C.O.N.A. of South Pinellas County

SHARING A JOYOUS SEASON

Dec 06, 2004

President?’s Message

Happy Holiday Neighbors,

Let's be thankful for the start of the holiday season and the end of the Presidential elections! It is nice to see people begin to turn their focus back to our community.

St. Petersburg is one of many urban areas that is making a comeback as people rediscover cities and urban life. It frankly started with cities like New York and Newark finding ways to reduce crime rates by more than half.

At the same time, groups of people around the country began to realize that we have built dozens of cities centered around cars instead of centered around people! Once you realize that and begin look at how we build cities, everything changes. St. Petersburg is moving on several fronts to change how we live and redevelop.

The new zoning code will encourage mixed use, transit friendly and pedestrian friendly corridors. We are starting a real bike lane system and having spent 10 years repairing the sidewalks, we are beginning to build new sidewalks. Over time, people will be able to work, shop, play and live within a reasonable distance so not every trip requires a car.

CONA has a role to play in the renewal of St. Petersburg. We played a major role in advocating for sidewalks, bike lanes, zoning that helps neighborhoods, community policing, improved code enforcement and a public waterfront park system. Our job in the coming year is to attempt to build on this progress. The kinds of changes mentioned above will meet with both opposition and passive resistance. It requires a significant shifting of government spending. I did not say more spending, but simply different spending. Our effort to get started under grounding utilities has a basis in appearance, safety, reliability and long term costs. The power companies will complain about the cost of burying the utilities.
However, the cost this year of NOT burying the power lines was over 1 Billion Dollars. Progress Energy alone, says they spent over 300,000,000 to restore power. The point is simply that to continue doing what we have been doing is expensive as well. Please contact your legislator to ask them to get started on this process. I assume it will take decades to make the transition, but let's learn from four hurricanes.
Finally, in January we will again have a session to set the goals for CONA in 2005. I thought we made major progress on the code enforcement process and clearly advocated for more proactive policing in 2004. Please bring your priorities to the January meeting. Let's see how much better a community we can build in 2005. Happy Holidays.

Sincerely,
Karl Nurse


CONA Board Meeting
Wednesday, December 15th at:
The SUNSHINE CENTER, 330 5th St. N.

Doors open at 6:00 p.m.; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.

President?’s Night
Honoring the Presidents of our
Neighborhood Associations

Neighborhood Accomplishments in 2004

Refreshments


Partnership Notes
Neighborhood Partnership Office
Susan P. Ajoc, AICP, Director
Neighborhood Partnership Program
City of St. Petersburg
P.O. Box 2842 St. Petersburg, FL 33731-2842
Phone: (727) 892-5141 Fax: (727) 893-5323
Email: Susan.Ajoc@stpete.org

Please update the City?’s Neighborhood Partnership mailing list. If your association has a new President, please contact: Sharon Cimarik at 892-5141 or sharon.cimarik@stpete.org

The Code Enforcement Board could be a great way to get more neighborhood representation in one of the processes that shape our quality of life in St. Petersburg. If you or anyone you know is interested in volunteering to serve the community, consider the Code Enforcement Board. Members must reside within the City limits and volunteer one full day each month to serve on the Board. Hearings are scheduled for every fourth Wednesday of the month except for November and December when alternate days are scheduled due to the holidays. Evidentiary code violation cases are presented to the Board in a public hearing where the Board

1) considers evidence and testimony about code violations presented by the City and property owners,
2) determines whether violations exist, and
3) orders potential penalty liens for failure to comply with the code within a reasonable period of time.

Each term of service is three years and members are limited to serving two full terms, or a total of six years. The State Statute and local ordinance provide authority for a Board of 7 members and 2 alternate members (who serve in the occasional absence of a regular member). Under the Statute, the City (Mayor and Council) must make every effort to appoint members who have certain qualifications. The qualification categories that are (or will shortly become) vacant are:

Subcontractor - vacant since January 2002
Alternate (no license requirements) - vacant since August 2004
Engineer - will be vacant due to term limit January 2005

To apply, provide a cover letter indicating which position you are interested in and a resume of qualifications to the City's Clerks Office by mail or e-mail:

City Clerk
P.O. Box 2842
St. Petersburg, Florida 33731
eva.andujar@stpete.org

If you need more information about how the Code Enforcement Board operates or the responsibilities of its members, please call Codes Compliance Assistance at 893-7373 and ask for Jennifer or Sally. Thanks for your time and attention.


Downtown Land Development Regulations (LDR)
Meeting to Review New Proposals Scheduled for January 13th, 7:00 PM at the Sunshine Center (330 5th St. N.)

By Tim Baker
President, Downtown Neighborhood Association

As the city rewrites its land-development regulations, the greatest changes are in store for downtown. While the proposed new rules are still being worked on, at this point they include new height limits in parts of downtown, new limits on development density, and new guidelines for building design. There might also be important changes in the boundaries that define the three downtown zones.

The boundaries of the new districts are still being debated, but are generally as follows:

Downtown Core (now called CBD-1) - This district would cover the heart of downtown around Central Avenue and 4th Street North, and would extend east and west along Central to about 16th Street, and north and south along 4th Street from 5th Avenue North to 5th Avenue South. This would represent a significant expansion in the size of what is considered the downtown core, especially along 4th Street. The rules for this area are meant to encourage office and retail uses, although housing is also allowed.

Downtown Residential (Now CBD-2) - This district would be made up of four sections, one in each corner of the neighborhood. The rules in these areas are meant to encourage relatively high-density housing, and mixed-use projects that combine residential with retail and office space.

Downtown Waterfront (Now CBD-3) - This district would run from 5th Avenue North to 5th Avenue South, from the water to 1st Street. This district is intended for mixed-use development (such as is now occurring on Beach Drive), with an emphasis on catering to pedestrians. The rules in this district were written just a few years ago, and so fewer changes are proposed than in the other districts.

Here are some of the highlights of the proposed rules.

HEIGHT LIMITS - Currently, the zoning ordinances do not place any limits on the height of downtown buildings. However, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does limit height on a case-by-case basis, depending on what it considers safe for the planes flying in and out of Albert Whitted Airport. Recently, the FAA has allowed buildings as tall as 30 stories.

For some property owners, the most significant effect of the new proposals would be an increase in the size of the Downtown Core. As an example, consider the United Bank property on 3rd Avenue North between 3rd and 4th Streets. The property covers an entire city block, with a small office building occupying one corner, and a surface parking lot the remainder. This could be a property ripe for redevelopment. If it remains in the Downtown Residential zone, then the maximum allowable FAR would be 5. If it is shifted to Downtown Core, the maximum would be 12. How large a building would this allow? Something five times as large as the Bank of America Tower.

Downtown Residential - New limits would be applied here. Generally, building height would be limited to 180 feet, which is about the size of the Cloisters condominium on Beach Drive. However, a lower limit of 84 feet would apply to buildings north of 4th Avenue North, south of 4th Avenue South, and west of 16th Street. The intention here is to provide something of a buffer between downtown and neighboring lower-density residential areas. Both of these limits are below what would be allowed under existing rules.

Downtown Core and Downtown Waterfront - Height in these two districts would continue to be regulated only by the FAA.

DENSITY LIMITS - Development density in the downtown is controlled by something called Floor/Area Ratio (FAR), which relates the size of a building to the size of the lot on which it is being built. For example, an FAR of 3 would mean that a developer with a 50,000 square foot lot could put up a building with a total floor space of 150,000 square feet. This requirement could be met in different ways, such as by erecting a 6-story building that covered just half the lot, or a 12-story building that covered just one quarter.

Downtown Core - Currently, this district has a base FAR of 3. But, a number of bonuses are allowed for such things as adding public art to a project or exceeding the minimum requirements for green space. If a project qualifies for enough bonuses to reach a total FAR of 7, then all limits on development density are removed. While this possibility of unlimited building size exists, no developer has ever applied for or received all the bonuses required. Under the proposed rules, the base FAR would be increased from 3 to 5. Bonuses would still be available, but the maximum total FAR would be capped at 12. The only existing building downtown with an FAR this high is the Bayfront Tower condominiums. All of the newer condominium buildings along Beach Drive have FARs of about 4.

Downtown Residential - The current rules are basically the same here as for the Downtown Core, with a base FAR of 3, a number of available bonuses, and the removal of all limits if a total FAR of 7 is achieved. The only project ever to request this unlimited FAR is the proposed Bayway Lofts on 3rd Avenue North, which is currently under city and FAA review. The new rules would retain the base of 3 and the various bonuses. But, the maximum FAR would be set at 5.

Downtown Waterfront - The current base FAR here is set at 2, with a maximum allowed of 4. These rules would remain.

DESIGN CRITERIA - In all three downtown districts, the new rules would add design criteria to the zoning ordinances. For example, one of the rules under considerations states: "New construction shall utilize an identifiable architectural style. The selected architectural style shall reflect the use of the building. Utilizing mismatched architectural features or features not relating to the chosen architectural style shall not be permitted."

Another rule states: "Parking structures which are part of an overall project shall utilize the same architectural style, fenestration and detailing as the principle structure."

The most recent draft documents are available for viewing at the city's web site: http://www.stpete.org/LDRproposed.htm.

For some property owners, the most significant effect of the new proposals would be an increase in the size of the Downtown Core. As an example, consider the United Bank property on 3rd Avenue North between 3rd and 4th Streets. The property covers an entire city block, with a small office building occupying one corner, and a surface parking lot the remainder. This could be a property ripe for redevelopment. If it remains in the Downtown Residential zone, then the maximum allowable FAR would be 5. If it is shifted to Downtown Core, the maximum would be 12. How large a building would this allow? Something five times as large as the Bank of America Tower.


Sidewalk Policy Update

By Eileen O?’Sullivan

Further to my note about pedestrian safety in the July newsletter:

Since I characterized the city?’s sidewalk policy as ?“crazy,?” and was otherwise harsh about it, it?’s only fair that I also publish what I?’ve since learned.
For one thing, it?’s not the city council dividing us into two different classes of citizens.

I had felt it was extremely unreasonable that those who live on ?“collector?” streets get their sidewalks installed at no cost and those who live elsewhere have to pay an assessment -- which is the way it was explained to me. So I raised the issue at a council meeting, and Council Member Littrell, I?’m delighted to report, took me seriously and referred the question to council?’s PSPS&I committee. (That?’s Public Safety, Public Service and Infrastructure.)

What I learned there is that it could cost about $60 million to install sidewalks throughout the city. Since that kind of money isn?’t available, the city is doing some each year, starting with the collector streets. If they ever finish them, they will then start doing local streets. So our neighborhood streets are ?“in the queue?” (order of completion to be determined, I suppose, when the collector streets are done), and our grandchildren?’s grandchildren may indeed see a city with sidewalks throughout.
If a group of residents wish to ?“jump the queue?” and get local-street sidewalks before it?’s their ?“turn?” according to street use, traffic volume, etc., then they can do so by paying an assessment (currently about $16 a foot for four-foot-wide sidewalk).
So in fact we?’re two classes of citizens not by decision of the council but by our own decision to wait, or not, for the city to get to us -- the price we have to pay because earlier officials didn?’t require sidewalks from every developer.

I had thought a short-term extra assessment (as in the Sunken Gardens case) could get us more aggressive sidewalk-building, but that was before I heard that $60 million figure!
Even so, I?’d very much like to hear whether any of your members would like sidewalks to have a higher priority of city funds -- I myself would much rather see more sidewalks than have my tax rate cut a few cents, but I?’m aware that cities are at the end of the line and have to somehow keep on no matter what size the cuts in federal and state assistance.
What I still don?’t know is how the collector streets are assigned priority. I?’d dearly love it to be policy that No Street Gets Two Sidewalks Until Every Street Has One -- but since my street doesn?’t qualify as a ?“collector,?” it probably doesn?’t matter to me personally.
What does matter, though, is that sidewalks would be not so urgent a need if our police dealt with traffic violations more forcefully.

Eileen O'Sullivan (eikonow@aol.com, 821-2140)


CONA BOARD OF DIRECTOR?’S MEETING MINUTES

The Sunshine Multi-Service Center November 17, 2004

Vice-President Steve Plice called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Steve welcomed our attendees and led us in the pledge of allegiance to our flag.

?˜ Steve explained that our President, Karl Nurse was out of town.
?˜ He reported efforts to arrange a candidates forum jointly sponsored by CONA, the Chamber of Commerce, and the League of Women Voters. The issues of cost, TV coverage, (perhaps Channel 35), and adequate venue, (St. Petersburg College was suggested), were discussed
___ Moved, (Warren), CONA will pursue a jointly sponsored candidates forum with the League of Women Voters and the Chamber of Commerce. [Approved]
___ Moved, (Warren), to approve the October Minutes as published. [Approved]
?˜ Theresa McEachern, (Harbordale), urged all member associations to participate in the Christmas gift program of the YMCA, noting that over 600 needy families were assisted last year.
?˜ Barbara Heck, Chair of our Nominating Committee reported that all of our incumbent officers are willing to serve an additional year. She then called for additional nominations from the floor. There were none. The nominations were then closed prompting reelection of our current officers without further balloting. They are: Karl Nurse, President, Steve Plice, First Vice President, Theresa McEachern, Second Vice President, Libby Steele, Treasurer, and Conrad Weiser, Secretary.
?˜ We then heard a discussion of a draft CONA resolution that urges the requirement that all utility lines, (power and telecommunications), be installed underground. Phillip Whysong and Eileen O`Sullivan who had prepared the draft urged all member neighborhoods consider this resolution and look forward to voting approval at our January CONA meeting.
>Contributing to our discussion, Vice Mayor Mike Dove, acknowledged that all city governments favor out of sight/underground utility distribution lines but that many feel unable to bear the cost. He suggested that the urgings of our resolution should be directed at the Florida legislature rather than and more local government bodies.
>We then hear from David Reed, Coordinator of Capitol Projects for the city. He reported ongoing joint research of this issue by a group based in Davis Island of Tampa.
>It was urged that this issue be introduced at the special storm recovery session of the Florida Legislature scheduled for December fifth.
>CONA will attempt to e-mail our draft resolution to all other Florida neighborhood associations of the Neighborhood Partnership Office can provide addresses.
___ Moved, (Hersch), that CONA submit the resolution to require that utility lines be buried. [Approved]
___ Moved, (Sherman) The draft committee is authorized to revise the draft text distributed to limit the focus to addressing only the state legislature. [Approved]
?˜ Stephanie Pitts, (Crescent Heights), provided details of a rezoning application that has been approved by the Planning Commission but is being challenged by her neighborhood association. She noted with sadness that non-contiguous neighborhoods had provided letters of support and approval to the developer without inquiring of the position of her impacted neighborhood! She cited this case as an example of ?“Spot Zoning?” which is prohibited under our Comprehensive Plan.
___ Moved, (Eppley), CONA will address the City Council meeting of December sixteenth to oppose the spot zoning applied for by the developer of the subject mini-storage facility. [Approved]
?˜ Cathy Wilson reported on a new compilation of the Fence, Hedge, and Wall zoning ordinances that were recently approved by the Planning Commission. Though less than hoped for, Cathy urged our member associations to support these new codes before City Council. Steve Plice promised to post the proposed code revisions on our CONA Listbot.
?˜ Steve began a retrospective summary of CONA achievements in 2004. He cited ?“Cops and Codes?” as our principle pursuits this year. Though participated in forums with the Chief of Police, Steve suggested not much that we have pressed for has been accomplished.
>Kia Warren, (Roser Park), reported on meetings with Mike Dove and Sally Eichler seeking to improve implementation of city ordinances empowered in some situations by overlapping county and state ordinances. We heard about the program of equipping our Codes Enforcement staff with cell phones and the appointment of a Special Magistrate to expedite dealing with violators.
*The codes complaint resolution cycle has been shortened dramatically.
*CONA is pressing for improved software in Codes that will be more compatibly integrated with the formats of other department databases.
*We would like to see, posted on the city home page, a comprehensive history of violations and citations for all city properties that have been non-compliant.

Old Business: The deadline for applications to the CONA Leadership Program for the upcoming class is November 3oth.

New Business: Tim Baker, (Downtown) reminded us that the revision cycle for the LDRs covering the Downtown area have not yet been submitted for City Council approval. Bob Jeffrey, (Development Services) will present this new section of the proposed LDR to his Downtown Neighborhood Association on January 13th, 2005

Our meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Conrad Weiser, Secretary