Largo Case no. AS-44-99 Dear Mr. Healey: Please be advised that the City of Largo will be annexing the above-referenced property pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes. For each property which is ten acres or more in area (excluding right-of-way), the PPC's Municipal Annexation Review fonn has also been completed and enclosed. Public meetings for this annexation are scheduled before the Largo City Commission on December 7, 1999, and December 14, 1999. The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. and all necessary municipal services are available to serve existing development. If an annexed property is identified as a nonconfonning use with respect to either Pinellas County or City of Largo land use regulations. the annexation ordinance will ensure the property owner's right to maintain its existing legal. nonconforming use status. If you need any further information. please feel free to contact me at 587-6749, ABIes . ends, Ihomelcomdev/dev _serviceslannexl1999/AS_ 44_991PPC_annex.ltr / ...MJ.. \ ~ \i <EYSTlK ~ ~ I"\. .' :1' ,_...L ~ Q;, Ii It ~:? ~ ~ ~ I!t(~ 3 ~"" ~f2 :t~{ T_; ,"- ~ Ii \._~... ~ ~~ "'- ...." ~ ~ : ~ ~ ...., IT ~ ... "~." - II ~r. \ ~X:::i ~ It> > 1\ "~~ J .-.~ LV ~2. \ ( T t~~ 64TH AVE N ~:,<.~;>: ,,::~::\:>'':', ~ . ,~: ~ ~ AI'[ Ji5 P ~ ...., A~' 19?] ~ .~~. . '.{fc,,! \;J q Ihl ',.... . .'.'~~ '., . ....... PASCO COUNTY (. "'. '.' . I,. .:" .'. '" ",' " :, j-:' /. " ':>. '",' .',' , ," -,' :"i '., <, : "g~ ~ ~.. on ::."" f, ,: ," :' '.., ',. ':".::, .' ~ -~ f"\ , " " .... f .'. I ,.,' . " k:,:.. ".".'',.,.: L:.,: . ," ,.,.'. I " """..,,'.' : .," '.:, ,'>::,' " ", ""', ',,' ' .';' .'. ',' , '.' ,', :;'. . >':, '.:,:.,'. :'" '. "" ".,' ,." .':.": :: . '. ... ':,; " ."",.,.., ,'" .. , ,.,:" .':'. .,' : .,.:,:,,:, --.., ,.', ".: < .' :,,':. .'" ,,'. ~, .' ".' " ....'.. ..,:...',".'.', ',.", ':" .' . ',: .".'. ,':'.. ":. ,.C:,>.. ::,:", '.__:' : .;' ":-:,, "" ,C. .".< :",', ;,.: ': " "'."', ':' ' . '.,':::'" ,,' . , ".,.,....",), , . ." :,', '. . , .' '."," :., , '. '., ..':. :. " '. .." " ",' '. " :,.::. OLU'TO ""YALYO "" 60 ~ i f) ~ I <AI7 OAT OR "1 F ; . ~ \l..JERToo. ROAD Ii ......:: ~ ~ ~ oj I " 01._ LVO I ~v ~ . ~i ;; " I !~.~ ~ <:DiTAAL ~, ',' ,~:. I: . , , ., ,',' '::,. [, :.. "',",' ,:':, ',' ".' . : ' FIGURE 1 CASE NO. ANNEXATION REVIEW 99-9 LARGO ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL - ~ ::> c u :I: g I ~ Ii! ~ " . ~ ~ ~ :;<,:~ ',(> , ",.-,. :." ...' , " '.'. ,... '.' ":, ." '.:...... .,,';: f'. '.",; , :,.... '. if; .:C" . " . . '.: ,c . , : . ..'.> '" .... ". ..; . ,:..,'.. "',.F ,': " '-' ',', '.. ' i :) ......, , ,:' . .:;~ 'f'i',... ',::.... ',;' . i", "':.. " I2JI) AYE N ~ e ~ r '. .,', 5TH "vt N .:" , ",' /".;' ~ GRAPmcs PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE PJNEllAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, JIM SMITH Produced by YEDIT V2,1, Copyricht 1991.1992 PiDellu County, Florida Properly Apprai.er, All Rieble Re.ened, .A e SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-9, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION REVIEW PPC ANNEXATION REPORT: No. 99-9 CITY: Largo (A5-44-99) ACREAGE: 33.05 Acres ( 0.26% of City) GENERAL LOCATION: South of Roosevelt Blvd., on the west side of Michigan Dr. REVIEW COMMENTS: 1. Contiguity/Compactness: The site is contiguous to municipal boundaries on the site's northern, southern, eastern, and western boundaries. 2. Water: Citywide Capacity: Whether or not this site is annexed, water service is provided to this area by the Pinellas County Water System. As this site is already developed, there will be no additional water impact directly associated with the annexation. 3. Sewer: Citywide Capacity: Whether or not the site is annexed, the subject parcel is within the City's Sanitary Sewer District and is currently being serviced by the City. The City of Largo Wastewater Treatment Plant has an average daily flow of 13.62 million gallons per day (mgd) (FY1995) and a capacity of 18.0 mgd. There will be no additional sewer impact directly associated with the annexation. 4. Solid Waste: Collection of solid waste is to be provided by the City of Largo upon annexation. The City has an interlocal agreement with Pinellas County for the disposal of solid waste. The City's solid waste is disposed of at the Pinellas County Resource Recovery Plant. According the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report, the City's 139 tons per day of solid waste accounted for less than 5% of the Resource Recovery Plant's capacity in 1995. 5. Transportation: The site is located on the south side of Roosevelt Blvd. and east of US Highway 19. The level of service for the portion of Roosevelt Blvd. that serves this site is LOS "C", while the LOS for the portion of US Highway 19 that serves this site is "B". No additional traffic impacts will be generated as a result of this annexation. 3 e e SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-9, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo 6. Law Enforcement: This area is now served by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department. Upon annexation, the City of Largo will assume responsibility for police protection. This annexation will place a burden on the Largo Police Department proportionate to the area being annexed. 7. Fire: The proposed annexation is currently within the Largo Fire District and will remain as such after annexation. Annexation will not affect the fire and rescue services currently being provided. The annexation will change the way fire services are paid for. After annexation the fire service millage assessed for the parcel in unincorporated Pinellas County will be eliminated and services will be paid out of the additional revenues received from the City of Largo millage (currently 3.4000 mills). 8. Emergency Medical Service: EMS is already provided to this site and the current countywide EMS millage of .7130 will continue to be levied on an ad valorem basis to support this service which is provided on a countywide basis. 9. Recreational Facilities: The City is currently providing adequate recreation facilities. The level of service will be maintained for the area to be annexed, based on the City's Comprehensive Plan standards. Because this area is commercially developed, there will be minimal impact on recreational facilities. 10. Libraries: The City's library is located at 351 East Bay Dr., and provides services to this area. The only change caused by annexation of the site will be that the existing millage (ad valorem) levied for County Library Services (Co-op) (currently .5 mills) will be eliminated and the City will now pay for library service to the area from their general fund with the use of the additional revenues received from the City millage (currently 3.4000 mills). There will be minimal impact on library services. 11. Other Comments: The subject area is within the Tri-Cities Planning Area as set forth in the interlocal agreement between Largo, Pinellas Park, St.Petersburg, and Pinellas County. The subject area is developed with the Bay Area Outlet Mall and is currently designated Commercial General and Preservation on both Pinellas County's Future Land Use Map and the Countywide Plan Map, and will remain as such. 4 ~ I AGENDA ITEM: IV A. MEETING DATE: December 15,1999 SUBJECT: Annexation Report No. 99-9, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo RECOMMENDATION: Council, Based on the Accompanying Findings 1-3, Adopt a Finding that the City of Largo has the Ability to Provide Municipal Services to this Area and Authorize this Finding to be Transmitted to the City. BACKGROUND: Section 5(12) of Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, requires the Council to review and make a recommendation to the affected municipality for each annexation of ten (10) acres or more as to the ability of the municipality to provide municipal services to the territory to be annexed. Annexation No. 99-9 totals 33.05 acres and is located south of Roosevelt Blvd. and on the west side of Michigan Dr. The site is developed with the Bay Area Outlet Mall. The proposed annexation's final public hearing before the Largo City Commission was held on December 14, 1999. The City of Largo has indicated that either it will provide, or agreement with another service provider will be obtained for: water, sewer, solid waste collection, law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services. City recreational and library facilities will also be available to this area. See attached annexation review form for details of each municipal service to be provided. PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION: COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION: 1:\USERS\WPDOCS\LOCASES\99ANN\ANN99-9,LAR.wpd e .. SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-9, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo In accordance with the review criteria ofPPC Resolution 98-2, and based upon the accompanying data and analysis, staff submits the following findings for consideration regarding the subject request: 1. The subject property is contiguous to the City boundaries along the north, south, east, and west sides of the parcel. 2. The City has the ability to provide fire, law enforcement, sewer, solid waste disposal, and library services. Water will be provided by Pinellas County, and emergency medical service will continue to be provided on a countywide basis. 3. The subject parcel is within the area delineated under the Tri-Cities Interlocal Agreement between Largo, Pinellas Park, St.Petersburg, and the County. 4. The subject area is classified Commercial General (27.65 acres) and Preservation (5.40 acres) under the Countywide Future Land Use Plan (Countywide Plan Map) and is not proposed to change. Based on the considerations set forth in this report and the accompanying findings, It IS recommended that the Council find the City has the ability to serve the subject annexation area, pursuant to Chapter 88-464, Section 5(12). 2 e e AGENDA PLANNERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MONDA Y, DECEMBER 6,19991:30 P.M. NA TIONSBANK BUILDING 600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850, EIGHTH FLOOR CLEARWATER, FLORIDA I. MINUTES OF REGULAR PAC MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8. 1999 II. OLD BUSINESS III. REVIEW OF PPC AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 15. 1999 MEETING - See Attached Copy of Preliminary Agenda A. Annexation Report No. 99-9: City of Largo B. Annexation Report No. 99-10: City of Largo C. Religious Institutions and Local Land Use Controls - Final Draft D. Land Use Plan Amendments Including the Following Cases: Group 1: Subthreshold Amendments 1. Case #CW 99-48(OA): City of South Pasadena 2. Case #CW 99-49(OA): City of Tarpon Springs 3. Case #CW 99-50(OA): City of Oldsmar Group 2: Regular Amendment&. 4. Case #CW 99-47: City of Pinellas Park IV. OTHER PAC BUSINESS A. Other 1. Election of Officers and Update PAC Roster 2. PPC/CPA Joint Workshop Materials V. ADJOURNMENT "If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you to the provision of certain assistance. Within two (2) working days of your receipt of this notice, please contact the Office of Human Rights, 400 S. Ft. Harrison Ave., Ste. 300, Clearwater, FL 33756. (813) 464-4062 (VITDD)".I:,usERs'WPDOCSIPAC\AGENDAPAC . e PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL AGENDA A ~~~ "I. ~ u...._ J)'~ "'~ ~~~; ~a~ ~;~ ~ AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 9:00 A.M. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1999 PINELLAS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 5TH FLOOR, BOARD ASSEMBLY ROOM 315 COURT STREET, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA I. CALL TO ORDER II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of November 17, 1999 Meeting B. Financial Statement for November, 1999 IV. REPORTS AND OTHER ACTION A. Annexation Report No. 99-9: City of Largo B. Annexation Report No. 99-10: City of Largo C. Religious Institutions and Local Land Use Controls - Final Draft D. Annual Report - Preliminary Draft V. PUBLIC HEARING - To begin at 9:30 A.M. or as soon thereafter as agenda permits A. Public Hearing Format Announcement and Oath B. Proposed Amendments to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan Group 1: Subthreshold Amendments 1. Case #CW 99-48(OA): City of South Pasadena 2. Case #CW 99-49(OA): City of Tarpon Springs 3. Case #CW 99-50(OA): City of Oldsmar Group 2: Regular Amendments 4. Case #CW 99-47: City of Pinellas Park 1:IUSERSIWPDOCSIMISCITEM\REGITEMSIAGENDA Page 1 e VI. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ITEMS A. Annual Audit - Preliminary Draft B. PAC Membership Roster for 2000 C. Preliminary January Agenda D. Verbal Reports VII. OTHER COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Chairman/Member Items 1. Nominating Committee ReportlElection of Officers for 2000 B. Correspondence VIII. ADJOURNMENT Note: Dependent upon the length ofthe agenda, the Council may recess for approximately ten (10) minutes at 10:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as is convenient. "Persons are advised that, if they decide to appeal any decision made at this meetinglhearing, they will need a record of the proceedings, and, for such purpose, they may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based." If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you to the provision of certain assistance. Within two (2) working days of your receipt of this notice, please contact the Office of Human Rights, 400 S. Ft. Harrison Ave., Ste. 300, Clearwater, FL 33756. (813) 464-4062 (VITDD). 1:IUSERSIWPDOCSIMISCITEM\REGITEMSIAGENDA Page 2 ~r-{f~D FVr interoffice MeJ M E MaR AND U M (lG. ~;;tt-O)U) C, ~ 17V{~ to: Vice-Mayor, Ed Taylor Councilwomen, Patricia L. Bailey Councilman, Chuck Williams Councilman, Rick Butler City Manager, Jerry Mudd City Clerk, Kathy L. Witherington City Attorney, Thomas E. Reynolds Mayor, Bill Mischler Possible Settlement of the Annexation Dispute with the City of Largo December 29, 1999 COPIES TO: COMMISSION RECEIVED JAN 1 0 2000 JAN '-.3 2000 PRESS CLERK I A Tffi"V . MANAGER'S OFFICE from: subject: date: On December 21, 1999, I met with Mayor Tom Feaster from the City of Largo to discuss a possible settlement of the annexation dispute currently pending between the cities of Pin ell as Park and Largo. Prior to Mayor Feaster and I meeting, there was a question as to the legality to hold this meeting outside the boundaries of the Government in the Sunshine Laws for the State of Florida. Ms. Pat Gleason, General Counsel in the Attorney General's Office (who I understand oversees their interpretation of the Sunshine Law) gave an opinion to Largo's City Attorney, Alan Zimmet, that the meeting of the two Mayors would not be subject to the Sunshine Law and also stated that their office encourages such meetings to try to resolve disputes between governmental bodies prior to litigation. I believe that each of you were given copies of Attorney Zimmet's letter addressed to our City Attorney Ed Foreman dated December 16, 1999. I agreed to meet with Mayor Feaster for the sole purpose of trying to tenninate the disputes between our cities. There were no deals made, as that was not the purpose or intent of our meeting. I have always tried to be a team player on this Council regardless of what the article in the December 26th edition of the Neighborhood Times had stated, as well as remarks made by a member of this City Council. I am coming in front of you, my colleagues only as a messenger for a proposed settlement of the litigations our cities have against each other. Attached are recommendations that Mayor Feaster and I are proposing. Please note, they are recommendations only. Mayor Feaster will be meeting with his Commission simultaneously with our meeting this evening to present these proposals for a settlement. Finally, I applaud Mayor Feaster for taking the initiative to resolve our differences. He is very sincere in trying to make each of our cities good neighbors. I am hopeful that we can come to some fonn of agreement with the City of Largo in order to avoid a considerable expense to the taxpayers of our City that could run into several hundred thousands of dollars. .. . . Possible Settlement of the Annexation Dispute with the City of Largo Page 2 December 29, 1999 I apologize to you for not releasing these proposals in advance, but due to the nature ofthis subject, I felt it was to our City's best interest that we collectively have a chance to discuss these proposals prior to reading them in the newspapers. Item Number Proposal 1 - Planning Area: Ulmerton Road to become the natural boundary. Pinellas Park to have all jurisdiction on the south side of Ulmerton from Roosevelt Boulevard west to u.S. 19. South on u.S. 19 to 126th Avenue. West on 126th Avenue to Lake Seminole. 2 - Sewer Permits: All indentures Largo have with property owners within Pinellas Park's Planning Area will become null and void. Largo will not pursue. Largo will obligate themselves to provide us sewer within our Planning Area. 3 - Triangle Section: These properties bordered by U.S. 19, Ulmerton Road and the Cross Bayou Canal will come into Pinellas Park's Fire District. 4 - Fire Station #36: This Fire District will remain under the jurisdiction of Pin ell as Park indefinitely. 5 - Tract "A": Consultants will be hired by Largo to analyze and come up with a cost basis for Pinellas Park. Largo will continue to charge the present sewer rates until this study is completed by the consultants and agreed upon by both cities. ,1 ~i. v1;cH&:i\ Bill Mischl,r Mayor ! cc: City of Clearwater City Manager / Pinellas County Administrator Pine lias Planning Council Executive Director City of Largo City Manager Mayor Feaster, City of Largo F1a, ~11 BRITZ v. LeBASE Cite aR, Fla., 258 Ro.2d 811 760 (1st DCA Fla.1963). Here, however, the circumstances fall within the exception to that general proposition, i. e., where there is a continuing benefit to the city. In City of Gainesville v. Board of Con- trol, 81 So.2d 514 (Fla.1955), our late, dis- tinguished colleague, Thomas, J., for a unanimous court reasoned: (at pp. 518-519) ';We do not think that the circum- stances considered as a whole warrant the construction that the obligation was to exist perpetually, or forever. The time was to be measured by the existence of the university in Gainesville. We take judicial notice of the location as perm- anent but we do not indulge the clair- voyance that it will be perpetual. Her- cu1aneum and Pompeii were permanent but history records that they were not perpetual. * * * * * * "The contract contemplated a free sen'ice so long as the university remained in Gainesville, a continuing considera- tion being the exchange of the service for the continuing advantage. The life of the contract is unalterably ;connected' with the e.-..istence of the university as presently located. We find nothing in the record to support the position that the city was bound only to furn~sh water as long as it could afford it, or until some arbitrary period subsequently to be de- termined." The remaining contentions including the one attacking this as not being a proper class suit are without merit. The able trial judge was properly affirm- ed. The opinion below appears to be con- sistent with earlier authorities on the sub- ject, leaving no problem of conflict and as certified is correct. Certiorari is accord- ingly discharged. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERYIN, CARL- TON, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur. Joseph M. BRITZ and Sylvia Britz, his wife, Petltlonera, v. Shelby Jay LeBASE, a minor, by and through her next friend, Delores LeBue, and Delores LeBase, Individually, Re. spondents. No. 40623. Supreme Court of Florida. July 8, 1971. On Rehearing :\Iarch 21, 1972. Suit was brought on behalf of minor child who suffered loss of eye when she ran into yucca plant located about six to eight feet beyond defendants' property line on an adjacent lot. The trial judge di- rected verdict in defendants' favor, and re- view was sought. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 240 So.2d 819, re- versed and petition was made for writ of certiorari to review decision. The Su- preme Court, Dekle, J., held that where there was no evidence that defendants had actual knowledge of danger of yucca plant and the danger did not exist on property owned or legally connected to defendants, plaintiffs were not entitled to recover against defendants. Decision of District Court quashed and cause remanded with directions to reinstate judgment of trial court. Adkins, J., dissented with opinion in which Ervin and Carlton, JJ., concurred. r I. Negll gence e=>48 Before host can be held liable for in- juries to a social guest, the host must have actual knowledge of dangerous condition, host must realize that it involves an unrea- sonable risk to his guest and host must have reason to believe that guest will not discover the condition or realize the risk. 2. Negligence e=>48 \Vhere there was no evidence that de- fendants had actual Imowledge of danger ! :\ \ 810 Fla. 258 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES Court of Appeal at 247 So.2d 753 (1971). The district court affirmed the trial judge's final decree which found with the appellees (as a class of the city's water customers in the area known as the South Peninsula, south of Frazar Road outside the limits of the City of Daytona Beach.) Fla.Collst. art. V, ~ 4(2) F.S.A. and Rule 4.5(c), Fla. App. Rules, 32 F.S.A. Appellees rely upon, and ~eek to hold the city to, a 1954 agreement made by the city. The agreement was initiated for the city to obtain the priyate water system then operat- ing in that area under the name of South Peninsula Water Co. This was a favorable acquisition to the city which enabled it to expand its system and it was very willing in the agreement to extend a maximum rate which might be charged to the customers of that system not to exceed 0 more than what was charged to those in the city itself (1330%). This was a real concern to the users, not knowing what the change of ownership might bring, and wishing at least to fix a reasonable add-on to the rate to be charged by a city in which it would have no other voice. ,I i The city has now by ordinance levied a rate of 2OO:-c, or double, what city dwellers are paying and this is what the trial court declared invalid, holding the city to its agreement. Among the more serious contentions of the city are twO that are mentioned in the dissent of DIstrict Court Judge Dewey M. Johnson: (1) The agreement is an unreasonable limitation upon the city in charging its rates which would restrict the city in updating and expanding its water sys- tem. " 'I (2) The agreement is an unlawful at- tempt by private agreement contrary to public policy to limit the legislative (goyernmental) authority of the city. 'I II ~ [1] City of Safety Harbor v. Pinellas County, 218 So.2d 528 (2nd DCA Fla.1969), stands for the principle that so long as such · a contract does not require the city to sup- ply water at less than cost, then the contract is not invalid on the grounds contended. Here the facts clearly show that even the rate of 125% of the in-city rate which was being charged before the attempted in- crease, was more than the cost. It would also appear to be inherent in the formula of Y.1 more than in-city rates that the charge to appellees could never be less than the cost unless the city chose to charge rates to its own residents which were less than cost, inasmuch as the ~'1 more of what eyer the city rate, assures an excess charge. Actually the reasonableness ot rates is deferred in this litigation until the present question before the court regarding the contract is resolved. Court scrutiny of the reasonableness is of course subject to re- view. Cooper v. Tampa Electric Co., 154 Fla. 410, 17 So.2d 785 (194-+). and Clay Ctility Co. v. City of Jacksonville, ?27 So. 2d 516 (1st DCA Fla.l969). [2] The fact that different rates may be charged to other outside users not cov. ered by the original agreement does not defeat that agreement's purpose and validity for those who are beneficiaries of it. [3] The flexibility allowed here is dif- ,. ferent from the inflexible 5~ flat rate in the contract held so inflexible as to be in- valid in City of Clearwater v. Bonsey, 180 , Soold 200 (2nd DCA 1965). There must of , course be such flexibility as would avoid a , loss to the city. The prerequisite flexibility , is present under the formula here, as in . Safety Harbor, supra. It is thus seen that the second objection regarding the alleged unlawful limitation on legislative authority, of the city is not factually supported. [4] A further point urged by appellant. that the contract is unenforceable turns, or the contention that the termination date ~. not specified and that under the genera! rule it is therefore terminable by eithd party upon reasonable notice. O:lllins ;~. pic-Town Water Works, Inc., 166 5,,: n o " ''C CITY or DAYTONA BEACH v. STANSFIELD Fla. 809 C\tp ao, Fla.. 25S So.2d R09 limits a maximum differential of l33~,'3% of rates charged to in-city customers for same services did not defeat agreement's purpose _and validity for those who were benefici- aries under it. CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH, Petitioner, Y. Mary Jo STANSFIELD et aI., Respondenb No. 41182. Supreme Conrt of Florida. Feb. :!3. 197:!. HE-hearing Denied ~lareh 28, 1972. Appeal by city from final decree of the Circuit Court, Volusia County, James T. ~ elson, J., permanently enjoining city from charging certain water customers outside city limits water rates in excess of maxi- mum rate differential agreed to by city. The District Court of .-\ppeal affirmed, 24i So.2d i53, and city petitioned for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court held that so long as a contract setting maximum dif- ferential of rates to be charged certain water customers outside city limits in excess of rates charged in-city customers for same services does not require city to supply \,-ater at less than cost, contract is not ::1\-alid on t~eory that it places unreasonable iimita:ion upon city ir", charging- its rates which would restrict city in updating and expanding its water system. Certiorari discharged. l 1 . i ) I. Waters and Water Courses C=0203(7) So long as a contract setting maximum differential of rates to be charged certain water customers outside city limits in ex- cess of rates charged in-city cu~tomers for same services does not require city to supply water at less than cost, contract is not im'alid on theory that it places unrea- sonable limitation upon city in charging its rates which would restrict city in up- dating and expanding its water system. 1 C , , ;~ )' ! \ , (. 2. Waters and Water Courses C=0201 Fact that diffcrent rates might have been charged to other outside users not cov- ered uy original agreement limiting city to charge certain water customers ontside city 258 ~-, 2~-511/. t" t I 3. Waters and Water Courses €=>203(7) Inherent flexibility of contract under which city agreed, at time it acquired water system preyiously servicing subject terri- tory outside city limits, to charge maximum differential of l33V3% of rates charged to in-city customers for same services refuted contention of city, which sought to impose against certain water customers outside city limits a rate of 200%, or double, what city dwellers were paying, that agreement was an unlawful attempt by private agreement contrary to public policy to limit legislatiye authority of the city. 4. Waters and Water Courses ~201 \\l1ere there was continuing benefit to cit\' under contract by which city, in con- ~ideration of its ag-reement to limit maxi- - ~ mum differential with respect to rates charged customers outside city limits to 13313:C of rates charged in-city custome;s fo; same sen'ices, acquired water system previously sen'ing subject territory outside city limits, contract which did not spec: fy termination date was not unenforceable un- der o-eneral rule that contract as to which ... no termination date is specified is termina- ble by either party upon reasonable notice, William ~L Barr of Raymond, WilSDn, Karl, Conway & Barr, Daytona Beach, for petitioner. Cobb, Cole, Sigerson, ~lcCoy, Bell & Bond, Daytona Beach, for respondents. PER CURIAM: Petition for certiorari by the City of Daytona Beach on certification as being of great public interest (withont a specific certified question) brings before us for review the opinion of the First District n I , . , I f , ; 'I ~ i , I a -;--~~;;' - PORTERv.STATB-~,"". " - ---'.-' "Clt8'u,-F~. 8i 80.24 Iii I , - '. , . Fla. 519 'c;t . is unalterably" 'conne~ed" with the istence of the university as.. presently - ted. We find nothing in the. record "'sppport the position that the city was \lfid only to furnish water as long as ,it ~Id affqrd, it, or until some arbitrary . od subsequently to be determined. ,Iii concluding our observations on the ~.. - .. !i5ond question we have decided the last, d third, one in which the appellant asks hether the city has now discharged its biigation even assuming that the city ~~ed to furnish water for an unspecified e. ,'f Affirmed. :DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, 'RING,. HOBSON; ROBERTS THORIxAL, JJ., concur. - - does D()tt,~' do that i' It . - ':'l>~,-.' IS nU\";, said tl1at- mId end. lmstanCes. , construc- :xist per-_ :as to' be: miversity . notice of: e do not. : will be' pcii were :hat they. Urcle PORTER, Appellant, v. ST A TE of Florida, App-ellee. Supreme Court of Florida. DivIsion B. June ::l9,1955. icipate or, :lster will': f Florida f t ci rcum- ) \'al of the: utwe do' , . aot so lIl- t ca'n b~!' j ,Prosecution for murder in the first egree alleged to have been committed by hooting victim with a pistol. From ad- lrse judgment of the Circuit Court, Duval . ;unty, W. A. Stanly, J., the defendant pp'ealed. ,The Supreme Court, Thomas, held that the evidence was sufficient to " tain. the. conviction. :~ ~, Judgment affirmed. -:) ee service ,\ lained)~. sideratioif 'e for the! ,~" f the call- Criminal Law €=>1169(2) ,In prosecution for murder in first eg~ee b)' shoot~ng victi~ with a pistol, ,error, if any, in admitting two photographs taken in home where victim was sliot' was harmless when jury viewed premises at close of testimony; ,2. Criminal Law €=>784(5) 'In prosecution for murder in the first degree by shooting victim with a pistol, instruction that no greater degree of cer- tainty in proof was r~quired where evidence was circumstantial than where it is direct for in either case jury must be convinced of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was riot erroneous. 3. Homicide <!:=l2S3(I) Evidence was sufficient to sustain con- SE- viction for' murder in the first degree. and . Frank T. Cannon and Zach H. Douglas, Jacksonville, for appellant.' - . Richard W. Emn, Atty. Gen., and Bart L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. THOMAS, Justice. The appellant was charged 'with murder in the first degree alleged to have been com- mitted by shooting one Hazel Rowland with a pistol while he entertained a premeditated design to kill her. He was found guilty of murder in the second degree and was sen- tenced to serve the rest of his life in prison. [1], In his appeal the appellant submits three questions for decision: the propriety of admitting two photographs in evidence, the correctness of a charge on circumstan- tial evidence, and the sufficiency of the evi- dence tO,establish his guilt. , The photographs wer,e taken in the kitch- en where Hazel Rowlaf\d (ell victim to ap- .pellant's gun fire and in the living r~om in the same house. In general, the appellant contends that these pictures were not an 'accurate portra)-al because blood stains had bct;~ removed since the homicide, was al- ~~ged to have been committed, the furniture -and furnishings :we{e. not the same and one ~ 518 iii! J08{''''8o&niEiN~mbiTEi,-;td-'8Bm8 'lTIO "J> '. LJ.. .':<"'. .i.": ,,11. \ .,J_ .JJ1.) u 'may 'be' implied 'from 'or' as may ,be iri;~ meit(was' not void; 'that' it Wis. ddent to those granted. -:State eX ret. :COli ~ bOth by' the city arid the State. ,j1\! v." Keller, 129 !,:a:276, -176 'So. 176. . 0 We do not think that the dr considered as a whole warrant the coii" tion that the ob1igation was to dS( !he donation was, in effect, one for ~he . petually, or f~rever. - The time ~tlci benefit of the State, as well as the CIty, d b th' 0 t f th . '~1 , , . measure y e eXlS ence 0 e umv and. was made to agents of the State WIth . G. ' '11 'v. tak . di 'aI ti' . . . ' . . In . aIneSVI e. e e JU Cl no apparent sanctIon of the State. ThIs, of th I t'. t b t '. i' , '. . . e oca Ion as permanen u we uO course, would apply to any cIty offerIng , d I th l' 'th t 't'~" ., 0 ., ., ,In U ge e c a:n'oyance.. a 1 a SImIlar mducement. ,And there IS nothmg t 1 HI' . d'P' . ,; , . I .oth. 'h . d' , . '" perp~ ua,. . ercu aneum an OID~ mnate y wrong WI t e onatlOn, 'vy e . t b t h' t' ds .1.1. would have to hold': it '. of such character permanent u t ;slory recor .' ~q th . .... - ,. were no perpe ua . . . on the ground at no express power In that :" ~~ regard was given and none was given from We do not dare or wish to antici . which _the, power could be implied ',or,to apprehend that misfortuneor-disasttf wlJich the power ~o, ~p~nd w,as inci<lentaL overtake' either the University of: _. We ~not findjn;t~e history ofj~C; trans~, or the City 'of Gainesville or thae:: action such ,defectsor::inthe law such a stances will bring about the removal: lack that would justify this abSolute deci-, institution from its 'present 'site but sion. Not only do w:e reject t~isconclu~, say that the physical situation is not sion but we think, t~~ actiOtJ of, tl:1,<<:,Jegis-. exorably' fixed that the. contra'ct~ . lature in dealing ;wi~ ,the. educational ,sys-. condemned as one to last ,forever;.,.~t _ tem for half a centurymanifeste_d a sanc- The contract contempla~ed'~':i;;e'. tion by that body of the action of the city~ so -long ""as' the' university'''reirla' or on behalf of the city. - G~~esvil~er: k <co~t~niiing : ic,,~n5icfe . VIe' end the discussi~n on' this poin't: by bemg the 'exchange of the ServICe remarkin~ that in our opinion the commit- ~ c'o~tinuirig 'adVantage. ; The life'of ~ '.. [2] We think that the power to expend money of the city by ,furnishing a utility as an inducement to -.establishing a uni- versity in the city is inherent in the powers granted to the City of Gainesville. Certain- ly the very purpose of _ a municipality is to further and foster the welfare and pros- perity of those who constitute its citizenry. Such e.~enditures must be kept, within bounds so that public funds may not be ad- vanced to promote purely private' enter- prise. State v. Town of North Miami, Fla., - S9 So2d 7i9. But such is not the case here. State v. Board of. Control, Fla., 66 So.2d 209. [3] It is the rule that if a city exceeds its powers the legislature can ratify what has been done beyond the scope of the powers actually granted, if it could have legalized it initially. . ,Ebersbach Const. Co. v. Charles Ringling Co., 100 Fla. 1270, 131 So. 148; Newman v. City of Opelika, 224 Ala. 70, 139 So. 242; 10 McQuillin, Mun. Corps. 3rd Ed. Sec. 29.109.- -[4]' Then we come ;to the i. second question:' Whether the city,: to furnish water to the 'university-' charge "in perpetuity"? ",: t{ . .~ .~'."'!v Having concluded that by its acti city honored the agreement of the ~ committee and made the committee;s," ise its own, we need, in treating - ~ question, only to determine wh~- contract was one to last forever~~~ petuity,or ad infinitum whicli' apps considers synonymous. '_ - 0 ~, , , ':c~l, The appellant is candid in the stat that it was not suggesting that there.; no connection between the negotiatiOii; . the Citizens' Committee and the fumr of water to' the University * r*. But the appellant insists that itdo~ follow that the city intended todo~ "in perpetuity without charge."- 1t'15' clear to us just where it could be sara' the obligation, once ratified, would> -(1 , . ct ,1$ UT' i~tenc~' ( ., ed. V, " ;5Upport d ~nly uid ,affQr, .ad subst ~! In conch: Second ques -~ ~and third, 0 . !whether the ~iiligation . :agreed to f )- 4> . ~ ~~me. t Affirmed. .~: DREW, <BRING, I ( ~THOR. 'tAL ,C~ Urc STA Sup " Criminal La --''-In: 'po rose~ , . .~,e 'by sh CITY P~.~~~~(rf:o~~R.9~ qe~~OL FlL. 511, r~Lof Edu<;atioa:we~e "vested:.with...an.~ stances, ,required contributions, f;om city 'Tute discretion",' Acts 1905, c. 5384; ~, treasuries of monies as a condition to the 'to be exercised, however, within cert~in estab1ishm~nt' and- maintenance of institU- 'derations detailed in the law, to deter- tions of learning within their borders. ,the location of the University of the Further evidence of the attitude of the t~ ~f Fl?rid.a. . Since some of the cities legislature' with regard to such donations which mstltutlons were then located, is found in Chapter 5498, Laws of Florida, Id ~pon actio.n. of ~he boards lose those Acts of 1905, expressly empowering L'1e ,t~?tl~~S, proYlSIon .wa~ m~de .for refund City of Gainesville to issue bonds for such ~,CltleS from .Whl~h lDstltutl0?S woul.d amount as the city council should deter- 10v;d of contnbutlOns made .f~om the:r mine "for the purpose of securing educa- ,sur,les to the" scho~ls. For mst~nce. It tiollal advantages and facilities in or ad- . st~pulated: And 10 case the said city jacent to such city." F.S.A. ~ 282.01. Gamesvi!le [site of The East Florida " , "i~ary] shall not be selected by said And as late as 1953 the legislature in a ards as one of the places for the location footnote to Item No. 62 of the appropria- ~ one of said institutions, then the said tion bill "*Provided that none of these "d of Education shall refund to the said monies shall be used to purchase water from > of Gainesville, out of the assets and the City of Gainesville." Chapter 28115, ;rtj. of the abolished ~stitutio; located' Laws of Florida 1953, F.S.A. ~ 282.01, item- '6;~h place, so much of. the lands and 62. Of course, we realize that this was , erty of the same, or its equivalent at long after the promise of the citizens' com- ,t}1~n value, as was donated to the said mittee was made but it does indicate to 'e . by the said City of Gainesville us that the legislative intent forty-eight ~ e.." Acts 1905, c. 538-t, ~ 18. years afterward harmonized with the pat- 'd d h 'f T II h tern we think was set by the acts to which t'; was prOVl e t at 1 a a. assee, h f d " we aye re erre . He The Flonda State College, formerly 'gnated The West Florida Seminary, 5 then located, should not be selected ~;: site for one of the new instit~tions ,;r the plan, The Florida State College ving been aboEs~ed by the Act, the Ote Board of Education, upon returning the' city any property, delivered by it ,use of the school, should charge the , ',a .proportion of any money required Ie paid under Section 325 of the Revised tutes of Florida, 1892, which the city ,,'.not paid. Turning to this section we that a seminary for Florida west of . Suwannee was located in Tallahassee ~Ondition that the city convey certain erty to the Board of Education and t the said city, by its proper authorities, 0_ - guarantee to said board of educa- the payment of the sum of two thou- ~ dollars per annum foretler _ - -."- lies supplied.) ,1'" , , ' " [;~ the Buckman Act and in Section 'Qi the Revised Statutes of F1orida,.the ~,~~re, creator of . municipallti~. .re~~ . e,d, approved and, at least in some in-: By the express terms of the Buckman Act the Board of Control was given the power "to receive donations" and we construe this provision to authorize acceptance of dona- tions by the City of Gainesville. We have been directed to no provision of the city charter, expressly granting to the city the power to enter such an agreement as was executed by the "committee of citizens." ~or has our research revealed express au- tho', ity so to contract. After a careful study of this record, we conclude that the whole pattern for re- organizing and maintaining the educational system offered an opportunity for legal con- tributions by cities from their, funds in or- der to secure to the citizens the obvious ad- vantages of having institutions located in their 'midst., True; no express' grant of power so to contribute' appeared in' fur Gainesville charter but it was properly im- plied from' the powers expressed.. [1] . ^ municipality, can exercise the pOwers expressly granted and, such I>O~-ers, ~ C- O ( ,f", :f "'~~"; , .' ~ ~ II , C\1 - .- ea ~ ~l~ n.. .10.11 :1I9J1t~,~Qatp..'fA IU1JUI rr::) lt~ 11'~.tJ~ ~.~ ..Jl~ L .~.... ~.~ to the university "render~ *', * · ,\he wate~orks ~ ,. · incapable of pro- ducing sufficient revenue * · · to re- tire principal. and interest charges on loans which [the city] must obtain to finance improvements and extensions * · .... To continue with the analysis of the complaint: The enrollment at the univer- sity in 1905 was one hundred thirty-five and in 1950 had increased to more than eleven thousand. . Subsequent to the effec- tive date in the resolution of its commis- sioners, the city sent to the university bills for water consumed which the university refused to pay. Hence the dispute. On the one part it is contended that the city is bound to furnish water as long as the university remains at its present site; on the other, that the contract was void from the beginning and, if not, the "spirit and intent of said agreement was long ago fully discharged" and the "agreement has now become void as a contract to con- tinue in perpetuo." (Italics supplied.) We attach no importance to the pheno- menal growth of the university as itself a reason to relieve the city of the burden. From a moral standpoint it seems to us that the inducement to secure tile advan- tage of a university of one hundred thirty- five students is shown to have been justi- fied by the presence of a university with eleven thousand. So, were we to stop here we would hold that the citizens in 1905 struck an excellent bargain and that the present size of the institution is all the more reason the city should be held to it. But we must decide the controversy up- on the legal points involved. In his decree the circuit judge reviewed the history of institutions of learning in the State and the purpose in enacting Chapter 5384, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1905, com- monly . 'called the Buckman Act, F.S.A. fifi 239.01 et seq., 240.01 et seq., 241.01, 241.03, 24121. ,241.40, 241.41, 242.33, 242.34, 242.3(' to 242.39, to establish a Uni- versityof Florida ;and to create a Board '"...;; of Control l'bich shoul4 ,act j~ c:gpj with the State Board of, EdU~~iRD" . ing a location for the institutiqD.:.1f.,: cities of the State ,were attemptlhg: come sites for the university, JUld' competition the citizens of Gain~ whom we have referred, evidently lively, and clearly successful, .pa'ft ' . .C The circuit judge thought there'l be no serious contention that the- atf not either authorized the contrac:tI" first place, or ratified it when it h9~ the agreement f~r about fifty years,;q he felt that a city could not be estO to ass-=rt the invalidity of a contr~ct was ultra 'LiTes, he found that the factJ the municipal officials, as well as the: bers of the Board of Control, const' that the city was acting within its .~ highly "persuasive to the conclusion-' the City did have power to make, th~J tract." . '. The city, of course, was the ~r of the legislature. Under the Coristr: the legislature has the "power to esti5 and to abolish, municipalities to, pr for their government, to prescnbe" jurisdiction and powers, and to-:aIi -,- ~ amend the same at any time." Secti Art. VIII, F.S.A. Constitution of the S of Florida. So the power in the C~ Gaines..-ille, and the other cities of FlO was reposed by the legislature undet Constitution. Now let us look at th~ Bu man Act, as the circuit judge did,.to certain the attitude of that body, wb; the power of the city sprung, toward tions by cities to induce the location of institutions within their boundarie;;.' " ..~c,' By the Buckniim Act the 'i ,~ abolished The Florida AgricultUral . . at Lake City, The West Florida 5 at Tallahassee, The White Normal' at DeFuniak Springs, The East Seminary at Gainesville, The South College at Bartow, and The Floti4a~ cultural Institute in Osceola 'to~ . .; 1 created and established the UDJver the State of Florida and The ,Fto . mal,e ,College. . The Board of. Con created by the Act and it and -the, OITY-op. GAINJlSV'If.t1r.::BoAltn OF'OONTROL CUe... J'la.. 8180.24 614 J1ai tSif~ According to the bill, the city never rati" fied the contract, nevertileless, it did until 1 October ,1950 supply water ~o ~e univer- sity w,i~out, charge. . On 5 June 1950, the city commission adopted a resolution pro- viding that effective 1 October 1950 the university would. be charged for water at the rate of 15; per th?us,~nd gallons., In the complaint is the averment that in' 1948 and 1949 the city ~pended a. large. A -' - . .' ' sum of money in the installation of a. water. ,~~~y; J)~~l" ~raham & Mills, Gaines~ treatment. plant, and to finance the project. " r?ra.~pe ~n " .~ issued'revenue certificates and 'pledged~ th'e; chard W. Ervin. Atty. Gen., Frank J:: receipts of the utility to the piyment otthe': 'tt. and_Wm. C. Morris, Asst.,' Attys.' obligation., Loss of revenue' by"reason, of: ~for'appellee. :..~ ".!,~ .l~;cr, the-large amount of water,now suppliedl :'ted: tOJ dtiraDd agreeinent> betWeen) rd 'of control and commIttee of citizens CitY: to furnish water without charge~ not: void, and was ratified by both city t state by.' furnishing' of' water with- i charge for about 45 years. . , ~ . .. . ~ . ~. - .~ - . '~unlclpal C~,rp'oratlon. C=>57, 59 dlA municipality can exercise the powers 'l~essly granted and such powers as may 'implied from or' as may. be incident to . ~se granted.' ' " Municipal Corporations e=>76, 870 Waters and Water Counes €=>203(1) '.pbWer rir'dty to ~pend ~o~ey' by 'ishing water to university without ~t e as inducement to establishing:~i- '~tf 'in- . city .. was inherent in . p~wers ted to city, and agreement between d of control and co=ittee of citizens ,city' to. furnish water without charge ,. 'not VOid .and was ratified by b~th city , ., state by furnis~g of water without .'ge' for about ~5 years. Acts 1905, 5384; and ~ 17; F.SA.Const. art. 8, ~ 8; .f.. '~ 282,01, item 62. <~J 'Municipal Corporations C:>76 If a city e.'Cceeds its powers, the Legis- re can ratify what has been done beyond scope of the powers actually granted, . .it could have legalized it initially. :I ~aters and Water Courses €=>203(1) ''where City agreed to furnish water to 'versity without cl1arge as an inducement ~blishing: of university; in that city, ',y;as obligated to furnish water to uni- ,'ty,. wit~out charge for as long as uni- ~~ r~ain~ located in the City.. ' . ~) . .' +. ~ -. ' :'THOMAS, ]u'stIC,e.- '.~~ -, i:r:~,' :.\,,~~ r.~ . . ... .; -: t _, The City of Gaines,:ille filedin the Circuit Court of ,Leon County a complaint'.con-, ~~in&" a prayer fora dc:cree d~c1aring:"th~; legal rights and obligations' of, thc:respec-;; tive parties [the city and the Board 'of Control] in dispute-' arising from [a] con- tract of 1905; and for such oiher . * .... relief, as the premises may require."; ':;: We now condense the material allegations upoll~hich th~ city relied as bases for the- relief., From a time prior to the yea!, 1905 the city in a proprietary capacity has co~"" tinually operated its waterw~rks and charg~: ed rates for the service. On 19 July 1905 a committee of citizens of Gainesville" and the live then members of the Board of Con- trol -entered' an . ag.:~einerit by which ~e. committee undertook to" 'cause water to be, furnished for the use of the, * * * .Uni-', versi ty *. :" . * without charge.''' . The purpose ot' the undertaking, . whiCh 'was' coupled with other promises to donate land; provide temporary housing for students and so on, was to induce the Board of Control and the State Board of Educati~n, th'e bodies charged' with cl100sing a site for the University. of Florida, to locate the university in Gaines,;lle. IIi 'the agreement the parties of the first part were designated simply iTa committee of the citizens of the City of Gainesville." The university was established in Gainesville and has since remained there. >tl CL o (.) .. tn G>> III ~c)1' .J'JL 11:80,lJTllEB.N BEPOBTEB,' id 8DIB8 I..': :'~.c"~ ~3 ,...;Ci .d.a~,:~'J the appeal ~ taken .Test was named as a party appellee. __ ~ut nowhe~ in ,the record can .we find that Test ever.made any objec- tion in the. court ,below to the injunction order. that was contained in the final decree, ,~or can ,we glean any information' from the record as to the nature of the chancery suit, the relief sought, or the issues in- volved. Indeed, all that we have been able to learn about the matter is stated by Test, in his brief, wherein he poses .the question "Is the final decree as enter~ by the lower court in conformity with petition of the appellee City of Fort Lauderdale as filed, and does the lower court have the right to enlarge upon the relief or remedy sought by the petitioner, and in the event the decision is in the negative, is the lower court e.,,<ceed- ing its authority?" . ..Any answer that we might attem to the question posed would nec" - sheer guesswork. . This is not th5 bij which an important decision." " rendered. Under the circums must decline to consider the .q~ Hunter v.Tyner, 151 Fla. 707. 10 SO . ' :'> We have e.''Camined all other0 toiii ..- -' .,..,~ advanced by the appellant and find'th be without merit. . :.:~-'" . ted' to': tit: cd of contrr 'city'to'fur . not void, ~ state by charge for , Affirmed. Under this question, the appellee Test sets out in general language that makes no reference to the page numbers of the record, ,that gives no precise information about the nature of the chancery suit or issues in- volved, and that fails to disclose in what particular he claims to have been injured by the injunction order, "that the injunction particularly contained in the final decree is -in excess of that sought. JJ And the appellee concludes this portion 'of his "argument" with the statement that "the Lower Court in its final decree with full knowledge thaJ there existed in the Circuit Court of the "Fifteenth Judicial, CirCuit, a sUit in chancery entitled J. Arthur Test y. City of Fort Lauderdale, No. 22095; that said suit was inariother division other than the division in which' cases are genc;rally heard. by the [circuit judge] w~o signed this final decree; , '.:~ ; , ~ and that inasmuch ,as the City Attorney for . Action by city for decree -dl: the City of Fort Lauderdale had prepared rights and obligitio~s of ci~yi~~"~ the final decree and presented it 'to the control in dispute arising under eo Court for signature upon his decla~ation whereby city was to furnish JN~ter[~ that he wowd validate the bond issue, was versity without charge as jndue . unaware, to what extent the provisions of establishing ',~iversity in the ~i~( . the final decr:ee w~nt to." adve.rse ,decree of the~ircuit, ,', !:i County, Hugh M. Taylor, J., the,d ,,' [8], We have the view that neither the pealed. The Supreme Court,! ,-. question posed by the appellee nor the held that power of city to expen~Q argument submitted thereunder conform by furnishing water to university: ,with the requirements of 30 .F.5,A.Supreme charge as inducement to estab' . .Court Rule 36 pertaining to appellate briefs. versity in city .was jnherent,it1~, a_~YC-~~02I~ A....-S -.: a,: The appellant having failed to maki clearly appear the decree appealed~ should be affirmed. . It is so ordered. :, " Municipal C, ::i:Waters and ' i., 'f ~._ , ,-'. . Power of . fUrnishing W~ ~ 'Charge as ind~ ;':,Yersity in cit ',ranted to ci . 'bpard of contr ~i city to fu: .~s n~t void ; d state by : rge . for. a' )3&4; and ~ .A. ~ 282.0 .,. DREW, C. J., and TERREll;TH AS, HOBSON, ROBERTS andTii' NAL, ]J., concur. -CITY OF GAINESVILLE,. MUlIle.p Corporation, Appellalit, d~' ,".,1.; 1:ill .Y. M,~nlclpal C. YIf a city e ,.' re can rati f .:scope oft 't could ha\ . '". !ljl., BOARD OF CONTROL of the ~!!t~; Florida, a body corporate, App~lIe " .' ,,-' '.1, ' 'Supreme Court of FlorldL'liL" " ' ...,'1 En Bane. . '-'~:~~~11 Jqne 22, 1955. 178 Fla. 540 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES [5] Finally, we reject appellee's conten- tion that Mullan has no cause of action b~use he failed to strictly follow the pro- cedural rules outlined in his contract for the resolution of disputes. Mullan peti- tioned the local Board of Education for relief after the principal rejected his com- plaint. Appellee contends that the contract requires submission to the Diocesan Office of Education after rejection by the Board of Education, which step Mullan concededly did not take. However, the contract pro- vides that the Board of Education will pro- vide its decision to the teacher within five days after hearing the teacher's objection, yet the Board did not submit its decision to the appellant for some five weeks after the hearing. Having failed to follow its own rules, appellee should not be heard to com- plain that Mullan did not strictly comply with them. Because disputed issues of fact exist, the summary final judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceed- ings consistent herewith. REVERSED and REMANDED. SHARP, W., C.J., and COBB, J., concur. The CITY OF WINTER PARK, Florida, Appellant, v. SOUTHER."'J STATES UTILITIES, INC., et aI., Appellees. No. 88-242. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. March 16, 1989. City brought action against utility com- pany and landowners alleging that utility company was providing sewer service to landowners within city's exclusi.e sewer service zone and that city would have ca- pacity to serve landowner's property in ap- proximately 17 months and thus. sought declaratory judgment to effect that land- owners would be required to disconnect from utility company's sewer system and connect with city's sewer system at that time. The Circuit C{)urt, Orange C{)unty, Volie A. Williams, Jr., J" denied city's pray- er for declaratory judgment and city ap- pealed. The District Court of Appeal, Co- wart, J., held that city had no right to prevent utility company from serving con- suming public or to require public to dis- connect from utility company now serving it and to connect with city's system if and when city got around to meeting its duty to provide service that it had undertaken to provide through enactment of ordinance. Affirmed. 1. Public Utilities pl14 All corporations which voluntarily un- dertake to engage in performing service of public nature whether governmental agen- cy, such as municipality, or printe corpora- tion, assume obligation implied by law to render, for reasonable compensation and without discrimination and to all of public in area sought to be served, service reason- ably adequate to meet just requirements of those sought to be served. t 2. Municipal Corporations c8:=712(3, 5) City had no legal right to prevent utili- ty company from serving consuming public nor did it have right to require public to disconnect from utility company now serv- ing them and to connect with city's sewernsystem if and when city became equipped to provide service that it had undertaken to provide by enacting ordinance extending its corporate power over its municipal sewer service zone outdide its corporate limits; city was not permitted to extend its service franchise beyond area it was able to serve and thereby prevent public from being served by anyone else. I..... , I ~ .f.t ;i ?....I~TER PARK v. SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES Cite.. 540 So.2d 178 (Fla.App. 5 Dtst. 1989) Frederic B. O'Neal of Winderweedle, city sewer treatment capacity was available Haines, Ward & Woodman, P.A., Orlando, at the time it was needed by the land- for appellant. owners and found that there was no mate- Thomas A. Cloud, Philip H. Trees, Ste- rial issue as to the fact that the city did not phen A. Hilger, and Forrest S. Fields, Jr. of have the present ability to provide sewer Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A., Orlando, service to the landowners' property and for appellee Southern States Utilities, Inc. that, accordingly, the utility company was Terry C. Young and Matthew G. Brenner free to contrac: to provide s.ewer s:rvice to of Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & the landowners property Wlthout Interven- Reed, P.A., Orlando, f~r appell~es Golden- tion [in~rfer.ence] from the city. Although rod Partners Ltd. Mark E. Harris and not aff1l'tnatively expressed, the effect of James B. Ta~. ' the trial court's denial of the city's prayer for a declaratory judgment that the land- owners would be required to disconnect from the utility company's sewer system and connect with the city's sewer system when it became available and entry of sum- mary judgment against the city was that the landowners would not be required to terminate their sewer service contract with the utility company and connect to the city's sewer system if and when it became available to the landowners' property. The city appeals. Interestingly, this litigation is somewhat of a shadow of a prior litigation as to the same issue between the same parties that came about as follows: earlier, the utility company applied to the Public Service Com- mission to amend its certificate of public necessity to provide sewer service to the property now in question and other proper- ty. The city objected. The PSC, by order numbered 18525, and dated December 9, 1987 (87 FPSC 12:125), found that the city had more demand for sewer service than it had capacity and that while the city expect- ed to be able to provide sewer service at some time in the future, the city would not execute a commitment to provide sewer service and desired to place those needing service on a list to wait until the city could provide sen;ce while the utility company had existing unused sewer treatment ca- pacity and was willing and able to serve the public. As to the city's claim to the exclusive right to sen'e the property in question under its municipal service zone, the commission noted that it is not bound by the city's ordinance extending its corpo- rate power beyond its city limits, nor by a local comprehensive plan enacted under COWART, Judge. Appellant, City of Winter Park, enacted, pursuant to section 180.02(3), Florida Stat- utes, an ordinance extending its corporate power over its municipal sewer service zone outside its corporate limits so as to require property OV,'llers outside the city but 'within such sen;ce zone to connect to the city's sewer system when it became available. Appellee Southern States Utili- ty, Inc., a non-governmental utility compa- ny (public sen;ce corporation) with a certif- icate issued by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) pursuant to section 367.- 031, Florida Statutes, authorizing it to pro- vide sewer sen;ce, entered into a contract v.;th appellee landowners to supply sewer sen;ce to a tract of land l);ng v.;thin a por-Jon of the area embraced v.ithin the city's ordinance where the city does not presently have sewer sen;ce capability. The city filed this action against the utili- ty company and the landowners alleging that the utility company was pro\'iding sewer service to the landowners within the city's exclusive sewer service zone and that the city would have capacity to serve the land owners' property by a date about 17 months in the future from the date the action was originally filed. The complaint prayed for a declaratory judgment to the effect that the landowners would be re- quired to disconnect from the utility compa- ny's sewer system and connect with the cit).'s sewer system when the city could provide sewer service. The trial court held that the city under its ordinance could compel the landowners to connect with its sewer system only if the F1a. 179 180 Fla. 540 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES section 163.3161, Florida Statutes, stating that the test was who was in the best position to provide the needed sewer ser- vice which the commission found to be the utility company rather than the city. The commission expressly declined the city's re- quest that the utility company's certificate for authority to serve this area be issued subject to the condition requiring discon- nection when the city became able to sup- ply sewer service, noting that the commis- sion had no jurisdiction over the city sewer system.1 The city appealed the Public Ser- vice C{)mmission's order to the First Dis- trict Court of Appeal which affirmed. See City of Winter Park v. Southern States r:tilities, 530 So.2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), [1] We agree with the Public Service Commission and the trial court. All corpo- rations which voluntarily undertake to en- gage in performing a service of a public nature whether a governmental agency, such as a municipality, or a private corpo- ration, assume an obligation implied by law to render, for reasonable compensation and without discrimination and to all of the public in the area sought to be served, a service reasonably adequate to meet the just requirements of those sought to be served.2 [2] A city cannot undertake to extend its service franchise beyond an area it is able to serve and thereby prevent the pub- lic from being served by anyone else. The public is entitled to be served and served by the entity best able to serve it. In this case, the utility company is able to provide the public with the service that the city is unable to provide. The city has no legal right to prevent the utility company from 1. Section 367.022(2), Florida Statutes. exempts utility systems owned. operated. managed or controlled by governmental agencies from the jurisdiction of the PSC. It is said that the legis- lature reasons that it is unnecessary for the PSC to exercise regulatory power over a municipal utility because the people own the utility and it functions for their benefit and they have elective control over the officials operating the utility. See generally 43 FlaJur.2d Public Ser- vice Commission ~ 37 [Jurisdiction] Over Mu- nicipalities and Cooperatives (1983). When a municipal utility operates beyond its corporate limits. the residents there being served do not serving the consuming public and no right to require the public to disconnect from the utility company that can now serve it and connect with the city's sewer system if and when the city gets around to meeting its duty to provide the service that it has un- dertaken to provide. AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH and DANIEL. JJ., concur . )Iuriel J. KRn~GER. Appellant, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF HER.'lANDO COl~TI, Florida, Appellee. No. 88-270. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. March 16, 1989. Teacher appealed from order of rein- statement issued by county school board, pursuant to recommended order of Division of Administrative Hearings, challenging amount of back pay awarded. The District Court of Appeal, Sharp, C.J., held that: (1) teacher had right to receive back pay for entire time she was entitled to receive sala- ry, and (2) teacher was entitled to back pay for period of leave without pay which she was forced to take. own the utility and are not electors in that city. Query: Who regulates the municipal utility in the interest of those served outside the munici- pality? 2. See woodbury v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 57 Fla. 249, 49 So. 556 (1909); HiIdruh v. Western Union TeL Co., 56 Fla. 387. 47 So. 820 (1908); State ex reL Ellis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 53 Fla. 650. 44 So. 213 (1907); and In re Sanford and Winter Park Tel Service, 26 Fla.Supp. 27 (1965). \ I ,: t CUS.N & WAKEFIELD v. SAVERS FED. SAe Cite.. 519 So.2d 25 lF1a.App.2 D\a(. 1981) enforcement of its injunctive relief and to Weinstein, and Michael Minsker of Cozen determine costs. This timely appeal fol- and O'Connor, Philadelphia, Pa., for appel- lowed. lant Our review of the record discloses suffi- O.H. Storey, III, of Hoover, Jacobs & dent evidence to sustain and support the Storey, Little Rock, Ark., and Robert E. judgment against the City. It is not our Doyle, Jr., of Asbell, Hains, Doyle and role to reweigh the evidence on appeal. Pickworth, Naples, and Alice Blackwell See Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla. White of Broad and Cassel, Maitland, for 1981), affd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 appellee Savers Federal. L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); Tsavaris v. NCNB Na- Frank X. Kowalski, Jr., and Patricia A. tional Bank, 497 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 2d DCA Thomson of Gillette, Pilon and Richman, 1986). P.A., Naples, for appellees Connecticut We have considered the other issues Sav. Bank, et al. raised on appeal but because of our resolu- tion of this matter, we need not address the remaining points. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment DA.~AHY, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur. CUSlDUN AND WAKEFIELD OF PENNSYLV,A.'lIA, INC., Appellant/Third Party Defendant, v. SAYERS FEDERAL SAVINGS A.~'D LOA.'l ASSOCIATION, Appellee/Third Party Plaintiff, and Connecticut Savings Bank, Heritage Sa\-. ings & Loan Association, Connecticut National Bank, and First Home Sav. ings, Appellees, Third Party Plaintiffs. No. 87-1781. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District Dec. 2, 1987. On Motion for Rehearing or Clarification Jan. 20, 1988. Appeal from a nonfmal order from the Circuit Court for Collier County; William C. McIver, Judge. Edward K. Cheffy of Frost & Jacobs, Naples, and Patrick J. O'Connor, Anita B. Fla. 25 SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge. Appellant Cushman and Wakefield of Pennsylvania, Inc. (Cushman), challenges a nonfinal order denying its motion to dis- miss appellee Savers Federal Savings and Loan Association's complaint pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.l40(b)(2). The trial court detennined that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over Cush- man, basing its ruling solely on section 48.193(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1985), since it found Cushman was engaged in service activities in this state. In Aetna Life and Casualty Co. v. Therm-Q-Disc, Inc., 511 So.2d 992 (Fla. 1987), the Florida Supreme Court held that there is no personal jurisdiction under sec- tion 48.193(1)(f) arising out of an act com- mitted outside this state where the com- plained of act caused financial injury within the state but caused no personal injury or physical property damage within the state. Aetna was decided subsequent to the trial judge's order in this case, and it compels reversal of the trial court's order. there- fore we do not reach the merits of Cush. man's argument regarding whether or not it had minimum contacts with the State of Florida. Reversed. RYDER and FRANK, JJ., concur. ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION PER CURIAM. Appellee Savers seeks to have our De- cember 2, 1987, opinion clarified to indicate 24 Fla. 519 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES ' Waters and Water Courses $:>201 City was obligated under contract with county to provide water service to unincor- porated property in water service area. M.A. Galbraith, Jr., City Atty., Clear- water, for appellant. John T. Allen, Jr., of John T. Allen, Jr., P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellee County of Pinellas. No appearance for appellee Metco Devel- opment Corp. BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) Judge. Appellant City of Clearwater (the City) challenges a final judgment in the form of an injunction restraining the City from re- quiring annexation of unincorporated prop- erty as a condition to supplying water ser- vice to appellee Metco Development Corpo- ration (Metco). We affirm. Metco owns unincorporated property which is located in the City's water service area. This water service area is designat- ed both in an agreement between Pinellas County (the County) and the City, and by resolution of the Pine lias County Commis- sion. The northern portion of the Metco property contains three commercial build- ings which have been served by the City's water system for ten years or more, Wa- ter service is rendered to the northern por- tion of the property without any require- ment of annexation. The southern portion of the Metco property contains sixteen resi- dential units which are served by well wa- ter. Two water lines, two fire hydrants, water taps and water meters exist on Met- co's property which would facilitate the connection of water service on the southern portion of the property by the City at mini- mal expense. However, the City refused to grant water service to Metco unless it agreed that its property be annexed into the corporate limits. That refusal prompted Metco to bring an action against the City, the County, and the Florida Department of Health and Rehabili. tative Services seeking a declaration of its rights and obligations relating to the provi- sion of water service on its property and injunctive relief. The complaint filed by Metco requested the trial court to deter- mine whether the City or the County should be required to grant water service to the property. Pinellas County filed a cross-claim against the City for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the City is obligated to provide water service to the property pursuant to a 1976 written agree- ment entered into between the County and the City. Further, the County alleged that the City's policy of requiring annexation into the City as a condition to supplying water is illegal and improper. The County filed an amended cross-claim against the City, which alleged that the City's policy of requiring annexation as a condition to ob- taining City water service is contrary to a 1975 resolution of the Pinellas County Commission, sections 180.06 and 171.044, Florida Statutes (1985), and the "organic law" of the State of Florida. Pinellas County's cross-claim against the City was tried at a nonjury rr.al on April 16, 1986. After extensive teStimony and legal arguments were presented, the trial court entered a final judgment on the County's cross-claim only. Among the trial court's findings was its determination that: Contractually the City has also agreed to serve the entire water service area which includes Metco's property. The Court construes the contract and the in- tent of the parties to follow the estab- lished law required of public utilities and quasi-monopolies in providing water ser- vice to their customers in the water ser- vice area at the lowest possible cost with the most efficiency. In fact the parties have stated in a provision in the contract that it was their intent by executing the agreement to avoid a duplication of capi- tal investment and maintenance cost and to provide water service to the public as efficiently as possible. Hence, the trial court permanently re- strained and enjoined the City from requir- ing annexation of Metco's property as a condition to supplying water service. The court retained jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties for the purpose of 1 ! >. t 2d ~n- .de de :>t- ed ~d. " of "a- th In n- :li- re -y e- ld Id ,~ r- J- "Y d lr t CITY OF CLEARWATER v. METCO DEV. CORP. Cltua519 So.2d 23 (f1a.App.ll)Ut. 1987) ate from the guidelines sentence unless a Jared G. Anton, Hollywood, scoresheet which contains the appropriate lants. recommendations is available for its consid- eration. Tw:ker v. State, 464 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), overruled on other grounds, State v. Whitfield, 487 So.2d 1045 (Fla.1986); Davis v. State, 493 So.2d 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Jaggers v. State, 492 So.2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In this case, the fact that no scoresheet was pre- pared without removing points for the inap- plicable robbery conviction requires that Moore again be sentenced after the defect has been cured. This is because the trial court may well not wish to depart, or to depart so extensively, from a guidelines sentence which is presumably substantially lower than the one which it previously con- sidered when it imposed the original ten- year term. See Davis, 493 So.2d at 83 (UA trial court must have the benefit of a prop- erly prepared score sheet before it can make a fully informed decision on whether to depart from the recommended sen- tence."). Because it has been indicated that Moore has already been in prison longer than the recommended guidelines sentence, we dis- pense with rehearing, direct the immediate issuance of our mandate, and order that the resentencing hearing required by this opinion be conducted forthwith upon re- mand, Reversed and remanded with directions. Donato DEL MONICO and Estel Del Monico, his wife and Donald Pinder and Jean Pinder, his wife, Appellants, v. .-~ Jose VALLE, Jr., Appellee. No. 87-267. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Nov. 17, 1987. Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1987. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County; Murray Goldman, Judge. .,,' <~~:' Fla. 23 for appel- Kimbrell & Hamann and Robert K. Tuck- er and Timothy M. Ingram. Roy Wasson, Miami, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ. PER CURLU!. Affirmed. See Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368 (Fla.1979); Hull & Co. v. McGe- trick, 414 So.2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). CITY OF CLEARWATER. Appellant, v. METCO DEYELOPME~"T CORPORA- TIOS and County of Pinellas, Appellees. No. 8~2864. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. Dec. 2, 1987. Injunction restraining city from requir- ing annexation of unincorporated property as condition to supplying water service to such property was entered in the Circuit Court. Pinellas County, Thomas E. Penick, Jr., J., and city appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Boardman, Edward F. (Ret.), J., held that evidence was sufficient to sustain judgment determining that city was obligated pursuant to contract with county to provide water service to unincor- porated property within water service area. AffU'lDed. 1176 Fla. 679 SOUfHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES exist in the instant case.3 This e.xception is therefore inapplicable. Some jurisdictions recognize another ex- ception to the general rule for those munici- palities that through their conduct hold themselves out as public utilities. According to the jurisdictions that recognize this excep- tion, a municipality that holds itself out as a public utility for a particular area outside its city limits has a duty to supply everyone in that area. ~ Allen's Creek contends that Clearwater held itself out as a public utility by entering an interlocal agreement that des- ignated certain unincorporated areas as a part of its service area 5 and by supplying sewer senices to certain nonresidents. Ac- cordingly, Allen.s Creek contends that Clear- water has a legal obligation to pro\ide sewer senice to nonresidents located within its ser- vice area. [6,7] We agree that through its conduct a municipality may assume the legal duty to provide reasonably adequate services for rea- sonable compensation to all of the public in an unincorporated area. See City of Winter Park v. Southern States Utilities, Inc., 540 So.2d 178, 180 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)(city's passage of ordinance requiring property owners outside the city but v.ithin a zone designated by the ordinance to connect to the city's sewer senice when available was con- duct sufficient to bring into effect law appli- cable to public utilities). We add however that the conduct must expressly manifest the municipality's desire or intent to assume that 3. We recognize that section 163.01(5), Florida Statutes (1989), refers to interlocal agreements as contracts, Even if we recognize the interlo- cal agreement in this case as a contract, the agreement does not indicate that Clearwater will unconditionally supply the service area located outside its city limits, It merely states that Clearwater, as opposed to the City of Largo, has the exclusive right to serve this area. 4. See, e,g" Yakima County (West Valley) Fire Pro. tection Dist. No.12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash,2d 371, 858 P.2d 245, 251 (1993); 48 A.LR. at 1230. 5. The parties and the district court refer to Clear- water's service area as "exclusive," but neither the 201 Plan or the interlocal agreement refer to it that way, We find the tenn "exclusive" mis- leading here because, as the district court point- duty. A municipality's decision to Provide'. senice \\ithout restriction in an area outside its boundaries would meet this requirement:.. The 201 Plan and interlocal agreement relied \- on here do not. Like the plan in Allstate, ',,- nothing in either the Plan or agreement affir- matively states that Clearwater will proVid~ senices to the unincorporated area. Nor do these agreements preclude those located ou~ side Clearwater's city limits but within its senice area from seeking services from an alternative source.s ,. . [8,9] Allen's Creek also contends that the City has acceded to the status of a public utility because it pro\ides services to others outside its city limits. Allen's Creek, howev- er. has not demonstrated that Clearwater's prO\ision of services in these instances was not one of the limited exceptions it makes to its general policy of providing only residents with sewer senice. Providing senice out- side its boundaries in only limited situations, as Clearwater has done here,7 does not . amount to an affirmative expression of intent C to serve all in the area. Clearwater there- fore has not accepted a duty to pro\ide ser- vices to the unincorporated land located in its senice area. [10] Because Clearwater has no duty to pro.ide services to the unincorporated land within its service area, we conclude that the City may condition upon annexation the land- owner's receipt of sewer services. That eon- dition however must be applied consistently, and a reasonable justification for the condi- 1 ed out, there are other sources of sewer service available to Allen's Creek. Allen's Creek could. :'- with Clearwater's approval, seek services from . the City of Largo, With approval from the prop- . er agencies Allen's Creek could also constrUct its own treatment facility. Accordingly, we do DOt use the tenn "exclusive" when referring to Clear- water's service area. o. , 6. We do not address whether a refusal by Clear/ water to allow Allen's Creek to apply for services, elsewhere would amount to conduct sufficient to manifest the intent to serve all in the service area' as this issue is not presented to us for ~; 7. Clearwater provides sewer services. p~ to legislative act, to areas which it proVJUP" services in the early seventies. Clearwater 1h,O. provides sewer service to those areas in the C," of Largo which Largo is unable to serve. "1..~ tion mt., Comm 'no 508 So.2 not inte: cise of it ty does its cust, justifica t 515 So.: Clearwa: both th, policy is area \\ir Additior of rever adequat were re ation co: Acco!' the dist ments e not affir supply , portion Clearwa express! general require~ in the af It is ~ OVEF HARD! concur. )Ic( Susan Tel, vider (1' ~lcCAW CO~DIUNICATIONS v. CLARK CIIe..679 So.u 1177 (Fla. 1996) Fla, 1177 tion must exist. Sf'e Seining Utilitie., Comm'n. v. HfJme Sot-1r!9-' ..t,~~"L of Florida.. 508 So.2d 26, Z8 (Fla. 2d DCA)(,'Court3 will not interfere v.;th a municipal utility's exer- cise of its authority as long as the municipali. ty does not arbitrarily di."Criminate between its customers and can present reasonable justifications for its actions."), review denied, 515 So.2d 230 (Fla.1~Sj). We find that Clearwater's condition of annexation meets both these requiremer:t.s. The annexation policy is applied to the en:ire unincorporated area with only specific limited exceptions. Additionally, Clearwater ,,"ould suffer a loss of revenue and ,,"ould be ur.able to ensure adequate sen;ces to its ov;n resicients if it were required to disperu;e v.;th this annex- ation condition. Accordingly, we approye the decision of the district court. We find that the agree- ments entered by Clearwater in this case did not affirmatively express the City's intent to supply sewer service to the unincorporated portion of its sewer :-:en;ce area. Kor did Clear\\ater engage in any other conduct that expressed the intent to se!"\'e this area. The general role thus still app;ies to this case and requires us to answer Ll-je certified question in the affirmative. It is so ordered, O\'ERTO~. SHA\\', GRDiES. HARDI~G, WELLS and .-\..'\STLill, JJ., concur. :\lcCA W COM:\IC'ICATIO;\,S OF FLORIDA, I~C _ Appellant, " . Susan F. CLARK, etc., et a\., Appellees. ~o. Stk~ Supreme Court of Florida, Sept. 26. 1996. Telecommunications mobile sen;ce pro- vider {MSP) appealed Public Sen;ce Com- " mission (PSC) order governing rates paid by mobile service providers to telephone local exchange carriers (LEe) for ;;v.;tching ser- vice. discontinuing practice followed in prior order of having such rates fluctuate with access charges paid by telephone interex- change carriers nXC). The Supreme Court, Shaw. J" held that: (1) Commission's order was supported by competent substantial evi- dence and met essential requirements of law, and (2) order did not violate doctrine of administrative finality. Affirmed. 1. Telecommunications c=>330 Public Senice Commission's (PSG) or- der. discontinuing practice of having rates paid by mobile senice providers CMSP) to telephone local exchange carriers (LEC) for s\\itching senice fluctuate "ith access charges paid to LECs by telephone interex- change carriers iIXC). was supported by competent substantial eddence and met es- ser,tial requirements of law, where "itnesses testiIied at length conceming ad\'antages of severing link between sv.;tching sen;ce charges and access charges, and evidence showed that mobile communications industry was undergoing significant change and that I:\C access charges \"ere being influenced by factors unrelated to mobile interconnection. 2. Public Utilities c=>19-! In revie\\;ng Public Senice Commission (PSC) order, Supreme Court v\ill not reweigh or ree\'aluate evidence presented to Commis- sion but, rather. "ill examine record only to determine whether order complained of meets essential requirements of law and whether agency had a\'ailable to it competent substantial e\idence to support its findings. 3. Telecommunications c=>336 Public Senice Commission's (PSC) or- der, discontinuing practice followed in its prior order of ha\ing rates paid by mobile sen-ice providers (MSP) to telephone local exchange carriers (LEG) for switching ser- vice fluctuate v.ith access charges paid to Fla. 1175 ALLEN'S CREEK PROPERTIES v. CLEARWATER Clte..679 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 1996) require it to provide sewer service to unin- Finally, the court noted that Allen's Creek corporated areas within the service area des- development plan, while in confonnity -with ignated by the 201 Plan. Allen's Creek, 658 the requirements set by Pinellas County, was " So.2d at 542. Rather, the court found the not consistent with the more restrictive re- 201 Plan was analogous to the plan in All- quirements set by Clearwater. fa. Accord- state Insurance Co. v. City of Boca Raton, ingly, the district court recognized that if the 387 So.2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Allen's trial court's decision were approved, Clear- Creek, 658 So.2d at 542. In AUstate, the water would be forced to provide service to a court determined that a plan issued by the project that was inconsistent -with its compre- palm Beach County Regional Planning hensive use plan and would ultimately suffer Board, which designated the City of Boca a loss of revenue. fa. The city's economic Raton as the "Designated Agent" for the need, the court concluded, provided a suffi- Boca Raton Service Area, did not place an cient basis for the annexation requirement. absolute duty on the City of Boca Raton to fa. The court noted that if Allen's Creek provide services to landowners outside its chose not to annex it could seek seT\;ces municipal boundaries. 387 So.2d at 481. from alternative sources. fa. The Allstate plan e."q)ressly stated that U[n]othing is stated or implied that the desig- nated agency shall be required to prm;de collection or transmission facilities." fa. at 480. Additionally, the .4llstate plan offered other suppliers that could pro\;de seT\;ces if 'a designated agent would not. fa. Although the 201 Plan in the instant case did not contain these e.xact provisions, the district court concluded that the 201 Plan was similar in intent and procedure to the .4llstate plan and consequently that the 201 Plan did not establish a duty to pro\;de seT\;ces to Allen's Creek. Allen's Cteek, 6.58 So.~d at 542, The district court lilio e.xamined the inter- local agreement that the City of Clearwater and the City of Largo entered pursuant to section 163.01, Florida Statutes (1983). The agreement designated seT\;ce areas for the City of Clearwater and the City of Largo consistent with the seT\;ce areas designated for those cities in the 201 Plan. With respect to these sen;ce areas the agreement pro- vides: The parties shall have the e.xclusive right to pro\;de wholesale and retail sanitary sewer service \\;thin the area allocated to such part and further agree not to compete with each other as to the pro\ision of such . sewer sen;ce outside their designated area. The district court concluded that this agree- . ment between the municipalities had no in- '. terrelation with the 201 Plan and had no bearing on the issues presented. fa. [2-5] Allen's Creek maintains that this case establishes an exception to the general rule that a municipality cannot be compelled to supply seT\;ces to areas outside its munici- pal boundaries. We recognize that excep- tions to this general rule do exist. For e.x- ample, a municipality may be required to extend its serrices if it has agreed to do so by contract. A contract may require the municipality to serve only a particular entity outside its municipal boundaries. Such a contract does not necessarily require the mu- nicipality to seT\'e other similarly situated entities. On the other hand. a contract may require the municipality to seT\;ce an entire area outside its limits. In such cases the municipality will be required to serve all the public in that area at the lowest possible cost with the most efficiency as demonstrated by the decision in City of Clearz('(Jler v. Met~o Development Ccrrp., 519 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So.2d 8i6 (Fla.1988). In Metco, the developer owned unincorpo- rated propert;}. located in Clearwater's water service area. 519 So.2d at 24. The Cit;}. was already sening the northern portion of the developer's property but refused to serve the southern portion unless the de\"eloper agreed to anne.xation. fa. The court detennined that the City by contractually agreeing to serve the entire water service area, which included the developer's land, became obli- gated to do so. fa. at 24-25. A contract like that relied on by the court in M etco does not 1174 Fla. 679 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES SEWER SERVICE TERRITORY ES- TABLISHED PURSUAXT TO INTER- LOCAL AGREEME~"S WITH NEIGHBORING MUNICIPAL SEWER SERVICE PROVIDERS': . Id. at 543. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, ~ 3(b)(4), Fla. Const We answer the ques- tion in the affirmative based upon the gener- al rule that a municipalitJ. has no duty to supply services to areas outside its bound- aries. See Allstate Insurance Co. u. City of Boca Raton. 387 So.2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); C.C. Mar;el. Annoution, Right to Compel Municipality to Extend its Water System, 48 A.L.R. 1222, 1230 (1956). Allen's Creek Properties (Allen's Creek) contends that the facts in this case esublish an excep- tion to this general rule and that consequent- ly, Clearwater's refusal to pro\ide senices to unincorporated property located \\itbin its senice area was improper. For the reasons expressed below, \\e disagree. Allen's Creek omooS a parcel of land located in the unincorporated area of Pinellas County immediately adjacent to Clearwater's city limits. In September 1990. Allen's Creek submitted to Pinellas County a site plan fur the development of this parcel Pinellas County officials directed Allen's Creek to apply to Clearwater for ~el ~niees be- cause the parcel was lotated 'Iritbin Oear~ water's sanitary sewer serviee district. Upon r~-ei.ing me reqnest for sewer ser- vites, C'le~!l:waier \}fficials infonned Allen's C:reek t.nat, pursuant to City of Clearwater, :r.1orida, Ordinance 68-97 (August 5, 1968), the developer would have to consent to an- nexation before receiving sewer ser;ices. Allen's Creek retiLo;ed to allow the City to annex the property and filed suit for declara- tory and other relief. The trial court held that Clean'llter, through the Central Pinellas County 201 Fa- cilities Plan (the 201 Plan) and its interlocal agreement \\;th the City of Largo, had as- sumed an obligation to provide sewer service in its designated senice area. That senice 1. Those entities included the Florida Department of Environmental Protcction. the {;nilcd Slales Environmental Protection Agency. the Cil\' of Largo. the City of Safety Harbor. the Town of Belleair. and pinel1as County, area included the land owned by Allen'" Creek. Further, the trial court concluded that the record did not present a rational' basis to require annexation as a condition to . service. '.1 ~ Clearwater appealed the trial court's decl- __~ sion, and the district court reversed. Allen ~ ~. Creek, 658 So.2d at 542. The district court~, examined each of the documents on which the trial court based its decision. The first document, the 201 Plan, was de\ised pursu- ant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Pub.L. No. 92-500, ~ 2.86 Stat. 816, As a primary goal the Act sought to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into n3\;gable waters by 1985. To meet this goal the federal government provided funding for the research and development of wastewater treatment management plans. Pursuant to section 201(gl of the Act these management plans were a prerequisite to the receipt of additional grants for construction of treat- ment facUities. Clearwater, along with the several other entities,l participated in the development of a 201 Plan for its geographic area. The Plan delineated service areas for Clearnater as well. as the other local entities involved' in " developing the Plan. The service areas ~ ( designated in order to determine the scope of facilities needed in the future. Clearwater approved these service area designations when it approved, by resolution,z the 201., Plan. Allen's Creek fell within Clearwater's '. designated sen;ce area. The 201 Plan also recommended "deep ~, injection" as the best method of se~. treatment The Environmental Protection Agency did not favor this method of treat-: ment and consequently rejected the PIan. '~ response, Clearwater discontinued its ~ay of "deep well injection" and developed. ~ its own funds, an alternative methocf1"~ wastewater treatment. Clearwater ~~ t~ er implemented the 201 Plan. ' . .,. The district court determined that"Cl ' water's participation in the 201 Plan did'" .1,' 2. City of Clearwater, Florida, Resolution !~ (December 7, 1978). requir corpor ignate So.2d 201 P state 387S Creek. court Palm Board Raton Boca absoil pro\oic munic The "[n]ot nated coller' 480. other a des: the 2 contai court in int, and c estabL Creek The local c: and H sectior agreer City ( consist for the to the vides: The to J: sew( such with sewe area ,The di ment 1 terrela hearin ~ . ...... * __A" Ado~ ~.A~ j ALLEN'S CREEK PROPERTIES v. CLEARWATER Clteu679 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 1996) 2. Municipal Corporations e=>712(4) 7. Municipal Corporations e=>277 Area wastewater treatment management Municipality's decision to provide seniee I plan in whose development city had partici- without restriction in area outside its bound- pated and city's interlocal agreement \\ith aries would meet requirement, for city to neighboring municipal sewer service pro\;d- have duty to provide service to unincorporat- ers did not affIrmatively express city's intent . ~ area, that municipality's conduct expressly to supply sewer sel"\;ce to unincorporated manifest its desire or intent to assume such portion of its sel"\;ce area referred to in plan duty. and agreement and, thus, plan and agree- ment did not come within exception to gener- " al rule that municipality has no duty to sup- , 'ply services to areas outside its boundaries, and city was not required to provide sewer service to owner of property located outside city but, rather, could condition provision of service upon city's annexation of property; annexation policy had been applied cons~- tentIy, and city's potential loss of revenues and inability to ensure adequate sel"\;ces to its residents was reasonable justification for ,', annexation condition. Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Act of 1972, ~ 201(g), 33 U.S.CA ~ 1281(gl; West's F.SA ~ 16.3.01. 3. Municipal Corporations C:=>277 Municipality may be required to e.'\"tend its semces to areas outside its boundaries if it has agreed to do so by contract. 4. Municipal Corporations C:=>277 Contract that requires municipality to sel"\'e only particular entity outside its munic- ipal boundaries does not nee€ss.a.rily require municipality to sen'e other similarly situated entities. 5. Municipal Corporations '*-"'277 In case of contract reql1irntg ml.Ulieipali- ; ty to senice entire area outside .itt,; Imms., municipality will be required to serve all the public in that area at lowest possible cost with most efficiency. 6. Municipal Corporations C:=>277 Through its conduct, municipality may assume legal duty to provide reasonabl~. ade- quate services for reasonable compensation to all of the public in unincorporated area; however, conduct must expressly manifest municipality's desire or intent to asSl!:me that duty. - Fla. 1173 8. Municipal Corporations C=>712(4) City's provision of sewer sen;ce outside its boundaries in only limited situations did not amount to affinnative expression of in- tent to serve all in area so as to require city to provide sewer sel"\ice to owner of property located outside city boundaries. 9. Municipal Corporations C:=>2i7 Municipality's provision of senice out- side its boundaries in only limited situations does not amount to affinnative e.xpression of intent to sel"\'e all in area so as to render municipality under duty to provide sen;ce to all in area. 10. Municipal Corporations C:=>712(4) City, which was not under duty to pro- \ide sewer senice outside its boundaries, could apply annexation condition to pro\ision of such senice, if condition was applied con- sistently and if reasonable justification for condition existed. R. Nathan Hightower and Susan Fox of Macfarlane, Ausley, Ferguson & McMullen. Clearwater, for Petitioner. Paul Richard Hull, Ass~tant City Attor- ney, Clearwater, for Respondent. KOGA..". Chief Justice. tn We have for review City of Clear- water v. Allen '8 Creek Properties. Inc., 658 So.2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), wherein the district court. by separate order, certified the follo~ing question to be of great public im- portance: MAY A MUNICIPALITY REFUSE TO PROVIDE SEWER SERVICE, OR CONDITION THE PROv1SION OF SEWER SERVICE ON ANNEX- ATION, AS TO NONRESIDEl\'TS LO- CATED WITHIN ITS EXCLUSIVE 1172 Fla. 679 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES 2. Mu' order itself contemplated the issuance of a specific set of written guidelines for a partic- ul~ roadblock. It is the failure to comply ",th that mandate that is fatal to the road- block here. Jones was decided in 1986, many years before this roadblock was established. and the Janes mandate is clear. It is also apparent from the standard operating order here that the police were familiar with Jones. but failed to comply "ith its directive in this instance. The requirement of written guidelines is not merely a formality. Rather. it is the method this Court and others have chosen to ensure that the police do not act ,\ith unbri- dled discretion in exercising the power to stop and restrain citizens who have manifest- ed no conduct that would othen\ise justil'v an intrusion on a citizen's liberty. In this c~un- try the police are not vested ~th the general authority to 5et up "routine" roadblocks at any time or place. Rather, law enforcement was placed on notice by our holding in Jones that the stopping and detaining of a citizen is a serious matter that requires particularized advance planning and direction and strict compliance thereafter. Accordingly, we find that the limited police directives prepared in this case did not suffi- ciently circUID5cribe the field officers' discre- tion and fell far short of the "written set of uniform guidelines" we required in Janes. CONCLUSION We conclude that the documentation used by the police officials, which patently did not comply with the State v. Jones requirement for written guidelines, rendered Campbell's stop fatally defective under the Fourth Amendment and article 1, section 12 of the Florida Con..<:titution. We quash the district court decildon below and approve the deci- sion in Hf1:rt.'1"field v. State, 629 So.2d 1020 (F12- 4th IleA 19931. it is !f<,lome-rl>.(l KOG..~-";, C.J... ~ {YlrERTO:\. SRI.W" GRIMES, H.\RDD:G, WELLS au,) ANSTEAD. J,J" @j,!liWJ'. ALLEN'S CREEK PROPERTIES INC.. etc.. Petitioner, ' A plan i. pated neigh! ers dit to sur portio! and ai ment r al rule ply se' and c: senic. city b' senic, annex: tently. and ir. its res annex: tion ( c.S.C, v. CITY OF CLEARWATER. etc.. Respondent. ~o. 86123. Supreme Court of Florida. ~:'- ..ti. -~~- Sept. 19, 1996. 1.'4: '," , (}.~er of property located outside city boundanes brought action against city for declaratory relief. seeking pro\ision of city sewer senices for property without annex- ation of property by city. The Circuit Court, Pinellas County. John S. Andre\';;, J., en- t~red judgment for owner. detennining that CIty had assumed duty to provide sewer ser- vice outside its municipal boundaries. City appealed. The District Court of Appeal. Pat- terson, J., 658 So.2d 539. reversed and certi- fied question to Supreme Court on motion for rehearing. After granting re,;iew, 663 So.2d 628, the Supreme Court, Kogan, C.J., held that: (1) area wastewater treatment manage- ment plan. in whose de\'elopment city had participated, and city's interlocal agreement "ith neighboring municipal sewer service pro\;ders did not come within exception to general rule that municipality has no duty to supply services to areas outside its bound- aries, and city was not required to provide sewer senice to owner but. rather, could condition provision of senice upon city's an- nexation of property, and (2) city's provision of sewer senice outside its boundaries in 0" only limited situations did not amount to affirmative expression of intent to serve all in area so as to require city to provide sewer service to owner. , i 3. )1u M its ser it has; -to ~lu. Cc serve ( ipal bo munici; entitie~ 5. Mur In tyto:;: munici{ public with ffi'( 6. MUln Th' assum,e quate i' to all it howeve' municir duty. ' District Court of Appeal pn:tlif:d, L Munk>icpt;rl CIlt1J4Jt'a.tkmo ~rn --, G\!oer'..ll rule is UYclt municipality lllil! .1t! duty to supply services to areas outsid~ itI boundaries. . Fla. 457 THE FLORIDA BAR v. MacMILLAN Clu u 600 So.2d 457 (F1L 1992) 253 So.2d 744. 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) ORDER OF REMAND (citations omi:~ed) (emphasis added); see, The decision under review, Wright v. e,g., BMW of X Am., Inc. v. Krathen, 471 State, 592 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), is So.2d 585. 587 (F1a. 4th DCA 1985), review quashed and remanded to the Third District denied, 484 So.2d 7 (Fla.1986); 17.-\ C.J.S. Court of Appeal for further consideration Contracl$ ~ 328 (1963) (UA term which the in accordance with our decision in Jefferson parties have not expressed is not to be v. State, 595 So.2d 38 (Fla.1992), and implied merely because the court thinks it Brooks v. Mazaheritehrani, 595 So.2d 37 is a reasonable term, or because the con- (Fla.1992). tract is advantageous to one party or un- just to the other, , , . ") (footnote omitted)). Here, because the intention of the parties cannot be deterrjned from the evidence, the contract must be terminable at will. ~, .< "\ Admittedly, it may be better policy to find that the con:ract is not terminable at will. However, that is a separate question from whether the parties to the contract intended for the contract to be enforced indefinitely abs~:lt PSC approval. In the absence of some tangible proof of the par- ties intention, I would give them the bene- fit of their bargain as set forth in the plain wording of the contract In this case, be- cause the contract is silent as to duration, I would follow t:-,t: rule as stated in Guzr Cities and fInd that the contract is termina- ble at will. f ~i, * '.,-'; , i .l 1 if l KOGA,,~ and HARDING, JJ., concur. i ,- i: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. ..~ Kenneth WRIGHT, Respondent. ~o. 79166. Supreme Court of Florida. 1 May 14, 1992. Eliiot H. Sche:"ker, Asst. Public Defend- er, for respondent. Charles Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner. SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. THE FLORIDA BAR. Complainant, v. Hugh MacMILLAN, Jr., Respondent. No. 76563. Supreme Court of Florida. May 21, 1992. The state bar brought disciplinary ac- tion against attorney for alleged miscon. duct relating to his duties as guardian of property. The referee recommended that attorney be suspended from practice for two years, and attorney petitioned for re- view of referee's recommendations. The Supreme Court held that two-year suspen- sion is appropriate sanction for misappro- priation of funds and failure to disclose transfers in guardian's report. Report of referee approved. 1. Attorney and Client e=>57 Referee's findings of fact in atrorney disciplinary action are presumed correct and will be upheld unless clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support. 2. Attorney and Client $::>57 If findings of referee in attorney disci- plinary action are supported by competent, j , 456 Fla. 600 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES tracts. U Finally, the majority's reliance on Full- erlo is misplaced. Fuller involved a contro- versy over jurisdiction. The issue there was not whether the City had the right to terminate the agreement, but only whether the proper forum to determine that issue was the circuit court or the PSC. Thus, Fuller is not dispositive of the question in this case because any statements made out- side the conte:{t of the jurisdictional issue are dicta. C<>nsequently, for the foregoing reasons, the effect of the PSC order was to confirm and validate the terms of the con- tract, thereby adopting and incorporating those terms into the order, including what- ever rights of termination were contained therein. The only remaining question is whether the contract that existed between the par- ties was terminable at will. According to Williston: "The general rule is that when a contract provides that one party shall render ser- vice to another, or shall act as his agent, or shall have exclusive sales rights with- in certain territory, but does not specify a definite time or prescribe conditions which shall determine the duration of the relation, the contract may be terminated by either party at will. It is true that such a result does not follow in every instance, because it is the intention of the parties which is the ultimate guide, and in order to ascertain that intention, the court may take into consideration the surrounding circumstances, the situation of the parties, the objects they apparent- ly have in view, and the nature of the subject-matter of the agreement." 9 Samuel Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts, ~ 1017 A, at 150 n. 11 (3d ed. 1967 & Supp.1991) (quoting Lubrecht v. 14. Indeed. to construe the 1974 amendment as authorizing the PSC to alter the City's termi- nation rights under the contract by conditioning their exercise on a showing of good cause would constitute an impermissible impairment of con. tract under article 1. section 10 of the Florida Constitution. See Park Benzjger " Co., Inc. Y. Southern WUU " Spirits, Inc., 391 So.2d 681 (Fla.l980); Yamaha Parts Distribs., Inc. y, Ehr. man, 316 So.2d 557 (Fla. 1975). Although an exception to the general rule allows for the impairment of a contract upon a showing of an Laurel Stripping Co., 387 Pa. 393, 127 A.2d 687 (1956) (citations omitted)); see Sound City, Inc. v. Kessler, 316 So.2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); 17A CJ.S. Contracts ~ 385(1) (1963); 17A AmJur,2d Contracts ~ 545 (1991). In this case I am not persuaded by the majority's conclusion that the parties' in- tent with regard to duration can be divined. The majority's primary explanation of the parties' supposed intentions is derived from the "nature" of the agreement. Although the majority's arguments have some merit, I do not think that this Court can ascribe an intention to the parties in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of their true in- tentions. The Fourth District's reasoning in Gulf Cities Gas Corp. v. Tangelo Park Service Co. is instructive on this point: Where the language of a contract is ambiguous or unclear as to a particular right or duty, the court may receive evi- dence extrinsic to the contract for the purpose of determining the intent of the parties at the time of the contract. How- ever, where a contract is simply silent as to a particular matter, that is, its language neither expressly nor by rea- sonable implication indicates that the parties intended to contract with re- spect to the matter, the court should not, under the guise of construction, impose contractual rights and duties on the parties which they themselves omitted. In our opinion the contract be- fore the court was "silent" as to the i duration of the defendant's duty to pro-. vide gas to Tangelo Park Subdivision. .In_ that circumstance the normal rule is that the duty is terminable at will. And this rule should have been applied. ..' ., "overriding necessity for the state to exercise ItS' police powers," Park Benvger, 391 So.2d at 683. there is no "overriding necessity'" in this case' because the PSC would stilI be required to a~' prove any new territorial agreement negotiated by the parties. See ~ 366.04(2)(d), f1a.S1a.t:. (1989). ,; 15. Public Serv. Comm'n Y. Fuller, 551 So.2d 12io (Fla.1989). ';\i' CITY OF HOMESTEAD v. BEARD Cite.. 600 So.2d 450 (FIa. 1992) Fla. 455 were expressly referred to or actually cop- ied or incorporated therein." Shavers v. Duval County, 73 So.2d 684, 689 (Fla. 1954). The instant agreement expressly provided that the parties would seek PSC approval, and the parties knew that such approval is provided by PSC order.1l Therefore, in the absence of a provision to the contrary, we assume the parties intend. ed to incorporate the general law govern- ing PSC orders into the agreement. After considering the surrounding Clr- cumstances, the nature of the instant agreement, and the law existing at the time the agreement was executed, we conclude that, absent an express provision in the agreement to the contrary, the law sur- rounding the modification or termination of a PSC order is applicable to the instant territorial settlement agreement. There- fore, the instant agreement is not termina- ble at will by the parties and may only be modified or terminated by the PSC in a proper proceeding as set forth in Peoples Gas. U Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the PSC in the instant case. It is so ordered, SHAW, C.J. and OVERTON and GRIMES, JJ., concur. BARKETT, J., dissents with an opinion, in which KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. BARKETT, Justice, dissenting. The issue to be resolved in this case is whether a territorial agreement approved by the PSC prior to 1974, which did not set forth a specific duration or date for termi- nation, is terminable at will by either party. The majority concludes that any contract that may have existed between the parties has, in essence, been replaced by the PSC 11. The agreement provides that U[t]he parties acknowledge that the Company is regulated by the Florida Public Sen;ce Commission and that it will have to apply to the Commission for approval of this agreement." The agreement further states that U[i]f an order of the Commis- sion is entered appro\;ng the agreement and the order becomes final. then as promptly as possi- ble, each party shall transfer" facilities and cus- tomers located in the other's service area. order, which can only be terminated or modified in accordance with principles of regulatory and administrative law. Majori- ty op. at 452. Although, by its terms, PSC approval was a prerequisite to the validity of the contract, there is a vast difference between approving the contract as valid and inferentially declaring, as the majority does, that the contract no longer exists. I cannot accept the majority's theory that the contract and the rights of the parties thereunder disappeared because PSC ap- proval was needed to make the contract enforceable. Contracts are signed every day subject to the approval of a third party or a state agency and no one suggests that the approval requirement makes the con- tracts void once that approval has been obtained. More importantly, in 1988 FPL sought and obtained from the PSC a declaratory statement that the 1967 territorial agree- ment was a valid, binding contract,13 It is therefore inconsistent for FPL to now ar- gue that the contract was subsumed in the original order. Furthermore, in 1967 there was no statu- tory or decisional authority empowering the PSC to deprive a party of its contractu- al right to terminate a territorial agree- ment. or to require the party to demon- strate necessity for termination due to changed conditions. Nor can any such au- thority be derived from the 1974 amend- ment. The proviso in that amendment spe- cifically provides that "nothing in this chap- ter shall be construed to alter existing ter- ritorial agreements as between the parties to such agreements." Ch. 74-196, ~ 1, Laws of Fla. Thus, clearly, the legislature did not intend to authorize the deprivation of rights acquired under preexisting con- 12. See supra note 5. 13. In re Petition of F70rida Power and Light Company for a Declaratory Statement Regarding Territorial Agreement with the City of Home- stead. 88 F.P.S,C 12:15 (1988). The Declaratory Statement uses the phrase "'valid. binding agree- ment." 454 Fla. 600 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES , , i:l ~H : ! I ' t. ' i ....;' 4. f! . l. "", i 4 . 1--.- . lack of mutuality of obligation or certainty of consideration.' These contracts, by their inherent nature, implied that the par- ties intended some period of duration and, therefore, were considered terminable at will in the absence of an express provision to the contrary. [6] In contrast, the instant agreement involves the settlement of a territorial dis- pute. There is no mutuality of obligation problem and neither party owes the other any further affIrmative obligation, but merely has the negath'e duty to refrain from entering the service area of the other. Parties usually enter into settlement agree- ments with the intention of permanently resolving their conflicts with respect to the subject matter of the agreement. Further, PSC orders are generally considered final absent the commission's inherent authority to modify or terminate them in a proper proceeding. See Peoples Gas Sys., Inc. v. Mason, 187 So.2d 335 (Fla. 1966). In Storey, we stated that FPL and the City had executed the agreement "[ijD or- der to end the unsatisfactory effects of this type of expensive, competitive activi- ty." 217 So.2d at 306 (emphasis added). The purpose behind settlement agreements is to end the dispute, not to delay the dispute until one of the parties decides it is advantageous to begin competing again. The benefit of territorial agreements is the elimination of competition and the unneces- sary duplication of facilities and services. Utilities Comm'ft, 469 So.2d at 731. If a Ii'! 1. \ i t: _I; f, !,ri; : t, H ~ . able implication indicates" what the parties in. tended}. 7. F1orida-Georgill Chern. Co. v. National Labs. Inc., 153 So.2d 752, 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963) ("exclusive sales contracts so lacking in mutuali. ty of obligation or certainty of consideration may be terminated by either party at will"); Perri v. Byrd, 436 Soold 359, 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (employment contract terminable at will upon the giving of reasonable notice). 8. FPL transferred 35 conunercial and 363 resi. dential customers to the City. and the City trans- ferred 12 commercial and 66 residential cus- tomers to FPL Storey v. Mayo, 217 So.2d 304, 306 (Fla. 1968), cere. denied, 395 U.S. 909, 89 S.Ct. 1751, 23 LEd.2d 222 (1969). 9, In City of Gainesville v. Board of Control, 81 So.2d 514 (Fla.1955), this Court held that an party could tenninate the agreement as soon as it was favorable to do 80,' the benefit to the publk iriterest, as well as to the parties, would be impaired. [7] A party would be hesitant to make substantial investments in franchised areas if the other party could terminate the fran- chise at will. In the instant agreement, FPL refrained from competing with the City for twenty years, transferred a large number of its customers to the city,S and made investments in territories in which it believed it had an exclusive franchise.' The detriment to FPL as a result of these acts cannot be undone and it is unlikely that FPL intended to place itself in a posi- tion in which the City could unilaterally deprive it of its franchised areas under the agreement and, thus, impair its investment in those areas. 10 Therefore, as distin- guished from agreements which, by their inherent nature, imply the parties intended the power to terminate the agreement at will, the nature of the instant agreement as the settlement of a territorial dispute and the fact that it was incorporated into a PSC order, is evidence that the parties intended the agreement to operate with finality ab- sent an express provision to the contrary. Finally, in construing a contract, it is well established that "the laws existing at the time and place of the making of the contract and where it is to be performed which may affect its validity, construction, discharge and enforcement, enter into and become a part of the contract as if they were eXI ied or ir Duval C 1954). provided approval approval Therefor the contr ed to ine ing PSC After cumstan' agreemf the agn that. at agreemt roundin, a PSC territOri fore. thE bie at v. modifiel proper . Gas. 12 of the J It is , -' SHA \' GRnlE~ BAR} in whicl concur. agreement to furnish water to the Universily of Florida without charge, in order to induce the University to locate in the City, was not termina- ble at will despite the lack of a provision as to the duration of the agreement. The Court held that because the University had performed un- der the agreement, the agreement was to remain in effect unlil the University left Gainesville. BAR} The L whether by the f forth a nation, i, The IT that ma has, in t 10. FPL, as a regulated utility, cannot terminale the agreement without PSC approval regardless of our construction of the agreement. Thus, the City is, in effect, claiming a unilateral right to terminate the agreement. See Southern Crane Rentals. Inc. v. City of Gainesville, 429 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (a provision for the right to cancel a contract unilaterally must be expressly provided for in the contract). 11. The ackno\\ the Flo it will appro\' further sion is order t ble, ea, tomers 452 Fla. 600 SOUTHERN REPORTER,. 2d SERIES l 1 the agreement was executed, the temtorial agreement should be construed pursuant to the law of contracts rather than the law governing PSC orders. The City further asserts that, under the law in existence when the agreement was executed, a con- tract lacking a definite period of duration was terminable at will by either party. Thus, because the instant agreement did not have a provision governing its duration, the City had a contractual right to termi- nate the agreement at will and the PSC had no statutory or case law authority to de- prive the City of its right to terminate. We disagree. In the absence of an express provision to the contrary in the approved agreement, the statutory and decisional law surrounding the modification or termi- nation of PSC orders governs the territorial settlement agreement in the instant case. In Fuller, this Court held that the tem- torial agreement between the City and FPL "has no existence apart from the PSC or- der approving it and that the temtorial agreement merged with and became a part of' the PSC order. 551 So.2d at 1212. We further stated: Any modification or termination of that order must first be made by the PSC. The subject matter of the order is within the particular expertise of the PSC, which has the responsibility of avoiding the uneconomic duplication of facilities and the duty to consider the impact of such decisions on the planning, develop- ment, and maintenance of a coordinated electric power grid throughout the state of Florida. The PSC must have the au- thority to modify or terminate this type of order so that it may carry out its express statutory purpose. Id. (emphasis added). While these state- ments were made in the context of a juris- dictional issue, the principles set forth are applicable to the instant case. In City Gas Co. v. Peoples Gas System Inc., 182 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla. 1965), this Olurt held that temtorial agreements be- tween public utilities were not violative of antitrust law based on the premise that "the public welfare does not need Ch, 542 for protection against this kind of agree- ment... . because the public interest is'ade- quately. protected by an alternative ar- rangement under F.S. Ch. 366, F.S.A." We further concluded that the "agreement could result in monopolistic control over price, production, or quality of service only by the sufferance of the commission" luid that its "statutory powers are more than sufficient to prevent any such outcome if properly employed." Id. at 435. In Sto- rey, which upheld the PSC's approval of the instant agreement, this Court "recog- nized the importance of the regulatory function as a substitute for unrestrained competition" and commented that "a regu- lated or measurably controlled monopoly is in the public interest." 217 So.2d at 307. Therefore, our decisions exempting territo- rial agreements from antitrust legislation have been premised on the existence of a statutory system of regulations governing the public utilities that is sufficient to pre- vent any abuses arising from the monopoly power created by the agreements. [1] We recognize that when the agree- ment was executed, municipally owned electric utilities were exempt from state agency supervision under section 366.11, Florida Statutes (1967), and that they en- joyed "the privileges of legally protected monopolies within municipal limits." Storey, 217 So.2d at 307 (emphasis added). However, in this case the City sought PSC approval of an agreement which extended its temtorial monopoly beyond its munici- pal boundaries to adjacent areas. Unlike the residents of the City, the customers residing outside the municipality lack a voice in the City's political process. By accepting the additional franchise granted under the PSC order approving the agree- ment, the City submitted itself to the PSC's regulatory authority with respect to the subject matter of the order. See Miami Bridge Co. v. Railroad Comm 'n, 155 Fla. 366, 376, 20 So.2d 356, 361 (1945) (no 'im- proper impairment of the obligation of con- tracts when the franchise was "accepted with the full knowledge of the existence of the police power which authorizes regula- tions in behalf of the public"), cert. denied, 325 U.S. 867, 65 S.Ct. 1405, 89 L.Ed. 1987 (1945). (2] there these ' 1212. the P and t that detrir Com? 469 S al of make, the I ~Iere] inter not J roun o1-r ,..... .~':'- ~~;..:; ~ ;~~. ' '-;~.'f' v-.: ')",,:'\ t, (3] insta appr' bene' for: PSC ment PSC the r ders ment expr, ( 4. that appli cons: the C tion. expr. shou 4. If aft" terr cas< tion giv< 5. Tl that ifie' agn lic . spec SUC! nee, cha pre :r. ~. Fla. 453 CITY, OF HOMESTEAD v. BEARD Clle.. 600 So.u 450 (FIa. 1992) [2] In Fuller, we expressly stated that by examining the surrounding circum- there was "clear commission authority over stances and by reasonably construing the these territorial agreements." 551 So.2d at agreement as a whole. See Southern Bell 1212. This regulatory authority enables Tel. & TeL Co. v. Florida E. Coast Ry. Co., the PSC to carry out its statutory purpose 399 F.2d 854 (5th Cir.1968); Triple E Dev. and to fulfill its "responsibility to ensure Co. v. Floridagold Citrus Corp., 51 So.2d that the territorial agreement works no 435 (Fla.1951); Sound City, Inc. v. Kes- detriment to the public interest." Utilities sler, 316 So.2d 315, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) Comm'n v. Florida Pub. SenJ. Comm'n, (citing 17A C.J.S. Contracts ~ 385, p. 457); 469 So.2d 731, 732 (Fla.1985). PSC approv- see also Institute for ScientijU Info., Inc. a} of a territorial agreement, in effect, v. Gordon & Breach Science Publishers, makes the approved contract an order of Inc., 931 F.2d 1002 (3d Cir.), cert. de- the PSC. City Gas, 182 So.2d at 436. nied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct 302, 116 Merely because the agreement is to be L.Ed.2d 245 (1991). If a period of duration interpreted under the law of contracts does can be inferred from the nature of a con- not mean we are to ignore the law sur- tract and the circumstances surrounding its rounding PSC orders. execution, the contract is not terminable at will and a court should give effect to the manifest intent of the parties. See South- ern Bell; Sound City. The City cites cases which hold that a contract for an indefinite period, which by its nature is not deemed to be perpetual, may be terminated at will upon the giving of reasonable notice. Perri 1'. Byrd, 436 So.2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Sound City; Gulf Cities Gas Corp. 1'. Tangelo Park SerL'. Co., 253 So.2d 7 -!4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Florida-Georgia Chem. Co. t'. Sational Labs. Inc., 153 So.2d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963l. However, these cases, and the cases upon which they were premised, in- volve either contracts in which the courts were unable to construe a period of dura- tion from the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement and the parties would be obligated to perform in perpetuity 6 or contracts in which there is a ) , [3] The City was able to enter into the instant agreement only by obtaining PSC approval. The City may not accept the benefits flowing from antitrust immunity for a territorial agreement by obtaining PSC approval and then claim the agree- ment is not subject to the laws governing PSC orders" Therefore, the law governing the modification or termination of PSC or- ders was applicable to the instant agree- ment to the extent it did not contradict the express terms of the agreement. 5 [4,5] Moreover, even if we were to hold that the law of contracts should be strictly applied to the agreement, we would not construe the agreement to have granted the City the right to terminate at its discre- tion. When a contract does not contain an express statement as to duration, the court should determine the intent of the parties 4. If the agreement had provided for termination after a certain period of years, it would have terminated at the end of that period. In such case, general case law governing the modifica. tion and termination of PSC orders would have given way to the express terms of the order. 5. The law at the time of the agreement set forth that PSC orders could be withdrawn or mod. ified at the initiation of the PSC, a party to the agreement. or an interested member of the pub- lic "after proper notice and hearing, and upon a specific finding based on adequate proof that such modification or withdrawal of approval is necessary in the public interest because of changed conditions or other circumstances not present in the proceedings which led to the order being modified." Peoples Gas Sys., Inc. I'. Mason, 187 So.2d 335. 339 (Fla.1966). 6. See Southern Bell TeL eft TeL Co. v. Florida E. Coast Ry_ Co., 399 F.2d 854. 856 (5th Cir.1968) (if the court can not ascenain the intent of the parties, il can -rely on rules of law which pur- port to determine what ". the parties intend- ed"); Sound City, Inc. v. Kessler, 316 So.2d 315. 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (agreement to continue to sell products to a party held terminable with. in a reasonable time when, after considering the surrounding circumstances, the court could not ascertain the intent of the parties); Gulf Cities Gas Corp. v. Tangelo Park Serv. Co., 253 So.2d 744, 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (agreement to supply gas held to be terminable at will when "its language neither expressly nor by reason- 450 Fla. 600 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES CITY OF HOMESTEAD. Appellant, v. Thomas M. BEARD, etc., et al., Appellees. No. 77352. Supreme Court of Florida. May 7, 1992. The Public Service Commission grant- ed utility company's motion to dismiss city's petition to terminate territorial agree- ment with utility company, and city appeal- ed. The Supreme Court, McDonald. J., held that: (1) city submitted itself to Com- mission's regulatory authority, and (2) ter- ritorial settlement agreement was not ter- minable at will. Affirmed. Barkett, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Kogan and Harding, JJ., concurred. 1. Electricity <p8.H2) City, which sought Public Service Com- mission approval of territorial agreement with privately owned utility company for areas beyond its municipal boundaries, sub- mitted itself to Commission's regulatory authority under Commission's order ap- proving agreement, though at the time agreement was executed, municipally owned electric utilities were exempt from state agency supervision and enjoyed privi- leges of legally protected monopolies with- in municipal limits. West's F.S.A. ~ 366.- 11. 2. Public Utilities <PH4 Public Service Commission approval of territorial agreement between city and pri- vately owned utility company makes ap- proved contract order of Commission, and makes law surrounding Commission orders applicable in interpreting agreement. 3. Public Utilities <PH4 City may not accept benefits flowing from antitrust immunity for territorial agreement with privately owned utility company by obtaining Public Service Com- mission appro\-al and then claiming agree.. ment is not subject to laws governing Com- mission orders. t. Contracts c=>215(1) When contract does not contain ex- press statement as to duration, court should determine intent of parties by exam- ining surrounding circumstances and by reasonably constrUing agreement as a whole. 5. Contracts c=>215( 1) If period of duration can be inferred from nature of contract and circumstances surrounding its execution, contIact is not terminable at \\;ll and court should give effect to manifest intent of parties. 6. Public ['tilities <P169 Public Sen;ce Commission orders are generally considered final absent Commis- sion's inherent authority to modify or ter- minate them in proper proceeding. 7. Electricity e:>8.H2) City and privately owned utility compa- ny did not intend settlement agreement to be terminable at will, and could be modified or terminated only by the Public Service Commission (PSC) in a proper proceeding, where utility company refrained from com- peting with city for 20 years, transferred large number of its customers to city, and made investments in territories in which it believed it had exclusive franchise, and where agreement was incorporated into PSC order. Michael L. Rosen, D. Bruce May and Susan L. Turner of Holland & Knight, Tal- lahassee, for appellant. David E. Smith. Director of Appeals,' Florida Public Service Com'n, and J. Chris-', tian Meffert of Bryant, Miller & Olive, P.A., Tallahassee, and K. Crandal McDou- gall, Miami, Florida Power & Light Co., for ;' appellees. McDONALD, Justice. On August 7, 1967, the city of Home:' stead (City) entered into a territorial agree-. ment with Florida Power & Light Com~ CITY OF HOMESTEAD v. BEARD Fla. 451 CIte.. 600 So.2d 450 (F1L 1992) (FPL), a privately owned utility company. agreement was a valid and binding agree- The agreement defmed the geographic ment, but denying FPL's demand for pro- boundaries of their respective service areas hibitive or injunctive relief against the City. in an,d around the city of Homes~a? At In response to a subsequent motion for t~e, time of the agree,men~" the City s mu- reconsideration or clarification by FPL, the mClpally owned electnc, ut~h~ ~as exempt PSC stated that the agreement is subject to fro~ the rE~gulato:r Junsdl~tI?n of th~ modification by the PSC in a proper pro- Florida Pubhc Semce Comml;slOn (PSC). ceeding, but declined to elaborate further However, because of the PSC s regulatory because the City had filed an acti . authority over FPL, the parties submitted Dade County Circuit Court seeking aoru~ the agreement ~ the PSC. for approva~. ciaI declaration that the agreement is ter- The agreement dId not prOVIde for a specI- . bl th" f bl , , , mma e upon e gIVmg 0 reasona e no- fied duration or termmatlOn date. The t' Afte th . 't rt' d . I f SC ' FI 'd P bI' S ' Co " Ice. r e ClrCllI cou s ema 0 P ,m on a u IC ervlce mmlSSlon FPL' ti. to d'. d ti' to _ , s mo on ISmlSs an mo on Order No. 428;), ISSUed December 1, 1967, b te ds th t th PSC h d I a a on groun a e a exc u- approved the agreement. In response to a , "d' t' 'th tte th PSC "f ,. f'I d b to Slve JUrIS IC Ion m e ma r, e petItIOn or certlOran ley cus mers . te d d fil d . . f . f ' . d m rvene an I e a petition or wnt 0 whose servIce was bemg transferre pursu- h'b't" thO Co rt. I P bZ' S h tho C pro I I Ion m IS u n u u: er- ant to t e new agreement, IS ourt up- . C ". F Z'- 5-1 S 2d 2 0 'th mee ommzsston v. u~, ;) o. 1 1 held the PSC's order approVIng e agree- . ' ., t St II 21'" S 2d 304 (Fla (Fla. 1989), thIS Court held that the CIrCUIt men. orey v. mayo, I 0, . d'd h .. di . d 1968), eert. denied, 395 U.S. 909, 89 S.Ct. court I not .ave Juns cti.on, to con ~ct 1751, 23 L.Ed.2d 222 (1969). further proceedmg~ on the City s complamt for a declaratory Judgment. In a letter to FPL dated May 11, 1988, . ... the City gave formal notice of its intent to On September 4, .1990, th~ .Clty ml~~ t 'nate the agreement effective August the present proceedmgs by filmg a pennon erml "A 1m I d T .. "h' 1 '" 1988 ad' 't d FPL to negotiate a new to ."\,c owe ge ermmanon or m t e -~- I, n IDVI e . R IT' . I D' ".th agreement. FPL responded that the agree- ternatJve, eso ve emtona IS~Ute WI ment remains in full force and effect until the PSC. FPL responded by filmg a mo- a mutually acceptable change is approved tion.to dismi~s, whi~h the PS~ ~nted in by the PSC. On July 22, 1988, FPL filed a \Ion~a ~b.hc Semce Co~mlSslon % Order petition for declaratory statement with the N.o, _39;);), ,Issued Ja~ua~ 3, 1~9~, ~he PSC seeking a determination as to the City then flled. a no~lce of admmlstranve rights and obligations of the parties under ap.peal to ~btam reVIew of that order by the agreement. On December 2, 1988, the thiS Court. PSC issued the declaratory statement re- The City's position is that because it was quested by FPL, stating that the territorial not subject to the PSC's jurisdiction when 1 f: f~ ,[ ., if' i " ~ l , l. ~ 366.11, Fla.Stat, (1967), In 1974 the legisla. ture amended chapter 366 to confer upon the PSC limited jurisdiction over municipally owned electric utilities for certain purposes, Ch. 74-196, ~ I, Laws of Fla. Among the pow. ers granted was the authority "[t]o approve ter- ritorial agreements between and among rural electric cooperatives, municipal electric utilities, and other electric utilities under its jurisdiction or any of them; provided, nothing in this chap- ter shall be construed to alter existing territorial agreements as between the parties to such agreements." ld. 2. The pertinent portion of the Commission's or. der read: When a territorial agreement is approved by the Commission, it becomes embodied in the approving order which may only be mod. ified or terminated in accordance with the Commission's express statutory purpose. Sa Fu//er at 1212, Therefore, in order to \\ith. draw or modify Order No. 4285, Homestead must make a showing that, "such modifica. tion or withdrawal of approval is necessary in the public interest because of changed condi. tions or circumstance not present in the pro- ceedings which led to the order being mod- ified." Peoples Gas System, lnc. v. Mason. 187 So.2d 335, 339 (Fla.1966) Homestead has failed to allege facts sufficient to support a modification of Commission Order No. 4285 consistent with Peoples Gas and Fuller. Con- sequently, we grant FPL's motion and dismiss Homestead's petition without prejudice. 3. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, ~ 3(b)(2). Fla. Const. CI/02'~(~U ~0;~1 I ;(1) t... ..1.1........ (~-... I 1, rn 00' ljJ ~ U ASSESS,MENT OF CONFLICTS LISTED IN LARGO RESOLUTI #1702 e e " 'r\'helher the City of lArgo. Florid1 may terminate the 1984 Interlocal A8~ ement betwun the City of Pinellas Parle. Florida and the City of Largo. F/on'da, paining to the provisions of sanitary sewer service by the City of Largo :0 the area kn as Tract "A" 'which is generally located withi'l the area enclosed by 34th Strut North 12.5th Avenue North. 28th Street North and 188th Avenue North in PineIlas County. F orida. whether said Agreement is perpetuDl and whether the City oj LArgo can ever chan I e the raleS for sewer sen'ice provided to Tract ",4. from lhe rates stated in said Agree en!? (2) It is my understanding that the lnterlocal Agreement for Tract '.A" is order, that the interlocal agreement is, tht."'I'efore. perpetual .md may no unless both cities agree to terminate the interlocal agreement and Largo ca never change tbe provision in the agre:ment for billing Pinellas Pa:k at sevent)' ent of Largo's established r-...tail rate schedule for properties outside the Largo munici al boundaries, \m1ess both cities agree to cha.'1glllg this provision in the lnterlocal Agree]' en~. It should also be noted that the southern boundary for Tract "A" is 118th Avenu and not 188th Avenue as listed in Largo's Resolution No, 1702. Whether the City of Pine/Las Parle violated the P1JbUc Records lAw, Chapt,T /19, Florida STaTUles, when it failed to provide all of t:le doc:tments that are Pu!iUc Rec:ords in response to Public Records requt.5fs made by the City of Largo City Allontey on July 14, 1999 and on October]4, 1999 and the City of Largo Ci.y Clerk on Augu.s+ 17. 1999 and on August 23. 1999? I I On December 8, 1999, when I met with Mr, Stanton in my office, he d-rJmplained that Pinellas Park allegedly did not forward copies of all its P.Jblic Recor~s which were responsive to Largo's Public Records requests. Specifically, Mr. Stantoq s?<,ke of First Union Bank documents. Subsequently, I spoke with the staff member' who had been involved in providing the Public Records to the Pinellas Park City Cle~ and the staff member felt that he had provided the documer.ts encomp~ed within Largo's requests. I then requested that all document,> cor.tamed in tht: allr."1exation file pe~ing to First Union National Bank property, located at 5005 Ulmerton Road, be pro"fided to Largo. On December 17, Assistant City Attorney Tom Reynolds tranSmitted that idformation with a letter to Largo City Attorney Jane Hayman, In Mr. Reynolds OctOber~2' 1999 letter to Ms. Hayman and again in his December 17, 1999 letter, Mr, Re}n Ids offered to coordinate a physical i."lSpCCtion of Pinellas Park records, in order to be 5 e that Pinellas Park had provided ~ of the Public Recolds which Largo had wanted. 1 lieve that any perceived conflict which may exist rega.'"Ciing Largo's Public Records rjequests can be resolved through the physical inspection of the records s~gested by ~ ,Reynolds, I strongly recommend that an inspection of the records be coordinated by argo with Mr. Reynolds in the very near future. c l ; ", .. , "" ~ '. ,., '.' " Cl, 0:I:C~J :Q;51 e e itID ill ~ ~ ... I :,3) . Whether the City of PifUlIas Park. unlcmfulIy annexed certain property w"ed by Wiley Properties PUTSUC!1II to an annexation agreement enured into lly the City . Pinel!as Park and Wiley Properties Oll August 12. 1999. and whether s\.liJ a'l1Ieullioll Pinellas Park cons:irU!es fOnious illterference in d cO!1lracruaL relariollJhp that existed bf?twutl th~ City oj !.Argo atld Wiley Properties? l Se:tion 2,2(a) of the Annexation A~!'eeme:lt between 1:: City cf Largo no Mr. W!ley, specifies that, ''1he PROPERTY O';/1\ER hereby consents to an:lex into the City, wd no other mWticipality..." Should Mo:her City annex all t.,~ :eal property Lrroundirg Mr. \Viley's prope0', J\.1r. Wiley's Fope~1 would be'on~~ <1ll en.:iave in th~l other City in rerp~uity. His situation would adversely af:ect Mr. W:ky's abEty to ~uUy utilize his re-..,] property fer an unreasonable Feriod cf time - perpetuity. Section lrl.046, Florida Statutes specifies. that, "the legislature recognizes :hat eu.da\'e~ .can cfate signifi~ant ;:'iobl~ms In p1an:llng, growth m:n:age:nent, ar.d servl~~ dehvery, tnerdcre, declares lh,t it ~s the policy of the State to eliminate encle.\'~~. Therefore, Section 2J2(a) in Largc;'s Annexation Agre~ment is un:nfcrceabl~ and Mr. Wiley can b.\\>ful1:{. enlcr into a'1 AiL1exation Ag:eeme:1t v.;t; another City if a clause is pri)vid~d. in pte AU.'1ex..tlon Agree~e~t with the other City mat provides th.at in the ~vent that ~1r, \Yiby's property becomes contg'.lous to Lurgo, M:. Wiley is kg~!y required to amex into r.argo. Section 8 of the Annexation Agreem~t between 'he City of ?inel!a~ Park and ,t-,l:. Wiley sets forth tl.:1t, "In :he event t.'ut (1) tte property becoro~s ~ontiguous to e;loth~r r.1l;nicit:a1ity, and (2) th~ O\VNER(S) are legally required to aIU:ex ir.:o ~irl Ir.l~icipality, upon notificetion and reques't to the CITY by the O\v11~I of lhe afo~err.entioned conditio:ls. the CITY shall assist OWNER(S) in their efforts to have t~: proFerty annhed in the said municipality i!l the manner required by iaw, I' I I , I, A5s~smelll of Ccnflicts Listed in Lorgo Resolution It I 70: l'ngc 2 I' CI/J2/~C0U 2U:~1 tl;:,......f"140 e e EDWARD D. FORE{,;~~~,P.A. F AnKJANfRWNSMISSION CI1Y OF PINELLAS PARK. CITY MAN.\GER'S OFfiCE p, 0, 60)( 1100 PINE.:..:..A.S PAlIK. fL .33760- I 100 721.541<>708 F'~: 727-544.7448 ~;ubiect: Thomas E. Reynolds, Asst, City Date: January 3, 20(-0 i Attorney I 894-1915 Pages: 3, including this eyer she~t. Je1'!'V Mudd I Dr-~ - Assessment of Conflicts Listed In Largo Resolution No. l702 I I ~,. .10: Vu#; rroru : (~OMMENTS: Please review and cont3ct me with ar:y comrnentslchanges. I, 1 , 'I II C 1 / ~ 1 :':" :;: ,_:' ,_; ..:;J: 1 -: ': 1 ~ :". ~ " >. : : I I init:atins Court preceding' 'iair.S! th< City ef Largo. Florid, to ",el'" ti'.: fell~w:ng cooe::: e e : 'W'het~er tl:e Cry o~'Lu;o, FiJrida may bwfully re~<;~~::J provide s;L",it:l,rt s~"/e:- s::"\';:e to , I real tJfO""le!1V loc3:ed wt:hin \:5 3anltm' se'.':er a.re:! but ,)ut~ide orns lr.'J:';cir:al b:)t;hdar:es ur.I~, ~e . y - - . I - I )V.l1c:r(s) of such :-eJl Fropert\ agree TO \'cluntariiy annex such re~! prl)r~rty ir.to [~e Ci:y ofL4Ij.o. I FloridJ. SECT10.~ TWO, Tl:l: ti:e CC'Jritv Administntor is he~e:)v dlre:ted. within 5\e 151 ::lVS , .. I" . I I :lfter passage of this Res,jI'jtio;:, :0 ser.d a cedfied copy o:this F',t:::c';ut:cn and the Jette: :~-1L:::"e: cy Florida S:arutes, ~: 1)4, 1052. :;; th~ Ci~y Man.lge: oftne City of La!':;" Florid~, se~mg fc;:~ 1~ sxd I e"t... th- .....lr.;m"...., rA"u;r"'....,~~.s or~' I t' \ 1 "5 i 1) F'lon' j" S.a'ut"'c: S' .'ch 'e~~. ,,"'ri.~ "s'"" "t',.~ < L ~ II < ~l.~.. ..... .l.. .... ~..L ...--: ~ ~.I,.......~.. '::" ..,. v _~, u.. ~ ...... l...i... ~ L~.....~, ~-,,.,. v.... ......... ......~i.. i i Je sent by cemfiec P.:ll;. ret:.:::; receip! requesrcc. Copies ,:,1' 5llCh lett~; ar.d Re.;olutio:i sh:.ti ::iS0 I i )e ~(,.nt to Ci~y oj ?in:li:s P3~~;. a.'1C t::e City of Ceanvater. F1cri,,l;l. I , " h 'I' . 'I . d -- ,I j' . SECTIO"\ THREE. :-:1a~ [hi ') R~so, utlon 5 .a. oe;n t;l: tc::e JIl e!:~:;t :=1l-"':le l3.~e.;.':;:(':l I , :[5 adoption and a~pro\a! :n ::~~ man::~= ?~ovil:ec by law. I i ADOPTED this 21~: d:1yof December . 1999. ,\ YES Parks) T~:.d am1 Euris. :>1";'YS: Noce. :~BSENT: Stewa::'t end Sed. I I I \ I _. - ~l \ 'j.:.-. t:.v.;" c;: '.~~ "'"'..-;.,: I \I ..?, ~..:!': F. .....t', ,)-' \.. .. , --'71''\' ,: ': ';--- \-;:'i:'V -:1.0~l.j. ~J'C CIl -'-'-. " ., '1_,1. ,w . ,. :'Or.' , ~~'~"I ~," ,1'$ C" . ''''",,"t&~.(>~..Jr~, ...~. ilt. ... ~~ ,./' "'. . i- 0& 'n':li ond ec(...~ ~O" ~ 'I'll: I'> ~'Jk"r..; ,. r ~ . ~. . >:::. _.l , : 5$ tt ~.(.o ~ :r ~. c. ~ '.\'''~. J (; ...,.t.,l~, .~E::-1 ~\~'-'~ ~f:l r.,.;.~:-J 01 r.4)"~' Cv('VT1,~"" ':~: I'w' ) r>.',;l?.3 COLf"Ty, ~"I.iA, .~ Coun!y . '''''~~t:2'TlY mine ~ ... C9 ~ ,....1:..:;,. >. .J'-~ ' ~>O.'. \ . '; ';l1~ . ~"''1oi .~ , OJ; to'\9 Cr.;'"il . : ""t'U;::~1 F ~ E'~i<Ef\. I ~\I . ';ti1;ciO CI..'1\. 01 l' ~rO' , C;..'_A '., - I ty,'Ae:1:la .~rrJt: s'rodil ' I"u, ~.1_ '. r .' ,',. ~-....:r.o""" OJ'' .. ' v ~ ,:.. " o~vtl l.,ri< f ,l ~~A~.i\ rr""_~ TY\;'i~c:"\lwr'l.r. f,.\Ie''' ....~SC!O"f~lc~>~:.I.n ~ J.. .,rtr-" OJ I ~ Cl;02/2COO ~O:18 t13l)~:,,~":8 I -'" e e I I: . I RESCLtrnON 1\0. ...2.i::2b8 I A RESOLCTION STAm:G THE INTD:TION OF THE BOA~D OF COU}:TY COMMISSIONERS OF PfNCLLAS COUNt":, FLORIDA TO INITIATE CONFLICT RESOLUTI ~ PROCEDtRES PROVIDED U~DER THE FLORI A GO\'E~'JMENi AL CO~rrLICT RESOU)TION ACT PRIOR 0 rNITIA TING COCRT PROCEEDrNGS AGAINST THE CITY F LAH.GO. FLORIDA; SPEC!FYING THE ISSUES OF CO~FLl T WITH THE CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA; DIRECTI}JG T COU1\TY AD~ll~ISTRA TOR TO PROVIDE A STATtlTORlt Y ~1.A.;"1)ATED LEITER A.l\iD A CERTIFIED COpy Of rIfIS RE50:'CTION TO THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA: PROVIDING FOR A~ EfFECTIVE DA 1E. I I I WHEREAS, !he City of Largo) Flor~,ja adop;ed a p::>licy. natir.g ~hat t'-le City Jf Large, " i Florida would r.ot prcyide sanitary sewer service to any !,~cr~r:y located within\i~s sar.ita.--y sewer I area but outsid: of its :nunici?al ~8t:ndar:es ~nless the Qwr.er(s) :hereof :lgr~~d to :!.r'.r.ex such I I p:-operty into the Ci:y of Largo. Florija; a.'1d i I \VHEREAS. 3vard of Co;;nty Commissic..ners of P inf'1l as County, Florda f:!1ds ~hat the t above action cy ~h~ City of Largo, F1crida m<.teria:Iy ac\'c::sely i:n?,:lCts Pine!las ctumy, i'.3 residents I :?nd businesses. as we:1 as the lands ;n the '.lni~ccrpora!ed $:-e3 0rp:~eilas CO'.miv. i' WHEREAS. Boud c.f Ccunrj Com;n:ssior:ers ofPinellas Ccur.-y, Florida does not ,elieye i . that ~h~ City of Largo, Florida has the lawful aubcn:y to take action. \ I I ~OW, THEREfORE, BE rr RESOLVED BY Board cof Cou."lt)" qOI!'.Jni:sioners of ! p:~~!las County, Flonda: \ I SECTIO~ O'\E. That t'UTsUa:1t to Florida Statt:tes, S 164.1 052, the jEoard of Coun:y I I . Commis3ior.ers 0f Pindlas COU:lty, Florida hereby states i ~s in~er.tior. to in I~ia\e !h~ <.one: iet ; resolution procedures Fro\'ided by the Florido Go'\en:mental Ccnf1;cl Resol' t:on Act prior to - ~l/IJ~(~t~~ LU. J e e ~ Largo' s actions have the potential to undennine SL:ch public goals. I I I The County lus therefore adopted resolution 99-268 a certilicd copy of, hich is enclosed, ! staticg the intentio:1 of Pine lias County, Florida [0 initiate conflic~ resolution prece: ures as provided ! under the Florida Go\'ernmental Cor.flict Resclutions Act prior to initiatir.g c 'JI": proceedings : 3&air.st the Cit)' of Largo, Florida I I Pmellas COlUlty proposes that a conflict assessment meeting, in confcrman ,e with 164.105 J, Florida Statutes. be held at 1 :00 p,r.t. on Jar-uary 4. :2000 in roem 425, Pinellas Co' my Courthouse. , 315 Court Street. Cleaf\vster. flerida, Pinella~ County suggests :hat the Cit ~lanager, City : Attorney. and CO!I'JI'.unity Development Administrator of Largo and t.":1e County ~ . nager, Assistant : COl.:nty Attorney and Director ofPianning for ?inellas County be present at th.e c =u1ict assessment :, meeting. This is the same time ar.d pl~ suggest:d in the Pin:!las Park Conflict esolution letter. FEMJAM'lml Enclosure (cenified copy oi Resolution No. 99-268) cc: City ofCearwater City Manager . - Pinellas Pllk City ~'Ianage: f \l,;!tft::.;~~1Y\.1Y'K1lt;;-".\.K'>,c~...'.tO;"R!SSi'.a:>.1i~~Oj.S~"\tO., ~-:! w,cI 01/02/2DO~ 20::8 81 :: : ~ ~ ;' ~18 - . I ' e e BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI ' SIONERS , PINELLAS C UNTY, FLORIDA 31~ COURT S-J:lEer C~A.,WATEA. ~LO~IO... 337!~ c;:)IJlMI~I9',ERS $AL;'II!: P~ilKS . C"iAI..M~ Q08ERT ~ STEWAq, ' v C~ t;1'1"~\V.N CAl. VIN O~ -4,11 RRIS '\.l.REN W,ll.LIAMS SEEL aARBA~1\ :;HEE' TODD ?HONE ;7U) ole~'3]54 FAX, (7Z7) 4Cl4.ol14; S""SAM H CHL'RL'- :OLfHY A7TORNEY December 22 1999 'Certified Mail Return Receipt Reques~e= I: I' Mr Steven B. Stanton. City :--'-'lanager ,City of Largo I 'F' .0. Box 296 Ii Larg:r, FL 33 7i9.0296 I: RE: Picella, County', inteet'oo to lniti.te COUllic! R<sol u tion p"Jdore, Pner to , rnitiating Court Promdings to Resolve COUllict I :Dear Mr. Stanton: 1: , . Largo has 0.rea.ened to reruse ~,ita::'Y sewer service t~ undeveloped ::>ropei'i:S in the Largn ;sarutary sewer are4, , ' , ; The City of Largo policy plo\-lces that Largo will no lor.ge: provide sanitary sewer service It:> any propeI1)'located. within its sani:~j sewer area but outside of its murjcipal bOf.. "lda:ies, UIuess 'Yl~ O~ller(s) th~~eof,agreed to annex, ~-:.~ pre-pert)' into Largo. Therefore, ~he fo lOWing conflict :tX1Sts between PmC'hs County and t:-.e '...It)' of La:go: . , Whother the City of Largo. =lor,da may lawfutly refuse to provide sanit~' s:w" service to r~:J.1 property :ocatd wlthin its sanitary sewt:r area tm outside its municipal J:lou:1Jaries unless th~ ()wne:(s) of such real ;:>roperty agree to YO!L:Iltarily .. an.rlcX such real pro:;el1Y into :;.,e City of Lz.rgo, Florida? ' f' : No other governmental agencies are currentiy in conflict \vie: Pinellas CO'J : yon this i::ssue. !l-iowever, the Cit)" 0: PineUas Park has initiated contlict reso:'Jtio:l proc~ejing_wi:h Largo for 1- . ' II !t:ssentiallY the same reasoX"oS. I, : The isst:e offorced annexatior. ::; the City of Largo ~as b~e:'i a matte: of co1tir.urng concern ,1(1 Pinellas Coumy. !~e. C01.mty pr~\'~~es wh(1~t:sale sewer service t~ the Ci:y of P ne;ll1$ Park, ~d 'Pinellas Park has mmated confllc: :esOlUtlOll prc,c~ed:ngs agamst Lergo. The respective i i~OV'trnments sewer servlce area we:,: t"~~abli5hed a number ofyears ago to providelror efficient use '(;f federal monks and for effecti\'~ prii'. is:on of sewer servic: to the citizens of ~iinellaS County. , I I . ' : I ",'iren", C,,,'y is.' EqJ<' O'I:t"t'"~ Em"'I"" · tJ...w,"...j;a' ".~.','" 'or' Drug F... Will""" ~J ,'ilW;" racy.'; papt' I J arluary 3, 2000 I I I 6, inchlding this c+ve: she~t. I i I ! C1iJ=/2~e0 :0:18 l: 1 j':.~1 i -;~b '_ .I. I e e E.O\'l t.,RO O. rO~t.,,\~;t? .fl.. .i~~~ J~l\ -~ TRANSMISSION CIlY OF P1NEllAS PARK. em MANAGER'S OFFICE POBox I I 00 P1~t~ PA"'K. F'L 33760-: 10':1 727-':;4100708 F'JoX' 727-544'7448 :~ro: Th('roas E. Re}1101ds, Asst. City Attorney Date: Fax#: 894-1~15 Jerry Mued Page,,: 3rom: I , ~iubjcct: Lenel' from Pinellas County - Conflict Resolution r'racedures , COMMENTS: ?or your infomlation. i I i I I i , i I I I I I I I I I I I I I L I 1 I L I ,. I I I .j " I; " L Cl/02/2COQ 20:18 E1354;7;~, .. e e BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI SIGNERS PINELLAS C UNTY, FLORIDA ~'$ C~)JR7 STREET l ,," ~V\'''' P!"I, '" _0"' OA, Z3iS6 ,".QI,..o~5'O~!:RS S.ALL~ PAf {$ . CriA:R~:,~N ROeERT Ell' 37EWA~T .,,:.<: CHA"'I>:.A~ CALVIN D, rARRIS KARE~ WI1,1,IMAS SEE~ eA..~ARA 6He-5~ TODD .FRED E. MARaUIS . COU TV ADMINISTRATOR F'HOU:: lit'} 4e4.J0.8S F':'(: m?) 464.4'::84 December 21, 199~ ~:;ertified Mail Rerum Re~ipt Requestee ~.lr. Jerry Mudd, City Ma.l1ager City of Pine lIas Park ' ' 5141 78th Avenue: ~\inel1as Park, FL 33780 , , I I , ' RE, Pinetlas Park: 5 Intenti,,!". .0 In.it~ate Conflict Resolution Proced1;l ':5 P lor to IIIitiating Court Proceedings to Res01ve Ccnflict , I: rear Mr. \1udd: ' l Pinoll.. Coun\y is in "eeipt of ye", lette: of Decem ber 12, 1999 initiating CO~ict ~",lution p;'oceedings with the City 'of Largo, Pu:suant to Section 164.1052i)) F.S" Pinea~ County e1~cts ie, join the conflict re:iolutioo process as a primary conflicting governmental ~ntity j. Enclosed is a C,)py of our letter to the City of Largo an.j a copy of our Conflict kesolution ktt:r.1 I h I I I I E . .farqu. C<y.u;ty Adllllil1strator '~.'. (! C : /11.; 10'(. '~: Co.., r f'~"" c: I elf" c./e A. J( I ' C.. + 'f A-fff)1'C jO~" I . A u ~ . l';,i'"f ~,~ a;'" tt~/ ~/T:-. :... ! I . f'SM:JA~l/lm1 P\ Ja~"'T:Y ^iY1UlC::H\r;l(l{~.-.1CAAl;';':::~I~~IOS\I>"':lC;r.: -?l I. l' P.tf)I:l'i ,)ur:Y:5 ~' Eq~a! OPP0rturlrj Err,pJYc-r' · M>:rlI~.,(,PII'{) 135 PJtl1er:.l"i~ fot a CrJg Flij(j WO'kp:2ce . ~ p,;nte'j Nl'IiC}'C,~~~8~,E:' e e I City, Minager Mucd stated ~n\lt the; arJlcxation study pJepa.""Cd by Staff extends to Lake Semlnof' I COW1cilt:m ~utJer askec: whi.;h Fire Department wodd be :lm~cted by annexations going to Lake I.:>emmo!e. I City MEinager Mudd stz.td ~h3t on Starkey Road the Seminole Fire Department operates a station that set"\'kes the u:lir.corporated area (similar to Highpoint). It is possible that it Pinel~a~ Park p-~'\."'lexe~ f~u1h'r west these propeni:s could become part of the City and a reco:nrriendatio:1 could b: made bv the Counn: for Pinellas Park to rake over that station. I - '] Councitmari Butl~r m.ted that :.ased on this information he feels the c~ncem over thE Highplat Fire Staticns is Fut to rest. I I City f\~anaget Mdd sUIted that \\i~h tho:': information the City now has. the poinl Councifman Bl:~Jer rn3he~ is vr:Jid. I Counci~rr.a1i Bu~;~r statd that he feels t,1.Us proposed agreement with Largo makes sense anc. he agrefs wi6 It counCt~ man \,'i1liams :;t.1tcd thlt he dc:s rlO! like to be blackmailed and feels that has taken place 1, OUgh01..'1 the negotiation process. W1d would like to go with altemativ.: four and take both ar of con~:m Mayor ~1i3crJzr stat~d :;,::.t be Car'J1ot ugre:c '.\'ib :hat, anj is n0t wiJlir:g to gambl: it. Bob \Jley. O\\IiI:~r 01 ?ydra Spa. (a property that was afu"1cxed into Pmellas Park) stated he had la previous annexation 8f,Teement v.rith Largo that stipulates that if Largo become; adjaceT to his p:"ot'Cny he must annc>: into Largo. He :::tated that Largo denied him sewer servicel unless he signee the almexation agreement. Ci:y ?Janager Mudd statei the letter dated December 2, 1999, received from the Cit)' of Largo ty Mr, \Viley st;..ted his sewer ser,ice would be disconnected December 7. 1999. I Counc,lman Taylor st~tcd there already is a Tract A agreement in affect that Largo i& net honorifg. ! 6 CITY OF PlNELLAS P ARJ:<' REGULAR WORKSHOP MEETING DECEMBER 7, 19S9 i :. ;' -; :.; /: ~'.~ j ,:~.l : i .~: ;: 1 >~,l1-/,~(',,-j 1-.11 e e I,,' ,~_ Councilwoman Bailey stated that btck in 1978 many meetings were held and thJ planning arca was laid out for the cities. The City of S[. Petersburg was supposed to te the eastern boundaries over by Fea1hersour:d, but n.:)w in the letter from Largo, it menti1ns taking over that planning area of St. peter5Jurg. Councilwoman Bailey stated there is Illot of thir,gs coming out of Lugo which j$ not in the best interest of Largo citizenry, our it:zenry or St Petersburg'$ citizenry and feels court is the only way to settle it. Cecil Bradbury, 9400 50th Way, stated he felt Council has bent over b8ckwfrdS a little bit farther than we would have in trying to deal v.ith this matter. Mr, Bradbury tated the City of Largo has a sewer district and the reason that district is devised the way i is, is to allow them to go out l\1ld bond the indebtedness of that district b. order to proVidete'\lIer. Largo only provides one sePtice out offour, yet they feel they should be able to dictat what happens and felt it was time for the City of Clearwater, Pinellas County and PineH Park to join together in an effort to set the re~rd straight. MOTION was made by Co~man Wi!liml5, and SECONDED by Counei man Taylor to ADOPT Resolution ~o 99.97. Roll CaD Vote: Voting Yea: Councilwoman, Patricia L. Bail:y Councilman, Rick Butler Councilman. William E. Taylor Councilman. Charles J, Williams Mayor Williarr. F. Mischler Vo~ing Nay: None Absent: None Abstaining: None MOTION CARRIED ~[lSCELLA1'EOUS Ml THANK YOU NOn; Mayor Mischler read a tbank you note from Samantha Krenek and Katie Moriarty from Pinellas Park High School who were presented with a Proc1ama~ion for . ational French Week. at the Council Meeting of October 28, 1999, 14 CITY OF PIN LLAS'PARK REGULAR CO UN IL MINlJTES DECE . BER 9. 1999 I j :'/ ~;;~ I 1 ; ? J ,~.4::: '3 ~1'j'_.,.\.17~;<::~ (_~~/ -,-< Fr' r , ,. .,r_ '_ . e e Attorney Re}'nolds stated that when Ihe s:::ttlement agr~ement (inlcrlocal grecment) was derived, Pinellas Par~ at its expense, constructec the coliection system wit in Tract A. As a consideration for tr.a. c:xpe:tse Largo ?greed to provide sewer ser\':ce t Tract A at the same rate that service is provided to Lugo City cu~tomers. Th~refore,;f Ie rates within Largo raise, then the rate~ for Pinelias Park would rj~e :uso Sewer Director LeVan stated when the COWIty rates are lai5d it i:i pr iested on the addition and updating of the Cross Bayou lift station, v.,:he~s Largo has no done that. The other factor is that when the Cc,unty raises their r:lt~, the rates in Tract A ~'ill also rise. City Manager Mudd .;tated that he has ~~n informed by Lai~o City Mana~er Stanton that the current rnt: paid to Largo is r.ct indusive of L~e :ost to rr.aintain an provid~ waste water treatment I Councilman Williar:'ls asked, ift,'1e City was to ignore the in::reased rate e;Juid the service be discormected? I ' I Attomey Reynolds ~taled 11at tf Urgo was to threat:n to disconti:lue servic~, than the City would immediately apply to the Coux-+.s for a.'i injW1cticn th~t would prevent iscontinuation. r Councilman Williams asked Ancmey Rernolds fur his opinion as to wha cour~e to take, Attorney Re>l101ds stated that if Council is not inclined to pay the mcreasr, thea Pinel1as Park should initiate the dispute resolution process. City Manager Mudd s~ted that whkhever party initiates t.l-ae dispute resolut1Jn process gets to choose the site where the joint :r.e.etings are held, Consensus ofCoUDcil was that the Cty :)f Largo r.lt;St honol the interlOC3.l\agreement and not raise the sew~r i.ites until a consul~ant has considered it justifhb e and made a recommendation as such. I I Ar..om~ Re~'Ilolds stat~d that in order fur th~;:t:' to b: an :ldju5t:n~t to the r tes in Tract A are~ Largo must have the legal authority to terminste \b-e interlocal agree ent. regardle5S of what a consultant reports. CITY OF PIN , LLAS PARK 8 REGULAR WORKSH . P MEETING DECE' HER 7,1999 1 ~'/ '~'r~' {l "'~'~'j ,~',.: 1-,' '.= 1 j:. 't '. ;', i r ,~ ~. f.' e e Mayor Mischler stated that he is willing to settie ifth: exchange of the two reposed parcels is achieved. Cmmcilmai1 Butler stated that he ;5 wimr.g to se~tle also, but a etter of apology must be given to Mr. Wiley and unle~s that le~er is sent he will s ppcrt nothing. Councilwoman Bailey stated that to choose al~emntive four could leav the City with nothing, and she prefers to negotiate, under the sc.me terms as Mayor ",fisc ller, along ....ith the guarantee that everything will be in place for the new P.,Jdisson Ho 1. Vice Ma,'or Taylor stated that he will support nothing that in\"olv~> swapp:ng planni g areas one for another, Councihnan Williams agreed with Cotmcilman Taylor. Councilm B~tler stated he is willing to support the proposed agreen~nt if th~ prcj)CIties are exc !ni~d, but Mr. Wiley's situation must be resolved, . Largo Assistant City Manager Ross stated tllat th: last Lar&o City Commi sian Workshop the consensus \ws to continue talking with the Pinellas Park Staff about t se issues, Vi1lh the suggestion made to continue the bounciui~s along Ulmerton Road to Cr~ss Bayou down to 126th Avenue and to talk e.1xIUt the tr:angular parcel of land which cb.1~nds to 62nd Str~L I Councilwoman Bailey requested that Larg~ ASSlsta..lt Cit)' Mmager Ross ~ave !l. response to emU1eil's concerns by the regular Cou."lcil Meeting on December 9, 19t9. City Manager Mudd ~.ated that the Largo Cit). COl!unissiorl has indicated th y are n:) ionger honoring the Interlocal Agrec:rr..ent as of Jar.uary 1,2000. The sewer rates or Tract A will be i:1creased at an addit\onal cost of$26.735.00 per year. City Manager Mudd proposed the following fou: a!terr.atives for the Ira A sewer i:;sue: 1. Pay the increase, which has t.'1~ aj"~.ntcge of ~vaiding Etigati.n, whereas th~ disadvantage would be lle addiuonal .;ost. I 2. Do net pay the increasec ccst. 3. Install a local waste water coilectio:1 system that would flow to t'1e Pinellas County S~wer system, at a cost of 5371 ,000.00. The current wbc!e ale rutes for the County woald save Pi.1.ellas Parle $740.00 Ii/ear in wastewater tnent cost. but Pinel~as County 'will be raising their wh"le$!lc rates as of October 1,2000, which would then cost the City $26,40100, which is ~ore than Lnrgo's increase. 4. Don't pay t~ increase and purs'.1': a proc~ss that leads to litigatio which has the . disadvantage of legal fees. I CITY OF PI LLASPARJ{ 7 REGULAR WORKSH ,P MEETING DECE '1BER 7, 1999 1 ~I ~~rj/l ':')) J..: '~'(j ~ 1 ;, '-_' .; 1 ;' '1 .:: :: 1.,;-' . e .f e Voting Nay: Nooe Absent: None Abstaining: None MOTION CARRIED R6 RESOLUIlON NO. 99-97. A RESOLUTION STATII"lG THE INTEN IO~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO INITIATE CO~FLICT RESOLU'nON P OCEDIJRES PROVIDED UNDER THE FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION ACT PRIOR TO INlTIA TING COURT PROCEEDIN S AGAINST THE CITY OF LARGO. FLORIDA. FIRST A~D FINAL READING. Mayor Mischler stated many people may have already read the article in th St. Petersburg Times regarding the conflict between Pinellas Park and Largo where an agree~ent was trying to be reached for annexation boundaries. Largo had a meeting a fe-.v weeks ~go where they made some comments and PineUas Park Council addressed those comments th~y made during the Tuesday, December 7, 1999 Workshop. The City of Pine lIas Pa:k counter9d to Largo and asked their Assistant City Manger to please get back to Pinellas Park thi~ e\ ning. A letter was received from Largo City Manager Steve Stanton in which h: address the comments that were made at the Pinella! Park Workshop and stated he was not in agr ement with the proposal made by PinelJas Park. In the $t. Petersburg Times Neighborh od Edition on Wednesday, there is a triangular tract, in the proximity of Llmerton Road d U.S. 19 that Pine1Jas Park Vias willing to forego and give to Largo providing they would gi e Pinl"llas Park the tract east ofRoos.evelt Boulevard and north ofL1merton, which is where Hampton Inn is located. Based on the letter received from Largo, Mayor Mischler st!.tedlhe wiU have to agree with o~her members of Council for litigation proceedings. CounciLllan Taylor stated that the City did not go 100king for this and! is Council has continued to have dialogue 'Nith Largo in good faitb, but every tirr.e Coune-il tHought they had a deal, it changed and has come back again. Councilman Taylor stated th~ City has been forced to make this decision for litigation and then~ is a process to go thro~gh before it is brought to court, but it could be resolved before it reaches the CO'Jrt stage. I Assistant City Attorney Todd stated there is a procedure that is mandated y Florida Law before a case between two municipalities can go to court to be litigated. Chap er 164, Florida Statutes requires a number of steps be taken by the municipalities before th matter can be taken to court. The first step is to notify the City of Largo that theIe is a co iet and that is the purpose of the Resolution to give formal notification to them that there e two issues of conflict betw::n Pinel1as Park and Largo to be resolved. 23 CITY OF PIN .LLAS PARK REGl:LAR COUl~ L MINUTES DECE IDER 9, 1999 L> ' 1':".1'.1 J-)::: ':: ~~ 1-.::,,~.1:'y'~8 (: ! 1 ' r-- I II ~l e ei Mayor Mischler stated thDt he is willing to ,::nle ifth: ",change of the twO lroPOSed p:rrcels is achieved. Councilman Butler 3tated fr..at he is willing to s':1tle also, but .1 letter cf apology must be given to Mr. \Viley and unless that letter is sent he will ~., pport nothing. Councilwoman Bailey stated iliat to choose a\tc~a~i...e fcur could lea the City with nothing, and she prefers to negotiate, under the same terms as Mayor Mis lier. along with the guarantee that everything will be in place for the new Radisson Hotel. Viee Mayor Taylor stated that he will ~'.1pport nothing that involves swapping plaIl.'1ing areas one for anoL1er, COWlcilrr.an Williams agreed with Councilrr.an Taylor. Counciln1ar. Butler stated he is willing to support tbe proposed agreement if the properties are exchanged: but Mr. Wiley's situation mu~t be resolved. Largo Assistant City lvlanz.ger R.:>,;s stated that the hSl Largo City comm~" sion Work'ihop the consensus was to continue talking with the pinellas Park Staff about c;se is.m:s, with the st;.ggestion made to ccnti:lue me boundaries along Ulmerton Road co C :>ss Bayou COW;\ to 1 26th Avenue and to talk about the L~angular parcel of land which bxtends to 62r:d Street. \ Councilwoman Baile)' requested that Lar&o Assist:mt City ~lanager Ross!have a response to Council's concems by the regular Council Meeting on December 9, 1 ~99. City Manager Mudd stated that the Largo Ci7Y Co:n:ni~sion has indicat~ ~ey are no longer honoring the Interlocal Agreement as of January 1,2000. The sewer rates- for Tract A \!rill be increased at an additional cost ofS26.i3S.00 per year. I I City ~lanager Mudd proposed the following four a1:ematives for lh< Tr'!l A sew", iss::e: I 1. Pay the increa~e, \,,-hieh hus the advantage of avoiding litigaton, whereas the disadvantage would be the additicnal cost I 2. Do not ?ay the increa~ed cost. i I 3. Install a local waste water collection system that would f10\~ to the Pinellas COlDlty Sewer system, at a cost of$37 1.000.00. The current whQl~saIe rates for the I County would save Pinellas Park $740.00 a year in wastewater .atment cost, but PineUas County will be raising their wholesale rates a3 of Octo r I, 2000, which would then cost the City $26,40 1.00~ which is more than Larbo s increase. 4. Don't pay the increase and ptU"sue a process that leads to li~gati 0, which has t~e . di~vantage of legal fees. I I I I CITY OF PI. ELLAS PARK 7 RE.G\JLA.R WORKS ,or MEETING DEe MBER 7, 1999 1 ::' I ::;;' 1 -; j j ::' , : '2 '2 c j j':'447,!':8 (, l i / ;>, FP r ~..:.. ;,-. e . 3. Withdraw the offer presently made to Largo. This would sult in more annexations, however, sewer service would still be deni,::d to the disson Hotel and sewer indentures and annexation agreements would not be ca celed. 4. '\l,'ithdrawal the latest offer and pursue a course of action tha would lead to litigation. If this action was successful the advantages woul be increased annexation, no loss of service area for the High Point Fire Station, go would be required to provide sewer service to all the undevelopei pro rties and their annexation inientures would not b: of a..'1y value at that point. disadvantage would be Attom:y's fees .....hich are estimated at between 15,000.00 and $25,500.00. Th:se fees are lower because the disagreement with L go is based on , legal issues. Largo Assistant City Manager Ross stated thet 1he two outstanding issues f concern to the Largo City Commission are the prope'rty by the Cross Bayou Canal an District. City Manager Mudd stated that the Radigson :-Iotel has agreed to allow th easement on their property to construct a lift station, which would have of $225,000.00. Mayor Mischler requested that Largo Assistant City Manager Ross join C and stated for the record that Largo Assistant City Manager Ross is not Commission. Mayor Mischler stz.teci he would really like to put a .;lose to this issue an Bailey agreed. Mayor Mischler asked if a boundary agreement was reached that properties souL'1 of Ulmerton Road, Tract A and all parcels within the Park, would be able to hook into the Largo sewer syster:1. Councilwoman uld that me:m ity Of Pinellas City Manager Mudd stated Tract A is a sep!lrate issue. Mayor I\1ischler stated that any agreement would have to be inclusive of an property south of Ulmerton Road and the first UrJon and the property east (If Ulmerton oad in exchan~e for the property by Cross Bayou Canal. Vice Mayor Taylor stated he is very uncomfortable discussing swapping 1 d that the City has no ciaim to. He stated these are private property owners that have rig ts to choose and Council has no right to talk about swapping parcels. CITY OF PI LLAS PARK 5 REGULAR WORKS , P MEETING DEe MBER 7, 199' Councilman Butler stated that these are planning areas and only for pI asked bow far west the City's planning area extends. \. ~~.... ~ ~j I : ": J J .J (t: :"~ C 1 ~/~,11 ,/,1'; ,,' ., ,,- '. . e City Manager Mudd requested Community D~veiopment Administrator G . tafson arrange for the Staff of the Planning Division to CQ:ltact Mr. Morris in r~g d to obtaining infonnation on locatin6 an engine. Mayor Mischler request Police Lieutenant G:e~n contact Mr. Moni:J in regard to theft occurrir.g at H&R Trains. W3 Al'l~EX<\TION BOUNDARY AND TRACT "A" SEWER RATES. City Manager Mudd r:iade a presentation on is..~es related to annexation boundaries and T:act "A" sewer Hites and requested directior. f:o:n City Council on a cou se of actiuD for the City ~o pursue on each of these items. I City Manag~r Mudd stated that within the last f~w m,)r.ths property owner north of 126th A venue have decided to voluntarily annex ir.to :he City of Pi:lellas Park, ausing Largo to threaten that sewer service would no IO:1ger be provided to that Mea an also that sewer rstes in Tract A would be raised. On Octeb:r 19, 1999, the Largo C y Commission indicated that they would no longer recQgnlze the interlocal agr:ement , etween Pinellas Park and the City of Largo for Tract A sewer service. TIle next day e. let er was received formally indicating that Largo would Dot pro\ide sewer s~rvice to the new d:sson Hotel. City ~anager Mudd Stated that at the Worksr.op of November 9, 1999, he: presented an annexation boundary of Uhnerton Road, 'J,:hich Council agreed with. S bsequently, the Largo Com:nissioD met again deciding they liked the Ulmerton Road bo' dary, b'Jt the)' would like to move the boundary in the vici.uty of 62nd Street and C ss Bayou so it foll(.\\vs l26th Avenue. The reason given fo: the change wa~ that area is w: hin Largo's Fire District. The Largo commission indicated t.~e willingness to negotiate do this piece and possibly a parcel on the east side of Roo5e'\ :::It 3:)wevard. City Ma."1ager\1udd presented the following four alternatives: 1. Accept Largo's latest offer, allcwi.,g the targeted property to becom~ part of Latgo's planning area, The adv3.rlt3ses of accepting the offer i that Largo has indicated it would serve the Radisson :-totd and that Largo would cancel all sewer indent~ and annexation agreen::ents within Pinellas Perk's pl 'ng area, The disadvantages would be that over time:he acceptance of this offe would limit the annexation potential of Pine lIas pJI'k, ~ Largo anneKes further st of the Cross Bayou Canal it would reduce the High Point Fire District. 2. Make a counter offer which would have the same advantages/dis previous alternative. Additional adYanb~es would be that if the unter offer was successful. then more properties would be obt2.ined over tim . An additional disadvantage would be that more time would pass before La.rg would agree to provide the Radisson Hotel with sewer service. CITY OF PI. ELLAS PARK 4 REGULAR WORKS OP MEE"fING DEe :MBER 7,1999 12/~~J/l'~'-~j ).+:?~ ~ 1 "...1 :~. ~~.:;j _l r " '..J- ! I ~ , " .l Council directed s..! meet ,^'hh ". ".ff of Lnrgo t'J work 011' .C,",",eIl1 011 the issues. City MaI1ager Ml.ldd stated that he will prepeue a Iett::r to Larg City ~1an3ger Stanton on what has beer. agreed upon at this meeting, Community Development Adminis~rato!' Gustan',on will revie . tIle propo~ci boundaries with LaIgo st3ffto confirm accura~-y. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Ml ' PROPOSED CLOCK TO\VER Mayor Miscr.!er presented Cound o,,'it:l a rropo~::d cl;)ck towel 49th Street and Park Bouleyard at a <;;('131 of $65,000, I r th~ comer of Vice Mayor Taylor stC'.ted th~t L1e 1.:>.nds,;apLi.~ done ~n that prClp )' klOks rice. Consens'Js of Cou."1cil W:3.S not to purdJas~ ~he clc,ek. Mectiag was adjourned at 9:41 P.M. /-;. (: , , t~ ( ~ I I' .: f J7 .l ~.. ~ ___o.,-C.l I. L)J(i('~("'Aj {. Chri~ti!1e GOU1l' Staff Assistant I I I I I: 7 CITY OF PI LLAS PARK WORKSHOP MEET G MINUTES NO BER 9. 1999 1... ~. I> I ;. .: J ) _',;: l 1 _ J. 1.i',"", , , e City :-'lW1~ger Mu,;rj prcp?scd to Con:~cil to g~nera!ly r~;co(,~uz~ U nertG:1 Road as an anncl,ation boundary with the exception of the Exxon. the first ,nion propcr1ics and the ;>arcels in bet.veen. Sewer service would hl\C to be provi ed by Largo lit a reasonable rate after a rate 3n:llysis is per1urmed. Any ag.reem I t reached \\ith Largo would have to be contin~ent on a tn-party agr:-ement whi h provides thut Highpoint fire Station wouid continue to service it's area and th I Cour.ty would f'l~vide revenues to Pinellas Park for the partie.n oftru1{ district \\ -.ich:s Largo. 1 CouncilWc.r.13.!l Bailey asked if Managel M:J.dd fdt that tbi i r-roposal was achievable. r Cit)' Manager Mudd stated that this was more achievable than p. - IjoU'l proposals. Councilr.1an Williams asked if this would protect tht: newly Hotel. exed Radisson City Manager Mudd stated ~t lr.e hotel is already wi'hi:'l the City' fPin::llas Park and ""'ill cOntL.1U~ !O be withir. the annexst~o~ boundary. Coun~jlma.'1 WilEarr~s a.5ked if Largo is willing to give up the inde. nu.ed properties \vithin Pinellas Park's area. I; City Manager Mudd sta:ed t"l1at from conversations \..,i.rh Largo ell: Manager Steve Stanton, it appears thet Largo would be '.villing to give up in, entures within Pinellas Park's an."lexation area. . City Manager Mudd stated that the value of the properties betwee: 125th Avenue and Ulrnert~rl Road are !lOOut twice the value of those properties b 'p.er. Ulmerton Road and 140th Avenue, La:go Assistant City Manager Ross stated that the La:g0 Conur.i sion ..\'o~ld like Cit)' Council tJ not ar.nex any prop:rty north of Ulmerton Road u:: I. 8.'\ agreement can be reached. It was suggested that Council table th~ anr~exa~i 'n of the Exxon station at the Novemb:: 10, 1999 Council Meeting. Mayor Misch1~r stated that the property owner for the Ex.xon 51atio bas volunta..;ly agreed to annexation and there is a signed agreenlent at tEs poin I I , Largo Assist3.'lt City Manager Rcss stat.:d be would report the C 's position on annexation 8i)d the City's willingness to WillJl01d from future ann' x3lion north of Ulmerton du:ing this negotiation process. I Councilman W1l1iams asked if Coul1cil agreed with the informati City Manager Mudd presented regarding this issue. 6 CITY OF PI LLASPARK \VORKSHOP MEETI 'G MINUTES NO MBER 9. 1999 I I ! ~ , L> ",":::1'j -::,1::" ~~~:,~":-l/;':;-1 .-- r ~, e e W6 llLYlS!O~ OF H~LEN HOWARTH r.ARK MASTEH Pj-! Dirc:c:or Garren and Equestrian Trail Study Commission rre~ide t Will Bicknell were present to discuss the revision of the Helen Howarth Maste Plan including the equestrian amenities. Di=-~ctor Garren stated that the Ecuestrian COIrbllission tmd Recre ion Boad have . ' reviewed the Mas.er Pla.'1 for Helen Howarth and is no longer ac urat:. The proposed rtvision to the Mast~r Plan address:s the northeast c mer ufthe park where additional ball fields were originally plaIUled. The revis n cal13 for the location of equestrian amenities in that cornCI. Consensus of CoulLcil was to p:'oceed ""1th this plan. + CITY MANAGER W7 AN~EXATIOI'i BOUNDARIE:S I City Manager Mudd updated City Council on the current ,tatus jf developing an annexation bouniary with the City of Largo. 1 L2.rgo Assistant City Manager Ross joined Council at the table Largo Assistant City Manager Ross stated that the Largo Co ission held a meering that evening at which it was decided that the Commiss .:m is willing to meet with Pinellas Park Council for discussion on ;l,!lI1cxation. City Manager Mudd stated thet the annexation goals of the ity ir.clde the a:lr.exir.g of two square miles over a ten year perio~, 1998-2008 The anr.exation geals include providing better services withir. the unin::orporated area to generate :even\1e5 for t~e City. Competition has been taking place with Lar' 0 regrding the properties notU of 126th A v~ue, which ~ within the Lwgo sew r distri::t. Largo has accumulated numerous sewer indentures on these properties would like the annexation boundary to be Ulmerton Road. City Manager Mudd statoo that Pinellas Park SIaff is confident the can be met with the annexation boUl1dary at Ulmerton Road. A importance of sewer rates staying reasonable and the need to em; the Highpoint Fire District exetion goals stated was the .. no change to .- " I 5 CITY OF pJELLAS PARK WORKSHOP MEETfG MINUTES NO' ftmER 9, 1999 I I I " I, 1 ...' I -' ~." ... 'J'.t _' '-i. ~'. '.. '" J , . , -1 - -' Cooneil reqo<! Mr. Gohovae, idorrn Anthon}' ~b:na"nr. Developmenr Corporation, about a possible law~uit or the building of a lift sttlti n. city Man3ier Mudd stated that Staff will continue to collect inform tion to provide to Council at the n:xt workshop. W8 t~ P' N 'G Dt"RING A STATE OF EMERGENCY I F or a number of years City Council h~ suspended the bidding d advertising reqciremenl3 of Chapter 2 "Administration", Mele 6, City P chases, for the period after and the expected arrival of an approaching hurricnn , by adopting a Resoluticr. declai.ng a state of emergency that included language ~ r suspep.Cjion of acvertising and bidding. This has been done to provide City Co' cil input as to w:1.:o these provisions would be suspended. Hcwever, Section 2-6 2 does contelin la.'1gue.ge that suspends the e.dvenising and bidding :-equirements the event of a 10:a1 d:sast:r of catastrophe. Section 2-602 specifies that this prl):edure requires v...':'itten Mayoral approval to enter into contracts; 'J.ith Council bbing notified of scch action as soon as possible. Another way to suspend the ~dvertising and bidding requirements would be to add language in Section 2-602 t~pro\'ide for this stLr:per.sion of the advertising and bidding in conjur.ction with the tinellas County Board of County Commi:lsioner's declaration of a state of emerg_ncy. The three al.emati\ies outlined here are: (I) Adopt a Resolution decI ~ng a state of emerger.cy. (2) Follow the piocedu..--e in Section 2-602. (3) Add Ian uage to SectiO:l 2.602 waivi.'lg advertising and bidding requirements in the event f a declaration of sue of emergency being dechred by the Board of County Co . ssioners. City Manager M:1dd asked di~'tio:1 :rom City Council regarding the preference of a prccedure to follow for suspension of advertising and bidding for re expected states of em~rgeney. Conser.sus of Council was to follow the provision L~t is currentl . in the Coce of Ordinances v-iUch states that if there is a state of emergency then ovisions of the OIcU:a:lCe are waived and all that is required is the Mayor's signa e. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Ml FIRST READING OF CHARTER ORDlNA~CES Ass~stant Attorney Todd stated the first reading ~ill take place at e City Council Meeting on Thursday, October 28, 1999. Inclusive \\ill be the ch ges previously discussed by Council at the last L'tu'ee Workshops. A prominen change is seen \\'i~n the Pollee provision which makes it more consist~nt ith the Florija Statutes defmition of Law Enforcement. The PBA h.as been notifie of the change. i I CITY OF PIN LLAS PARK I WORKSHOP MEETI ~G MINUTES OCT BER 16, 1999 I I I 9 e e Largo Assistant City Manager Ross joined Council at L~e table and stated that a lot oftlus issue could be resolved if Ulmcrton Road was agreed upon an annexation boundary . Councilman Williams asked if Largo is required to provide wer service to everyone within that boundary, no matter what City they belong t Attorney Reynolds stated yes they are. I Largo Manager Ross stated the polity of Largo is that sewer stryic is provided for properties within their Cit)'. Councilman Butler stated the purpose of annexation is to gc erate fees and revenues so before COw1 cost are spent. this issue should be ret;~.lSidc;:red by t.'le Largo City Commission. I Largo Manager Ross stated Ll..e Largo Corrunissio:1 would I ke Council to reconsider the proposed Ulmerton Road annexatio:l Hr.e. Cour.cilman Taylor stated it is important to know now close to c~JacitY the Largo sewer treal'Ilent plant is. I Largo ~fanager Ross stated he wi] take the infcrmation be h;;.s obt 'ned back to the Largo City Officials, Council requested Largo Manager Ross convey to the Largo Ci Officials their willingness to meet an.d explore different means to resolve this isbe. I Largo Manager Ross stated he \,-ill also convey to Largo Cffici~ls that Cm.:r.cil treated him nicely end listened to what he said. l Housh Ghovaee ofNorthside Enginee:ing, (R;!disson Hotel) e.xp:el'ed his concerns over Largo's refusal to provide ser-lice. The plans for the hete! are cUl'Jently being reviewed and with the lack of sewer ~111 the constroction p~ans be ,Ie to cor.tinue? The hotel wiil be constructed v.ithin 12 to 14 mo~ths and th bank needs a cornmitment by the end of November on the sewer iss:.te, Attorney Reynolds stated that if a letter of commitment is given the City would then be contractually obligated to provide sewer service within timely manner. The two ways he sees to acco:npLish this would be to build a ift sta~ion or t:J proceed \I.;th court proceedings. MI. Gbov3ee stated that another hotel is being built in the eit), ofS . Petersburg but the sewer is provided by Largo and the service is being honored. , 8 CITY OF PIN LLAS PARK WORKSHOP MEETI lG MINUTES OCT I BER 26, 1999 _"I, .-i I City :-hnog'!Udd ,~,td he re,ei,ed. letter frurn ~.rg~;". J""",r Stantr,., stating thc:.t Largo City Commission voted to terminale the inter al n~reern~rrt with the City. This agreement provides sewer service for Tract A a: d beginning in January 2000, La:go will be charging the City at a rat: of 125%, ich would be an increase of about $27,0:)0 per year. The [ett2r alsc stated that L 'go bus revised Resolution 16-43 which cl~arly indjc3te~ that r argo is "lot obli 'led to provid~ sewer service to properties ine;orporated jnto !.'1y other City. Manager Mudd ~tded that Largo has sent a letter indicating that th. City of Largo would r..ot provide sewer service to the o:w Radi'35on Hotellh t was recently annexed into Pir.ellas Parle I, , I' Manager MuJd stated the alternatives to corltend \\ith the cha.rlge,in Tract A are, 10 pay the increased rate or con~truct a lift ~tatio:l that would tlowftCl ow system then into CounTY or St Petersburg. Arloth~r alt~:nal:ve is not toay the increase and continue to honor the "@l'eem::r.t thet hes b--:en ;n piace sin~e 1, S4 a.d charge Lnrgo a service charge for reading the water met:rJ end Calc:.llG.ti1g the flow, Attorney Reynolds stLlted '.bat in the 1980's fine Has COWlty g."Blltefd Pinellas Park a sewer district whkh induded the Tract A area, Largo tl-ter. pass+J an ordinance iffiplemen~ng a St'wer district ir:cluding Tract A. P:nellllS Park then1sued L;;.rgo and Pinell~ County to establish the exclusive right to provide S~w~: se:vice in Liat area. Settlemen.t of the lawsuit includ:d a.'l interlocalllgreement b#nveen Pinella.; Park and Largo which ~.ated that PineUas Park wo~ld b:Jild the90 cetiOI;.:> system and Largo would treat the sewage. Tnis interlocal agre~rnent ~o tenninlu:on date. : I t Attorney Reynolds stated t.hat in his opir.ion Largo has no legal rilM to temlinate the interlocal agreement and the City is only obliiated to cO:1tinue 0 pa~' the 70%. Attorney ReY!'l()ids stated that he does not s~ litigation over this i ! ue costing tIlY more than $20,000 or ~L",g ~y mo:r~ than nine months to reSl)!\'t. r City ~1ar.ager Mudd stated the alternatives 3\'~ubh:e to Pinelias ~k in regnrd to Largo not providbg sewer service are, not to annex into Lareo' s s~wet distri.:t, cr s~ legal recourse to build a new lift station since La.~o is near ca1ac. ity, or pll."Sue an annexation policy focusine on developed prope~:s. I .: COWlC ilOliUl Williams stated he would l1ke to s:e t.~e Cit)' build ~,lift station that would enable Pinellas Park to service these pro?erties. Ii i City Manager Mudd stated a lift station would solve the pfobl of Tract A, the hotel and Scherer Drive. but would nO': CO\':t' the ar~ north ofUll erton Road. Mayor Mischler asked if the City moved the ar.nexation lines b ck to Ulmerton Road, would Largo still increase the sewer r:ues? Ii CITYOFPIN LLASPARK I WORKSHOP MEETJ G MINVfES OCT 'HER 26, 1999 ! 7 : :' / ~ ,~' I 1 -:~. _~ ,i: 1 l , , '~ .. ~' )'~ (, ,. , e e Councilman Taytor returned to the Work~hop at 8:59 P}.L Councilman Butler returned to the Workshop at 9:00 P.M. Mayo~ Mischler stated he has received resident conCCrIl5 over reli jous functions for local churches being listed in the City ca1er.dar com..nunity ev nts section. Attom~y R.eyno:ds stated thot to determine the legality of pu 'ng religiously oriented articles in official publications from local gO'lernm n~s. a general proposition it is not to have religious advertising 0: eIlIlJUI1Ceme ts in anyt}ing sponsored by the City. I: Cowlcilman Taylor statd it wo\.11d ~ SMrn~ nnt to notify the ~Ublic of these ~ommunity eve:tts or to limit the City's panicipaticn. I Consensus of CO'Jncil was to ieave the information in the CitY. Calendar z.nd Newsletter. I Attorney Todd Mated tluU if the Newsletter has cooter.t) wr.i;h cau*e ccncern then those contents could be surroWlded by quotatio~ marks in I\J1 attel1pt to "sanitize" ~~~~ I I' Mayor Mischler p:esented Director HG.Sbur~h with orga.'li2er/plar~rs that could be presented to the members of the Advisory Board. I: I' Consensus of Council was to purchase lbe organizers!plarJlers foite Board. <4- CITY MANAGER : I W7 A:\"1'c"EX'\TlO'iS NORTH OF lJI,MF:RTON ROAD I: City Manager Mudd updated City Coun.::il on recent d:velop ents regarding annexations north of Ulmerton Roaj and provision of sanitary 5 er service by Largo for properties in this area and in Tract A. City Manager Mudd stated that Largo A~i~t City Manager teyC Ross was pro..sent and invited him to approach Council with any remarks he ~8Y have. Largo Manager Ross stated he \\usjust observing to return a feel" to Largo City Commission as to where City Council is coming from on this iss c. , I: I I' 6 CITY OF PIN LAS PARK WORKSHOP MEETI ' G MINUTES I OCT BER26,19" I I: I, 1 ~ / ~,;j I 1 ': .~ . .... , , ~ ". .;.' \ r' .~ ~ ~ ,L.j It ClI,o' r) I ~ c: t, 1_0- \ S ],'\ F,J< ~;4~ 7c;THAVE . po, BOX 1100 ::>:~.ELLAS PA~-<, FL 33780.1 HiC TRANSKtTTAL COVER SHEBT PLEASE DEL!VER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO: NAME: !CIn 'Xe-:'Ij(\OldS FIRM: . I I I I I F'l-P Pili"")-\ , . \ I ~~YJ P';Ctll~1 . FAX . SUNC . I i (81:it 54: '<>700 181 J, ~4.?Ue ~~lOl: ~ r- r:1 o - :..:. ~ ~ o ::v ", 0 n 0 W ~ o 0 ::v -.... -=:l == CITi': .::- ;to a_ - -0 Ul :> 0 TEL. NO. TELECOPIER ~O. (727i 544-7448 /:J ,pi qq i Ile:~ue<;.lf:d ,I;1fOfj71L2itOJf. !jD/-c:-() 5e ' (ell! --10 (C7'1-Hrr7~ ~S A..5 tylza.1- , L'fV7.,( !:lJ"f cltd, ~/1(1)156~ J i /5-- TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES f :NCLUD~NG THIS COVER PAGE. IF YOU 00 NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PL!ASE TELEPHONE THE CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT. (727-541-07~6) I I F'RCM: TELECOPIER NO. k /', 'olA NAME: (} //1:[( . , I CITY: t - (I '/~ J/ l'rt1-er / "'f5TV'l- TEL. NO. (727) 541-0706 DA':'E: D;:SCRI?TION: DOC: TRANSMITTAL coVER SHEET DISK: C:\WP51\DOCS ft frif PAINTEOON REC'rCLEO PA~R I I I I I -r- ! , \: