09/17/1992 (2)
.
September 17, 1992
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall,
Thursday, September '7. , 992 at 6~OO p.m., with the following members present:
Rita Garvey
Richard Fitzgerald
Lee Regulski
SUB 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 will be listed in agenda order although
not necessarily discussed In that order.
ITEM #3 - Service Awards
Four service awards were presented to City employees.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards
Proclamation: Safety Awareness Week - September 19-24. 1992.
,\ ITEM #5 - Presentations - none.
1
Ed Mazur, National Forget-Me-Not Association. presented an update on the
POW/MIA issue and requested the media cover the issue. Proclamation declaring
September 18, 1992 as POW/MIA Recognition Day was issued.
ITEM #6 - Minutes of the' Regular Meeting of Seotember 3. 1992
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of
September 3, 1992, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to
each Commissioner. The motton was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
.
CCmtg
9/17/92
.!
1
\;i
','
, .
.,'
.
ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard ra itams not on the Aaenda
Clark Weaver requested new curbs be Installed along Glenwood Avenue South.
Bobert Clark complained regarding not being compensated by the Coast Guard
Auxiliary for work he performed for them.
Ken' Hamilton. representing the Chamber of Commerce, requested reconsideration
be given to the purchase of the Sun Bank Building.
Mik~ Fietd~ spoke in favor of leaving the Sun Bank Building option open.
Bob Wright spoke in opposition to the purchase of the Sun Bank Building and
suggested consideration be given to the Bllgore property site for a new City Hall.
Fred Thomas stated the Chamber of Commerce put out misinformation regarding
the City Commission voting to spend money on a new City Hall and owed the Commission
an apology.
PUBL'C HEARINGS
ITEM #8
A. Second Reading Ord. #5257-92 - Relet/nQ to LDC. amending Ch. 134. regardino si9ns
and sian regulations; amending Sec. 137.005
. Jim Polatty, Planning and Development Director. stated the amendments to the sign
code will bring the City'S code into conformance with the countywide sign regulations. He
said the amendments, generally, will allow larger attached signs.
John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the sign code regulates
freestanding and attached signs. He reviewed the signs allowed in the various zoning
districts. He said free standing signs are currently restricted in the downtown, except for
those properties greater than one acre in size; the North Greenwood Commercial district;
and the Beach Commercial district. He said there are no significant changes proposed to
the size of free standing sings. Currently, the size of attached signs are based on a
formula with a cap based on the use of the property. The size limit for attached signs
under the proposed code amendments will be based on the zoning of the property and
width of the building.
Jim Polatty, reviewed major differences between the existing and proposed code.
Signs erected in conformance with the 1985 sign code will be tlgrandfathered" in.
In response to a question, it was indicated "grandfathering" did not appty to sign
variances granted in the last fjve years that were conditioned 'upon conforming to the
October 13, 1992 amortization date.
.'
CCmtg
9/17/92 .
2
.
.
.
In response to a question regarding the size of signs allowed in the highway
commercial and general commercial districts, it was indicated they will remain the same as
currently exists but there would be a slight reduction in the resort commercial district.
Jeannie Maguire. representing South Clearwater Beach Business Owners. located in
the Beach Commercial district, spoke in opposition to the prohibition of pole signs in this
zoning district. She felt the 1 5 foot setback for beach commercial was unfair and asked
that staff allow the same sign size in CB as allowed in resort commercial.
Bill Jonson, representing the Coalition of Homeowners, spoke in favor of the
amendments and commended those businesses that have conformed their signs with the
1985 code.
One citizen questioned whether his sign which is located on the property line, was
in conformance due to Florida Department of Transportation taking a portion of his
property for right-of-way. He was advised to contact staff with the porticulars.
Twenty-two business owners and citizens spoke in opposition stating these
amendments would create a negative economic impact on business and take away
property owners' rights. Concerns were expressed regarding the expense involved for the
business owner to remove and replace existing signs in order to comply, that reduced
signage would impose a hardship on the businesses' ability to identify themselves in order
to be successful and that a potential for a lawsuit against the City would exist. It was felt
the businesses' viewpoints were not considered; the fee to apply for a variance for
existing signs was excessive; that some of the non-conforming signs provided a landmark
in identifying and locating businesses; that all existing signs should be "grandfathered";
the sign ordinance should represent the desires of the community; and regarding
aesthetics, more emphasis should be placed on enforcing the property standard ordinance.
Concern was also expressed regarding those properties whose signs were constructed in
compliance with the former county code who have since annexed into the City and now
do not comply. Suggestions were made that an allowance be given for those business
owners who have annexed into the City, that a signage impact fee be considered, that
passage of the proposed amendments be postponed until the financial impact can be
reviewed and that a refund be given for those businesses who have already made changes
to their signs in order to comply.
Displayed. but not submitted, were what was said to be 1600 petitions expressing
opposition to the sign code.
One business owner spoke in favor of the amendments stating he agreed with the
ordinance and its intent citing the visual c1uttsr along GulHo-Bay Boulevard. He felt the
property owners should assume responsibility for notifying tenants of sign conformance.
He felt the variance application fee made it difficult to apply.
Trish Muscarella. attorney representing a business owner. said that the country is in
a recession and businesses are hurting financially. She requested that timing and
application be reviewed.
'I
CCmtg
9/17/92
3
.
Fred Thomas. representing the Clearwater Beach Association. indicated he felt
equality Is needed throughout the City. He found the ordinance to be unclear In
determining non-conformities. He recommended that a mediation board be formed and the
adoption of the ordinance be delayed.
Ken Hamilton, representing the Chamber of Cornmerce. said the 1985 ordinance
was too restrictive. He said businesses are currently facing a tough economy and
requested that enactment of tho ordinance be delayed until more profitable times. He
supported a reduction in variance and permit fees and recommended forming a task force
consisting of citizens. businesses and staff to study the issue and arrive at a compromise.
Discussion ensued in regard to passage of the 1985 sign code and getting the
message out regarding the City's sign amortization program. Owners of affected signs
have been informed with occupational license renewals, by notices sent after the 1991
sign inventory and at sign variance hearings. It was noted calls have been received from
those business owners who have changed their signs to comply and they have indicated
there has been no negative impact on their businesses.
Discussion ensued in regard to recommended amendments which included
maintaining a clear distance above pedestrian access areas (would bring the sign code into
conformance with the building code); the sign bonus provision to be based on existing
setbacks with proposed road widening projects being taken into account; that signs
currently consistent with the 1985 code will be IIgrandfathered;" and the prohibition on
pole signs in beach commercial will be lifted (the size and height still to be determined).
. A question was raised whether the proposed wall sign bonuses were considered to
be excessive. Mr. Polatty indicated the impact on small businesses was not known. He
said he would like to work with the proposed bonuses and come back at a later date if an
adjustment is necessary.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 1/5257-92 for second reading and read it by
title only.
Commissioner Deegan moved to amend Ordinance 1/5257-92 on page 8, the first
sentence of Section 134.008(2) to read: For any sign which projects over a sidewalk or
other pedestrian access area, a minimum clear distance of nine feet shall be maintained as
measured from ground level to the bottom portion of the sign structure which projects
over the sidewalk or other pedestrian access area. unless a lesser clear distance is
specifically allowed by the standard building code based upon the design of the sign
structure. For any sign which projects over a right-at-way or other vehicular access area,
B minimum clear distance of 14 feet shall be maintained as measured from ground level to
the bottom portion of the sign structure which projects over the right-of-way or other
vehicular access area. Signs that project over public sidewalks and rights-of-way shall
require the approval of the director 'of public works. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
.
CCmtg
9/17192
". 4
.
.
..
Commissioner ReQulski moved to amend Ordinance //5257-92 on page 28.
Subsection 134.012(a)(1) to read as follows: An attached sign on a building for which the
existing setback from an adjoining street right-of-way, or a proposed street right-of-way as
shown on the Transportation Improvement Program or the adopted transportation element
of the city's comprehensive plan, Is 100 feet or greater is eligible for a sign arBa bonus
according to the following schedule. Only the primary sign attached to the eligible building
facade, and oriented towards the adjoining street right-of-way. is eligible for an area
bonus. The following formula shall be used to determine the allowable sign area for signs
eligible for such bonus: ..... etc. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued in regard to when a nonconforming sign is considered to be
lawful. In response to a question. it was indicated any non-conforming sign that is
damaged to the extent that the replacement does not exceed 50 percent may be repaired.
Commission Deegan moved to amend Ordinance #5257-92 beginning on page 30,
delete Section 4 and substitute the changes as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, and
as such, made a part of the minutes. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
A question was raised as to what direction to take regarding signs erected under
county permit with the property being annexed shortly thereafter. Mr. Polatty indicated
background information is needed as special considerations could affect annexation efforts
in the future.
Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Ordinance #5257-92 on page 25.
subsection (8) of section 134.011 (d) to read as follows in the following subparts: a.
Freestanding signs shall be permitted in the Eastern Corridor subdistrict of the Urban
Center district and in the Beach Commercial and Beach Commercial Planned Development
districts as follows: 1. Maximum number: One sign per lot. For parcels with over 500
feet of street frontage on one right~of-way, one auxiliary freestanding sign may be
permitted; such auxiliary sign shall be spaced at least 300 feet from all other freestanding
signs on the same property. In the Beach Commercial and Beach Commercial Planned
Development districts, freestanding signs shall be permitted only on properties having a
principal building structural setback of not less than 1 5 feet over not less than 100 percent
of the total property frontage on which the sign is located.; 2. Maximum area: 64 square
feet in the Eastern Corridor subdistrict of the Urban Center district~ 50 square feet in the
Beach Commercial and Beach Commercial Planned Development districts. An auxiliary
freestanding sign shall be a maximum of 24 square feet in area.; 3. Maximum height: 20
feet in the Eastern Corridor subdistrict of the Urban Center district; 20 square feet in the
Beach Commercial and Beach Commercial Planned Development districts. The maximum
height for an auxiliary freestanding sign shall be eight feet. The motion was duly
seconded. .
A suggestion was made that the height and square footage be reduced and it was
indicated the attempt was for equality.
Upon the vote being taken, it carried unanimously.
CCmtg
9/17/92
5
.
Commissioner Regulski moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 1/5257-92 as amended
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.
B. Res. #92-59 - amending Res. #92-38 which established a schedule of fees
The City Attorney presented Resolution 1/92-59 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Regulski moved to pass and adopt Resolution 1/92-59 and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded.
Discussion ensued in regard to whether consideration should be given to those who
have applied for a variance and have paid the full $450 fee. Staff was requested to
provide information regarding the impact of refunding fees since the dramatic increase in
variance fees.
Discussion ensued regarding the need for staff to work out the details of procedure
to implement the sign ordinance and to report back to the Commission.
Upon roll call, the vote was:
.
ttAyes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The meeting recessed from 9:30 p.m. to 9:45 p.m.
#9 - Not a Public Hearing but action needed orior to BudQet beino adoDted
ITEM #9 - First Resdina Ord. #5284-92 - Relating to utilities; amending Sees. 50.05(e){1)
and (3), 50.05(f)(1) and 50.05(g)(1) to revise domestic water and wastewater rates (AS)
In December of 1991, Camp Dresser & McKee (COM) completed an extensive rate
study encompassing both water and sewer rates. Based on their study, the Commission
approved rate increases for both water and sewer, effective February 1, 1992, October 1,
1992, and October 1, 1993. In now appears that the actual 1992 cash deficit, originally
estimated by CDM to be $2.5 million. is projected to be less than $600,000. Further. the
1993 budget (with original rate increases) is currently projecting a $2.0 million cash
surplus, as compared with COM's original break~even projection. Reasons for the
favorable forecast include increased consumption, and reductions in the insurance reserve
and pension contribution requirements. In addition, the COM study included a 5%
lIinflation factortl. The City has been successful in holding most line item expenditure
increases to less than this amount.
.
CCmtg
9/17192
6
".
The proposed rate revision is still projected to generate a FY 93 cash surplus of
$1.2 million which should recover the FY 92 cash deficit plus about $600,000. Staff
believes this is a reasonable target given the uncertainty surrounding demand for next year
and the potential impact of additional mandatory conservation measures.
.
As 8 result of these favorable factors, staff is able to recommend reductions In the
rate increase scheduled for 10/1/92. Ordinance #5284-92 would revise the 10/1/92
scheduled Increases (6.8% water and 9.5% sewer) to 4% water and 6% sewer. The
ordinance does not propose to modify the increases already scheduled for 1011/93.
However, staff intends to monitor the adequacy of the City's rate structure every six
months and will likely be able to recommend a corresponding reduction in the 1011/93
proposed rates.
In response to a question, it was indicated the increase in revenues to the City is
due to more water being used.
Finance Director Dan Deignan, stated the rate structur~ is inverted and conservadon
is being encouraged. He recommended monitoring the October " 1993 proposed rates.
There was discussion regarding whether to work towards a zero surplus or to have
a safety factor built in.
.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5284-92 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5284-92 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM //10- 1992/93 Budaet (AS)
Referring to changes recommended at the City Commission Meeting of September
3rd and the Work Session of September 8th, the City Manager stated revenues have been
increased to offset expenditures and to fund the Community Relations Program. He said
the millage rate is the same as last year.
A question was raised regarding placing funds in the budget for the Mandalay
Avenue sidewalks, and the City Manager said this would be brought forward as a first
quarter budget amendment.
One citizen spoke requesting the number of lap top computers for the Police
Department be cut in half and that the life cycle be reviewed. Due to the amount of
money that would be spent for a City Hall, he felt a referendum was in order.
- I
.
CCmtg
9117192
7
.
.
.
Fred Thomas, Clearwater Beach Association, thanked the Commission for adding
the Mandalay sidewalk project to the budget. He expressed concern regarding the
gathering of youths on the beach indicating the architectural design being considered for
the pedestrian stations on Mandalay may encourage such gatherings. He asked that the
beach association and police be allowed to work together regarding the design. He
expressed concern regarding foul language and behavior and asked jf the City could set
standards to eliminate such behavior on the beach.
Frank Walther, Clearwater Bombers, discussed their tradition, the economics of
running a team and asked for suggestions on how to defer expenses. He said the Bombers
have brought recognition to the City, have raised money for Seratoma and have provided
free baseball clinics. He said they are requesting additional funds and asked the
Commission to allow them an opportunity to come back with a difinitive plan for matching
funds.
Mitch Harder, Clearwater Bomber Manager, said if the Bombers cannot continue to
be first class, their tradition is over. He said he will be working very diligently in the next
three weeks to obtain corporate commitments.
One citizen requested that overtime costs in the Police and Fire Departments be
reviewed. He supported a reduction in the number of lap top computers for the Police
Department and questioned whether software costs, maintenance, etc. were included in
the cost. He said consideration needs to be given to how a new City Hall will be financed
and requested other City Hall site alternatives and opportunities be explored. He
questioned the reduction in cost for the Sun Bank building and the projected increase in
personnel.
The City Manager indicated there are approximately 260 employees using the lap
top computers. He said software, maintenance costs and the durability factor will be
considered in the purchase.
a. Second Reading Ord. #5280-92. millage rate for FY92/93
The City Manager presented Ordinance #5280-92 for second reading and read it in
full. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5280-92 on second and
final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfie/d. Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
b. Second Reading Ord. #5281-92 - ooerating budget for FY92/93
Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Exhibit A of Ordinance #5281-92 to
reflect the following changes regarding the 1992-93 Budgeted Revenue: To record an
increase in General Fund - Fines and Forfeitures of $49,100 to reflect an increase in Court
Fines; To record 8 budget decrease of $858,615 in Water and Sewer Fund Operating 1
CCmtg
9117192
8
,.,.
.',
:' ....
': ,;,<
. .....
'.~ :~.~
:":'.:S'
',,' :tt)
;:,~~?
~'l :il
'..,~ ::'.;~ij,
.. : ',,::Wt~
,: " ,";' ~:{j(::~~1"
~""".
, . > ~. .,~. >":'t,.': .~ ^ "':.. '"/'. ',..4...~ ,. 101 \.' ..:~ :',(1 ~:'I~ ~'.":"'1' .. .:' .'. "+ . ..
.
revenues to reflect a revision to the water and sewer rate increase scheduled for 10/1/92
as proposed to the Commission on 9/17/92 and regarding the 1992-93 Budgeted
Expenditures: To record an increase of $7,100 in the City Commission budget reflecting
an Increase In Official Recognition to $10,000 upon Commission request at the September
8th budget workshop; To record an Increase of $583,330 in Administration reflecting the
transfer of the Community Relation Expenditures from Planning and Development; the
transfer of $130,000 for the summer youth program from the Non-Departmental division;
the transfer of $62,000 of Social Service Agency funding from the Non-Oepartmental
division; and an increase of $42,000 representing $15,000 in contract services, $22,000
for the addition of a Staff Assistant I, and $5,000 for a merit increase for the Department
Director; To record a decrease of $192,000 in the Non-Departmental bUdget reflecting the
transfer of $130,000 for the Summer Youth Program and $62,000 of Social Service
Agency funding to the Affirmative Action Office and To record a decrease of $349,330 in.
Planning and Development reflecting the transfer of Community Relations to the
Affirmative Action office. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5281-92 as amended for second reading
and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance
#5281.92 as amended 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.
. c. Second Reading Ord. #5282-92 - cacital improvement orogram budget for FY92/93
.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to amend the CIP Summary of Ordinance #5282-92
to reflect the following change to the CIP Expenditure Summary by Function; The line item
for Police Protection is amended for fiscal year 1997-98 from $450,000 to $225,000 for a
new line item total of $2,793,000, reflecting a decrease of 50 in the number of laptop
computers to be purchased in FY 1997/98. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115282.92 as amended for second reading
and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance
#5282-92 as amended on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and
upon roll call, the vote was:
UAyes": Regulski, Fitzgerald. Barfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Naysll: None.
In response to questions, the City Manager explained the transfer of funding for the
new City Hall. It was stated that if the Commission decides to finance the City Hall.
budget amendments can be made.
CCmtg
9/17192
9
.
.
.
.
ITEM # 11 . Florida Gulf Coast Art Center
The City Attorney explained the proposed changes to Exhibit A (land description)
and Exhibit B (description of an .tarts centertl).
Fred Thomas, Clearwater Beach Association, expressed concern that the citizens
understand the City is responsible for demolition costs and questioned why an estimate of
these costs was not included in the ballot question. It was indicated ballot language Is
limited and estimating demolition costs could hinder negotiations in obtaining a reasonable
price.
Ken Hamilton, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, said all options need to be
considered, which include developing the entire bluff. He supported the art center but only
as part of an overall downtown redevelopment. He asked that the issue be delayed to the
March election.
Three citizens spoke in oppostion to a November referendum requesting the
potential of all property on the bluff be evaluated; the financial feasibility of the site be
determined before it is sold; that retail shops, youth educational facilities, such as a
science center, in combination with an arts facility, be considered; and requested the
referendum be delayed until March.
One citizen spoke in support of the referendum commending the Commission for
purchasing the Maas Brothers property.
It was pointed out this is not a straw ballot question and would be binding.
Tim Mariani, President of Florida Gulf Coast Art Center, said the community has
been misinformed regarding the costs involved in the purchase. He said the art center is
purchasing only 50 percent of the Maas site. Due to the view corridor, only 60 percent of
the purchased property can be used. He said the art center is compatible with many uses.
In response to a question, it was indicated, if the referendum fails, all options for
use of the property are open.
A. Declare portion of Maas Brothers oropertv surolus
Commissioner Regulski moved to declare the eastern half of the Mass Brothers
property, located at the northwest corner of Osceola Avenue and Cleveland Street, more
particularly described in Exhibit A to Ordinance #5283-92, as surplus to the City's needs.
The motion was duly seconded.
Concern was expressed declaring the property surplus was premature as it was felt
the use of the property has not been properly evaluated. .
Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Regulski, Berfield and Deegan and
Mayor Garvey voted "Aye", Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay". Motion carried.
CCmtg
9/17192
10
.
B. Second Reading Ord, #5283-92 - P(oviding oortio" of Mass Brothers orooecty be sold
for $760.000 tp the Florida Gulf Coast Art Center. Inc.
Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Ordinance #5283-92 by substituting 8
fevlsed Exhibit A providing the legal description which deletes the radial turn needed for
the Osceola Avenue/Cleveland Street Intersection. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Deegan moved to amend Ordinance 1/5283-92 on second reading by
adding Exhibit 8 describing an "arts facility. II The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Concern was expressed if the property reverts back to the City, the City may be
required to pay a purchase price to the arts center.
Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Ordinance #5283-92 on second reading on
page 5, subse'ction (3)(1), in the last sentence of the paragraph after the words "to the
City", by adding "at no cost to the City,'.. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote
being taken; Commissioners Regulski, Berfield and Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye".
Commissioner Fitzgerald voted t'Nayt1. Motion carried.
.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 1/5283-92 for second reading as amended
and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance
#5283-92 as amended on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and
upon roll caU; the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulskl, Barfield, Deegan and Garvey.
nNays": Fitzgerald.
Motion carried.
ITEM #12 - Public Hearina - Declare oropertv located at 401 S. Prosoect Ave..
Coachman's Heights Revised. elk C. westerly 110' of Lots 4-6, as surplus to City needs
for the purpose of leasing to the lAFF (AS)
A request was made this item be continued due to the possibility of Public Works
requiring this property for retention.
Commissioner Barfield moved to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled
meeting of October 1, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and canled unanimously.
ITEM #13 - (Cont. from 7/2/92) Public Hearing - Vacating $Qruce St., between Blk 2, E of
Lots 14-' 8 & Blk 3. W of Lot 19-21. J.H. Rouse Sub., subject to the r-o-w being retained
full width as a drainage & utility easement, elimination of the existing business on the W
.
CCmtg
9/17/92
1 1
.
side of Spruce St. and filing a replat or Unity of Title covering the property on both sides
of Spruce (Jimmie V92-07HPW)
This item was continued from the July 2, 1992 meeting at the applicant's request.
The applicant is requesting the vacation 'bf Spruce Avenue lying between Seminole Street
and Eldridge Street. The applicant owns the property on both sides of Spruce Avenue.
The Engineering Division has no objection to the request provided the right-of-way
is retained full width as a Drainage and Utility Easement. The City has water and sewer
lines within the right-of-way which only serve the applicant. Should the use of the
property subsequently call for building in the retained easement, the easement can be
vacated upon the relocation of the utilities at the applicant's expense or converted to
private lines to be the responsibility of the property owner.
The Planning and Development Department recommend approval subject to: 1) the
applicant closing his business on the west side of Spruce Avenue which is not zoned for
the existing use; 2) replat the property or file a Unity of Title to ensure that no lot will be
land locked: and 3} final reading and adoption of the vacation ordinance be held until the
conditions are met.
Florida Power, GTE and Vision Cable have no objection to this request.
.
The Public Works Director stated the applicant is now requesting that the right-of-
way on Spruce Avenue not be retained as a drainage and utility easement by the City. Mr.
Baker said this is easily done by installing a meter at the property line, and in response to a
question, Mr. Baker indicated he is comfortable with the applicant's request.
Gordon Killion, representing the applicant, said Mr. Jimmie would like the flexibility
to use the right-of-way to the full extent.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the vacation of Spruce Avenue between
Block 2 and 3 of J.H. Rouse Subdivision subject to the elimination of the existing business
on the west side of Spruce Avenue and Wing a replat or Unity of Title covering the
property on both sides of Spruce. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
ITEM #14 - (Cant. from 9/3/92) Public Hearing & First Read/no Ord. #5263-92 - IPO
Zoning for orooertv located at 22067 US19N, Clearwater 19 Commerce Park, Lot 1
(Kunne" Z92-07)(PLD)
This item was withdrawn.
..
tTJ:M #15 - Variances to Sign ReQulations for prooertv located at 1500 Ballaair Rd., Sec.
23-29-15, M&B 34.04 (Fortune Fed'l S&L Assn/Fortune Bank SV92-14)(PlDJ
The applicant has requested a continuance of this item to October 1, 1992.
.
CCmtg
9117192
12
.',
.
Commissioner Regulski moved to continue this item to the regularly scheduled
maetlng of October 1, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM 1f'6 - 'Cont. 'rom 9/3/92) Public HearirlQ & First Reading Ord. #5264-92. relatioo to
height Iiml~atlons, amending Sec. 136.004 & 137.005 (LDCA92-12)lPLO)
Variances are frequently required to the City's height regulations, particularly for
structures being erected in areas which have a minimum required floor elevation. The
current code makes some provision for added height of structures, however, there is an
associated "penalty" which requires additional setback for structures which exceed the
"baset. height requirement. The proposed ordinance would allow penetration of parapet
walls for structures with flat roofs into the maximum allowable height, not to exceed 30
inches above such height; eliminate the requirement that the peaks of pitched roofs extend
no more than four feet above the maximum allowable height. relying simply on the average
height of the elevation of the eave and the peak of pitched roofs to determine actual
height for structures with pitched roofs; and establish height as measured from either the
actual grade or from the minimum required flood elevation as applicable.
These proposed changes will greatly simplify the current code, especially as the
code is applied to buildings constructed in areas having required minimum floor elevations.
.
The Development Code Adjustment Board recommended approval of this code
amendment at their August 13, 1992 meeting with one recommended change: Under the
definition of IIheightU, the Board suggested replacing the phrase "average of peak and eave
heights" with "midpoint of the peak and eave heights of the main roof structurett.
The Planning and Zoning Board considered the amendment at their September 1,
1992 meeting and recommended approval with the definition of height being revised to
read as follows: For buildings with flat roofs. the vertical distance from the mean
elevation of the existing grade to the highest finished roof surface. For buildings with
pitched roofs, the vertical distance from the existing grade to a point representing the
midpoint of the peak and eave heights for the main roof structure, or to the peak of any
dormer or other appurtenant roof structure extending above the peak of the main roof
structure. For other structures, the vertical distance from existing grade to the highest
point of the structure above such existing grade. Where minimum floor elevations in flood
prone areas have been established by law. the building height shall be measured as though
the required Base Flood Elevation constitutes existing grade except when the bonus
provisions of Section 136.004(a) are applied.
The revised definition of height by the DCAB allows dormers and other architectural
structures on a pitched roof to be excluded from consideration in height calculations
except when they extend above the peak of the main roof.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the land development code amendment
addressing height restrictions. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
.
CCmtg
9/17/92
13
.
Discussion ensued in regard to the difference between "average of peak and eave
heights" and .-midpoint of peak and eave heights.tt
Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Ordinance 116264.92 on page 2. amend
Section 137.006(a} to read: Words and terms used in this development code shall be
given the meanings identified hereinafter: Height: For buildings, the vertical distance from
the mean elevation of the existing grade to the highest finished roof surface in the case of
a building with a flat roof. or the vertical distance from the existing grade to a point
representing the midpoint of the peak and eave heights of the main roof structure of the
roof of a building having a pitched roof. For other structures, the vertical distance from
existing grade to the highest point of the structure above such existing grade. Where
minimum floor elevations in flood prone areas have been established by law, the building
height shall be measured as though the required minimum floor elevations constitute
existing grade except when the bonus provisions of Section 136.004(a) are applied. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5264-92 as amended for first reading and
read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass Ordinance //5264.92 as
amended on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
.-Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald. Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
ttNays": None.
.
ITEM #17 - Declare orooertv located at 1002 N. Garden Ave.. Joseoh J. EldridQe Sub.. Blk
C. Lot 31 , as surplus to City needs for purpose of selling or exchanging (PLD)
The former owner of the property, Brenda Evans, received a federally funded CDBG
loan in the amount of $25.000 to rehabilitate the property in 1985. $10,000 of the loan
was to be repaid with interest at 6 percent, and $15.000 was deferred and did not require
monthly repayment.
In April 1991. the Community Development Department learned Ms. Evans
homeowner's insurance had been canceled and she had vacated the premises. causing a
default under the terms of the mortgage. Ms. Evans was notified by letter on April 11,
1991. to comply with the terms of her mortgage. On May 3. 1991, Ms. Evans filed a
petition in bankruptcy court and received a discharge of her debts.
The City had the trustee of the property disclaim any interest in the property and
the bankruptcy court granted an order giving the City permission to commence foreclosure
proceedings. The Commission authorized commencement of foreclosure proceedings at its
meeting of December 5, 1991. A foreclosure action was filed in Pinellas Circuit Court by
the City Attorney's office and the property was subsequently purchased at public sale on
June 23, 1992, pursuant to the Order of Final Judgment entered in the case. The
property will be appraised and sold in accordance with the requirements of the City
Charter.
.
CCmtg
9/17/92
14
.
Commissioner Barfield moved to declare city-owned property located at 1002 North
Garden Avenue, Joseph J. Eldridge Subdivision, Block C, Lot 31 as being surplus to City
needs for the purpose of selling or exchanging said property. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Public Hearing. Second Reading Ordinances
ITEM 1118 - 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
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115219-92 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 115219.92 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 /I 1 9 - Ord. #5265-92 - amending Ch. 146 reQardin!:t flood oro~ection. redefining time
limit of cumulative total for definition of substantial improvement to Clearwater Beach and
Sand Key
.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115265-92 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5265-92 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded. Upon roll caU. the vote was:
"Ayes't: Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Deegan.
"Nays": Garvey.
Motion carried.
ITEM #20 - Ord. #5266-92 - Vacating Fifth Avenue Sou~h and cordons of Main Street and
Fourth Avenue South, lying within Sec. 32-28-16 (City/Dimmitt V92-13)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5266-92 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 1/5266-92 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call. the vote was:
"Ayesll: Regulski. Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
IINaysll: None.
ITEM #21 - Ord. #5267-92 - Relatinq to finance and taxation. amending Sec. 44.21
regarding exemptions from public service tax
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115267-92 for second reading and read it by
.
CCmtg
9/17192
15
.
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 1/5267-92 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll cal!, the vote was:
tlAyes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None,
ITEM #22 - Ord. #5~68.92 - Vacating S l' of the 10' drainage and vtility easement lying
along the N side of Lot 78, Clubhouse Estates of Countryside Unit 2, less the E 5' and the
W 5', located at 2670 St. Andrews Dr. (Burr V92-16)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 1/5268-92 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5268-92 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.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CQNSENT AGENDA {/terns #23-431 - Approved as submitted less Item #39.
Agre~ments - Approved.
. ITEM #23 - Amendments to the City's Firm Transoortation Service Agreement dated
1 011/91 and commensurate amendments to the General Service Agreement with Florida
Gas Transmission ConlO~ny (FGT) dated 11/16/89 (GAS)
ITEM #24 . SUDplemental Aareement No. 5 to contractual aareement with David Volkert
and Associates. Ino.. to orovide additional studies reauired bv oermittino aoencies and to
design utilitv accommodati9ns regsrdina Clearwater Pass Bridge Replacement Proiect.
increasing the amount by $111,086 for a new total of $1,153.294.34 (PWl
Bids & Contr8.;:ts . Awarded.
ITEM #25 - Cash Purchase of an Unlnterruptable Power System from DataComm, Tampa,
FL, for $7,416.86 (AS)
ITEM 1/26 - Purchase of a combination enQlne and aerial ladder trucl( for the Fire Deot from
Sau/sburv Fire Eauioment Core., Tully. NY, for $459.601 and authorize lease/purchase
from the City lease/purchase vendor (FD)
ITEM #27 - Contract for digitizing of 210 gas atlas paQes to Digital Engineerina
Consultan~s, Clearwater, FL, at an est. $10.500 (GAS)
.
CCmtg
9/17/92
16
~u, .., . < ~ _ .... ~. . '. ...; .,' , ' '. . ~. .' ",
. "1, ,( . .
.
.
..
ITEM #28 - Purchase 91 Bla9~ 3408 Polv~thvtene oino and fittiOgs from PhilllDs Engineerina
~, Clearwater, FL, and to Perfection Corp., Madison, OH, for tho period 9118/92-
9/17/93, for a total est. $268,745.80 (GAS)
ITEM #2f1 - Contract for construction of $.009' of 4" and 3.500' of 2" aas main in West
Taman SDrlngs (Mert;l~ !;!Ivd. I?'hase Jl) to Visk Construction. Inc., Riverview, FL, at a total
est. $80.450 (GASt
ITEM #30 - Ratifv and Confirm Purctwse of 2 Modular Secretarial Work Stations from Pride
of F:lorirjs, Polk City, FL, for $7,500 (GAS)
ITEM #31 - Extension of security auord service contract with Janus Securtiv Services fa,
the period 8/15/92-8/15/93, for approx. 2,314 hours, at an est. $15,272 (L1BI
ITEM #32 . Purchase of 6 EDACS FMD Scannlna 12 watt radlo~ and 1 EDACS MPA
svstem DOl:Ja~le radio with OES voice guard for the Police Deot. to General Electric Co..
Lynchburg, VA, for $15,296 (PO)
ITEM #33 - 1 vear extension to contract for purchase of miscellaneous cast iron
met~rJv~lv~ ];1pxes. Ilds. covers. ete" with Sunshine Foundry and Machine CQ., St.
Petersburg, FL, for the period 10/1/92-9/30193, at an est. $46,837.50 (PW)
ITEM #34 - Purchase of comDuter hardware for the Public Works Deoartment from
National Data Products, at an est. $6,103.65 (PW)
ITEM #35 - Extension of contract for mowina Clearwater Alroark with Greenturf Se:rvices,
for the period 10/1/92-9/30/93, for a total cost not to exceed $17,000 (PW)
ITeM #36 - Purchase of a Microwave Digestion System for the Water Pollution Control
Division from Ouestron Corp., Princeton, NJ, for $19,800 (PWJ
ITEM #37 - Purchase of 3 acid storaac cabinets for the Water Pollution Control Division
from Descon International Inc., Lindenhurst, NY, at an est. $4,100 (PW)
Elans & Plats
ITEM #38 - Receive Modified site olan for the Bavview Baotist Church located Of1 Meadow
Lark Lane and Kentuckv Averwe and authorize the ORC to approve the final site plan
subject to signs and fencing/walls being subject to separate review and permitting
processes (PLD)
Receiot &. Referral - Received and Referred.
ITEM #39 ~ See Dage 18
CCmtg
9/17192
17
.
iTEM #40 . AnnexatioQ Land Use Plan Amendment to Medium Densitv Besldentlsl and
R . at~d t ~975 Gu f t~ v 8 vd~.-W I am B~ w~; Sub
MH Zonlna for crocertv lac a I 8a I iI i 0' . of
Bavview. Lot 17 and the S 88.44' of the W 153.92' of Lot 2. 2.4 acres (Kirkpatrick A92-
11,LUP92-18)(PLD)
ITEM #41 - ProDosed Comorehensive Plan and Land Oevelooment Code Amendments -
Pine lias Planning Council Consistency Prog(8m {PLOt
Aareements. Deeds & Easements
ITEM 1f42-Quitclaim deed - South 30' of right-of-way of Allen Avenue (Northwood Estates)
ITEM #43 - Sanitary sewer lien agreement - Carlton Terrace 1 st Addition. Blk F. Lot 4
(2717 & 2719 South Drive - Black)
Items approving substantial purchases were noted for the public.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted less
Item #39 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
.
ITEM #39 - (Cont. from 8/13/92) - land Us~ Plan Amendment to Commercialrrourist
Facilities. CPO ZoninQ and Preliminary Site Plan for Qropertv loc~ted in the NW 1/4 of the
SW 1/4 of Sec. 6-29-16. M&B 32.01 and a Dortion of vacated Pinellas Groves easement in
the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 1-29-15. 2201 Sunset Point Road (Sun Bank of Tampa
Bay LUP92-14, Z92-08)(PLO)
CPO zoning is requested in order to permit the development of the property as a
gas station/convenience store in accordance with the approved site plan. Also, CPO
zoning would enable the City to restrict the potential uses of the property to those
specifically permitted.
Prior to this, the subject property was used as a bank with drive-through teller
lanes. The bank facility has been vacant and unoccupied for several years. The applicant
proposes to raze the existing bank building and construct a gasoline station/convenience
mart with a car wash/storage facility. The applicant desires to obtain a conditional use for
package alcoholic beverage sales at a later date.
The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Sunset Point and Belcher
Roads. Belcher Road is identified as a scenic/noncommercial corridor on the Countywide
Land Use Plan. This designation is intended to preclude commercial land use plan
amendments under the Countywide Rules unless "specifically determined to be consistent
with the purpose and intent of such corridors through the plan amendment process."
It should be noted the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC' is reviewing its
scenic/noncommercial corridor requirements: however, at the current time, the proposed
CPO zoning would be in violation of the PPC rules.
.
CCmtg
9/17192
18
't-
I'<:
. , ~.,~ ~ . "~.';,,,:"...:"~,;~,~"'l':' '. 'I.'..'''I;:..~ ," .
~
.
The City's policy on these corridors dates from October 20, 1977 when the
Commission adopted Resolution #77-106 establishing certain roadways as
scenic/noncommercial corridors. Belcher Road, from Belleair Road to Curlew Road, was
listed on this resolution. However, the City's Comprehensive Plan, adopted in November,
1989, listed only the following roadways as scenic/noncommerical: Memorial Causeway.
Edgewater Drive, Courtney Campbell Causeway and Bayshore Boulevard.
Three of the corners at the Sunset Point/Belcher intersection are developed as other
than the purposes included in the PPC's Special Rules, scenic/noncommerical corridors.
The northeast corner is developed as a mixed use (commerical/office) complex; the
southeast corner is an office complex and the subject property was developed as a
banking facility.
Due to road improvements to Belcher and Sunset Point Roads, right-of-way has
been acquired from the subject property on the north and east sides of the property.
consequently reducing the site area for sufficient above-ground stormwater pond retention.
The applicant is proposing a storm water vault to be maintained by the proposed business
owner.
Belcher Road appears to have adequate capacity for this proposal and is functioning
at Level of Service "C'. with most the traffic being passer-by trip clientele.
.
A question was raised regarding whether the Commission wished to send this
forward with a comment regarding its not being in accordance with the scenic corridor
designation.
A concern was raised that this application would then be treated differently from
other receipt and referral items. The applicant has paid his fee and is asking to go through
the normal process.
Commissioner Regulski moved to receive the applications for a land use plan
amendment to CommercialfTourist Facilities, CPO zoning and the preliminary site plan for
property located in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section Sec. 6-29-16, M&B 32.01 and a
portion of vacated Pinellas Groves easement in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 1-29-
15; refer the amendments to the Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas to the City Clerk to be
advertised for public hearing and authorize the Development Review Committee to review
the final site plan with approval of the final site plan by the City Commission. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
ITEM #44 - 1991/92 Third Quarter Budget Review (ASl
This report is based on nine months activity (October, 1991 through June, 1992) in
this fiscal year. and alth.ough in some instances variances have been noted in revenues and
expenditures, some amendments are not proposed u':ltil additional data can be analyzed.
.
CCmtg
9/17192
19
.
The General Fund revenue adjustment reflects budgeted increases in licenses and
permits, charges for service, interfund other charges, and fines and forfeits, resulting in a
net increase in general fund revenues of $230.043 at third quarter. .
General Fund expenditures are reduced by $380,244 reflecting savings across all
general fund departments. Other amendments include the transfer of $200,000 in salarv
savings in the Police Department budget to the Capital Improvement Program to fund nine
patrol vehicles for the west district. Non-Departmental division adjustments include
funding of $19,247 for FY'93 social service agency requests as approved by the
Commission at the September 3, 1992 Commission meeting, funding of $13,500 to
establish a Special Program project to track operating expenditures on the Maas Property,
and $20,000 to fund a Capital Improvement Project to provide drawings of the new City
Hall.
The net transfer to General Fund Surplus at third quarter is $610.287, for a total
transfer for FY91/92 of $944.828.
Water operating revenues are increased by $500,000 and inventory purchases are
increased by $371,000 at third quarter due to increased water consumption.
Bridge fund expenditures reflect funding for the amendment to the Volkert contract
for Clearwater Pass Bridge as presented to the Commission on September 17, 1992.
.
Marina operating revenues are increased by $30,000 at third quarter due to a slight
increase in projected sales.
No amendment to the Parking Fund is proposed at this time.
Pier 60 revenues and expenditures are amended at third quarter to reflect the effect
of the Pier closing for several weeks for structural repairs, and the continued effect of the
slow economy.
The proposed budget amendments reflect an Increase of $3,000 in the Purchasing
Division budget for the purchase of a labeling machine for bulk mailings. The Graphics
Division included a budget increase of $6,942 for training and software for the desktop
publishing system as approvad by the Commission on Septebmer 3, 1992, and the Self
Insurance Fund reflects amendments to health insurance premiums reflecting the
anticipated cost for health insurance, for FY91/92.
The amendments to the Capital Improvement program total a net decrease of
$705,585.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the amendments to the 1991/92 Third
Quarter Budget. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
.
CCmtg
9117192
20
. ,
';~
"
,.
.
a. First Reading Ord. #5278-92 - ooeratina budQet
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5278-92 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance 1/5278-92 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call. the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
b. Fjrst Readina Ord. #5279-92 - capital imorovement orogram budqet
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5279-92 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance 115279-92 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
rtAyesll: Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
ItNaysU: None.
ITEM 1149 - Staff uodate on the Annexation Committee and Annexation lncentivo program
and receive direction regarding recommendations (PlD)
.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to the regularly scheduled
meeting of October 1, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #46 - Res. #92-57 - authorizing issuance of a auarantee for loans made under the
Clearwater Neinhborhood Housing Services (CNHSI economic development loan prooram
(PLot
The City currently provides funds for CNHS operation of an economic development
program to promote business expansion and job creation in the North Greenwood
neighborhood. Funding is derived from the CDBG program.
Since being re-activated in early 1991 . CNHS has organized an economic
development committee to recommend policy directions to the board, organized a loan
committee to consider applications, made two loans for retail/service business creation,
and established proposals for private funding of a one~stop business center, a bank line of
credit, and a business ambassador program to share expertise.
Both the City and CNHS have been working toward maximizing private capital to
leverage CDSG funding investments in the housing programs. Staff has received a request
to extend leverage by guaranteeing economic development loans made to qualified
businesses. In the request previously received, the loan was initially approved by the loan
committee for 50% CDBG/50% bank funding, however, the bank later expressed a
willingness to lend the entire amount if the City would guarantee repayment of 50% of the '\
loan.
.
CCmtg
9117/92
21
.
The guarantee will be secured bV a pledge of COSG revenues and is limited to
COBG revenues. A reserve against loan loss will be set aside in the COSG program to
provide for repayment. Security for this loan guarantee was reviewed by the loan
committee and was determined to provide adequate collateral. This practice will continue
should additional guarantees be requested.
.- Loan guarantees are expected to comprise a very minor part of the CNHS economic
development activity. Commission authorization is requested for very limited
circumstances. Budgeted COSG expenditures for economic development will govern
operation of the entire program.
Resolution 1192-57 grants the City Manager authority to guarantee loans within the
budget for CNHS Economic Development loan program. All requests for loan guarantees
must be reviewed and recommended for approval by the Commercial Loan Committee of
CNHS. This committee is composed of local bankers who review all requests for loans
and insure that adequate collateral and security are available for 100% coverage of loans.
All loans are made for a term of up to 15 years. If the Commission approves this loan
guarantee policy, staff recommends that guarantees be made for a term not to exceed 7
years. The principal balance of the guaranteed loan may be fixed over the term of the
guarantee period. Loan guarantees will not be renewable.
.
A related policy issue is the appropriateness of using CDSG funds to provide jobs in
Alcoholic Beverage establishments. Currently funds must be used to create one full time
job for each $10,000 loaned. but ther~ are no restrictions on the types of businesses to be
funded. CNHS appointed a committee to study the issue of assistance to alcoholic
beverage establishments. The committee's recommendation is expected to be considered
at the November board meeting. Several establishments which sell alcoholic beverages
have previously applied for COBG loans, however, the loan committee declined approval of
their applications.
Commissioner Regulski moved to authorize issuance of a guarantee for loans made
under the Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services Economic Development loan
program. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #92-57 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Rsgulski moved to pass and adopt Resolution #92-57 and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call,
the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski. Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
It was stated the policy question regarding allowing loans to be made to alcoholic
beverage establishments would be discussed after the November Clearwater Neighborhood
Housing Services board meeting.
.
CCmtg
9/17/92
22
~ ;.
,"
.
ITEM #47 . Oevelooment Code Adiustment Board - 1 aDoointment {eLK)
Commissioner Deegan moved to appoint John B. Johnson. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
}TEM #48 - Other Penclina Matters. none.
ITEM #49 . Other City Attornev Items. none.
ITEM #50 - City Manager Verbal ReDorts
A. Bordner Survey
Some concern was expressed regarding the long range process not being discussed
prior to the City Manager going forward with this survey.
The City Manager indicated survey work has been used in the Police Department
and the Library and he said he would Ilke to do this on an annual basis. He said he is
getting ready to do another morale survey. He feels it is important to obtain as much data
as possible for planning purposes as there are many steps in the process.
A statement was made that this survey would be a positive step forward.
Discussion ensued in regard to the community consensus concept discussed in
.
June.
Consensus of the majority of the Commission was to proceed with the survey.
In response to questions, the City Manager indicated he had informed the
Commission of his plans and had moved forward with the survey as it was within his
authority.
ITEM #5' - Other Commission Action
A. Appointment of Replac~ment for Commissioner Regulski
Mayor Garvey indicated a desire to appoint someone now in order to give them an
opportunity to become familiar with the issues. She recommended Reverend Campbell.
Commissioner Fitzgerald supported the Mayor's recommendation.
Discussion ensued in regard to what criteria should be used to appoint a
replacement. An opinion was expressed it would be unfair to appoint someone who is
considering running for a Commission seat in March. Previous experience was found to be
important.
.
CCmtg
9/17/92
23
.
Other names submitted include Mayme Hodges, Helen OJ Jinny" Robinson and Marvin
Moore.
The appointment of a replacement was postponed so additional names could be
submitted.
Commissioner Oeegan questioned how staff was responding to the request by Sand
Key Civic Association regarding placing utilities underground as part of the Gulf Boulevard
widening project. Assistant City Manager Betty Deptula responded a meeting has been
scheduled with the Association to discuss their priorties and a report will be given at the
September 28th work session.
Commissioner Berfield expressed displeasure regarding the Chambers' Business
Alert. She stated the Commission has only voted to select a site and go out for RFQs for
a new City Hall. She requested Chamber members to be notified what they responded to
was not factual.
Mavor Garvey vertified the City Attorney and City Manager evaluations will be done
at the September 28th work session.
ITEM #52 - Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:27 a.m.
ATTEST:..G~~E );1... p.._
_ CJ,. Clerk'
~ . .
.
/
'.
' '
CCmtg
9/17192
24
'. ,
. .c /
."
. ,
:'~' :-;;
. 'P
.... 'i
" ,.,
.
.
.
Exhibit "A"
MOTION TO AMEND ORDINANCE 5257-92
Beginning on page 3D, delete Section 4 and substitute the following:
Section 4. Section 134.015, Code of Ordinances, is amended to read:
Sec. 134.015. Nonconforming signs.
(a) No nonconforming sign may be constructed, reconstructed, altered,
renovated, relocated. replaced or otherwise changed after October 13, 1985 ~&
cffcGti~e date of this chapter. unless such action brings the sign into
conformance with the provisions of this chapter, except to the extent permitted
by subsection (b) below.
(b) Notwithstanding the terms of subsection (a) above:
(1) Any nonconforming sign existing on October 13, 19&&, that is damaged
to the extent that the cost for complete repair does not exceed 50 per cent of
the replacement cost of the sign may be repaired.
(2) The message on any nonconforming sign existing oR-OGtebcr 13, 19B5,
may be changed one or more times aftor that datc, provided that no alteration is
made to the sign structure. However, this paragraph shall not be construed to
allow a nonconforming sign which is painted on a fence or wallar the roof or a
wall of a building to be altered, renovated or otherwise changed unless such
action brings the sign into conformity with the provisions of this chapter.
(3) A nonconforming sign may be relocated upon the same property whenever
the a portion of the property upon which the siQn is located is acquired through
the exercise of the power of eminent domain, or otherwise acquired for a public
purpose by any agency having the power of eminent domain, if the relocation is
neccssary to reduce the acquisition costs of the-fH~eperty. However, a sign
re located pursuant to thi s paragraph may not be made more nonconformina en targed,
nor may the sign be replaced by a sign constr'ucted of material more durable than
the sign being relocated A lawful nonconforming sign which is relocated pursuant
to this paragraph (3) shall continue to be deemed a lawful but nonconforming sign
and shall contlnue to be subject to the requirements of subsection (c) below
unless specifically exempted therefrom. Any such relocation shall not be deemed
an extension of the pcmoval date speGifiod in subsection (c), Ror shall any such
roloGation be deemed grounds for a variance from the requirements of subsection
(c) .
(4) A siQn that otherwise conforms with these requirements but is made
nonconforminQ with reQard to setback requirements by the aCQuisition of a portion
of the property upon which the sign is located throuQh the exercise of the power
of eminent domain, or through acquisition bv other means for a public purpose by
any aqencv hay inQ the power of eminent doma in. shall not be reQU ired to be
brouoht into compliance with the setback requirements unless and until the sign
is damaged or destroyed to an extent eQua 1 to 50 percent or more of its
replacement cost. However. should the owner of the property on which the siQn
is located desire to relocate the sian to confo'4m with setback reauirements. and
such relocat ion can be accomD lished on 1 v through the remova 1 of not more than one
reQuired park ing space I no variance sha 11 be required to the Dark ino reQuirements
to allow such relocation.
'~~,~':~.~?:,,4,"';'.'''''.~:'l;;''~.I'''J.::':'':',. . , ,', " ,';" ~ ",,,rf,,'.
.
.
.
(c) All signs and sign structures which were erected Drior to October 13.
1985. and which were rendered nonconforminQ bv the adootion of Ordinance No.
4035-85. and which continue to be nonconformina to the requirements of this
chaoter despite the adoption of Ordinance 5257-92. shall immediately which are
floncoRfoFming ta the rcquircmcAt$ of this chapter but which 'Nere erected la'tvfl.llly
because of a variance previollsly granted or because of conformance .::ith the
previously existing sigR-Feiulations at the-t4me-tfle-p&Pmit was issued, shall,
w~thin seyen (7) years from October 13, 1985, be removed by the owncr of th~~
Of the oWftcr of the property O~ be removed or brought into compliance with the
terms conta i ned here in, the va 1 ue of such s ions ha v i no been' cons i dared to be
fully amortized over the seven year Deriod between October 13. 1985 and October
13. 1992. except for the following:
(1) Any nonconforming sign located on an"interstate or federal aid primary
highway (i.e., U.S. Highway 19 and State Road 580 east of U.S. Highway 19) which
is protected from removal by the Federal Uighway Beautification Act or Ch. 479,
F.S., by reason of providing compensation for removal shall be exempted from the
removal terms of this ?U§ion. This shall not, however, preclude the city from
seeking to remove any such sign through an eminent domain proceeding, nor
achieving sign conformance by other lawful means. In the event the Federal
Highway Beautification Act or Ch. 479, F.S., is repealed, amended or adjudicated
to not require compensation, then the removal provisions contained in this
~section shall apply.
(2) Any nonconforming sign located on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard east of
Highland Avenue which, if said boulevard was classified a federal aid primary
highway, would be protected from removal by the Federal Highway Beautification
Act or Ch. 479, F.S., shall be made to comply with the terms contained herein or
shall be removed bv Januarv 19. 1996. which date is within seven ~ years from
the enactment of Ordinance No. 4753-88.
(d) The developmcnt code-administrator shall prcpare an invcntary of all
nonconforming signs. Followin~entif;catioR--afld recordation, the code
veministrator shall notify the property-ewncr or sign-ewner/lessor identifying
the action(s) nCGcssary to malw th~n(s) co~esc sign regulatiofHT;-
the date that such sign(s) shall b~d if Rat altered t9 coflf.e~
opportunity to seel( relief through a variance proceeding and the penalties for
noncompliance. Said notice shall be given at least eighteen (18) months prior to
the removal date spccifics in subscction (c) of this section, under no
ciraumstaRces, hO'.\'c'/er, shall failure to 9i'~e or receive Ratice SORstitute
grounds for nOAcom~ce or ~ntimely compliance.
1Jllfe+ Legal nonconforming signs which exist on property annexed into the
city on or before October 13, 1992, shall be subject to the removal or compliance
provisions contained ih ~bscctioA {c} of this section. After October 13, 1992,
sign camp liance sha 11 occur in a time and manner prescribed by the city
commission in conjunction with consideration of the annexation application.
1.!Uff-t Any person aggrieved by the provisions of this section may apply
to the city commission for a variance in accordance with section 137.012. Afly
~Hest for a variance shall be filed with the dcvclopment-eade-administrator at
least 1)9 days prior to Gctober 13, 1992. The city commission may grant a
2
.
.
.'...
variance only after a public hearing and ufon a demonstration by the owner/lessor
of a hardship different in kind and magn tude from that suffered by other sign
owners or lessors similarly situated. .
(f) All signs and sign structures which were replaced or modified lawfullY
after October 13. 1985. and Drior to the adoption of Ordinance 5257-92. and were
replaced or modified in order to conform to the requirements of Ordinance 4035~
85. or to conform to the requirements and conditions of a variance which was
Qranted with no exoiration date or time limit on the variance. but which are
nonconformino to the requirements of this chapter solelY because of the adoption
of Ordinance 5257-92. shall not be required to conform to these requirements
unless such signs and siQn structures are damaQed or destroyed to an extent equal
to 50 percent or more of their replacement cost.
(0) Anv sian which is in violation of Ordinance 4035-85 or Ordinance 4753-
88 and which is not rendered conforminQ bv Ordinance 5257-92 shall be considered
to be in continued violation of this chaoter as if Ordinance 5257-92 had not been
adooted. In such cases. the adoption of Ordinapce 5257-92 shall ~ot interfere
with any oendino oroceedinQs before the municipal code enforcement board"or the
county court or reQuire the issuance of a new citation or notice to appear. nor
shall the adoption of Ordinance 5257-92 permit the amortization period for any
such sian to beain anew.
jh) Any sion which is in violation of Ordinance 4035-85 or Ordinance 4753-
BB but which is rendered conformino in all respects bv Ordinance 5257-92 shall
be considered to have been brouoht into compliance with this chapter. and any
pendino citation or notice to appear before the municipal code enforcement board
or the county court shall be dismissed.
,"i
.,
3
. "
,
'.
~ \~
'-<f.:'
,',I
, ',' . ~
.,.
. ~ ..j;~t
. , >' .~....
~;.
:.~~i
~, . ~ ,,:' ;::f.i