09/03/1992 (2)
.
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
September 3, 1992
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall,
Thursday, September 3, 1992 at 6:00 p.m., with the following members present:
Rita Garvey
Richard Fitzgerald
Lee Aegulski
Sue Berfield
Arthur X. Deegan, II
Also present:
Michael J. Wright
M.A. Galbraith, Jr.
William C. Baker
James Polatty, Jr.
Cynthia E. Goudeau
Mary K. Diana
Mayor/Commissioner
Vice-Mayor/Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
City Manager
City Attorney
Public Works Director
Planning and Development Director
City Clerk
Assistant City Clerk
The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
.
In order to provide continuity for research. the items wUJ be listed In agenda order although
not necessarily discussed in that order.
ITEM 1t3 - Service Awards
2 service awards were presented to City employees.
The Employee of the Month for August 1992 is AI Hinson, Parks and Recreation
Department.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards - None.
ITEM #5 - Presentations - None.
ITEM #6 - Minutes of the Reaular Meeting of August 13. 1992
It was pointed out that reference to !fEast Endu on page 32 should be "East
Avenue" .
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of
August 13, 1992, as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
.
CCmtg
'\
9/3/92
1
.
ITEM 117 . Citizens to be heard Fe items not on the Aaenda
David Abelson, representing the North Area Council of the Chamber of Commerce,
thanked the Commission for the decision to review the need for the Countryside
Community Center in the coming year. He invited all to attend Countryside Community
Center Day on September 27, 1992, Noon to 4:00 p.m. at Misty Springs Park.
John Crawford requested the Commission consider allowing street vendors.
Mitch Harder reported on the Clearwater Bombers accomplishments in 1992. He
requested consideration of $50,000 funding for next year.
Terry Sharp requested the beach area be designated as a recreational area in order
to allow skating on the streets.
Jay Elliot questioned why the alleged wrongdoing of city employees in connection
with his rehabilitation loan has been disregarded. It was stated the City has been working
with the Elliots.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
.
ITEM #8 - Public Hearing & First Reading of: (AS)
a. Ord. #5280-92 - millage rate for FY92/93
b. Ord. #5281-92 . operating budget for FY92/93
c. Ord. #5282-92 - capital improvement program budget for FY92/93
Proposed revisions to the City Manager's 1992/93 Operating Budget are reflected
in the budget ordinances as follows:
General Fund Revenues: adjustments reflect increases in Sales Tax revenue of
$220,220 and Cigarette Tax of $10,800, and a decrease in State Revenue Sharing of
$89,020. These changes are based on revenue estimates provided by the State of Florida
Department of Revenue which were not available until after the City Manager's
Recommended Budget was released.
General Fund Expenditures: adjustments include $130,000 to fund the Summer
Youth Program for the fiscal year 1992/93 and a decr~ase of $15,000 to Professional
Services correcting an error discovered by staff in which the services of the Employee
Assistance Referral Program were included in both the Operating budgets of the Human '
Resources Department and the Non-Departmental division. Also included are increases of
$13,000 to fund the Midnight Basketball Program and $14,000 for the Holt Avenue Pool
Program to continue for the summer months of FY 1992/93.
Water and Sewer Fund Expenditures: adjustment reflects the $611,000 increase to
Water Inventory Purchases from the County due to increases in consumption.
.
CCmtg
9/3/92
2
.
.
.
Solid Waste Fund Revenues: adjustment reflects an increase of $1,707,900 in
Solid Waste Operating Revenues recognizing the increase in Solid Waste rates.
Parking Fund Revenues: adjustment recognizes the interest earnings on the
unspent funds in tho East End Land AcquIsition project that were originally contributed
from the Parking Fund.
The City Manager reported that the Commission and staff have been through a
series of worksassions and a town meeting to discuss the budget. The recommendation is
that the millage rate remain the same as the current fiscal year;s rate although values have
decreased and in order to bring In the same amount of revanue through taxes would have
required an increase in the millage rate.
He reported the City is in the second year of a three year contract with the four
employee unions which results in a cast of living increase of 3% and an average merit
increase of 1.2%
He stated he has added 4.7 positions while eliminating 4.7 positions in the general
fund while eliminating 13 across all funds. He stated due to the solvency of the Pension
Fund, the contribution to that fund has been reduced. A $3 million transfer to the CIP for
City Hall still leaves the 10% reserve required by City Commission policy.
He also reported that the previously adopted water and sewer rate increases can be
reduced due to a successful six months of operation.
He reviewed the changes that are being recommended.
Bob Wright, representing the Coalition of Homeowners. stated there is no problem
with this year;s budget but there are concerns regarding anticipated shortfalls in
subsequent years.
In response to a question. the City Manager indicated the City is fully funding its
obligation in the Pension Fund and the Commission policy of establishing an insurance
reserve has resulted in enough funds in that reserve and therefore contribution is
unnecessary. He indicated he felt confident the gap can be closed in next year;s budget.
Barbara Green, representing the Homeless Emergency Shelter. indicated they had
applied for $6,000 to fund utilities for those shelters and requested if the Commission
could find the money; this be funded.
The City Manager reported that due to an anticipated surplus at the end of the
1991/92 fiscal year, he is recommending these monies be used to fund several social
service requests at third quarter. Representatives of the social service agencies thanked
the City Manager for his recommendation.
Six citizens spoke expressing concerns regarding the reduced funding for the
Community Relations Division indicating that due to changes in the law f there will be an
CCmtg
9/3/92
3
~ ~:
.
Increase In the number of cases handled by this division. The City Manager explained that
the Clearwater Community Relations Division handles all cases from Ulmerton Road to the
Pasco County line and Clearwater subsidizes this program. He indicated the Deputy City
Manager has been directed to obtain contract help In order to reduce the back log of
cases. He emphasized he Is not reducing the program.
One citizen spoke stating this Is a budget issue and that the citizens of Clearwater
want to pay their fair share and perhaps a fee tied to populations of the different
communities should be considered.
Discussion ensued regarding the Community Relations Division budget with the City
Manager explaining he would closely monitor the program and if he saw any lapses, he
would address it. He indicated his hopes are that by implementing most of the
recommendations contained in a consultant report that the division can address the back
log of cases without increasing personnel. There was also concern that the position
Community Relations Specialist. which has been funded through the federal government,
may need some subsidy from the City. The City Manager indicated staff feels this position
will be fully funded through the federal government again for the next year however. if it is
not, monies will be transferred in order to cover payment for this position.
It was also stated that some of the reduction in the budget is due to the reduced
Pansion Fund and insurance reserve contributions.
.
Concerns were expressed regarding the amount of overtime which has been
budgeted and a request was made that periodic reports regarding the overtime be
submitted to the Commission. This report is to contain not only the amount spent but
why the overtime was necessary.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5280-92 for first reading and read it in
full. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass Ordinance #5280-92 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
~ Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5281-92 for first reading and read i~: by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5281-92 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayast!: Regulski, Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5282-92 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass Ordinance #5282-92 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
.
CCmtg
9/3/92
4
-.\
~
.
"Ayes": Regulskl, Fitzgerald. Berfield. Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
"
The meeting recessed from 8:00 p.m. to 8:10 p.m.
ITEM #9 . Public Hearing & First Reading Qrd. #5257-92 - Relatina to LOC, amending Ch,
134, regarding signs and sign regulations; amending Sec. 137.005 (PLD)
The City's existing Sign Regulations have been in effect since October, 1986. They
are now proposed to be updated to eliminate some inconsistencies with Pinellas County's
recently adopted sign code.
. '
';/:,\,
Despite the number of changes being made. this is not a "new" sign code. Most of
the signs that ware made nonconforming when the code was adopted in 1985 will
continue to be nonconforming. Unless these changes "legalize" a nonconforming sign, the
changes will not extend the deadline (10/13/92) to bring nonconforming signs into
compliance with the sign code.
.'. '..: >
It. . ~, ~
I. I.
\ .:."..
'., ":c;'
I . . .~. : '. ~ ,
T, t>. :-..," ~."
" (:",: ';
'.'" ,..":
" J.,\.
. "
/'
.
The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed and recommended approval subject to
three modifications: 1) political signs be allowed to address any political issue, whether
the issue is the subject of a referendum or not, 2} flags on multi-family zoned property be
restricted to one flag per unit, rather than one flag per property; and 3) the sign size
increase that is allowed for buildings set back from rights of way be measured from the
new right of way line where there exists an approved road widening project. Staff
concurs with Board recommendation #1 and has included it in the ordinance. Staff also
concurs with recommendation #3 and recommends it too be included in the ordinance.
.... ,J' .
.:. .: ~'.
I ~ j' .' I
"
....
,~
,. .
Other changes requested by citizens at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting
were: 1). 2), 3) & 4) by Bill Jonson; 1) Include the first amendment protection clause that
is part of the Countywide Code, thereby allowing any lawful noncommercial message on
any sign allowed under the sign regulations; 2) Prohibit neon lighting which is not an
integral part of the architecture; 3) Do not allow sandwich board signs in downtown; 4)
Lessen the amount of additional sign size given to buildings that are positioned distant
from rights of way; 5) & 6} by Paul Taylor; 5) Allow attached signs on the basis of 10%
of the building facade and 6) Adopt Countywide Code as written, with the II 10% rule"
described in #5. Staff concurs with citizen requests numbered 1 and 4 and recommends
they be included in the ordinance.
.~. -...". I"
'. . . :: ", ::' ~~: .
.:"' ",'
: . .' ,~.
"
The Development Code Adjustment Board reviewed and recommended approval of
the regulations subject to four conditions: 1) ensure major tenants in shopping centers
located in Neigtlborhood Commercial and General Commercial zoning districts are not
adversely impacted by the size limitations on attached signs; 2} the maximum sign size for
projecting signs in the Urban Center be increased above 8 square feet; 3) the maximum
allowable sign size in the Urban Center be 64 square feet in all subdistricts; and 4) a table
be included in the ordinance to identify sign sizes for attached and freestanding signs and
include a reference to the sign bonus provisions. Staff has reviewed major tenants in
.
CCmtg
9/3/92
:,C\.
5
:.\ ~ '>~ ';' ,'~
.,.'
:..:" r ,~. ;". .
"
.'
'. ,~, {
.' H"'
,Y;/)(!:'. q" .,i',", ,.' q' ·
.i'~:>:<','.\"', ';:;';::;"::J;':;",.;'.~}i;,,',,~.:'.,;",.:.;~,,~,\:'.;,'.,~'.::,' ..... ' .".: ,;~.' ;:y:':;,:t>.. ....0: .'. ?':,<S' :';., " ....., .' "
. '. ." " . ' . . ",,':~,: ""~ ~<,:\;
, , ' ' .i;;':'<,
','
': ~
~~~ I . ~ "
:; ...' r.'
". ",:', "t.'~.:"\ ..'~
'j,
" .
I
...
. . ~ c'
.L,'
"
'r,' "
,,/, '.
I ~. , . .
"
, "
. c' l.
"5 ';.
,I,
\ ' . ~'" l'
.1",.<
,,'
, '
,~ , '
I, ''l
, ,
.1,
,.' .; \
, "
.,
f._,:,
, "
~. .,', c' ..
\,",
.'.
: ~ '.
~. i,~ '~.:
',:~' ,
:. <; ;'
'. .
"
,.,
. ~. {
.: I
..f' ::
'.
"
i:....
" . j ~
"
"
,I"
...., \1: >
, "
,. ',>," .
I . ,.
,
"
'"-' i.
,', ,":<
j :.'; '... ,
~,' . ~ ..,. \
(' !:
.:.
.
shopping centers located in Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial zones, and
has determined that such occupancies will not be adversely impacted by the sign sizes
specified in the ordinance. Staff agrees to prepare a sign size table as requested by the
Board upon approval of the ordinance by the Commission. Finally, staff concurs with
Board recommendation #2 and recommends it be included in the ordinance.
One letter has been submitted to the City requesting a change to the draft
ordinance regarding the Clearwater Jaycees request that bus shelter signs and bench signs
be allowed upon the written approval of the Commission. Staff does not concur with this
request.
.
In addition to the changes discussed above. staff recommends the following: 1) the
Development Code Administrator have the option of appointing a designee to the
downtown sign review committee; 2) tho off-premise sign prohibition be deleted; 3) an
allowance for temporary signs in the event of public works projects or major storm events
be included in accordance with recently adopted Ordinance 1/5224-92; 4) no sign area
bonus can be applied that would cause the area of a sign to exceed the area specified in
Sec. 134.011 (c)(1 )0; 5) signs 24 sq.ft. in size be allowed for nonconforming uses located
in residential zones; 6) the banner exemption that was allowed in Sec. 134.009(7) be
deleted; 7) any sign placed over a sidewalk or other pedestrian access area be required to
maintain a clear distance above grade in accordance with the building code; 8) in addition
to the attached signs otherwise allowed in the North Greenwood Commercial District.
Beach Commercial District and Urban Center Bayfront and Core Districts. permanent
window signs be allowed to occupy up to 20% of the window area; 91 additional attached
signs be allowed in the Urban Center Core and Bayfront subdistricts, and the Beach
Commercial District. for buildings which front on two or more rights of way; 10)
freestzmding signs in the limited Office District be limited to 8 feet in height; and 11) the
second of the two paragraphs lettered (c) in Sec. 134.011 be relettered to (d).
John Richter. Code Enforcement Manager. stated the sign code allows businesses
to identify themselves while at the same time safeguarding the visual character of the
City. He reiterated the sign amortization period is still in effect and nonconforming signs
must be in compliance by October 13, 1992. He stated there have been a number of
changes since the amendments were first introduced in July. Two significant ones being
the bonus for attached signs due to large setbacks has been capped based on the width of
the building and that the sign bonus overall has been decreased.
In response to a question, the Planning and Development Director indicated there
are no radical changes to the existing code and that the Countywide Code is generally
more liberal than the City's code.
In response to a question regarding what is being found most burdensome. it was
indicated most concern has to do with the five foot setback requirement but that this has
been a part of the code since 1985.
Discussion ensued regarding the need to grandfather any signs that complied with
the 1985 code. Consensus was for staff to address this by second reading.
.
CCmtg
9/3/92
6
.
Jean Maguire, representing South Clearwater Beach Business Owners, located In
the Bea~h Commercial district, spoke requesting a lifting of the prohibition of pole signs in
that z?nrng r.ategory. She indicated these businesses are treated unfairly as
estabhshments across the street in Resort Commercial are allowed to have pole signs. It
was reiterated that this was a change to the 1985 code and not a part of the current
amendments.
Paul Taylor, representing Thomas Sign Company, requested the Commission adopt
the Countywide Sign Ordinance as it is written in order to have equal treatment throughout
the County. He stated there arB some incidences in the proposal that there would be a
reduction of one-half under the current proposal.
Two citizens spoke in support of eliminating the prohibition of pole signs in the
Beach Commercial district.
One citizen spoke requesting all businesses be notified by certified mail of the
impact of the ordinance.
Kelly Blackburn, representing Shell Oil, requested clarification of the code.
.
Bill Jonson, representing the Coalition of Homeowners, spoke in favor of the
amendments stating the chart which indicates the substantial difference for attached signs
does not make it clear that the increase in attached signage is allowed only if a pole sign is
not used by the business. He expressed concerns regarding the bonus for the large
setbacks and the allowance of sandwich signs in downtown.
One citizen spoke stating he wanted to conform to the 1985 code but he was
unaware of the new proposals. He also questioned the allowance of window signs and it
was indicated that 20% of the window can be used for signage.
Discussion ensued regarding window signs with it being indicated that merchandise
displayed in windows is not regulated by the sign code.
Discussion ensued regarding the prohibition of pole signs in the Beach Commercial
district with staff being directed to bring forward recommendations regarding whether or
not an amendment should be made.
Discussion ensued regarding the differences between the current code and the
proposal and it was requested the Commission be provided with a clear understanding of .
what the comparison chart is explaining.
Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Ordinance #5257-92 on first reading on
page 11 by amending Section 134.010 by deleting the prohibition against off-premises
signs. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
.
CCmtg
"
9/3/92
7
: , ..' , '. ' ~, .' ,', ' , . , .
.
.
.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to amend Ordinance 115257-92 on page 26 by
amending subsection 134.011 (d)(8)b.2 to read: However, no individual projecting sign
shall exceed 16 square feet in area, nor shall such signs project more than 42 inches from
the facade of the building to which they are attached. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Ordinance #5257-92 on first reading on
page 28 to amend the table in subsection 134.012{a)(1) to read:
Setback
Allowable additional area bonus
Less than 100 feet
100 to 199.99 feet
200 to 300 feet
Greater than 300 feet
Not available
0.25
0.75
1.25
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed amendment which would limit the sign
bonus to major tenants in a shopping center. Consensus was that this was not equitable
and this amendment was not to be made.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not to amend the section to address the
bonus from proposed right-at-way on approved widening projects and it was requested
this be brought back at second reading.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5257-92 as amended tor first reading and
read it by title only. Commissioner Barfield moved to pass Ordinance 115257-92 as
amended on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
It was stated amendments regarding pole signs in Beach Commercial,
grandfathering of signs in compliance with the 1985 code and at what time construction
signs are to be removed will be considered at second reading. .
ITEM 1/10 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5266-92 ~ Vacating Fifth Avenue South
and portions ot Main Street and Fourth Avenue South, lying within Sec. 32-28-16
(City/Dimmitt V92-13)(PW)
The Commission approved an agreement with Dimmitt Chevrolet, Inc., Larry
Dimmitt 'Cadillac, Inc. and Richard R. Dimmitt on June 4, 1992 relating to new road
construction and street vacations. Dimmitt representatives offered a proposed redesign of
CCmtg
9/3/92
8
..
"
.....
.
the immediate neighborhood involving not only building Third Avenue South between
US19 and Chautauqua Avenue. but a new street lavout in the area. To accomplish the
new plan, a new configuration of streets involving dedications and vacations Is necessary.
This request has been reviewed by the various City Departments and Divisions
concerned. The Planning Department is recommending limited access with no driveways
off residential streets/no commercial traffic directly into residential neighborhoods,
provided single family neighborhoods have access and are buffered by the commercial site.
The other departments have no objections.
Florida Power has no objection provided a 20 foot utility easement is granted over
their existing facilities. GTE has no objection provided a 10 foot utility easement is
granted for their facilities. Vision Cable has no objection provided they are granted a 5
foot utility easement across Chautauqua Avenue from the Florida Power Corporation pole
line established on the north side of Fourth Avenue South. Vision Cable has no objection
to the proposed vacation of Fifth Avenue South.
The County is currently reviewing a vacation request for right-of-way of Fourth
Avenue South.
The Public Works Director recommends approval of this request subject to the
County's approval of the vacation of Fourth Avenue South.
.
Commissioner Regulski moved to approve the vacation of the rights-at-way at
Chautauqua Avenue (formerly Main Street) lying between the south right-at-way line of
Fourth Avenue South and the south right-at-way line of Third Avenue South, and Fifth
Avenue South lying between the east right-at-way line ot previously vacated Main Street
and the west right-of-way line ot lake Shore Drive, subject to complying with the
conditions in the agreement and retaining easements for the utility companies. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 1/5266-92 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass Ordinance #5266-92 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
IINays": None.
ITEM #11 - Public Hearing & First Aeading Ord. #5268-92 - Vacating S l' of the 10'
drainage and utility easement lying along the N side of Lot 78t Clubhouse Estates of
Countryside Unit 2, less the E 5' and the W 5', located at 2670 St. Andrews Dr. (Burr
V92-16HPW)
The applicant has a pool structure which encroaches approximately 0.81 feet and
the decking another 3.12 feet. The City has no existing utilities within this easement.
'.
CCmtg
9/3/92
9
.
The Building Inspector's office reports "the house was permitted and built in 1976 and the
pool was permitted and built In 1982". This pool was constructed prior to the recently
instigated process whereby Impending encroachments are more readily discovered and
precluded.
The various City Departments and Oivisions concerned and the three utility
companies reviewed this request and have no objections.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the vacation of the south 1.0 foot of
the 10 foot drainage and utility easement lying within Lot 78. Clubhouse Estates of
Countryside Unit Two less the easterly 5 feet and the westerly 5 feet. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5268~92for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5268~92 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call. the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield. Deegan and Garvey.
ltNays.t: None.
ITEM #1 2 . (Cant. 1rom 8/13/92) Variance to Sign Regulations for orooertv (Carillon Rua
Cleaners. ("c.llocated at 1107 N Ft. Harrison Ave., Palm Bluff First Add., Lots 4, 5, 13 &
part of 3 (Rice SV92~1 OHPLDJ
. This item was continued from the August 13, 1992 Commission meeting to permit
the applicant to research a ltground sign" option. Under the current sign regulations,
ground signs erected as property identification signs in Neighborhood Commercial districts
are permitted to be up to 8 feet in height and to contain up to 56 sq. ft. in area.
The applicant is requesting a sign variance to permit modification of an existing pole
sign to allow that sign to serve as the only sign identifying the business. The Carillon Rug
Company's signage includes: a pole sign containing two panels, totalling 104 square feet
in area, the same pole sign exceeds 20 feet in height and is within the required setback
from the property line and multiple business identification signs (attachnd signs),
considerably larger than the 15 square feet allowed.
The applicant is proposing to modify the existing 104 square foot pole sign to
delete the bottom panel (reducing the total area of the sign to 72 square feet), lowering
the height of the sign to 20 feet and moving the sign structure to no closer than 5 feet
from any property line. As modified. the sign would conform with the height and setback
requirements but would not meet the 56 square feet area limitation.
The applicant proposes to eliminate all attached signege as a condition of obtaining
a variance for the larger pole sign area. Under the current regulations. the attached
signage could not exceed 15 square feet in area.
.
CCmtg
9/3/92
10
.
Under the current sign regulations, a pole sign in the Neighborhood Commercial
zoning district could contain 56 sq.ft. of sign area. Under the proposed sign regulations
and the Countywide Sign Regulations, a pole sign in the CN district could contain a
maximum of 50 sq.ft. in area.
If the applicant reduces the pole sign to 56 sq.'t.. no further changes to the sign
area would be required under the new regulations, since signs brought into compliance
with the current (1985) code are not subject to further amortization requirements. In
effect. if the applicant complies with the current regulations now, the sign wilt contain 6
sq.ft. in area more than it would be allowed to have under the proposed regulations.
Also under the proposed regulations, the applicant would be allowed to have a 48
sq.ft. attached sign. This signage would be allowed in addition to any allowable pole sign.
')'.
Despite the applicant's offer to bring the existing sign into compliance with setback
and height regulations, as well as eliminate all attached signage, staff feels the request is
primarily based on economic matters, rather than some unique condition associated with
the property. The applicant is proposing to modify an existing sign structure to minimize
the cost of sign code compliance. Consequently, staff feels the applicant is not in
compliance with the required standards for approval for the granting of variances.
. .....~
. -;.n'j :..
. . .;. : .~. :
,', < ~
"
" 'n
.
Tyler Rice, representing the applicant, stated most of the property surrounding this
business is vacant and it is a hardship to run a business in this area. He stated the
Commission suggested a ground sign at its meeting of August 13. 1992 and they have
found that no visual obstruction would occur from a ground sign an the south side of the
property.
'.
, .
In response to B question, he indicated the sign would be 8 feet or less in height. It
was indicated that if the Commission wished to approve the variance, it would require the
same square footage variance as is being requested.
". ~ 'I~~:,,~.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not this was a unique situation that would
call for the variance to be approved.
':',
. ::1
Commissioner Regulski moved to approve a variance of 16 square feet to permit a
property identification sign containing 72 square feet provided the sign is a ground sign
and the top of which is not more than 8 feet above the ground. The motion was duly
seconded., Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield and
Deegan voted" Ayen, Mayor Garvey voted "Nay". Motion carried.
",
. ,:","O(
l .,
ITEM # 1 3 ~ Variance to Sian Regulations for orooertv (Grand Prix Car Wash) located at
1 eao GVlf to Bav Blvd., Sec. 13-29-15. M&B 23.07 and Skycrest Unit 0, Blk A, part of
Lot 5 and strip 27.5' m.o.!. W of Lot 5 (Grand Prix, Ltd SV92-15)(PLD)
. ,
This request is to permit a new freestanding sign to be located zero feet from the
east side property line. The currant and proposed sign codes, require a five foot setback
from all property lines for freestanding signs. .
'+:
"
"
',ljJ
.
CCmtg
9/3/92
<,
; ~.~
11
~ ~. ':
. ~ \~~
. ~ I .
~~:J}F\'::
. .~.~ ,- ,
::.,.... ,\
.'. ' ...:. ~ ~ : ~
!. ('
'.,......
,"',-
',,'.
., (.
",
"
;.
,',
~ .~ '";. ,\ :: ~': /.
"'J
: \ . :'.~'. > .
f:.
"
,
". ".
"
. ,
, ..: ,:.. :- '.!; : ~::
.""
I ',.
, , .,', ,', ~;,;:,,;;, \~."::.'
....L "" "
.' ',..". , ," '''; ",'-.
". ','" ,,:; ",'.\ ,':' '. " ".; ":.;. "
" ~. ;.:.'~'~. . ,
.., , ';;" ':"', "', ':'.:'; " :, '
, "
;.:f
,+>,\tl.
.>:
: '>';,
; ,
:....1.,
"
. ; .....
": .. ~~ .
,'. . ;:, '; ,,\,".,. ".,' ";,1"
"", .,. , . ":~ ,:' , :. '..'::" '. '.' ,
' ',' .. ; '. ". J' ...' ,,'.. :. ;, \ '
", ,. "" . '. ......,. .". ':::" ":., '.J.... .,.,' , . .
........., ,. . , '. ''''''. '....'......":, ,..., " '.;:; .. .'..:'!.,~~...'.
<, C';:';;' ',:' ,:. _,.:: .
^ .'. ....:'.........<>i,.:::}",;,:,', "'" ,<:~:k,::,~.:,.-,.:. ;,..,'.,:',: '.,,::...,,' '".., ::. ~t.,:..,.,. ;.', :. ';".',.', :,,' ''',.',i. ':,,;; ;:."/':-" . ,',:.....: ':, '" ;'i,;'.,
; ", " '.' ,;' .': "'::':'::<:j/ ;;f.:,....:,,:,., " " .' J, i",. ',},'. r. : ;r~:;t'.;':,'~:'.:'.~: :'.' ,; .. _, ','
~:s'<:.),.~ .t.., "::',(,.".". :/' '';i::"((;?''!ti'\~I:)';;;::~!,.:,>,,i;:;, '1, ". . '" 'i:,; "
. .......... ., ".\ ...,....,.;.j ..,.:" ..... "" "', ", " ,,' ". .. ,
.. . :, ." .::.." ..... .. ", '. " ., '. '.. .;.'''' , ....:
':.:,~',:..::' :', ,co' ....
. ;~. ," ., '..... 1. . .'
" ",' .
' ,,:'I.I~ "':~~' :,.~,
. ,
\ ,
I.~.
.....~~ \. I:
I. ~ .. : . t<, : . . ...
. J
. '~. .
'. ~" .
." '\',\
"
'"
1',
" ,
, I
"., '.J.
. "
'.. f
. - ~ t
i "".
'. ,:. 't
J l ,: ~: ,. t:~. ..
: .... :t ~ i'
"
"
.;.."
01,
".
H" .
'" ,
.,
"
, !
.
The existing freestanding sign on the east side of the site is to bo removed Bnd
replaced by a new sign that complies with sign height and BraD requirements but requires 8
five foot side setback variance. Meeting the setback requirements on the east side of tho
site would require modifications to the applicant's entrance driveway, Including
coordination of any changes with the FOOT. The applicant states the placemont of the
sign in a conforming location on the west part of the property causos confusion for
motorists looking for the entrance.
Given the site design and the need to identify the entrance to the site, staff foels
the applicant's purpose can be accomplished through granting a variance to allow B
directional sign adjacent to the east property line. The main property Identification sign
could then be located in the center of the site In B conforming 1008tlon. This would reduce
the visual impact of a large freestanding sign located directly on the property line. Any
variance approvals should include a condition that the sign desIgn and location be reviewed
and approved by the Traffic Engineer for compliance with sight distance requirements.
Nelson Hendry, owner/operator of Grand Prix Car Wash, stated they would like to
meet the requirements of the code for the 64 square feet and 20 feet height but that it not
be required to be placed in the middle of the property. He stated they can not place it in
the middle of the property for safety reasons, as when coming out of the car wash, It Is
sometimes necessary to make a sharp left turn to get back to the wax area.
.
In response to a question, it was indicated the proposal by the applicant does bring
the sign into compliance with the sign code except for the fivo foot setback and staff
recommends an additional directional sign on the east portion of the property.
Mr. Hendry indicated they wished to leave the sign in its current location but to
comply in all other respects.
In response to a question, it was indicated staff believed all other signs were In
conformance with the sign code.
Commissioner Regulski moved to approve a variance of five feet from the East side
setback to permit a sign to be located with a zero foot side setback for property located in
Skycrest Unit D, Block A, part of Lot 5. The matron was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
ITEM #14 - Variances to Sign Reaulations for Drooertv located at 665 S. Belcher Rd.,
Turner's Professional Park, Lot 2 (Fortune Bank SV92-12)(PLD)
The applicant is requesting two variances which address separate slgnage Issues.
The first request is for a variance of 4.6 feet to allow an addition to an existing 64 square
foot property identification "pole" sign. The second request is for a variance of six signs
with a cumulative area of 48 square feet to allow s/gn8ge on four sides of a proposed
automatic teller machine (ATM).
.
CCmtg
9/3/92
12
,1.4,
.
.
.
Regarding the first request, the applicant Is requesting an additional allocation of
slgnage to a relatively new freestanding sign. While the circumstances for the bank may
have chenged due to the ATM construction, staff feels ATM's are such a fixture at banks
that no additional advertising is necessery. The existing sign complies with the sign
regulations and therefore should not be modified to increase its area.
Concerning the second request, the applicant Is seeking permission to allow a bank
Identification sign on each of the four sides of the A TM and a message displaying which
crodlt cards will be eccepted by the A TM on two sides.
Under the current regulations, the applicant is eligible for a single 15 square foot
business Identification sign. The applicant has already installed signage consistent with
this requirement on the main building. No signage could be installed on the ATM under the
cunent regulations.
Under the proposed sign code, the applicant would be eligible for up to three
attached signs containing 0 maximum cumulative area of 64 square feet. Such signage
would be further restricted by the linear width of the building to which the sign was
attached (1.6 sq,ft. of slgnage for each one foot of building width). Applying this formula
to the ATM, the maximum sign area for signs attached to the ATM would be 12 sq.ft.
since the ATM "building" Is only 8 feet wide. Attached signage would be limited to the
faces of the building oriented to the street and the parking lot.
Staff recommends the fOllowing approach. Because the A TM could be considered
an Integral part of the operation of the bank. it should be considered an extension of the
building, and therefore eligible for additional attached signage as allowed under the
proposed code. Under the proposed code, the credit cards that are accepted by the ATM
could be Indicated 8S an incidental sign (not to exceed 2 sq.ft.) on the face of the ATM
which accepts the cards. This sign would be in addition to the two 12 sq.ft. attached
signs that would be allowed. This signage allocation would appear to be sufficient to
properly Identify the A TM and aI/ow customers to know which cards are accepted.
Under the proposed code, the applicant would also be allowed to increase the area
of the existing freestanding sign on the building. If a total of 24 sq. ft. was allocated for
the attached slgnage on the A TM, and there is a 15 sq. ft. attached sign on the building,
the applicant could add up to 26 additional sq.ft. of signage to the attached sign on the
building, since 8 total of 64 sq. ft. of attached signage is permitted under the proposed
code. This additional slgnage could be utilized to advertise the A TM and the cards it
would accept. Under the proposed code, the incidental sign area is not calculated in the
total sign area allowed.
Catherine Dixon, representing the bank. stated they are requesting to place an
identification on the existing pylon sign to let customers know an A TM is available.
Discussion ensued regarding why the sign could not be placed on the existing
Fortune Bank portion of the pylon sign. Chris Steinocher, of Fortune Bankt indicated the
CCmtg
9/3/92
"\
13
.
.
.
bank does not want to clutter the image of their sign and they are attempting to let people
know of the services available.
In response to a question, Ms. Dixon indicated the signs on the ATM are lit for
safety and illumination purposes.
Commissioner Regulski moved to .d.wn! the request for a variance of 4.6 square feet
to permit a second message panel on the property identification sign to allow a total
surface area of 68.6 square feet and to aoorove a variance of three signs for a
freestanding automatic teller machine with a total sign area of 26 square feet for Lot 2,
Turner Professional Park. subject to the following conditions: 1) Signage shall be limited
to a maximum of two bank identification signs containing a maximum of 12 square feet
each with the signs to be located on the east and west sides of the ATM.and a maximum
of one incidental sign listing credit cards which are accepted to be located on the face of
the ATM where the cards are inserted and which contains a maximum area of 2 square
feet: and 2) All requisite permits shall be obtained by October 13, 1992. The motion was
duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Regulski, Fitzgerald and
Berfield and Mayor Garvey voted .tAye", Commissioner Deegan voted tlNay". Motion
carried.
ITEM #15 - (Cant. from 8/13/92) Alcoholic Beveraae Distance Saoaration Varianqas for
nrooertv (Ocean Garden Rest) located at 470 Mandalay Ave., Clearwater Beach Park, Lots
43-48, part of 64 and 65-71 (Pelican Two, Inc. AB92-12)(PLD)
The applicant is requesting a continuance of this item.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to the scheduled meeting of
October 1, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #16 - Alcoholic Beverage Distance Seoaration Variance for orooertv (Montv's Pizza)
located at 2170-2172 Nurserv Rd., Sec. 24-29-15, M&B 41.02, 41.03, 41.04 & 41.05
(Loken AB92-14HPLD)
The applicant is requesting the variance to allow expansion of an existing 2-COP
licensed establishment known as "Monty's pjzza". The variance is required because the
subject property is located closer than 300 feet to RM.20 and RM-28 zoning districts.
The applicant is proposing to increase the interior floor area from 1 ,350 sq. ft. to
2,000 sq.ft. which will mean an increase in the number of seats from the existing 54 to a
total of 79 seats.
The property is within an area currently zoned Commercial Center (CC) and General
Commercial (CG). There will be no outdoor seating and no entertainment. No additional
parking facilities will be required because the applicant will continue to share the existing
293 parking spaces at Imperial Square Shopping Center.
CCmtg
9/3/92
14
, '0 0 ~ I. . O. ., ~. ,J ,. '. 0.' . nO ., +, 0 " . 0 0 0 , '
o , ' 0
.
.
.
Within the vicinity (300 feet) of the use, only the Rite Aid #2021 establishment
with a 2-APS alcoholic beverage license has been approved to sell beer and wine.
On August 18, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the associated
conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1) This conditional use is based
on the application for a conditional use and documents submitted by the applicant,
including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the
applicant's request for a conditional use permit. Deviation from any of the above
documents submitted regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical
structure located on the site, will result in this conditional use permit being null and of no
effect; 2) The requisite occupational license shall be obtained within 6 months; 3) The
sales of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to consumption on premises with no package
sales; 4) There shall be no outdoor seating; 5) The applicant shall obtain approval from the
City Commission for any requisite separation variance; and 6) The sale of beer and wine
for on premises consumption shall be prohibited after the hours of 11 :00 p.m.
Commissioner Regulski moved to approve a variance of 250 feet to permit an
alcoholic beverage sales establishment 50 feet from a residential zone for the subject
property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM 1/17 ~ (Cont. from 8/13/92) !;)Bcond Reading Ord. #5181~92 - Amending
comprehensive plan as adopted on 11/15/89, including amendments to future land use,
coastal zone management and capital improvements elements (PLD)
Several text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan have been proposed to reflect
changes which have occurred over the past year. First, increased development densities
on Clearwater Beach have been recommended for consideration as an incentive for
redevelopment by the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force. Second, the Downtown
Development Plan has been moved up in schedule due to recent, unforeseen property
acquisitions; this necessitates adjusting several project schedules within the Plan, as well
as making some amendments associated with the Downtown Development District
Comprehensive Plan classification. Third, clarification of the intent behind Policy 19.1.1
(relating to the Coastal Construction Control Line) has been developed by staff. Fourth,
adjustments to the Capital Improvements Element are necessary to reflect the current City
Capital Improvement Program.
At their meeting on February 18, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board
recommended approval of the proposed amendments. The Commission passed Ordinance
#5181 ~92 on first reading on March 5, 1992. Subregional, regional and State reviewing
agencies have completed their reviews and have indicated concerns with two of the
proposed changes. The proposed amendments and related concerns are:
A. Amendments to Objective 1.4 concerning population density in the coastal zone
Proposed amendments address the recommendations of the Clearwater Beach Blue
Ribbon Task Force concerning density incentives for bringing structures into conformity
CCmtg
9/3/92
15
. ' : I ~: ' :., . .', . ,', > '. .';' '. '. .,' , ,". . , ..'. .: ' ':- .':'... . ':','. .. . . . '.: .'
.
.
.
with FEMA standards, City and State building codes and local land development
regulations.
The DCA raised concerns about the proposed policy. This policy was Intended to
allow the initiation of a study that would permit Increased densities for redeveloped
projects on Clearwater Beach. Despite discussions with DCA staff. including concessions
as a means of mitigation. DCA staff remains firmly opposed to any increase in density in
the coastal high hazard area.
DCA staff did indicatBt however, that the City could make provisions in the land
development code and comprehensive plan to grandfather existing densities. To address
the requirement for no nat increase in density, existing densities on the beach could be
downzonad to reflect as built development densities and then allow for some increase in
densities in other areas where redevelopment is more desirable. Adjustments could also
be made to the comprehensive plan and the land development code which would
grandfather existing densities.
To accommodate these concerns, staff suggests the following phrase be added to
the end of policy 1.4.2 - tlNo redevelopment incentive shall be adopted which will result in
net increase in the densities established under Objective 1.4".
B. Amendment to Objective 2.1 concerning new community redevelopment districts
This amendment is made to provide an additional year to consider other areas of
the city as community redevelopment districts. The scheduling of the Downtown
Development Plan has necessitated this change.
C. Amendments to Policies 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 concerning the downtown development
district and an economic development strategy
These amendments are proposed to adjust the timing of the Downtown Clearwater
Community Redevelopment District changes and an overall economic development
strategy consistent with the scheduling of the Downtown Development Plan.
D. Amendments to Policy 3.2.1. concerning interpretation of the land use map
The amendment to the Downtown Development District plan classification reflects
changes to downtown zoning associated with the Downtown Development Plan. Action
on this item should be postponed due to postponement of the Downtown Plan.
The amendment to the Conservation plan classification is intended to clarify current
zoning districts and regulations included in the Conservation classification. The DCA has
expressed a concern about the fact that no density or intensity standards are established
for the Conservation category. This problem can be rectified by applying the proposed
densitylintensity standards developed for these districts as part of the Pinellas Planning
Council Consistency Program. Staff would propose establishing a maximum floor area
ratio of 0.1 in the AL districts and 0.25 in the aS/R district.
CCmtg
9/3/92
16
. " '. ~r '. ,.,I-. ' .~. u :.... . ~.. . " . J .', / ..~'"- .. . '-'J,'
~~~ ",. ,
. , '
. ;: . . . ,'.. <, ~ I.~
.
.
,'.
E. Amendment to Policy 19.1.1. concerning development seaward of the coastal
construction control line (CCCL)
This amendment Is Intended to clarify the intent to Insure that development does
not occur seaward of the CCCL except for public purposes or in the case of unique
circumstances. Reference to development densities is deleted since the CCCL is a
structure placement guideline. not 8 determinant of intensity of development.
F. Amendment to Objective 19.7 concerning redevelopment strategies on Clearwater
Beach
This amendment is intended to bring the timing of the actions associated with this
objective into conformance with the changes proposed for objective 2.1 above.
G. Amendments to the Capital Improvement Element concerning projects, timing and
funding
The Capital Improvements Element ,CIE) is reviewed and adopted annually prior to
or concurrently with the review and adopting of the City's Capital Improvements Program.
The purpose of the CIE is to help plan for and better manage growth. State law requires
local governments insure their comprehensive plans are consistent with the State
Comprehensive Plan.
Exhibit A to the ordinance has been changed to include staff's recommendation
regarding Policy 1.4.2 to address the State's policy of no increase in densities and to
address the floor area ratios in the Conservation zone.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the text amendments for the
comprehensive plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Ordinance #5181-92 by substituting a
revised Exhibit A. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115181-92 as amended for second reading
and read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass and adopt Ordinance
115181-92 as amended on second and final reading. The motion was duty seconded and
upon roll call. the vote was:
rt Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
rtNays": None.
ITEM #18 - Public Hearina & First Reading Ord. #5263-92 - IPD Zoning for Drooertv.
located at 22067 US19N, Clearwater 19 Commerce Park, Lot 1 (Kunnen Z92-07HPLDJ
The applicant has requested this item be continued to September 17, 1992.
CCmtg
9/3/92
17
. . . . .
. . " , ~ \ " " .: ' ..'" .... . - . ,,~ ....
.
.
.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled
meeting of September 17, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM # 19 - Pub\ic Hearina & First Readina Old. #5264-92 - relating to height limitations,
amending Sec. 136.004 & 137.005 (LDCA92-12HPLD)
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to continue this item to the next regularly
scheduled meeting of September 17, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 10:45 p.m. to 10:55 p.m.
Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances
ITEM #20 - tCont. from 8/13/92) Ord. #5138-91 - Land Use Plan Amendment to
Public/Semi-Public for orooarty located on W sida of McMullen-Booth Rd.. N of
Countryside Seorts Comolex, Sec. 21-28-16, M&B 23.09 less the E 50', 3.8 acres (Bethel
Lutheran Church LUP91-11)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5138-91 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5138-91 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
ItAyes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #21 - fCont. from 8/13/92) Ord. #5139-91 - P/SP ZoninQ for orooerty located on W
side of McMullen-Booth Rd.. N of Countrvside Seorts Comolex. Sec. 21-28-16, M&B
23.09 less the E 60', 3.8 acres (Bethel Lutheran Church A91-20)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5139-91 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #6139-91 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
nAyes": Regulski, Fitzgerald. Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #22 - fCont: from 8/13/92) Ord. #5169-92 - Annexation for orooertv located at SE
corner of intersection of Drew St. and HamOlon Rd., known as Island in the Sun Mobile
Home Park, Sec. 17-29-16, M&B 12.01,41.0 acres (Kennedy/Roberts/Brown A91-14)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5169-92 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #6169-92 on '
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
CCmtg
9/3/92
18
.
"Ayes'!: Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #23 - (Cont. from 8/13/92) Ord. #5170-92 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Low
Densitv Residential for orooertv IClcated at SE corner of intersection of Drew St. and
Hpmoton Rd" known as Island in the Sun Mobile Home Park, Sec. 17-29-16, M&B 12.01,
41.0 acres (Kennedy/Roberts/Brown LUP91-15)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5170-92 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5170-92 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #24 - (Cont. from 8/13/92) Ord. #5171-92 - RPD-10 Zoning for orooertv located at
SE corner of intersection of Drew 8t. and Hamoton Rd., known as Island in the Sun Mobile
Home Park, Sec. 17-29-16, M&B 12.01,41.0 acres (Kennedy/Roberts/Brown A91-14)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5171-92 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5171-92 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call. the vote was:
.
ttAyes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #25 - Ord. #5236.92 - LDCA deletinQ "cut-off" provisions for sign variances.
amending 8ec.134.015 (LDCA 92-08)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5236-92 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Barfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5236-92 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #26 ~ Ord. #5251-92 ~ Annexation for DrODertv located at 1716 Raaland Ave.,
Clearwater Manor, Lot 61, 0.14 acres (Wrobel A91-03)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5251.92 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5251-92 on
second and final reading. Tha motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
.
CCmtg "
9/3/92
19
.
"Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #27 ~ Ord. #5252-92 . Land Use elan Amendment to Low Densitv Residential for
oroo8rtv located at 1 (, 9 Raaland Ave., Clearwater Manor, Lot 61, 0.14 acres (Wrobel
LUP91 ~03) ,
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 1/5252-92 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5252-92 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call. the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald. Berfield. Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #28 - Ord. #5253-92. RS~~ Zoning for aronartv located at 1716 Ragland Ava.,
Clearwater Manor, Lot 61. 0.14 acres (Wrobel A91-03)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5253-92 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 115253-92 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski. Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan and Garvey.
.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #29 . Ord. #5254.92 ~ Amending Sees. 135.150. 135.15~4 & 136.025 to allow
child day care as a conditional use in the IL and RDOP districts (LDCA 92-10)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5254-92 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 115254-92 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call. the vote was:
tIAyes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #30 - O,d. #5255~92 ~ Vacation of Pine Street r-o-w (formerlv Grove St.llving S of
Starr and Saverv's Add.. Blk 3 l.ots 3 & 4 and N of Blk 5. Lots 1 & 2 (Church of the
Ascension. Inc. V92.02)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5255-92 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5255~92 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll cal/, the vote was:
.
CCmtg
9/3/92
20
.
"Ayes": Regulskl, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #31-67) - Approved as submitted less Item #67.
Aareement~ - Approved.
ITEM #31 - Aareement with Pine lias Countv Sheriff to Drovlde latent flnqerorlnt services
for the Deriod 111/92-12/31/92. for $34,837.57 (PO)
ITEM #32 - Three Yea[ Anreement with Ervin's All American Youth Club. Inc.. for the
Club's continuina use and sUDervision of the Holt Avenue Youth Center, for the period
9/1192-8/31/95, with an associated cost of approx. $13,200 per year (PR)
Bids & Contracts - Awarded.
ITEM #33 - Renewal of orooertv and casualty insurance coveraae for FY93 through A.J.
Gallaaher. City's Insurance Broker, from 10/1/92-10/1193 in the total amount of $140,515
(AS)
.
ITEM #34 - Renewal of excess workers' comoensation coveraae for FY92/93 throuah the
Florida league of Cities, authorize payment of $56,747 (AS)
ITEM #35 - Renewal of flood insurance coverage for FY92/93 for soecific city-owned
mocartv. authorize payments not to exceed $35,000 (AS)
ITEM #36 - Addendum One to extend contract for claims services with Gallaaher Bassett
Claims Services. lnc.. for fiscal year 10/1/92-9/30/93. for handling "run-out" liabilitY and
workers' compensation claims in the amount of $26,589 (AS)
ITEM #37 - Purchase of claims service (liabilitv & workers' comoensatron) from Johns
Eastern Co.. Inc., for FY92/93, at an est. $72,944 with a deposit of $44,387 as provided
for in the 3 year contract (AS)
ITEM #38 - Renew contract for hardware and ooeratina system software SUODort for the
DEe VAX 4000 comouter with Network Comoutina Corn" Charlotte. NC, for the period
10/1/92-9/30/93, at an est. $25,080 (AS)
ITEM #39 - Extension of contract for A-4 computer maintenance with Unisvs Corn..
TamDa. Fl, for the' period 10/1/92-9/30/93, at an est. $31,350 (AS)
ITEM #40 - Extension of contract with North Hercules Cleaners. Clearwater. FL. for drY
cleaning. laundry and alteration service, for the period 10/15/92-10/14/93, at an est.
$17,840 (AS)
.
CCmtg
9/3/92
21
.
ITEM #41 .. P.urchase of water treating chemleal chlorine from Allied Universal Core.. Inc..
Miami. FL, for the period 9/4/92-2/28/93, for an est. $30,817.50 (AS)
ITEM #42 ~ ExtQ.ns;on of contract for Durchase and Instanatlon of carpet with Towne
Careets. Clearwater. FL, for the period 10/8/92-1017/93, for an est. total $33,250 (AS)
ITEM #43 - Purchase of 3 oersonal eomDuters and associated oericherals from National
Data Products. Inc., Clearwater, FL, at an est. $17,262; authorize cash purchase of
appropriate software to provide office automation for $3,272 (AS)
ITEM #44 - Contract for instaltatiQn of SIan. '''. 2" & 4" P,E, mains and service lines to
Yisk Construction. Inc., Riverview. fL, for the period 10/1192-9/30/93. at an est.
$375.850 (GAS)
ITEM #45 - Contract for installation. rental and service of Ice machines at 9 City facilities
to Guy's Ice Machine, Clearwater, FL, for the period 10/1/92-9/30/93, at an est. $10,800
(GS)
ITEM 1146 - Contract for vehicle lubrication services to Oil Can Henrv's. Clearwater, FL, for
the period 10/1/92-9/30/93. at an est. $23,477.60 (GS)
ITEM #47 - Contract for continuation of Centra Net services to GTE South, for the period
8/28/92-8/27/97, for an est. annual cost of $21 3.933 (GS)
.
JT.EM #48 - Contract f9r Durchase of tire services and new and recaD tires to Smith
Sandag. Inc., Clearwater, FL, for the period 10/1/92-9/30/95, at est. $223,336.75 (GS)
ITEM #49 - Extension of contract with ClSI. lnc.. Newtonville. MA, for maintenance of the
Clearwater Public Library LlBS100 system, for the period 10/1/92-12/31/92, at a cost of
$17,927.94 (LIB)
ITEM #50 ~ Purchase of automated library system including hardware & software from
Gaylord SYstems. Syracuse. NY, for $286,252; authorize 5 year lease/purchase thru AT&T
Credit Corp. for the hardware/software totalling $249,275; authorize $36,977 of
additional associated expenditures (LIB)
JTEM #51 - Purchase 3 ore-owned vehicles at the Orlando Auto Auction bv AI Davenoort.
~, at a cost not to exceed $33,000 (POl
JTEM #52 - Purchase of mlcrocomouters & printers for desktoD Dublishing from National
Data Products for $29,258.91; authorize 5 year lease/purchase thru AT&T Credit Corp.
(PIO)
ITEM #53 . Amendment. adding a IIHold Harmless" orovjsion for the City's protection. to
existina contract for sludae disoosal with Davis Water and Waste Industries, Tallevast, FL,
wherein Oavis agrees to accept and properly dispose of wastewater residuals in
accordance with Ch. 17,.640 F.A.C. (PW)
.
CCmtg
. 9/3/92
22
ITEM #5.7 - Contract for Darkln!} attendant services at Pier 60 & S. Gulfview Darkina lots
to RODUblic Parkino Systems, Chattanooga, TN, for $230,829.83 (PWJ
.
ITEM #54 - Continuation of C1earwater Pass Brldae monitoring Drogram with Kislnger
CamDo and ~ssociatQs CorD., for tho period 10/1/92-9/30/93, for $99,500 (PW)
ITEM #55 . ~xteosion of contract to Durchess LIQuid Alum for the Water potlutlon Control
DivIsion with General Chemical Co., Parsippany, NJ. for the period 10/1/92-9/30/93. at an
ost. $140,000 (PWl .
ITEM #56 - Purchase of Polymer from Rhone Poulenc 'nc., Parsippany, NJ, for the period
9/15/92-9/14/95, at an est. $606,000 (PW)
ITEM #58 . Contract for structural reinforcement of the North Sanltarv Sewer Intercootor
at the EAWPCF to lnsituform Southeast. Inc., Jacks,;mville, FL, for $23,155 (PW}
ITEM #59 - Extension of contract for microQraohic services with Micro lmaae. Inc., Tampa,
FL. for the period 10/1/92-9/30/93. at an est. total $15,000 (ClK)
Citizens & Staff Reauests - Approved.
ITEfyl #60 - Designating recent transfer of the "School Board ProDertv" site as a
contribution from the Garage Fund to the General Fund; said property to be used for future
airpark development (AS)
. ITEM #61 . Reauest to waive 80prox. $14.480 In City fees and charges for the 1992 Jazz
Holiday Festival; authorize Clearwater Jazz Holiday Foundation, Inc. to approve all vendors
and concessionaires (PR)
ITEM #62 - Funding for Phases I & II of a Hvdroaeoloaical Evaluation of the Potential for
Development of a Brackish Groundwater SUDolv in the Clearwater Area to an upper limit of
$86.395 (PW)
JIEM #63 - Authority to brine suit for auiet title action for citv truck (CA)
ITEM #64 - Authorization to file mortgage foreclosure action on 1012 N. Madison Ave.
(Alfred McCloud)(CA) .
Chanoe Orders - Approved.
ITEM #65 . C.O.#1 to contract with CenTech Utility CorD. for the Potable Water Well
Restoration ProJect. increasing the scope of work and value of contract by $20,680 for a
new total of $360,073 (PW)
ITEM #66 - C.O.#1 to the 1992 Subdrain Contract to Keystone Excavators. Inc..
increasing the amount by $16,750 for a new total of $189,113 (PW)
.
CCmtg
9/3/92
23
.
Plans & Plat~ ~ Approved.
ITEM #67 ~ See Page 24
Items approving substantial purchases were noted for the public.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted less
Item #67 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #67 - Amended Site Plan for CnDcer Cove" (aka Bayview TowQrs. Islander) located
at the NW corner of Dorv Passage Wav and Island Wav (Chase/Dore)(PlD) Receive the
amended site plan and authorize the Development Review Committee (C.R.C.) to approve
the final site plan subject to the following conditions: 1) Signs and fencing/walls are
subject to separate review and permitting processes and 2) The requisite building permits
must be procured within 1 year from the date of certification of the final site plan and all
requisite certificates of occupancy must be obtained within 3 years of the date of
certification of the site plan.
The Commission reviewed a preliminary site plan for a ten-story, 69 unit, multi-
family structure on October 1, 1987 and authorized the Development Review Committee
(ORe) to review the final site plan. Since the initial review by the ORC on October 22.
1987, the certified final site plan has been revalidated with no improvements to the site.
.
The applicant has prepared a new site plan consisting of 53
condominium/townhouse units and is requesting approval of the amended site plan. The
primary difference between the two plans is the proposed new plan contains six buildings
with 53 condominium/townhouse dwelling units with parking on the ground floor under
each building whereas the original plan was a ten~story building with 69 multi-family
dwelling units.
The applicant has not proposed to use the residual 16 dwelling units. The proposed
project will be issued an extended certificate of capacity for concurrency purposes that
may be extended to remain in effect for the life of each subsequent development order for
the same parcel as long as the applicant obtains a subsequent development order prior to
the expiration of the earlier order.
. A question was raised regarding the rights of the people in Clipper Cove I to
approve any changes to the Clipper Cove II plans. The Planning and Development Director
indicated he was unaware of any review by Clipper Cove I.
Bruce Dore, indicated they have a letter from Clipper Cove I or their attorney
approving this plan. A copy of the letter was requested.
Commissioner Deegan moved to receive the amended site plan for Clipper Cove II
and authorize the Development Review Committee to approve the final site plan subject to:
1) Signs and fencing/walls are subject to separate review and permitting processes and 2)
.
CCmtg
9/3/92
24
.
The requisite building permits must be procured within 1 year from the dato of certification
of the final site plan and all requisite certificates of occupancy must be obtained within 3
years of the date of certification of the site plan. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
ITEM /ta8 - ADorove New City Hall site and give direction to staff regarding design
procedure
At the August 31, 1992 worksession, the Commission was presented with B
conceptual site layouts as alternatives for construction of the new City Hall. The majority
of the Commission favored developing this project on the current City Hall site and
directed an item be brought forth at this meeting to formally authorize staff to proceed.
.
It is staff's recommendation that the "Design-Build" methodology be incorporated in
the accomplishment of the project. This methodology would include the fallowing
structure and sequence: 1} A Request for Oualifications tRFO} will go out to the design
and construction community describing our project and inviting design-build firms or
temporary partnerships to submit material identifying themselves and their experience,
both as to the construction of similar facilities and their experience in design-build
scenarios (Time frame - 3-5 months); 2) A short list will be prepared and four selected
firms will, upon examination of our comprehensive project description, make individual
presentations adequate for the City to fully know what the building will look like, what the
site plan will look like, and what the building will cast. Renderings and models will be
included in these presentations (Time frame - 2.4 months); and 3) One of the presenting
firms will be selected, a contract will be awarded, and work will begin on the project. The
project will, in effect, be designed by the builder and built by the designer, with various
detailed construction drawings prepared in sequence as needed to accommodate the actual
work. The contractor and architect are compensated on a lump-sum basis, and the
building costs are agreed upon by contract. The project can not exceed the contract figure
(Time frame - 18-30 months).
Opposition to building a new City Hall on the current site was expressed with it
being indicated it was felt the City should at least enter into negotiations regarding the Sun
Bank building.
In response to a question, Darlene ~arteleto, representing Oxford Property
Management, stated they are willing to re-enter negotiations regarding the City purchase
of the building due to the estimates for building a City Hall coming in higher than the
building was being offered and they needed to do this prior to finalizing negotiations with
two significant tenants.
Ouestions were raised regarding the building's ability to weather a storm, leaks
being caused around the windows, electrical problems and the climate control with there
being areas of hot and cold in the building. Ms. Barteleto explained the leaks caused by
the April 1991 storm had been fixed, the electrical problem had been caused by a Florida
. ,
."
CCmtg
9/3/92
25
.
Power problem which has also been corrected and that the climate control has had
significant improvements made to it. It was suggested these problems are problems of
any building and will occur even in a brand new one.
Also in response to a question, it was indicated CitiCorp approached the City t the
City did not approach them regarding reopening negotiations.
Further discussion ensued regarding whether or not negotiations should be
reopened on the Sun Bank building.
One citizen spoke recommending a design competition for a new City Han and
recommended that if the Commission wished to reopen negotiations for the Sun Bank
building, they offer $4 to 5 million as a one-time offer.
Len Vinty, a general contractor for Oxford Property Management, statod he has
done work in the building and it would cost less than $1 5 per square foot to finish out the
building. He felt the Sun Bank building wa,s a tremendous value.
It was stated the downside to purchasing the Sun Bank building would be that the
property would be removed from the tax roll and they would be eliminating the possibility
of adding 250 people to the downtown area.
A citizen spoke questioning the cost to move in to the Sun Bank building and the air
conditioning casts stating that this type of building is hard to heat and cool.
. One citizen spake stating it would be difficult to construct underground parking on
the current site and would make the cost differential between the Sun Bank building and a
newly constructed City Hall mare than anticipated. He indicated it makes sense to buy an
existing building.
Further discussion ensued regarding underground parking with it being indicated
that de~watering the excavation will be difficult.
Commissioner Deegan moved to authorize staff to proceed with plans for locating a
new City Hall on the current City Hall site and to advertise the RFO for a design-build
contract for construction. The motion was duly seconded.
Discussion ensued re'garding the design-build concept and it was indicated that no
one an staff had been involved in the design and construction of a large office building and
that the design-build process would give the City more control.
Opinions were expressed that not allowing negotiation for the Sun Bank building
would be a disservice to the taxpayers.
Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Regulski, Barfield and Deegan voted
"Aye", Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay". Motion carried.
.
CCmtg
9/3/92
26
.
Discussion ensued regarding the detail that needed to be in the initial RFO and
whether or not the exact site for the new building had to be designated. It was indicated
that for the RFQ there could be more general information but that after the short list has
been developed. specific information regarding whether or not building would be
considered below the 28 foot line and whether or not there will be underground parking
will need to be determined.
The majority of the Commission felt that the site to be considered would be the
city-owned property above and below the bluff, from the relocated tennis courts south
across Pierce Street. It is understood that more detail regarding the site will be provided
after the short list is produced from the responses to the RFO.
IT~M #69 - First Readino Ord. #~2a3-92 - Florida Gulf Coast Art Center leasing Maas site,
and establishing a ballot question
The City has been working for several weeks to develop an ordinance placing a
question on the November election to allow the Art Center to purchase the property as
well as develop an agreement regarding the Art Center's use of that property. The City
Attorney indicated that since Monday's worksession, the Art Center has requested a time
extension for delay in beginning construction for reasons not within the control of the Art
Center but there would be no extension to the condition for obtaining a certificate of
occupancy within five years.
.
Discussion ensued regarding on what the extension should be allowed.
Tim Mariani, Vice-President of the Florida Gulf Coast Art Center. stated they are
requesting this in case something should happen out af the control of the Art Center which
causes delay; however, he said the deadlines need to remain in place regarding closing and
obtaining building permits but that the extension should be for the obtaining of the
certificate of occupancy.
Consensus was to move the extension from paragraph 4 and make it a part of
paragraph 3 to deal only with completion of the project.
The Art Center has also submitted a proposal as an alternate to payment in lieu of
taxes. Mr. Mariani indicated he has met with the Board of Trustees and they hope there
will not be a payment in lieu of taxes provision adopted as it would kill the project. He
stated what they are suggesting is they pay $1.500 per month, beginning January of
1993, and this be paid until the building -is demolished. Th, way if nothing happens in the
two years. the City has not lost their out-of-pocket expenses for the maintenance of the
Maas Brothers property. He also was opposed to any restrictions on assignability of the
agreement.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal with some concerns being expressed that
the City must be protected regarding the assignability and that this property could be used
in a way to produce revenue for the City.
.
CCmtg
9/3/92
27
. '" . ." ..... 'r ','" ....,: ,'. ~ ..".... '. r'. '.',', .,.., "" I .t"', .. .....; ~~,'."'" t''''~-' #j,J~ III',,'. ." ,....' ".~:
.
.
.
Concerns were expressed regarding the payments stopping once the City
demolishes the building. Mr. Mariani expressed concerns regarding the restrictions being
placed on the Art Center. He indicated the payments being proposed are a fair value for
what the Art Center is being asked to do.
Concerns were expressed regarding the City having to assume demolition costs.
Concerns were expressed regarding demolishing the building and leaving the excavation.
Also concerns were expressed regarding proposals for downtown development and the
shortage of time In which the City has had to prepare this.
Questions were raised regarding whether or not there could be multiple choices on
the ballot so citizens could express their preferences for use of the property.
Commissioner Deegan moved to amend Ordinance #5283~92 on page 5 by
inserting a new subsection (g) to read as follows: Beginning with the month of January,
1993 and ending on the month prior to closing, the Center shall pay to the City the sum of
One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) on or before the 15th day of each month
during such term. The monthly payments from the Center to the City shall be
nonrefundable and shall be paid as additional consideration over and above the Seven
Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000.00) purchase price for the purpose of defraying
the out~of~pocket costs incurred by the City when maintaining the Maas Brothers building.
The Center shall be relieved of its obligation to continue payments under this sub-section
after (1) the City exercises its rights of reverter; or (2) the Center notifies the City of its
inability to close the purchase of the Property thereby terminating the contract. In no
event shall the sum of alt payments made under this sub-section exceed Thirty-Three
Thousand Dollars ($33,000.00). The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being
taken; Commissioners Regulski, Berfield and Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye",
Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Naylt. Mation carried.
Commissioner Deegan moved to amend Ordinance #5283-92 on page 4 to insert a
new subsection (f) to read as follows: The Center may not assign, convey, transfer or
encumber any of its rights under this ordinance, or the contract for purchase and sala of
the Property or any of its rights thereunder t or the Property or any rights therein, without
the express prior consent of the City. The conversion of the corporate status of the
Center from a corporation not for profit to a corporation for profit. or from a nonstock
nonprofit corporation to a stock share nonprofit corporation, shall require notice to and the
approval of the City prior to such conversion. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115283-92 for first reading as amended and
read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5283-92 on first
reading as amended. The motion was duly seconded.
Concerns were expressed that this decision needed to be delayed. A citizen spoke
requesting that the referendum language be clear and understandable including that there
will be no tax revenue and what the demolition costs will be. He also expressed concerns
CCmtg
9/3/92
28
.' ~ . .' . . . l. .' ,1" . >.,.. ~ . . ,', .: ,.,"
.
that there needed to be more questions on the ballot to get Input from the public regarding
what Is wanted on this site.
Further discussion ensued regarding whether or not additional questions should be
placed on the ballot and it was indicated questions are limited by State law to 75 words.
Concern~ were also expressed regarding the ballot needIng to be submItted to the
Supervisor of Elections Office by September 18, 1992. Consensus of the Commission
was for the City Attorney to attempt to produce a multiple choice ballot question that
could be placed on the ballot and would include such options as parkland, open space, the
Art Center and commercial development.
One citizen spoke suggesting a survey be done through the utility bills.
Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": Fitzgerald.
Motion carried.
ITEM #70 - First ReadinQ Ord. #5265-92 - amending Ch. 146 regarding flood protection,
redefining time limit of cumulative total for definition of substantial improvement to
Clearwater Beach and Sand Key lPtD)
. A change is being proposed to change the one year time limit in the definition of
"substantial improvement" to five years for Clearwater Beach and Sand Key only, to
conform with the revisions of State Statute 161.54. During the last legislative session,
the State of Florida passed a bill specifying a five year time limit for determining the
cumulative cost of improvement in determining what constitutes substantial improvement.
The new taw applies only to barrier islands.
A structure which has reached substantial improvement can not be further
improved unless it is brought into compliance with all other parts of Chapter 146, including
raising the lowest habitable residential floor above base flood elevation. The owner's other
option is to wait until the expiration of the time limit specified in the definition of
"substantial improvement". This proposed change would use a 5 year period for all
applicable construction costs to determine when the substantial improvement is reached.
The value of the structure at the time of the permit request is used as the baseline for
determining substantial improvement. The amendment proposes to change the time limit
for Clearwater Beach and Sand Key and leave the other special flood hazard areas in the
City at a 1 year time period. At their August 18, 1992 meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Board recommended approval of the proposed ordinance. .
An opinion was expressed that the ordinance should include all flood prone areas.
.'
CCmtg
9/3/92
29
~..'.
.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5265-92 for first roading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Regulskl moved to pass Ordinance #5265-92 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayest,: Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Deegan.
"Nays": Garvey.
Motion carried.
ITEM #71 - (Cont. from 8/13/92) First ReaQing Ord. #5219-92 - Roll-Off Container
ordinance revision, amending Sees. 54.20 thru 54.22 and 54.24 thru 54.26, repealing
Sec. 54.23 (PW)
Clearwater has in force an ordinance governing the policies and procedures for
permitting private hauling companies to provide roll-off service within the city limits of
Clearwater. The code governs application procedures, fees, liability insurance and
penalties for failure to comply.
.
The ordinance, in its present form, has been misinterpreted by many of the
permittees who have not been paying the 15% fee for open top construction roll-oft
containers placed in Clearwater. As a result, the City has been losing revenue. In the
past, the Solid Waste Division has been limited in its ability to maintain adequate
surveillance over the construction roll-off portion of the permit due to the highly transient
nature of the business and has not been able to effectively enforce the ordinance.
Now that all Solid Waste vehicles have radios and a more responsive permitting
procedure through the Planning Department's central counter, the City has a means for
maintaining better surveillance over the placement of construction roll-ofts within the City
and will be in a much better enforcement posture.
The ordinance revisions recommended tighten the language governing all roll-off
operations within the City, specifically including construction roll-offs, eliminate the need
for surety bonds and eliminates areas for misinterpretation of fee requirements.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5219-92 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass Ordinance #5219-92 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
nAyesn: Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nayst1: None.
ITEM #72 - Parks & Recreation Board - 2 aooointments (eLK)
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
.
CCmtg
9/3/92
30
',' "', ". '. ..., .......~. \\ ,". . '.'.... ' .. ' " >'1, >.', ", .. ~>..": '~~~...':.~1',~5~'.:-',;,"':i.:r.":":"~:"":'~'l:~~{:f;'<.::
.
ITEM #73 - Clearwater Housina Authoritv - 1 aooointment (eLK)
Commissioner Berfield moved to reappoint Katharine Griffith. The modon was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #74 - atoer Pendina Matters ~ None.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
First Reading Ordinances
ITEM 1/75 - Ord. #5267-92 - Relating t9 finance BOd taxation, amending Sec. 44.21
regarding exemptions from public service tax
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5267-92 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5267-92 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes.t: Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
ltNays't: None.
ITEM #76 - Other Citv AttQrnev Items - None.
ITEM #77 - City ManaQer Verbal Reoorts - None.
. ITEM 1178 - O~her Commission Action
.
a. Discussion regarding replacement of Commissioner Regulski
Mayor Garvey indicated a desire to appoint someone now in order to start to
include them in the cycle of information. She has suggested Reverend Campbell.
Discussion ensued regarding how to handle filling Commissioner Regulski's
vacancy. It was indicated additional people will be submitting their names to the City
Clerk for consideration.
In response to a question, it was indicated the Commission has, in the past,
appointed people that h~ve previous experience on the City Commission.
In response to a question, Commissioner Regulski stated that he would only
consider being reappointed to his seat if no one else is found and he would require a
unanimous vota.
The Mayor requested this be scheduled for the meeting of September 17. 1992.
The Mayor questioned what process the Commission wished to follow in the City
Manager and City Attorney evaluations. Consensus was for it to be done as in the,past
.",
CCmtg
9/3/92
31
, " "', . . ., I J. ,'\ '.'.'
.
.
t,: '
\'. .
",~
....
"
,~ .
, ,"
,
't~: :
",
, .
;;".
f .
~:'f
,
~. i:.
",
with the evaluations being held at a worksesslon and the City Manager and City Attorney
providing any Information they wished to the Commission. It was the consensus to
schedule this fo'r the worksesslon of September 14, 1992, with the understanding that If
time does not allow them to be discussed at that time, they will be scheduled for the
worksession of September 28, 1992.
ITEM #79 - Adiournment
The meeting adjourned at 1 :50 a.m.
~Dp-
Ii
" ,
CCmtg
9/3/92
32
"
, c,
',;
"
,',
'I
, ::,
'"I
, : ~.
~~' :
'?~'
. :~!~
. ,~;':;t~
, ;,'i
:.:t~
...~~
. · ',.:i~