MINUTES CITY OF INDIAN ROCKS BEACH REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING

Transcription

1 MINUTES CITY OF INDIAN ROCKS BEACH REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING The Indian Rocks Beach Regular Commission Meeting was held on Tuesday, January 8, 2008, in the Commission Chambers, 1507 Bay Palm Boulevard, Indian Rocks Beach, Florida. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and ten seconds of silence. Present: Mayor-Commissioner William A. Ockunzzi Vice Mayor-Commissioner R.B. Johnson Commissioner Jose Coppen Commissioner Bert Valery Commissioner Terry Hamilton Wollin Assistant City Attorney Fabian Lokenauth City Clerk Deanne Bulino O Reilly City Treasurer Martin H. Schless Building Official John Mortellite Planning and Zoning Director Danny E. Taylor Public Services Director Dean Scharmen 1. PRESENTATIONS. Labor Attorney Gonzalez provided a status report on the Grieshaber Lawsuit. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Phil Wrobel, th Avenue, requested that the City Commission conduct an official investigation into the sexual harassment allegations. David Pearson, st Street, #C, spoke on the negative s that are being sent by City Commission Members and their friends. He stated that if there is a disagreement on policy and principal, that is fair game; but when allegations are made and individuals are accused of something or called a name, that should be done in person and not through a computer. Ed Piniero, nd Street, spoke on the sexual harassment allegation, and requested the issue be placed on the agenda to discuss an investigation process Page 1 of 34

2 as to how all this came about, especially when the alleged victim stated at a public meeting that nothing happened. He further discussed the property tax issues and stated that he went to Tallahassee with another IRB resident and other Pinellas residents to address tax reform and that he personally lobbied individual delegates independently to address tax reform. He stated that he also went to the Pinellas County Board of County Commission Public Hearings and to the Pinellas County Legislative Delegation Public Hearings to discuss tax reform. He expressed concern with City Commission Work Sessions that deal with land use issues being held at 5:00 P.M. instead of 7:00 P.M., stating that the working public cannot attend meetings beginning at 5:00 P.M. Nancy Obarski, 708 Beach Trail, Unit #B, stated the entire quit claim action at Whitehurst Avenue is about enforcing the City Charter. She thereafter read the following excerpt from the City Charter: The City of Indian Rocks Beach shall succeed to own, possess, and hold all property, real, personal, or mixed, heretofore owned, possessed, or held... by the former City of Indian Rocks Beach, as it existed from 1925 to She stated that the City Charter asserts that the City owns the lands that it owned from 1925 to 1927, pointing out the property that the City owned at that time included the Town of Indian Shores. She further expressed concern that she has not received the Friends of the Library records as she had requested. 3. ORGANIZATIONAL REMARKS. Phil Wrobel, President of the Indian Rocks Beach Homeowners Association, stated that the Association is non-political and that the Association does not have anything to do with any political positions, political officers, and so forth. He stated that the Association exists for the enjoyment of Indian Rocks Beach. He thereafter announced that the Association will be having their Monthly Happy Hour on January 10, 2008, from 6:00 to 7:30 P.M., at Crabby s Loading Dock, and stated that politics should be left at home. 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS: Commissioner Coppen recommended that the following items be postponed: Agenda Item No. 9A, Discussion of the Noise Ordinance; Agenda Item No. 9B, Recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board on changes to the Community Impact Statement, and Agenda Item No. 9C, Discussion of Ordinance No , amending Code Chapter 110, Zoning, Article V, Planned Unit Development (PUD), as he does not feel there will be ample time to handle these issues. Page 2 of 34

3 Consensus of the City Commission to discuss Agenda Item Nos. 9A, 9B, and 9C, if time permits. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi requested that Discussion of the Skate Park Facility Rules and Regulations be added to the agenda. Consensus of the City Commission to place Discussion of the Skate Park Facility Rules and Regulations on the January 22, 2008 City Commission Agenda. Commissioner Coppen requested that Discussion of the FY2008 Budget Document be placed on a future agenda, stating that there are no Executive Summaries and that the Budget figures do not agree with the approved FY2007 Budget. Consensus of the City Commission to place Discussion of the FY2008 Budget Document on the January 22, 2008 City Commission Agenda. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi requested that Discussion of Lee DeCesare s Presentation of December 17, 2007, be placed on the agenda. There was no consensus to add this item to this agenda or on a future agenda. Commissioner Coppen stated that this was an unfortunate event, but the City Commission is made up of five individuals, with the Mayor-Commissioner only being mentioned, and the alleged victim stated at a public meeting [December 17, 2007] that the allegations were false and just rumors. Therefore, he does not see what the City has to investigate. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi stated that the City Commission should discuss it to determine an approach and feels that it should be investigated. He stated that he would like to know what City Commissioner told the alleged victim not to come to the December 17, 2007 City Commission Meeting. Commissioner Valery acknowledged that he was the one who told the alleged victim not to come in an effort to try to help the Mayor-Commissioner, but apparently the Mayor-Commissioner took it a completely different way. 5A. CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF the November 13, 2007 Regular City Commission Minutes. Page 3 of 34

4 Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi read the Consent Agenda, consisting of Agenda Item No. 5A, by title only. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi requested that the minutes be sent back to the City Clerk to relisten to the tape, and he will relisten to the tape with her, because he feels that the discussion on Agenda Item No. 11A, Other Business - Discussion of City Commission Decorum, is woefully short. He stated that there were several comments made by Vice Mayor-Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Valery, and himself that were not included in the minutes. Commissioner Coppen stated that the minutes do not reflect all of the profound statements he has made, and stated it is a waste of time, and the City Commission is not getting work done because City Commission Members are involved in one-upmanship. He believes it is most important to retain the impartiality of the person transcribing the tapes, as to what is and is not important, otherwise every time the minutes are presented for approval, City Commission Members will attempt to have their viewpoint prevail in the minutes. He indicated he did not see anything wrong with the minutes as transcribed. Vice Mayor-Commissioner Johnson stated that the minutes do not include everything that he states either. He further stated the minutes should not be anywhere near verbatim and should reflect a summary of what was discussed and voted upon. He stated the City Commission should trust staff to have some impartiality unless there is something that was reported incorrectly or did not occur. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi stated that he does not want verbatim minutes either, but feels there were some things which occurred in that discussion, which were not included in the minutes. Motion made Commissioner Coppen, seconded by Commissioner Wollin to approve the Consent Agenda, consisting of Agenda Item No. 5A, Approval of the November 13, 2007 Regular City Commission Minutes. Approval by acclamation, with Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi dissenting. 6A. RESOLUTION NO /BOA CASE NO QUASI JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING. Considering a variance request to add a new sign, measuring 38 square feet on the property located Page 4 of 34

5 at Gulf Boulevard. [Official Publication Date: December 26, 2007.] BACKGROUND: Matt Loder, of Crabby Bill s Restaurant, would like to add a 38 square foot wall sign on the building at 405 Gulf Boulevard. In the Business District Triangle, Code Section , Business District Triangle Overlay Zone, Subsection (e), Use Regulations and Development Standards, Subsection (12), Signs, reads as follows: (12) Signs. The following signs are prohibited in the overlay zone: new pole signs, wall signs, murals, internally lit signs (except those internally lit signs attached to a building), neon signs or neon lighting. Neon signs or neon lighting shall be permitted in the interior of any building or structure as long as all other conditions of this Code are met, including, but not limited to, Chapter 98. Those prohibited signs in existence at the adoption of the Ordinance from which this section is derived shall become legal nonconforming signs which are grandfathered into existence and subject to the provisions of Section Umbrellas for outside seating and awnings are permitted to have the name of the business where they are located upon them. Code Section , Nonconforming Signs, Subsections (d) and (e), address nonconforming signs. Code Section Nonconforming signs. (a) (b) (c) (d) A sign or advertising structure existing within the City limits on the effective date of the Ordinance from which this chapter is derived, which, by its height, square foot area, location, use or structural support, does not conform to the requirements of this chapter, shall be termed nonconforming. Nonconforming signs shall be allowed to remain until repairs, reconstruction or modifications exceed 50 percent of the physical value of the structure, or until the main support fails. All nonconforming signs not meeting the criteria of this subsection shall have 30 days after written notification by the City to remove any and all nonconforming signs. Nonconforming signs shall not be relocated unless such relocation includes alteration to the sign to conform to current codes. All nonconforming signs shall be replaced with conforming signs within seven years of the effective date of this section. Page 5 of 34

6 (e) (f) An establishment or development which is nonconforming with this section shall not erect any additional signage pursuant to this section until the establishment or development becomes conforming. Sign regulations apply to the entire City, except for properties in the Business District Triangle Overlay Zone that do not front Gulf Boulevard, and properties located in the "R/OS", "P", "P/SP" zoning districts. Code Section , Basic Signage, Freestanding Signs, and Hanging Signs Allowance, provides standards for signs. Code Section Basic signage, freestanding signs and hanging signs allowances. (a) The basic signage allowance for each business establishment shall be based on building frontage: Total building frontage per sign face Size per Sign Face 0 feet to 49.9 feet 16 square feet 50 feet to 99 feet 24 square feet Greater than 99 feet 32 square feet (b) (c) Basic signage allowance may be used for any combination of wall, freestanding (limited to 24 square feet), projecting, hanging, awning, mansard, and roof signs. Each business development, including one tenant developments, may have one freestanding sign that conforms to the requirements: (1) The sign is not greater than 24 square feet per sign face, with an aggregate face area of 48 square feet. (2) Maximum height of ten feet, excluding reasonable decorative filigree area. (3) A decorative filigree area would be allowed in addition to the permitted 24 square feet. Not to exceed 15 percent of allowed sign face. (4) Changeable copy shall be allowed within the permitted 24 square feet. (5) A 5 foot setback from the property line is required. (6) The sign shall be located in a landscaped area of at least 20 square feet. (7) The sign shall meet the clear sight requirements. Page 6 of 34

7 (d) A freestanding sign may be exchanged for additional square footage of other kinds of permitted signage, at the following rates: Total building frontage Other sign allowance sign allowance 0 feet to 49.9 feet 16 square feet 50 feet to 99 feet 18 square feet Greater than 99 feet 20 square feet (e) In addition to other permitted signage, each business establishment may have up to six square feet of hanging signage which shall be used under a roof or canopy overhang and must provide a minimum eight foot clearance from grade, deck or floor. SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING: Direction Existing Use Zoning Category North Restaurant Business District Triangle East South West Post Office Drugstore Motel Business District Triangle Business District Triangle CT Commercial Tourist ANALYSIS - CODE SECTIONS AND REVIEW CRITERIA: Crabby Bill s existing sign is non-conforming. The existing sign is 55 square feet in area; the new City Code allows a maximum of 32 square feet to include a reader board. The existing sign is 18 feet high; the new City Code allows 10 feet maximum height. The existing sign is on the property line and the new City Code requires that all signs meet a 5 foot setback and have 20 square feet of landscaped area. Code Section Variances. (a) Generally; criteria for granting variances. Page 7 of 34

8 (1) The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall recommend the authorization upon appeal, after public notice has been given and a public hearing held, of such variance from the terms of subpart B as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of subpart B will result in unnecessary and undue hardship. In order to authorize any variance from the terms of subpart B, the Board shall consider each of the following: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. Other properties in the Business Triangle front Gulf Boulevard. b. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Amendments to the Ordinance made in 2002 make the current sign nonconforming. The proposed sign is prohibited. c. Granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by subpart B to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. Granting the variance will allow the applicant to have more than what is otherwise allowed. d. Literal interpretation of the provisions of subpart B would deprive other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of subpart B and would work unnecessary and undue hardship upon the applicant. A literal interpretation requires a discontinuance of nonconforming signs. A hardship is not evident. e. The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, structure or building. The requested variance exceeds what the City Code allows. f. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of subpart B, and such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or be otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The intent of the City Code is to eliminate nonconforming signs by PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENT: A notice was mailed by first class mail to the property owners within 150 feet in any direction of the subject property on Page 8 of 34

9 December 21, Notice was posted on the subject property on December 21, 2007, per Section of the Code of Ordinances. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE: Correspondence was received objecting to the variance from Jacqueline J. and Roger G. Ormerod, 420 Gulf Boulevard, Unit 503. Correspondence was received in support of the variance request from Resolution Management, Inc., Clearwater. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Disapproval. The requested sign is prohibited by Code Section (e)(12), Signs. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS: On December 18, 2007, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals made a favorable recommendation to the City Commission by a vote of 3 to 1, with Board Member Cohen dissenting. Pursuant to a legal notice published in the December 26, 2007 edition of the Neighborhood Times Section of the St. Petersburg Times, as evidenced by an affidavit of publication, filed with the City Clerk, a public hearing was held on Resolution No Assistant City Attorney Lokenauth read Resolution No by title only. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi opened the public hearing. Upon request of Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi, all persons planning to give testimony were duly sworn in by the City Clerk. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi, Vice Mayor-Commissioner Johnson, and Commissioner Coppen disclosed that they visited the site and spoke with the applicant. Planning Director Taylor provided a PowerPoint Presentation and explained that the applicant has made a request to add a 38 square foot wall sign on the building and presented an aerial view and map of the location as well as a site plan of the location and a map. He explained that the existing sign is nonconforming with respect to size, location, and height. Bob Insalco of Resolution Management, Inc., the contractor representing the applicant, Crabby Bill s Seafood, explained the variance request and noted that there has been an addition to the restaurant and explained that this is a Page 9 of 34

10 separate and independent business from the main restaurant and requested that the variance be granted. Vice Mayor-Commissioner Johnson referred to the minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, which indicate questions as to whether or not Crabby Bill s Loading Dock is a separate business and whether or not a separate occupational license has been issued to Crabby Bill s Loading Dock, with the minutes reflecting that Crabby Bill s Loading Dock does not have a separate occupational license issued to them. He questioned if this is actually a separate business, i.e., separate ownership, separate occupational license, and separate kitchen facilities; and if so, then they would be entitled to the same signage as any other separate business. Mr. Insalco stated that the two businesses are separate. He stated Crabby Bill s Loading Dock is an outdoor eatery with the food being provided from the restaurant kitchen at 401 Gulf Boulevard. Vice Mayor-Commissioner Johnson verified that the fish market and the restaurant have two separate occupational licenses, but in this case, the addition has the same occupational license as the main restaurant. Vice Mayor-Commissioner Johnson commented regarding the Sign Ordinance that provides that all signs have to be in conformity in 2009 and that would include this sign if the variance is granted. He questioned if there is any idea of plans for separate signage once the change occurs in Mr. Insalco commented that he does not think there are any plans and that they are trying to establish the two entities with the signage even if it is temporary for 12 to 13 months. Commissioner Valery inquired what it would take to have a conforming sign that would meet the new Sign Code. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission recognized that the new Sign Code, which goes into effect in 2009, is going to be difficult at first. He expressed concern with granting a variance to the first applicant and setting a precedent for not supporting the City Code. He commented that he does not understand why a business owner would spend the money for a nonconforming sign that will have to come down in a year. Planning Director Taylor advised they have an allowance of 32 square feet, if the frontage is greater than 99 feet, which he believes is the case, and within that square footage of signage, there can be a combination of a wall or Page 10 of 34

11 freestanding sign, but they would have to be erected in compliance with the City Code as it stands now. Commissioner Coppen inquired if it would be a single sign for their businesses and not two different signs. Planning Director Taylor explained they could have a single sign or a combination adding up to 32 square feet and that the existing sign is 55 square feet, which is nonconforming. Mr. Insalco discussed the fact that the building permits and inspections were all done at 405 Gulf Boulevard, which shows there are two separate entities. Commissioner Coppen expressed concern for all the work the Planning and Zoning Board did on the new Sign Code, and he feels it is not appropriate to begin granting sign variances just because part of the business is slightly different from the other part. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi referred to Section , Nonconforming Signs, Subsection (f), which states that signs in the Business District Overlay District do not apply to businesses fronting Gulf Boulevard, and Section , Basic Signage, Freestanding Signs, and Hanging Signs Allowance, Subsection (c), which states each business development, including one-tenant developments, may have one freestanding sign that conforms to the requirement. He discussed the description of the businesses and the gift shop sign allowance that might indicate the sign allowance for the applicant. He commented that when the Sign Ordinance was written, he does not think that a business that takes up an entire block was taken into consideration with multiple lots being one business entity. He noted that the Holiday Inn Habourside, 401 Second Street, is a PUD, and they have several varied signs. He stated that he is not sure that the Sign Code clearly addresses this type of business. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi questioned the legal description in the title of the Resolution explaining that it does not include Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11 and the sign request is associated with Lot 9. Paul Jenkins, Crabby Bill s Seafood, clarified that the business is located on Lots 8 and 9. He discussed the frontage being in excess of 100 feet and that they will be in compliance with the new Sign Code; however, this sign will help the business in the meantime. Page 11 of 34

12 Assistant City Attorney Lokenauth advised that the discrepancy in the legal description is a material difference. He explained that Lots 8 and 9 are missing; therefore, the application cannot proceed at this point and will require re-advertising and will need to be reheard by the City Commission. Consensus to re-advertise Resolution No , with the correct legal description, for the February 5, 2008 Commission Agenda. 6B. RESOLUTION NO /BOA CASE NO QUASI JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING. Considering a variance request of 5 feet to the required bay front setback of 25 feet to allow for construction of a deck and an addition to the pergola on the property located at th Avenue. [Official Publication Date: December 26, 2007.] BACKGROUND: John and Janice Ferrell would like to construct an addition to existing pergolas and add a new 2 nd floor deck on the bay front side of their property located at th Avenue. In the S zoning district, the required bay front setback is 25 feet. The existing pergola encroaches in the bay front setback about 20 feet. The application indicates that the proposed pergola and deck would be located 20 feet from the bay front property line. Therefore, the variance request is for 5 feet from the required 25 foot bay front setback. Property size: Front setback: Bay front setback: Side setback: 7,307 sq. ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 5/7 ft. SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING: Direction Existing Use Zoning Category North East South Residential Residential Intracoastal Waterway S Single Family Residential S Single Family Residential n/a Page 12 of 34

13 West Residential S Single Family Residential ANALYSIS - CODE SECTIONS AND REVIEW CRITERIA: Sec Modification, repair or conversion of nonconforming uses and structures. Enlargement or reconstruction. No existing structure or premises devoted to a nonconforming use shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, substituted or structurally altered, except when changed to a conforming use. Where setbacks are in violation, it shall not be construed to prohibit the other portion of the building or structure from being added to as long as lot coverage, height, setbacks and other requirements conform to the appropriate part of the schedules in Sections through and a substantial improvement is not accomplished. Sec Structures Extending Over Setback Lines. (a) (b) (c) The part of the space between the prescribed setback lines and the parallel property lines shall be free from fabricated structures, except for sills or roof overhangs. Roof overhangs shall not exceed 30 inches over the prescribed setback line. All setback lines of the building shall be measured from the closest point of the building to the appropriate property line. If, as in the case of building built in flood zones, the first habitable floor is built above the regulatory flood elevation, and the first habitable floor protrudes, projects, or overhangs that portion below the regulatory flood elevation, the setback line shall be measured from a projected vertical line from the closest point of any building wall to the ground. The applicable setback line shall be measured from the property line to the point where the projected vertical line meets the ground. The street-front setback line of all buildings shall be measured as shown in subsection (a) of this section, except that, in the case of commercial buildings, a fixed self-supported canopy may extend over the setback line a distance of five feet. Open fire escapes, open stairways, and ordinary projections of chimneys and flues beyond the rear setback line are permitted for a distance not more than ten feet, but only when they are so placed as not to obstruct light and ventilation. Page 13 of 34

14 City Code Section authorizes the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to recommend such variances from the terms of Chapter 110 of the Code of Ordinances, as will not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of Chapter 110 will result in unnecessary and undue hardship. In making such a judgment, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall consider each of the following review criteria: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. Other properties in Indian Rocks Beach are similar in size and shape. b. Special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. There is no indication that the applicant created special conditions or circumstances. c. Granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the chapter to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. Granting the variance will allow the applicant to construct an addition to an existing pergola and add a deck into the bay front setback of the property. d. The literal interpretation of the provisions of Chapter 110 would deprive other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of Chapter 110 and would work unnecessary and undue hardship upon the applicant. The literal interpretation of the Chapter 110 prohibits encroachment into the bay front setback. e. The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, structure or building. This is the minimum variance. f. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of Chapter 110, and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or be otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Granting the variance will allow an encroachment into the bay front setback. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENT: A notice was mailed by first class mail to the property owners within 150 feet in any direction of the subject property on December 21, Notice was posted on the subject property on December 21, 2007, per Section of the Code of Ordinances. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE: None received. Page 14 of 34

15 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Disapproval. The proposed addition increases the degree of nonconformity. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS: The Board of Adjustments and Appeals made an unanimous favorable recommendation to the City Commission. Pursuant to a legal notice published in the December 26, 2007 edition of the Neighborhood Times Section of the St. Petersburg Times, as evidenced by an affidavit of publication, filed with the City Clerk, a public hearing was held on Resolution No Assistant City Attorney Lokenauth read Resolution No by title only. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi opened the public hearing. Upon request of Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi, all persons planning to give testimony were duly sworn in by the City Clerk. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi, Vice Mayor-Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Coppen, Commissioner Wollin, and Commissioner Valery disclosed that they visited the site and spoke with the applicant Planning Director Taylor provided a PowerPoint Presentation explaining the variance request and including an aerial view and map of the location as well as a site plan of the location. He explained that the existing pergola is already encroaching into the setback by approximately 5 feet. Commissioner Coppen stated that the setback variance is not uniform because of the pie shape of the lot and asked to what extent the variance is needed. Discussion determined that possibly only a portion of the deck would extend into the setback. Commissioner Valery commented that the hardship, in this case, is the shape of the lot that is unique, and he is in favor of granting the variance. John Ferrell, th Avenue, the applicant, explained that he is looking to add a deck to the second floor of the house, and advised that his living area is on the second and third floors of his residence. He discussed the shape of Page 15 of 34

16 the lot that prevents building the deck in the center of the house, which creates the hardship. Mr. Ferrell stated that the deck will never be covered or become an enclosed structure of any kind. Vice Mayor-Commissioner Johnson verified that Mr. Ferrell was agreeable to an addendum to the variance that the upper deck could not be enclosed either above or below. The public hearing was closed with no one to speak either for or against Resolution No Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi suggested that the Resolution be amended as follows: Section 2. A variance request of 5 feet to the required 25 foot minimum rear yard setback is hereby granted to allow for the construction of a open deck and an addition to the a pergola for the property located at th Avenue, Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, and legally described as Indian Beach Re-Revised 2 nd Addition, Block 89, Lot 15. Motion made by Commissioner Coppen, seconded by Vice Mayor- Commissioner Johnson to approve Resolution No , granting a variance of 5 feet to the required bay front setback of 25 feet to allow for construction of a open deck and a pergola on the property located at th Avenue and legally described as Indian Beach Re-Revised 2 nd Addition, Block 89, Lot 15. ROLL CALL VOTE: Valery - Yes. Coppen - Yes. Wollin - Yes. Johnson - Yes. Ockunzzi - Yes. Motion carried unanimously. 7A. RESOLUTION NO Appointing an Interim City Manager; and providing for an increase in salary. BACKGROUND: On November 28, 2007, City Manager Cottrell tendered his resignation, thereby creating a vacancy in the City Manager s position, which requires an interim appointment until a permanent replacement is found. Page 16 of 34

17 ANALYSIS: It will be necessary to appoint an Interim City Manager in order to provide continued leadership for City staff and management of the City s day-to-day operations. Although the City Commission may exercise flexibility in naming an Interim City Manager, the Planning and Zoning Director is the only City employee currently on staff meeting the qualifications set forth in the City Charter for the position of City Manager. The former City Manager s annual salary was $97, FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no net additional financial impact associated with this action, as the salary of the City Manager is established in the FY Budget. City Treasurer Schless presented the Agenda Memo. Assistant City Attorney Lokenauth read Resolution No by title only. Commissioner Coppen recommended appointing Planning and Zoning Director Taylor as Interim City Manager and increasing his monthly salary by $1,000. Planning and Zoning Director Taylor accepted the appointment and agreed to the salary increase of $1,000 monthly. Motion made by Commissioner Coppen, seconded by Vice Mayor- Commissioner Johnson to approve Resolution No , appointing Danny E. Taylor, Planning and Zoning Director, as the Interim City Manager, and providing for an increase of salary monthly by $1,000. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi inquired if Planning and Zoning Director Taylor was anticipating being an applicant for the permanent position, with Planning and Zoning Director Taylor stating that he was thinking about that. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi stated that he expressed this concern at the last meeting, when it is known that the interim is an applicant, it has a chilling effect on applicants who may be local Deputy City Managers who probably will not apply because the City has an Interim City Manager who is a candidate for the position. He further stated that he is not trying to discourage the Planning and Zoning Director from being a candidate, but these are just the facts of life. Page 17 of 34

18 Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi acknowledged Planning and Zoning Director Taylor s dedication to the City, but questioned whether it is sound policy to proceed with the appointment before the City Commission has had a chance to become fully apprised of his management style, fiscal approach, and his ability to function in the new post while at the same time continuing his duties managing the Planning and Zoning Department. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi stated that he would prefer not appointing an Interim City Manager, but rather grant the City Treasurer City Manager signatory authority and have the Department Heads work directly with the City Commission. Commissioner Coppen stated that he is opposed to that and stated that the City Commission needs to appoint an Interim City Manager. Vice Mayor-Commissioner Johnson stated that Planning and Zoning Director Taylor is qualified for the Interim City Manager position, because he has the experience of running a city. He further stated that he has discussed with the Planning and Zoning Director if he will be able to handle both positions; to which he was assured that he could handle both positions. Commissioner Valery stated that Planning and Zoning Director Taylor meets the minimum qualifications of the City Charter, i.e., a bachelor s degree and membership in ICMA. He further stated that he has City Manager experience and Indian Rocks Beach experience. ROLL CALL VOTE: Valery - Yes. Coppen - Yes. Wollin - Yes. Johnson - Yes. Ockunzzi - Yes. Motion carried unanimously. 7B. RESOLUTION NO Rescinding Resolution No ; and authorizing the Interim City Manager to enter into a Fixed Price General Agreement with the University of South Florida Board of Trustees for support to the project entitled Indian Rocks Beach Evaluation and Appraisal Report: Special Area Plans in the amount of $55,000. Page 18 of 34

19 BACKGROUND: On November 7, 2007, the City Commission passed Resolution No , providing for the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the University of South Florida (USF) for planning services. Resolution No reduced the funding for the project by $4,000. USF has since provided a revised scope of services to reflect the reduced funding. A revised fixed price agreement will be needed for $55,000. ANALYSIS: Action 2000, Inc., (Action 2000), has made a commitment to provide $25,000 to fund this project. Resolution No reflects these changes. The scope has been changed to reflect the $4,000 reduction in funding. The deletions are noted in the document of November 7, The additions are noted in the document for January 8, Summary of changes: This is a special area plan for Indian Rocks Beach, not a special area plan per the Countywide Rules. This plan does not need to complete the Evaluation Appraisal Process (EAR) process. Plan objectives address the appearance and image of the City s built environment. Changes the geographic definition of the mid-town commercial are from 13 th to 18 th Avenue to 9 th to 16 th Avenue. Plan identifies issues related to geographic areas. Shortened time frame. Reduction in price from $59,000 to $55,000. FISCAL IMPACT: $30,000 from City funds. Assistant City Attorney Lokenauth read Resolution No by title only. Interim City Manager Taylor presented the Agenda Memorandum explaining that this Resolution represents the revised scope of services to reflect the reduced funding in the amount of $55,000. Vice Mayor-Commissioner Johnson recommended that the Project Areas be amended as follows: The mid-town commercial area: Gulf Boulevard from 9 th to 16 th Avenue 12 th to 18 th Avenues- Sub-district #2, explaining this would Page 19 of 34

20 cover the visual mid-town business area. Consensus to amend as recommended by Vice Mayor-Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Coppen inquired what is the difference between a Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) and Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU), and inquired if it is worthwhile to have one of the deliverables defined in the study. Interim City Manager Taylor advised that he would look into what is required for a MSTU. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi referred to the analysis regarding a special plan for Indian Rocks Beach, not a special area plan per the Countywide Rules, and inquired what the significance was for a special plan for Indian Rocks Beach. Interim City Manager Taylor explained that it is just a description concentrating on the commercial nodes and Gulf Boulevard in the sense that it does not take into consideration the whole City. Mayor Ockunzzi stated that when a special area plan is done for the Countywide Rules, it has a legal significance and it meets certain standards, with Interim City Manager stating that the Countywide Rules standard is much higher than the City s scope of services. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi questioned the shortened time frame, with Interim City Manager responding the time frame has been reduced from 11 ½ months to 11 months. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi referred to the first Whereas which states: the City of Indian Rocks Beach City Commission desires to craft a vision for physical growth and identify the required regulations necessary to help realize this vision, stating that the City already has a vision for the growth of Indian Rocks Beach in the City s Comprehensive Plan and Action 2000, Inc. Master Plan, which was adopted in principle by the City. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi asked who is the principal investigator for USF, with Interim City Manager Taylor responding Trent Green, as noted in the proposal under contact information. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi clarified that means Mr. Green will be doing the work, with Interim City Manager Taylor responding in the affirmative. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi inquired if the City has received any examples of the work done by Mr. Green and the USF Page 20 of 34

21 Department, as requested previously by Commissioner Coppen, with Interim City Manager Taylor responding he was not aware of the request. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi inquired how Mr. Green was chosen, with Interim City Manager Taylor explaining that Mr. Green is on the faculty of USF. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi thereafter inquired if Action 2000 chose Mr. Green, with Commissioner Valery responding that Mr. Green works for USF and he presented a proposal to Action Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi stated that this was a marriage between Action 2000 and USF prior to it being presented to the City Commission. Commissioner Coppen explained that he requested samples of Mr. Green s work because he does not know him; however, internet research indicates he has a good reputation. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi stated he does not think the scope of the services addresses the issue discussed during the January 8, 2008 City Commission Work Session, i.e., the relative massing of buildings and the canyon effect on Gulf Boulevard. He stated that there is a problem with the scope of services noting that a visioning plan is different from getting Ordinances back and it also refers to Pinellas County s Gulf Boulevard Streetscape Program, which has been abandoned. He stated that he recalls Mr. Green commenting that he had already begun work talking with Pinellas County, and expressed concern, since those components have been deleted from the scope of services, and inquired how he will be compensated. He thereafter referred to the contract itself and questioned if it allows for reimbursement for any work that might have already taken place. Vice-Mayor Commissioner Johnson stated that the Resolution is to allow the Interim City Manager to enter into the fixed price general agreement and inquired if changes can be made to the agreement, and if so, then the City Attorney s office, in coordination with the Interim City Manager, can make the appropriate changes to it. Assistant City Attorney Lokenauth explained the question of whether the City Commission is giving the Interim City Manager authority to enter into the agreement or is the City Commission approving the agreement. He commented that there are some parts of the agreement that need to be addressed and he can discuss those at length with Interim City Manager Taylor. Page 21 of 34

22 Assistant City Attorney Lokenauth explained that he would like for a merge clause to be included, something to the effect that this is the entire agreement with no outside agreement, verbal agreements, and so forth, something that shows that the document speaks. Also, he would like to address the payment in the event services are not satisfactory. Consensus for the issues addressed by Assistant City Attorney Lokenauth to be included in the agreement as well as typographical errors, i.e., cost of the project $55,000 versus $59,000. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi asked where the City stands with the Action 2000 funding, with Interim City Manager Taylor responding that the City is in receipt of the funds. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi stated that Action 2000 has presented the Interim City Manager with an agreement for execution stating: This agreement is between the City of Indian Rocks Beach and IRB Action IRB Action 2000 will fund $25,000 of the USF Study previously approved by the City Commission. IRB Action 2000's check is made payable to the City of Indian Rocks Beach and is to be used for that purpose only. Should the study not commence, or should the study be drastically reduced in scope, the City of Indian Rocks Beach will refund to Action 2000, an amount proportionate to whatever work has not commenced or been completed. He further advised that in a letter dated October 1, 2007, Action 2000 states that the Action 2000 Board of Directors wishes to commit the amount of $25,000 for implementation of the University of South Florida proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report - Special Area Plans (EARSAP), and further states this money will be provided to the City on a dollar for dollar match, not to exceed $25,000 and provided that both studies on Page 10 on the EARSAP be completed and implemented; therefore, their money is contingent on implementing something the City has not seen the result of as yet and expressed his concern for such an agreement. He recalled minutes from an Action 2000 Meeting discussing that contingency. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi stated that he does not want to be buying into a planning study that he has not seen the results of and having half of the money being contingent upon implementing it. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi stated for the record that the City does not need the study. Page 22 of 34

23 Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi stated that he has questions about the scope of services and questioned the western boundary, is it the beach or the Gulf Boulevard corridor. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi stated that the City Commission is talking about taxpayers money and the City Commission is authorizing the Interim City Manager to enter into an agreement. However, the City Commission should be aware of its contents, the ramifications, and what the City is agreeing to implement without having seen the final study. Jim Labadie, President of Action 2000, Inc., explained that in their initial letter, the spirit is that since Action 2000 is giving the money to the City, they expect that the City take the results of the study and apply them to the community. He stated that they think that the City will pick out the fine points of the study and the things that need to be improved. He made the point that Action 2000 is only a revenue stream, that they are not involved in the study at all, and that they are not giving any orders. He hopes that there will be interviews of everyone for the study pro and con. Vice Mayor-Commissioner Johnson asked if Action 2000 is going to ask reimbursement of every single aspect of the study that is not implemented. Mr. Labadie stated that no they will not; however, they will be thoroughly disappointed in the leadership of the community if the study is not used to the benefit of the community. Victor Wood, 510 Harbor Drive North, commented that what is being asked for is improvement, if it is right for the City, and stated he supports the Resolution. Ed Piniero, nd Street, commented that the agreement presented just requires for all the i s dotted and t s crossed; however, he has some questions for clarification. He stated that he is confused because he got the impression that if some portion of the study was not implemented, that Action 2000 would want a refund. He stated his opinion at this point in time is the $30,000 is not a good investment for this year and expressed concern for increases in taxes and utility rates to help fund this and other non-essential projects. Don House, 2104 Beach Trail, commented that studies are a waste of time and money and that residents learn about the City by living in it. Page 23 of 34

24 Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi referred to the Project Objectives and expressed the following concerns. To identify opportunities for transforming the Downtown Triangle and portions of Gulf Boulevard into vibrant mixed-use areas that will enhance opportunities for economic development, accommodate growth in a sustainable manner, foster a range of pedestrian-friendly activities, and preserve the historic fabric and coastal village character of Indian Rocks Beach. He stated that some people might not want vibrant mixed-use areas and so forth in that there is concern for an adverse impact on neighborhoods which he feels is a result of this study that has already been determined. To propose a strategy for coordinating public parking in the downtown and other commercial areas along Gulf Boulevard. This strategy would include the identification of different alternatives for increasing the area s public parking inventory. He stated that it is unclear regarding the parking lot. To explore alternatives for: defining gateway conditions at the Gulf Boulevard/Walsingham intersection, the introduction of streetscape enhancements and pedestrian amenities along Gulf Boulevard, and the creation of a cohesive visual identity for public realm conditions that convey a sense of place upon arrival in Indian Rocks Beach. He stated there are no sensibilities for what the City can afford on either end of the City for streetscaping. To develop a strategy and standards for infill development that is sensitive to the existing context and reflects physical conditions that are desired by City residents. He stated the two items important to a vibrant mixed-use area, the provision of infrastructure and the transportation accessibility, are being deleted. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi commented that he feels that the scope of services is just not very well thought out. Vice Mayor-Commissioner Johnson referred to the new version and the discussion in the work session regarding Gulf Boulevard, building height, mass and setbacks to the street. He commented that successive City Commissions have been talking about a vibrant mixed-use area for many years. He commented it does not matter where the good idea comes from, they should be investigated and move forward when the majority of the City Commission agrees that it is a good idea. Page 24 of 34

25 Motion made by Commissioner Valery, seconded by Commissioner Wollin to approve Resolution No , Rescinding Resolution No ; and authorizing the Interim City Manager to enter into a Fixed Price General Agreement with the University of South Florida Board of Trustees for support to the project entitled Indian Rocks Beach Evaluation and Appraisal Report: Special Area Plans in the amount of $55,000. Mayor-Commissioner Ockunzzi reiterated his opinion that the scope of services is poorly crafted as his reason for voting against the motion. He expressed concern that the concept does not allow for a fair and objective study, he feels that the agreement was brought to the City Commission without knowledge of the relationship of Action 2000 and Mr. Green, and he does not think that the way that the agreement is put together in relation to the City Budget is entirely legal. ROLL CALL VOTE: Valery - Yes. Coppen - Yes. Wollin - Yes. Johnson - Yes. Ockunzzi - No. Motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1. 8A. ORDINANCE NO Amending Chapter 15, Schedule of Fees, Article II, Building Program, Section 15-15, Permit Fee, by providing for a surcharge on roof permits. BACKGROUND: During the October 17, 2007 City Commission Work Session, staff provided information on current fees and inspections, that being two inspections as follows: (1) in-process and (2) final. HB7057 (2007) mandates changes in the assembly/replacement of the roof(s) and changes in the inspection process requiring additional roof inspections; two additional inspections for homes with evaluation under $300,000 and three additional inspections for homes with evaluations equal to or greater than $300,000. City Code Section 15-11, Valuation, allows for..a minimum fee of $40.00 for each inspection performed. Page 25 of 34