01/06/1994 (2)
','.:
"
J ':.:1.
','
~, ~
,i
'"'I"'~:~"" '~".,"o','~, "
rf'~ \"'~H"";;. ~ t~.~...~... 11 ,
!if.!~ + ~~~'.;' ~tc:.'~~. :l(.Q :'_; ,'.:. .l~ I
~C ;'}.~~rI511~:tt i' \~
'f:'~;:./;.~.'~~.j;'" .>, '
,":
" l :. 1 ~~',
t. :r.
" .
,.. . I'
~~~" ~.;~ :'l
i:.: it'. ~~'~.~
~i~,;~:~' :;,::~J.~, ,h:.
.(S;.~ 'c: '..;~.. " ~
:! ':, 11, '.oJ '
1. 0:<
"
':'),
~. c ~1-
, 0 '
. 1:<,
,,. ~..
"
"
. t,'."
';~ L. ..
I ~\:~~:.
I'~.:? "
~ :::"1\~ ' .
'f:'~"j
.r......
, ~. .
.., H J
tGl<.II':~... :c:.l''':'' "
,f.
. ~.' ,
,
I,
"
.'
,',
.l :,
! ,
; ~.'
,
,
. ,
{,',.<
,
",
I,
:J}/ '
, . I'
" :i
.,
"
" /, . ,~ .~-, ~ .. '. i
i" .,....; ~ " .. '''1< .\ . 'i~ ~ '. :.,
"
'"
I.'
-I,
'.\.
, :~:.
. . ' 'I. I:' '~', '
..~i'.
.. .
"
.'
".
-i" "
. r
'j
: ~ ' . j I' .
. .:. < 'toOt. '::";.'::.-~ >
~ '; .'" '" ,
...~-_.I. ~ "
, " ',~'~w~J:~~.~.~'~!;.:;'
;t~ti'i'~ :..-:-' '"
7.\~f,:~M!\.~.'".L' ,. ..,. ,. .
'; Jt~.~\)::.:., ,0 ,,;, "
::(r;':':~~~.;, '~.", .
'COMMISSION
City Commission
" ,
'\tT...:'
y-
.'
.,
J.
?
" : . " .J
h . ,
DATE
tlJ,/9i
.:J
," I.. .C
. ',,;.".\
,,' : '~J.~~~;~ l
; " ,',.
.>::, -~~;...,::.".
,::' . .~'.h:;;:.:,' .
, " . "~~i ..
:!. . ~h':~):'~','
1LA
Oul'1t)l
1 U? 30
:,,:1
"
I.
'.;
. r
".'. ~":~<'
. '
\. f[".........~ ~ ,
',1
..:....,..
l 7!'..; ~~,~.
.. '.:. "
I
'I
I
.',
. , .
. ~ j C
.'
;
" \
. '
"
'}
"
" .
,.
"
. .
~. "
,,'
?,)~:,:c;...:,' , ,
't~.
Ie I t',
,
~ ~ I 1
{/~ ;'~,:::':',~';',
~.
, .. J'~"
:,J
" .', .:::'.:~:;';::,:;':,:(:./,~ ,:': :,
I ,
~ ~ I;
. ~ :.\"
()
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
January 6, 1994
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall,
Thursday, January 6, 1994, at 6:00 p.m., with the follo'wing members present:
Rita Garvey
Arthur X. Deegan, II
Richard Fitzgerald
Sue A. Berfield
Fred A. Thomas
~.Iso pr~sent:
Elizabeth M. Deptula
William C. Baker
M.A. Galbraith, Jr.
PeterYauch
Scott ,Shuford
Cynthia E. Goudeau
Mary K. Diana
Mayor/Com missioner
Vice~Mayor/Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner'
Commissioner,
Interim City Manager
Acting Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
. Acting Public Works Director
,Central Permitting Director
City Clerk
Assist'ant City Clerk
.~
," "~
\ ..~~
: ",'
, The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. The
, invocation was offered by Acting Assistant City Manager William C. Baker.
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 - none.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and A wards
, The Mayor presented a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting, on behalf of the Florida Government Finance Officers Association, to Margie
Simmons, Assistant Finance Director.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetiflQ of
November 1, 1993, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to
each Commissioner. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. '
ITEM 1/5 - Presentations - none.
ITEM #6 - Aporoval of Minutes
minCCD1 b.94
t.:
1/6/94
1 '
:,:' .. ,"" ,: :'.: ' ....: ,:::: '; T.',/,i: .: ,,',:\, ',: ~" ":":P':; ,..,. '.' f ','::, ',';' , ':', ',:' < ': ;' :: :.::' ': ' ,',;:< . ,.', · ,:':;' : :.::
, ,
..(.' .' ::. .
I'
. , . ~.
;';;/." . ,:. :
, ,
~, . c.,, \
, : .~ . ~ I. ~ . ~. " , I
o
ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda (maximum of 10 speakers pre-
registered ~ith ,City Clerk) - none.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
!'
ITEM #8 - (Cont. from 12/16/93) Receive Dublic comment re: FY 92-93 CDBG Grantee
Performance ReDort (ED)
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the regularly scheduled
meeting of January 20, 1994. The motion was duly secondEld and carried unanimously.
ITEM 1t9 - (Cont. from 12/16/93) Amendments to FY 93~94 CDBG Final Statement (ED)
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to continue this item to the regularly scheduled
meeting of January 20, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #10 - Public Hearinq & First Readina Ord. #5514-94 - Vacating portion of 10'
east/west alley,'lying between the former C.S.X. Railroad and Hamlet Avenue, Map of
Belleair, Blk 15, subject to being retained full width as a drainage & utility easement
(Mallory, V93.16)(PW)
("'> '
l..'.
c .'
.. ' .
The applicant who is requesting the vacation of a 1 O~foot east/west alley lying east
of the former CSX Railroad owns a private parking lot on the south side of the alley.
Phillips Engineering owns the property to the north and has recently paved the alley with
concrete and currently uses the alley to store mat~rials.
Various ,City Departments/Divisions concerned with vacations, Florida Power and
Vision Cable reviewed the petitlon and have no objections to the vacation provided it be
retained full width as a drainage and utility easement.
The Public Works Director previously reported "The alley is not now being used as a
traveled way by anyone and has already been vacated ,in other sections, The north
adja~ent owner is currently using the alley to store material and the south adjacent owner
is the applicant. The alley should be returned to these two owners."
Acting Assistant City Manager William Baker reported he received a letter from Mr.
Phillips today and he now wants to use the alley as a travelway. He is in the process of
removing the materials that are being stored there. Due to Mr. Phillips' request, Mr. Baker
is no longer recommending approval of the vacation.
minCe01 b.94
Mayor ,Garvey asked if there was any redeeming feature for using this alley for
public access. Acting Public Works Director Peter Yauch indicated this alley serves only
the two adjacent properties. Mr. Baker pointed out emergency access is not a factor in
approving this vacation. '
.A ,~J
~~
1/6/94
2
."..' t' "I.,'
I .
. '\ ., . . '
, '
'"
;,- . "'. ;~ .
h~. .
.:1"," ,
,(~
Commissioner Thomas asked what the City has done, historically, when only one
adjacent property owner wants the vacation. Mr. Baker said the City would not
recommend the vacation if there was still a public purpose 'to be served.
Commissioner Thomas also asked what tho City has'done, historically, when two
adjoining property owners want the vacation; however, a third party, who has no interest
in the property, opposes it. Again, Mr. Baker responded if there is a public purpose to be
served, staff would. not recommend vacating the property.
George Mallory, applicant, said the property has never served a public purpose and
has been used for storage by Phillips Engineering. He felt more of a public purpose would
be served if this property was returned to the tax rolls.
Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Mallory if he had spoken to Mr. Phillips, and Mr.
Mallory responded Mr. Phillips is not in favor of the vacation bflcause he has benefit of the
property without paying taxes on it. .
There was discussion regarding Mr. Phillips paving the entire length of the 10-foot
alley. Mr. Baker said the City gave Mr. Phillips permission to pave the alley at his own,
expense. Mr. Mallory stated the property has been used solely for storage since it was
paved.
Commissioner Deegan said he saw no documentation regarding why Mr. Mallory
wants to vacate the alley. Mr. Mallory responded he wanted to beautify the area by
4i,~) putting in plants. Commissioner Deegan questioned how the public would be served by
~ the vacation. Mr. Mallory stated the property would be returned to the tax roll.
Mayor Garvey pointed out that if Mr. Phillips owns half of the right-of-way once it
is vacated, he .can travel on it.
Lois Cormier spoke in support of the vacation. She said Mr. Mallory is her neighbor
and she had, thought the alley was private property. She pointed out she maintains the
right-of-way adjacent to her property and was told by staff she could never pave the
property. ' She said the subject alley is valuable land and she has not seen anyone else use
this alley. Ms. Cormier said she trusts that Mr. Mallory will maintain the property, She
said whatever action is taken tonight will impact what she will do on her adjoining right-of-
way.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the requested vacation subject to it being
retained full width as a drainage and utility easement. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5514-94 for first ,'eading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5514-94 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon r~lI call, the vote was:
minCC01 b.94
l,
1/6/94
3
"Nays": None.
" ,
"
'.
~ ~ ,.
r~'.: .
),'
" '
" .' I ~ I ,.. l
("\
'.
," Ayes11: Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
ITEM #11 - Public Hearing & First Readim:J Ord. #5507-94 ~ Amending Secs'. 44.05,
44.51, 44.55 & 44.57 to regulate neon and other forms of exposed signs or lighting
(LDCA 93-15)(CP) ,
, Under direction of the City Commission, staff prepared a Land Development Code
amendment regulating neon signs and lighting. The ordinance provides a definition for
neon signs and lighting, permits the use of neon signs and lighting when used as signage
or as a means of outlining architectural details. It addresses the issue of non conformities
being grandfathered unless damaged or destroyed in excess of 50 percent of the value.
The Development Code Adjustment Board and the Planning and Zoning Board
recommended against ~he adoption of , this ordinance. The board members were divided as
to the reasons for not endorsing the ordinance, Some members felt that neon lighting
needed more extensive regulation since no restrictions were' placed on its use in outlining
architectural details. The majority of board members, however. felt 'the ordinance limited
'the crea'tive use of neon lighting', by businesses; these members also felt that. due to the
expense of neon lighting, the uses being proposed for prohibition by the ordinance would
not likely be widespread and therefore not a problem for the City.
t.:~'
In response to Commissioner Berfield's questions, Central Permitting Director Scott.
Shuford responded existing signs would be grandfathered until taken down or destroyed in
excess of 50 percent and existing signs would transfer with owner~hip.
Commissioner Deegan asked if a sign was taken down could, it be replaced by a
new owner and Mr~ Scott responded the new owner would need to conform to the code.
Commissioner Deegan asked Mr. Shuford if he would have recommended approval
of this ordinance if the Commission had not directed it be brought forward. Mr. Shuford
responded he would not have recommended its approval as,its benefits are Iimitod.
Commissioner Deegan stated he was the most outspoken regarding bringing this
ordinance forward as he wanted to address the issue before it got out of hand. He agreed
currently there is not a widespread problem with garish neon signs. He said if a problem is
seen, an ordinance can be adopted at a future date,
Commissioner Fitzgerald Questioned if staff should research what the boards would
support.
, Mayor Garvey stated she is concerned regarding the' proliferation of neon but
agreed further study is needed.
minCC01 b.94
L'
1/6/94
4
!', '.. "'.. ;',<.".'.... ':.. ..::; ":~' ,,'. , ': ....:':,'~,~' :',::',':' '<,' :.. : :?J~::" ;': :':, ';" ',,::':; ,"i:: .~. : ",. ',< i, :.,..:,~., .:<', .' '.:' :.'
'c
, "
. ~ '. ~.' .
l ,': \ I
. ~.. . ~
" .'.
~
"t,
Commissioner Thomas felt it inappropriate to regulate businesses if no serious need
to do so exists. He pointed out both boards opposed the amendment and did not view
this issue as a problem. He felt passage of the ordinance would be anti-business.
Commissioner Thomas moved to den'y the request. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Garvey pointed out the boards were not unanimous in their vote and felt
staff may want to get additional input from them.
Commissioner Deegan said he brought up the issue il1 the first place citing safety
and aesthetic concerns. He said the safety concern had been resolved and did not support
further study by the boards., He felt the issue could be brought up again if necessary.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously,
ITEM #12 - Public Hearina & First Readina Ord. #5508-94 - Amending various sections
withi!1 Ch. 45 to establish minor variances and provide for minor variance approval by the
DeveloprrrilntCode Adjustment Board (LbCA 93-24HCP)
'/
The proposed amendment will allow staff to establish an administrative, small scale
variance approval process. This process will result in a less expensive, substantially
shortened review for minor variances.
The ordinance would allow the Development Code Administrator to grant minor
(, :~) variances as part of an administrative determination. The administrator would consider,
~y whether the variance meets all standards for approval before granting a minor variance.
The applicant has the ability to appeal the decision of the Development Code,Administrator
to the Development Code Adjustment Board as a regular variance.
The minor variances include small variances to side, 'rear and street setbacks, open
space, landscaping, dock and fence'regulations, The administrative pro'cess would
streamline land development code procedures,
The proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Code Enforcement Review Task
Force, the Planning & Zoning and the Development Code Adjustment Boards.
Suggested changes involved landscaping requirements, additional wording regar~ing the
administrator and the reporting procedure of staff action. '
Mr. Shuford said staff has been looking at procedural changes to the land
development code, several of which will be coming forward this year. These changes are
in response to the Healy Report and the CO,de Enforcement Review Task Force. He said
this ordinance addresses variances of 1 D percent or less. He reviewed the changes
suggested by the various boards which included using a number rather than a percentage
when giving landscaping requirements, A concern of the boards was there would be an
minCCD 1 b. 94
t. :
'"",
1/6/94
5
';
";' .. ~
" <:.. ~\ .
.: '.' . ~
,C, 'I
r.,. ".. t' ,..,'
.t ~ .
-, ,
:.. .'\", I
',' .
"
('0
, ,
,assumption that minor variances would be approved. He said staff would be providing
reports of the administrative variances granted and pointed out there is a process for
appeal of denials to the Development Code Adjustment Board.
Mayor Garvey asked what the appeal fee would be. Mr. Shuford responded a
resolution would be required establishing the fee, recommended to be $50. Appeals
would be treated as normal variance requests.
I
I
I
I
I
,,'
Mayor Garvey said concern has been expressed regarding the proposed procedure
and questioned whether a policy should be established as to what type of variances may
be granted. Mr. Shuford said the applicant will have to justify a minor variance the same
as a larger one.
Commissioner Deegan found the change from 2 feet to 1 feet for width of
perimeter landscaping abutting a street to be substantial and questioned whether this
would be more restrictive. Mr. Shuford responded it would be more restrictive as the
amount of variances the Code Administrator can consider is smaller.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concern that all standards for approval would be
met. He said he has requested the standards be revised to be more objective. Mr.
Shuford stated he is pursuing this and he has solicited input from other communities. He
said there wlll always have to be some determination made. '
4~(~
~
Commissione~ Deegan requested the revised standards be brought forward in a
reasonable time. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford said if the standards are changed,
they would still apply to minor variances.
Mayor Garvey questioned if the Commission wanted to give staff the leeway to
approve minor variances and Commissioner Deegan said it was Commission direction to
bring this issue forward. Mr. Shuford said he would welcome Commission scrutiny of
staff decisions.
Commissioner Deegan questioned who had the role of Development Code
Administrator. Mr. Shuford responded he did.
'I
,
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a land development code amendment'
establishing minor variances. The motion was duly seconded.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
Anne Garris questioned whether alcoholic beverage variances would be considered
under this ordinance, It .was indicated they are not minor variances.
Commissioner Deegan moved to amend Ordinance 5508-94 on page 1, in Section
45.02, in the 11 th line, change "administrator" to "development code administrator;" on
page 2, Section 45;23(3)(f), in Subsection 2, change "two feet" to "one foot" to read:
minCC01 b.94
l..
," ,
'.
1/6/94
,6
!} :": '. ~
:.,~ t. ~~. <,
. ,. .
.",.
,
. : .: "
. "
t{ "..',: .
" I
"
,1 )
~ :<
~
Abutting streets. Variation of the required width of perimeter landscaping abutting a street
of no more than one foot; on page 2, in Section 45.23(3)(f), revise Subsection to read: 1.
Interior parking lot. Variation of the required interior landscaping for a parking lot to
require less than six percent, but not less than five percent, of the total paved area of the
parking lot or vehicular use area to be landscaped; on page 3, in Section 45.23(3)(j), in the
1st line after l1setbacklt insert Itfrom a street right-of-waylt to read: (h Fence setback.
Variation of a fence setback from a street right-ofwway of no more than six inches for the
entire fence on anyone side of a lot, or up to three feet for no more than ten percent of
the length of the fence on anyone side of a lot. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously. .
'I
.f
I
'}
,:j
,.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5508-94 as amended for first reading and
read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5508-94 as
amended on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Naystl: None.
llAyeslt: Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
, ,
ITEM #13 - Public HearinQ & First Reading Ord. #5511-94 - Amending Secs. 40.261-
40.264 regarding revisions to Planned Development District requirements (LDCA 93-
16)(CP)
fj":'.
, '~I
~',
Necessitated by the Pinellas Planning Council Consistency Program, the
Commission directed staff to develop required revisions to the Planned Development
District regulations to establish Residential Planned Development IRPD) sub-categories in
order to allow existing subdivisions to be rezoned in a manner which "grandfathersll the
subdivisions' existing setbacks and development standards,
There are two major substantive changes proposed. One, the modification of the
required site plan for the planned development districts to substitute a "concept" plan
allowing the Commission to consider planned development districts involving less than a
full-blown site plan submittal, thereby making the zoning district more flexible and
encouraging its more frequent use. And two, to allow the Commission to permit
conditional uses by right as part of the planned development district approval for the
purpose of improving flexibility and encouraging use of the planned development district
concept.
"
j
I
i
The Planning al1d Zoning Board and Development Code Adjustment Board
recommend approval of this ordinance with consideration to changes suggested by Mr.
Mazur regarding master planned developed districts.
, Mr. Shuford stated the subject amendment will provide for more control over site
design and will establish five new categories of RPDs. He said there have been problems
with subdivisions 'zone'd RS-8 having a land use designation reflecting a lower density. He
said it is desired to freeze lot sizes but maintain requirements such as setbacks, etc. The
minCCO 1 b. 94
lJ
1/6/94
7
" I
. '1'
','
j,<"< , ~",; " ;
c.'
q, c .
tJ4
ll,f
>,
< ;
">
. ',.'. t,.,
c ,.' .... T
concept plan will be less intense'than full blown site planning. The planned developments
will be handled as normal rezonings; conditional uses by right will be allowed. He referred
to the 'suggested amendment by Mr. Mazur regarding master site planned development
districts accommodating projects on land areas in excess of 20 acres designed under a
unified plan. Mr Shuford said staff is recommending 25 acres.
Commissioner Deegan questioned whether 1tportion of site" in conjunction with
master planned development districts was an adequate description when determining a
substantial modification in use. Mr. Shuford said this would be addressed before second
reading of the ordinance. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford responded master
planned development districts will go through the normal site plan process with the'
Commission reviewing the full site plan.
Discussion ensued in regard to the concept plan providing a great deal of
information regarding the development. Mr. Shuford' pointed out in the approval of a
planned development district the Commission' could be more stringent and any increases to
the plan would come back to them.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the land development code amendment
revising planned development district requirements. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115511-94 for first reading and read it by
title only.
Com missioner Deegan moved to amend 0 rdinance #5511-94 on page 2, in Section
40.261, in the 5th Hne up from the bottom of the paragraph, add after "applicable," ",
except for master planned development concept plans which shall be as specified in
section 40.264" to read as follows: All land assigned this zoning will require concept sire
plan approval by the city commission in accord with the provisions contained in chapter
43. Such concept plan shall be reviewed by the city commission in conjunction with any
application for planned development district zoning or rezoning and all development shall
occur consistent with that concept plan as approved by the commission or as may be
subsequently amended by the development code administrator or city commission in
accordance with the following provisions. Any amendment involving increases in intensity
of use (as measured by residential density or nonresidential floor area ratio), increases in .
structure height, or decreases in setbacks, open space, or buffering as shown on the
approved concept plan shall be approved by the city commission. Other amendments may
be considered minor amendments and may be approved by the development code
administrator, unless determined by the code administrator to be appropriate for
commission action. The minimum requirements for concept plans shall be the same as for
preliminary site plans under chapter 43 or for pmliminary plats under chapter 46, or both,
as applicable, except for master planned development concept plans which shall be as
specified in section 40.264. These minimum requirements may be modified or waived by
minCC01 b.94
1/6/94
8
. I . ~
.,},~'):. ;.'~'! <.~ . ~~) .. ~ :'.:.'
'..t
, ,
I' " ",
, 1,'.1,'
i.;:.:. ;:. , > .;.' '.'. ,'.:'..
i'
,
'.
, ,
o
the city commission in considering the application for a planned development district; in
particular, the requirements for the specified subcategories of the residential planned '
dev~lopment district may consist of existing plat or ownership documents.
On page 3, in Section 40.262, at the end of Subsection (9), change"." to ";" an9
add a new Subsection (10) as follows: (10) Moster planned development district
(MPD).
,
'.j
'j
, j
, I
On page 3, in Section 40.263, in the 4th line after "district," add", that 25 acres
or more be provided to establish a new master planned development district, II to read as
follows: It is intended that four acres or more be provided to establish a new residential,
office, commercial, industrial, research, development and offfce park, public/semipublic,
urban center or Clearwater Beach planned development district, that 25 acres or more be
provided to establish a new master planned development district, and that 50 acres or
more be provided to establish a recreational planned development district, unless a reduced
area is determined by ordinance be in the public interest. As an exception to the above
guideline, there shall be no minimum area requirements for the specific subcategories of
the residential planned development district listed in section 40.262(1) above"
Furthermore, it is intended that no existing residential, office,. commercial, industrial or
Clearwater Beach planned development district be contracted to an area of less than the
above guidelines four acres, and that no existing recreational planned development district
be contracted to an area of less than 50 acre,s, unless the city commission determines by
ordinance that a reduced area is in the public interest.
'c'
.
On page 4, in Section 40.264, add Subsection (10) as follows: (10) Master
planned development district: The master planned development district is intended to
accommodate development or redevelopment projects on land areas in excess of 25 acres
designed under a unified plan.
a. Permitted uses. Any single or combination of uses identified as permitted or
conditional within residential, office, commercial, industrial and public/semipublic districts
may be permitted provided sufficient care is taken to segregate or buffer any proposed
incompatible uses.
b., Concept plan submission requir~ments. Due to the comple'xity of a master
planned development project, the required plan submission requirements shall include'the
following:
1 . Illustration of the proposed general uses of each area within the project.
2. Proposed locations and gross floor areas of buildings and structures.
3. Proposed maximum height of buildings and structures.,
4. Proposed general location and number of parking spaces.
5. Proposed building setbacks at the perimeter of the site.
6. Proposed bUffering at the perimeter of the site.
-,. Proposed site lighting.
minCCO 1 b. 94
l....
1/6/94
9
2' ;~,,?:~,:,,:" :.,:: "
'."" ..~ ~
i'\ .':I~ ..
:':, L ':
, '
"
. '
, '
, .
"
,',
. ,.
t'.' ,
',' ,c
:
" ".
, "
+" I > ~
~i~~:J:"~:'\'~' ;',I::':': '::~',;:<:',: ::....:/ ,:":::':<', ,;'; \
"
,"
<' '.. ~ f
. ......
c
c. Effect of MPD approval/substantial modifications. Master planned
development district zoning approval shall entitle the proposed project to proceed to site
plan, final site plan or building permit approval. Given the conceptual nature of the '
required plan, non-substantial modifications to the approved MPD concept plan may be
permitted by the city manager. All changes to the approved conceptual plan involving
substantial modifications shall require city commission review and approval. For the'
purpose 'of this section "substantial modifications 11 shall consist of any of the following
deviations from the approved plan:
1
i
I
I
'I
1. A change in the proposed general use of a portion of site.
2. An increase in proposed building height.
3. An increase in residential density by greater than five percent.
4. An increase in non~residential building floor area by ten percent.
5. A reduction in the width of any approved project perimeter building or
parking setback or buffer area.
The motion was duly seconded and ,carried unanimously.
Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance 1/5511-94 as amended on first
reading. The motion was duly seconded.
;L
M~yor Garvey reminded staff,to come back with a definition for "p,ortion of site."
Upon roll call, the vote was:
t~~
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #14 - Public Hearinq & First Readinq Ord. #5512-94- Amending Sec. 42.34 to
prohibit parking, displ~ying or storing of motor vehicles on grass or unpaved areas zoned
for multiple family or nonresidential use unless approved as, a grass parking lot (LDCA 93- ,
19)(CP)
Staff has requested this item be continued.
I
I
!:
Commissioner Thomas questioned why the subject ordinance excludes single family
residential. Mr. Shuford said this ordinance is more appropriate for multi-family and
commercial areas. He said a separate ordinance addressing single family residences,
duplex and triplex properties is being drafted., Commissioner Thomas requested this
ordinance be given priority.
Commis'sioner Thomas moved to continue this item,to the regularly scheduled
meeting of January 20, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
minCC01 b.94
I ,I
~~
1/6/94
,10
. .
i/fl(.~, 'i: .::,,>,-,'.
:- l:
, "
.".
,. .
,
'.'
"., .
I' ',' .:
:.:;'. '.,r,: ',.'.',t; ..... .:'.~\.:~ '.' . ~. ~ ~'. .',
. .' < ~" " . .:" .~. "':~
':
c
ITEM #15 - Public Hearina & First Readina Ords. #5516-94 & #5517-94 - Land Use Plan
Amendment to Resjdential High and RM-28 Zoning for property located at 1110 Pine Ave.,
Mary Land Sub., Blk 83, Lots 1-12 and vacated west 1/2 of Madison Ave., 1.89 acres
m.o.!. (AHA/Florida Properties, Inc., LUP93-37, Z93-51 HCP)
The property is located two blocks south of Court Street approximately 450 feet
. east of Greenwood Avenue. The land use and zoning changes are being requested to
enable the applicant to provide needed parking and to expand and upgrade the existing
facility. The proposed upgrading of this site would be consistent with the density limits
established in an ordinance approved by the Commission on October 21, 1993.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a request for a future land use plan
amendment to residential high and a zoning atlas amendment to multiple family residential
Utwenty-eight" for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded.
Mr. Shuford said the ordinance provides owners the ability to maintain what is
currently existing or to add a few units. The Mayor stated the facilities would still have. to
meet State standards.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5516-94 for first reading and read it by
title only. Com missioner Barfield moved to pass Ordinance 1/ 5 51 6-94 on first reading,
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
It,:):)
.' .w
"Ayes":Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan. Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City. Attorney ,presented Ordinance #5517-94 for first reading andread it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5517-94 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll. call. the vote was:
,"Ayes": Fitzgerald. Barfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey,
"Nays": None.
ITEM #1 6 ~ Public Hearing & First ReadinQ Ord. #5509-94 - RM-8 Zoning for property .
located at ~ 706 N. Highland Ave., Grove Circle Sub., Lot 16 (Smith, 'Z93-13)(CP)
It was requested this item be continued.
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the regularly scheduled
meeting of January 20, 1994.. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
minCC01 b,94
I '.
~/
1/6/94 .
11
",
~:i~: ,>,:: >', "
I. L . ~{.
~,::": ~':,: ':,i ",;;" t '...
,"< '_ ',',I"
. I
J
" ,
f{~ ,~/:<~'~;...,': :,'" ',..
, "
"
, ,<
; ! ~
"
." L
, >-
. ~ . j .
. ",-1
,oj;
I:
/ .. .
"
'." r c
'1', .
"
I. "
" I
, ,
o
,
Public' Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances
ITEM #17 - Ord. #5374-93 - Land Use Plan'Amendment to Commercial General for
property located at 2339 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Sec. 18-29-16, M&B 31.071, approx. 0.64
acres m.o.1. (Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc., LUP93-12)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5374-93 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5374-93 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
BAyes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
ltNays": None. '
ITEM #18 - Ord. #5375-93 - CG Zoning for property located at 2339 Gulf to Bay Blvd.,
Sec. 18-29~16, M&B 31.071, approx, 0.64 acres m.o.1. (Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc., 293-03)
, '
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115375-93 for second reading and read it by
title only.
. Commissioner Berfield asked if the problem regarding the fire hydrant had been
corrected. Mr. Shuford responded i~ had and pointed out other approvals would be
required. '
/lCl4
.
Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 115375-93 on second
and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:,
" Ayes tt: Fitzgerald, Berfield i Deeg an, Thomas and Garvey. '
"Nays": None,
ITEM #19 - Ord. #5515~93 - Extending GTE franchise to June 30, 1994.
,',
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5515-93 for second reading and read it by
title only. Co mmlssioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance, 1/ 5 51 5 -93 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": ' Fitzgerald~ Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
Lf
1/6/94
"Naysll: None.
'ITEM #20 - Ord. #5529-94 - repealing Ord. 1/5386~93, as amended, which proposed a city
charter amendment relating to the creation of a new city department and'provided for a
special ele~tion to be held on January 11, 1994; canceling the, special e,lection
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5529.94 for second reading and read it by
minCCD1 b.94
12
. ", ~",
. .'.
".:.
<.
. "
.;.. ~',
... t.
1
,',. I
,
, ,
I
.' ,
, "
,
, '
,. '
if;, '.......: " '. I'
~<< l.
'r
'"
, ,
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and .adopt Ordinance 115529~94 on
second and final reading. The motion was,duly seconded and upon roll call; the vote was:
.:1
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
.,
..,
,
"Nays": None.
:.i
,I
,'J
ITEM #21 - Special Items of widespread public interest - none.
.,
I
I
j
~ "~
-'
ITEM #22- Citizens to be heard re items not on the AQenda
Anne Garris, speaking for the Environmental Action Committee, said they have
adopted a task concept and requested they be made a permanent committee. The
Committee also recommends the portion of the money obtained by the sale of the sludge'
farm in Hillsborough County not required to go back to the sewer fund be allocated for the
purchase of environmentally endangered lands in the City. 8he urged the Commission to
notify.owners of Camp Soule that the City would consider purchasing the property if for
sale. She distributed a news article regarding a county music dinner theater cqncept on
which.she had reported..
<".
'."::1 .
, ,
th......'
Commissioner Deegan asked Ms. Garris if the EAC task list inCluded Stevenson
Creek and she indicated the list onlYl included Allen and Alligator Creeks. Commissioner
Deegan asked if the Committee thought Stevenson Creek should be included. Ms. Garris
indicated she had no opinion regarding this but others on the Committee might. Ms. Garris
said the EAC is considering a mangrove management plan.
" .
Bob Bickerstaffe expressed disappointment in the Tourist Development Council not
supporting a convention/entertainment center for the Maas Brothers property; He felt this
type complex would inject vitality into do wnto wn and asked the Com mission' to
expeditiously pursue it. He congratulated Betty Deptula and Bill Baker on their
appointments. I
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
,
ITEM #23 ~ Preliminarv Site Plan for prODertv (U-Hnul Self-Storaqe Facilitv) located at
23917 US 19N (U-Haul of West Coast Florida)(CP)
,I.
I
The applicant is proposing to expand the existing U~Haul truck and trailer rental
business by adding a 9,500 square foot self-storage facility and a 1,200 square foot
building addition on the 31,050 square foot adjoining vacant land, located to the northeast
of the existing primary business area. The U~Haul business parcel was recently joined with
the vacant incorporated parcel through annexation. The property has a future land use
designation of commercial/tourist facilities and a ~oning designation of ge~eral commercial.
This project is an expansion of an existing non-residential development and a two
percent open space land dedication fee is required. The Parks & Recreation Director
minCC01 b.94
l)
1/6/94
13
. '., .' . . ,'. , ~ ~
'. :, . :, .~, ;'. 1..,., '.. : C .
... , / . ' +
"
c\
recommends the'City accept cash in satisfaction of this requirement rather than land sinco
the site is an undesirable location for a park and would be more of a maintenance problem
due to its small size.
On November 2, 1993, the Planning & Zoning Board approved a conditional use to
permit indoor storage and/or warehousing subject to conditions.
Mark Scime, representing the applicant; said it has taken a year to get to this point
in the project. He said retention has been an issue indicating the current site is completely
paved. A permit has been received from SWFWMD and he expressed concern the City
may requlre additlonal retention. Mr. Scime asked the site remain as currontly developed
indicating the landscaping and parking will be developed according to the plan.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the egress will be one-way from Sunset Point Road
and Mr. Shuford indicated it would because of the storage bays. He said the primary
entrance will be from U. S. Highway 19 with another access from' South Drive.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern regarding the maneuverability of trucks
through the entrances and asked that close attention be paid to this. Mr. Shuford
indicated Traffic Engineering will revlew.' Mr. Scime agreed the entrances were confining
and indicated they would like to expand.
'~
Acting Assistant City Manager Bill Baker questioned whether Mr. Scime found out,
the development did not meet the required retention requirements and was asking relief
from them. Mr. Scime stated for therecord they annexed into the City to develop the
property and they cannot provide further retention, Mr. Baker responded ha did not feel
there was a problem.
Commissioner Thomas moved to receive the preliminary site plan for property (U-
Haul Self-Storage Facility) located at 23917 U,S. Highway 19N and authorize the
Development Review Committee to approve a final site plan subject to conditions attached
to these minutes as Exhibit A and authorize tl1e acceptance of cash in lieu of land for Open
Space Land requirement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #24 - Res. #94-5 - To name city property located on Pennsylvania Avenue, between
I Plaza and Jones Streets, as "Plaza Park", and to name the playground apparatus area to be
installed in the park as "Lamar O'Byron Ford Memorial Playground'" (PR)
Because of objections from 'residents around Plaza Park to the name change, the
City Commission tabled the resolution passed August 5, 1993 that changed the park's
name to "Lamar O'Byron Ford Memorial Park."
minCCD 1 b. 94
A compromise between staff and representatives of the North Greenwood
Association, Inc. and the Drew and Plaza Park Homeowners Association, Inc. resulted in
the following; the park will remaln "Plaza Park," the new playground will be named "Lamar
t~l
1/6/94
14
'I
I
I
, '
" ,
", I
','<
, ,
~.: :,~:(~-, .,' !'_ .' . \ . > . I !
',' . , .
, \
j!
I'
, "
"i
, '
I""~
'!".'
. . . .
.I.,~.~..I..~\: '~, ~
, "
, .
r\
"
Q/Byron Ford Memorial Pla'yground. t1 The membership of each organization met and
approved the compromise.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the subject item. The motion was duly
seconded.
Gertrude Deevers said she appreciated all the efforts regarding this issu'e. She
favored naming a playground for all the children killed in this area and calling it "All
Children. "
~~
-
David Grice, President of Drew Park Homeowners Association, said he approved of
the compromise. He submitted a letter in opposition for one of the residents. '
;~.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #94.5 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-5 and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call,
the vote was:
"Ayes"~ Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
I'
I'
"Nays": ' None.
!." .
("';"
,'" :/
'tfio-'"
Tho meeting recessed from 8: 1 0 p.m. to 8:21 p.m.
ITEM #25 - (Cant. from 12/16/931 Purchase portions of 3 lots on NW corner of
'Greenwood Ave. and Enaman St., S 100' of Lots 6~ 7, & 8, less road, Blk C, C.E.
Jackson's Sub., for public parking lot, for $38,000 and related environmental audit,
closing fees and demolition costs est. at $5,506, for a total of $43,506 (ED)
The North Greenwood Commercial District General Development Plan developed to
revitalize the North Greenwood business district and the 'North Greenwood Merchants
Association proposed building a parking lot at this site. The Chief of Police, concerned
that an unattended parking lot on North Greenwood Avenue may create police problems'
recommends, the' following conditions be included in the parking lot development: fencing,
good lighting, the ability to close lot access at both entrances and restrict access to the
interior of the lot, and closing the lot at, 9:00 PM every night.
The property has been appraised at ,$38,000 including an estimate of $3,500 to
demolish the boarded residential structure on Lot 8. The seller wants $38,000 exclusive
of demolition costs.
The property is to be owned and operated by the City of Clearwater, free of charge.
'Construction is to be accomplished by the City's Engineering Division. Sufficient funds
exist for this contract.
~I
minCCO 1 b. 94
1/6/94
15
";C' c
, ' :.. i : > ~' '~',:~., t. "' t-
, .
'.
"
"/:.'
, ,
"
.~t~' j::::~r :"}'" .: " "
:~, ~'c' ;" \'. ':'"1 ..
{-
, I..
,C
Commissioner Berfield moved to app~ove purchase of the subject property for
$38,000 and related costs for a total of $43,506. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Thomas indicated the properties across the street. from the subject
property are deteriorating and becoming a center for crime. He suggested staff study
buying deteriorating property in this area and making it into a park centered around the
historic "Crab .Treen.
Mayor Garvey urged caution regarding this issue indicating the intent is to enhance
economic development in the N. Greenwood area. .
Commissioner Thomas requested the Commission take an aggressive stance to
acquire deteriorating properties. ,Mayor Garvey felt buying the properties would not
completely solve the problem as crime would just move to another area,
,
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried una'nimously.
, ,
ITEM #26 - First Readinq Ord. #5506-94 - Establishing the City's commercial recycling,
program including a competitive rate schedule; establishing rates for single family, multi
family recycling; and approve purchase of a recycled materials baler & addition of one
Heavy Equipment Operator (PW) , .
.~
House Bill #461 amended the 1988 Solid Wast.e Management Act and allows
properly registered private recovered materials dealers to collect materials from commercial
establishments throughout Clearwater effective January 1, 1994. The City Solid Waste
Division wishes to register with the State of Florida as a Recovered Materials Dealer and
aggressively compete in this very lucrative commercial recycling market. The proposed
commercial rate schedule contains a base charge from which the City will be allowed to
flex up or down in order to compete with private certified recovered material dealers.
The Commercial Five-Year Recycling Program Proforma; Cardboard and Business
(Costs) Summary; Processing and Marketing Summary; and Expected Gross Sales of
Commercial Recyclables demonstrate that, given the opportunity to provide customized
recycling service to commercial establishments for the five years beginning on January 1,
1994,' the City Recycling Enterprise expects to generate $498,497 in positive cash flow.
, c
This is 20.5 percent of gross revenues. The only major upfront costs to this program are
the addition of one heavy equipment operator and the capital investment of approximately
$125,000 for a baler with a conveyor system to process cardboard, newspaper, aluminum
and steel cans and plastic. The expected gross proceeds from the sale of baled cardboard
and newspaper alone justify the acquisition of the baler.
I
r
Upon approval commercial recycling service would start March 1, 1994, with billing
commencing April 1, 1 994.
The ordinance revisions change existing definitions and add r'!ew definitions to
comply with the 1993 amendments. The ordinance also provides for the registration of
, minCeO 1 b. 94
ifJ
'"~,
1/6/94
16
.~lJll'.)>
. . ,l. ~ .
,. I '
'. , ..' c .. .; ~
~", ':::\' , .
, "
" '
, !
j
I
"
I" I
~
recovered materials dealers who. will operate within the City. These revisions stipulate
after January 1, 1994, all recovered materials dealers operating within the City must,
register and provide a copy of the state certification required by Florida law. This
ordinance prohibits any non-certified recovered materials dealers from operating within the
City of Clearwater and retains, under City control, residential and IT)ulti-family recycling by
denying access to outside recyclers except through City approval or franchise; provides for
recycling by the City; describes the residential, multi-family and commercial programs in
broad terms; provides the rate schedules for the residential and multi-family programs that
,were c1pproved by the Commission November 15, 19D3; and establishes the base rate
schedule for commercial recycling. '
Assistant Public Works/Utilities Director Robert Brumback distributed' pens made
from recycled corrugated cardboard. He said state law opens commercial recycling, the
most lucrative portion of recycling, to competition. Staff is bringing forward a program
t~ey feel will operate effectively within this market. He reviewed the scope of the
program. He said the flexib:e commercial program is oriented toward 800 businesses
having tailored programs and a flexible rate structure that will enable competition with
private recycling companies.
L01
~;~
. Mr. Brumback presented slides of the dumpsters, vehicles and ~quipment to be
used in the recycling program. He said the recycling dumpsters will have locking bars to
prevent contamination and/or loss. He presented the baler to be considered as part of the
program, indicating the bids are in. He said the baler will pay for itself in three,years and,
provide a substantial profit to the City. Baled newspaper is more valuable and goes for
approximately $35 per ton. He noted cardboard has gone up to $40-$45 per ton. Mr.
Brumback said the six-year market trend demonstrates markets are healthy and
commodities strong. He indicated 1994 projections are on target.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if the new yellow plastic milk containers are
recyclable and Mr. Brumback responded they are not. Mr. Brumback pointed out
aluminum is back up to $720 per ton,
Mr, Brumback stated another driver and a baling system will be needed to start the
commercial recycling program. He presen'ted a 5-year proforma showing a 20.5 percent
return on investment; this amounts to approximately $498,500.
Commissioner Thomas found the cash flow proforma presented to be confusing.
He asked if the operating costs included anything other than staffing, overhead,
equipment, etc. Mr. Brumback said the City buys the materials and equipment upfront and
no depreciation costs are reflected. Public Works Finance Manager Paul Nystrom
responded the operating costs include the purchase of the dumpsters and containers. He
said the cash flow approach is far more conservative than the normal profit and loss
approach.
mince01 b.94
lj
1/6/94
17
. I..... C'.
, "
. ~ ',. . , "
"
,'.
~ ! . J
!.
f..... 1.,
, ,
,. .
,~
Commissioner Thomas asked where total capital costs to start the business were
reflected and Mr. Nystrom responded this number is included in the debt service. He said
in the operating costs each year there are sufficient funds for obtaining equipment. '
. Commissioner Thomas asked what part of the $1.9 million for the total cost of the
program is for capital costs. Mr. Nystrom responded $806,000.00. Commissioner
Thomas asked if this amount would be recovered in the five-year cycle and Mr. Nystrom
responded it would. Commissioner Thomas said it was important for the citizens to know
a profit of $500,000.00 would be realized if this program is undertaken. He said even
though the program reflects a cost of $1.9 million the City is not actually spending that
amount of the taxpayers money.
Commissioner Deegan asked the proforma figures be reconstructed to correspond
to the fiscal year rather than the calendar year.
Commissioner Deegan a'sked why the prorated credit from the sale of recyclables
, and the anticipated sales differed. Mr. Nystrom said staff took the costs of processing
and mar~eting and reduced the gross sales by those costs.
Interim City Manager Betty Deptula asked if the residential program gets a prorated
portion of that revenue and Mr. Nystrom indicated it did,
{'
j >".',
, .'j
.'
Commissioner Deegan questioned why the figures on gross sales of commerCial
recyclables do not agree. Mr. Nystrom said the direct cost is subtracted from the
expected gross revenues.
Commissioner Thomas again ,remarked that the accounting layout was confusing.
Commissioner Deegan referred to commercial uncompacted dumpster service
charges. Mr. Nystrom indicated they reduced the charge to be competitive.
. Commissioner Deegan asked if a 40% market share was being anticipated and Mr.
Nystrom said this was not the case. He said if people recycle, they would pay 40 cents
on the dollar instead of $1.00; therefore, it is economically better to recycle.
Commissioner Deegan commented the Gas Division is the closest to an
entrepreneur program and sees recycling coming in as a close second. He asked if the
City Manager has the ability to adjust the rates in the Gas Division as depicted in the
recycling program. It was indicated this is the case. In response to a question. 'Ms.
Deptula indicated a policy change had been made whereby the Gas Manager and/or the
City Manager could, in certain situations. negotiate the rate if there was danger of losing
customers.
lninCCO 1 b. 94
Commissioner Thomas requested an incentive program for workers in the recycling
program. Ms. Deptula said this may be an issue of unfair labor practice in the regular pay
plan; however, she said-she could address incentives in the SAMP plan. She also pointed
'C"
1/6/94
18
, '
,
; .
:. ",:'
, ,I
"
l:.
~ . .
, ,
.'
.: . ~' :~ : ~, +
'0" j I'"
I '. . ~. . . '. .
. . + , ' ,.. .... '. ~, .
,e
out'direction had been given to include in the labor negotiations this year the allowance of
incentive programs.
Commissioner Deegan questioned why the baler was part of the recommendation.
Mr. Brumback responded staff is just asking conceptual approval. Commissioner Deegan
expressed concern that a bid had been let prior tO'conceptual approval. Mr. Baker pointed
out there is a bid for a baler, not a contract. Commissione'r Deegan questioned why staff
was asking conceptual approval and Mr. Nystrom responded the baler is critical to the
commercial recycling program. Commissioner Deegan questioned what staff would do if
the Commission said no to the baler. Mr. Brumback stated staff wanted to be sure the
Co~mission understood the program would require the purchase of the baler. Mayor
Garvey pointed out approval of the purchase of the baler will come back before the
Commission.
J
,I
{;"
. ..1,
" ~
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the establishment of a City commercial
recycling program including a competitive rate schedule, the purchase of a recycled
materials baler and the addition of one heavy equipment operator. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
. ,
Mayor Garvey said the recommendation could be restated to approve only the
recycling program arid the background could explain the need for a baler and heavy
equipment operator. '
, Commissioner Thomas pointed out the presentation showed baled prices versus
unbaled prices and the change in revenue.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5506-94 for first reading and read it by
title only.
The City Attorney referred to page 7 of the ordinance regarding the Solid Waste
Division's ability to adjust the rates but "may never exceed 30% of the rates approved by
the City Commission." He stated 30% should be 130%.. Commissioner Deegan
recommended revising thA language to reflect the rates never moving 30% in either
direction., Mr. Brumback felt it was important the City be able to negotiate the rates as
low as necessary to be competitive.
I
Commissioner Thomas felt the City Manager should be delegated to negotiate the
rates and should not have to come back to the Commission for an adjustment.
Commissioner Deegan said this was part of the ordinance and should be reviewed if the
rates vary too greatly.
L,
1/6/94
. ,
Mr. Nystrom rocommended 40 percont. Commissioner Thomas asked if staff felt
50 percent would be better and Mr. Brumback indicated it would: Commissioner Deegan
supported a 40 percent cap.
minCC01 b.94
19
~;:: d
" . .." "
,; <, " . of ", ~ .
"
".' ,
, "
" .,'J
; ,
"
( 'I
. .~. l","
. " .t
c~
, Commissioner Deegan asked that Sec. 32.322 of the ordinance be changed to read
the "City M~nagertt not ItSolid Waste Division" may adjust the rates.
Commissioner Berfield asked who adjusts the water rates. Ms. Deptula said the
Commission does unless it is a pass through from the County. The gas rates are set by
the City Manager.
Mr. Nystrom pointed out recycling has alot of competition; gas service does not.
Commissioner Berfield asked if Peoples Gas can go out and solicit customers and, Mr.
Nystrom responded only for LPG not for natural gas. Mr. Brumback commented recycling
is a free and open market. Commissioner Thomas felt staff should be as unrestrained as,
possible. Commissioner Fitzgerald agrl3ed.
, t
Mayor Garvey suggested the language "not exceed 50 percent plus or minustl for
the ordinance. Commissioner Berfield supported 40 percent; Commissioner Deegan now
agreed to 50 percent indicating staff can corrye back at any point if necessary.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the rates set out in Appendix A in Sec. 32.322
and requested they be changed to "base rates" approved by the Commission. 'He referred
to page' 4 pointing out Subsections (5) and (6) are duplicated. The City Attorney agreed
and recommended deleting Subsection (6).
t',~\
. olf
,,',lJ'
Ms. Deptula pointed out there has been a delay in the implementation of the
residefltial curb side program indicating the City does not want to decrease residential,
rates until the residential program begins. The City Attorney said the effective date
section of the ordinance can be changed to reflect an effective date 'of July 1, 1994.
Joe Evich. expressed concern in approving a baler and equipment operator
conceptually. He favored percentage caps on rates. He expressed concern regarding this
being a competitive market and the City not winning all 800 customers as hoped. He
questioned whether there is any history on other municipalitios that have gone into the
recycling business. He referred to a negative cash flow in the start-up years and felt this
project should be an Enterprise Fund. He expressed concern the proposition is a risky one.
,I
J.
, Mayor Garvey said there has been a full blown presentation on the recycling
program and its implementation will hopefully result in a cost reduction to the City. Mr.
Brumback pointed out theresidential and commercial recycling programs are two separate
cost centers.
"
;
minCCO 1 b. 94
Mr. Saker pointed 'out that Clearwater has been involved in recycling for a number,
of years; they are just starting up with competition and have to be ready to play the
market. Mr. Brumback said they are hoping to operate on a regional basis.
Commissioner Deegan asked if the County or the City of Dunedin will be requiring
Clearwater to register as a recovered materials dealer. Mr. Brumback, said staff would
check.
{, ,,'
\...t '
1/6/94
20
. ~ ~ :
....'.
. ~ I
'I
~:~, -~ f .
, "'c.,
. .. . t . ~ .
{, '
-, -,,,
1/$
c'
The amendments to be mado at second reading of Ordinance #5506-94 are as
follows: On page 4, Sec. 32.313. Registration. delete subsection (6); on page 7, Sec.
32.322. Commercial Recvclino. paragraph 1, line 7, change "Solid Waste Division" to
"City Manager." The word "base It to be added before the word "rates It and to change the
30% cap to a 50% cap to read as follows: "Commercial recycling base rates will be set
out in Appendix A to this code, and such base rates may be amended from time to time by
resolution adopted by the city commission. The city manager may adjust the rates:
upwards or downwards in order to compete effectively with private recovered materials
dealers operating within the City; however, the rates may not vary more than 50 percent
above or below the base rates approved by the city commission unless the rates are first
approved by a resolution establishing a revised base rate schedule." On page 1,1, change
,the effective date to July 1, 1994.
, '..I
Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5506-94 on first reading with
the understanding the above changes will be made at second reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": Berfleld.
.J
ITEM #27 - Receipt/Referral - 'Annexation. Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low
and RS~6 Zonino for'orooertv located at 407 Dora Dr., Rolling Heights Sub., Lot 16,'0.21
acres m.o.!. (Callaghan, A~3-28, LUP93-40)(CP)
~~~'
"
. J:"~
. .",.v
The subject property is located on the east side of Dora Drive approximately 2,550
feet east of Belcher Road and 870 feet north of Drew Street, where Lorena Lane intersects
Dora Drive. The applicants wish to annex to obtain City sewer service. The lots in Rolling
Heights, in the City, are assigned Single Family Residential "Six" zoning. It is proposed to
assign the same zoning to the applicant's property.
Commissioner Deegan moved to receive the petition for annexation, land use plan
amendment to residential low and zoning atlas amendment to single-family residential "six"
for the subject property and refer the request to the City Clerk to be advertised for public
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #28 - Other Pendino Matters - none.
I
!
, '
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
ITEM #29 - Other Citv Attornev Items
The City Attorney announced his desire to meet with the Commission in closed
session regarding the Carrasquillo v. City case. An attorney/client session was set for
January 20, 1994 at 4:30 p.m.; alternate date January 14, 1994 at 1 :00 p.m., prior to
minCC01 b.94
L,
1/6/94
21
, '
.r '. I
{ ," : . II
I,
"
i,';L
. ~ . f
, '
, '
-10 t-:
, ,
r'\
t.
the Commission meeting with the Pinellas County School Board. The City Clerk is to
'provide a map indicating the location of the School Board Administration Building.
ITEM #30 - Citv Manaoer Verbal Reoorts
,
Interim City Manager Deptula referred to a letter received from the Chi Chi
Rodriguez Foundation inviting the Commission to a meeting on' January 12, 1994, at 7:30
p.m. regarding Glen Oaks Golf ,Course and pointed out if more than one of the
Commissioner attends, the Sunshine Law requirements will have to be met. Only the
Mayor will be attending so there will not be public meeting problems. Ms. Deptula pointed
out this issue will be coming' before the Commission at a later date. She wished Acting
Assistant City Manager Baker a Happy Birthday.
,.\
'I
ITEM #31 - Commission Discussion Items - none.
, ITEM #32 - Other Commission Action
Commissioner Thomas referred to a memo from the Downtown Development Board
Chairperson recommending the replacement of the "Art Colonyll signs with "Downtown
, Shopping District" signs. Commissioner Deegan said the DDB is developing a logo which
he felt should be included on the signs if they were changed. Consensus was to,remove
the existing faces of the signs and to replace them with the "Downtown Shopping
, District" signs when the DDB logo is developed and can be included. Commissioner
Deegan requested the Commission be provided the logo once it is developed.
I'
',~"l~
..~~
'v
Commissioner Thomas requested Commission direct staff to analyze deteriorating
properties in the North Greenwood area to see if they can be obtained and developed as a
park with the "Crab Tree" as the focal point. It was felt the North Greenwood Association
should be involved. Commissioner Deegan requested the scope be broader and requested
staff develop concepts ~or alternatives to deal with the issue. Commissioner Thomas
agreed it could be studied for economic development as well. He requested staff be more
creative than just 'adding police officers. Deputy City Manager Rice reported a number of
deteriorating buildings, have been targeted for demolition.
Commissioner Fitzgerald gave an update on the Mayors' Council indicating the
majority of the council indicated their support of the annexation of encl aves to Curt Kiser.
The Council discussed teen curfews and requested cities think about a standardized
approach. He referred to a letter from the Brooker Creek Preserve asking for support for
the sale of city property. It, was indicated this referred to a portion of the City's sludge
farm being sold to' HiIlsborough County as an ELAPP site.
minCC01 b.94
Commissioner Deeoan pointed out it is difficult to provide immediate feedback to
SAC recommendations as there has been a delay in receiving the minutes. He requested
staff provide SAC recommendations from previous meetings.
c'
1/6/94
;
'!
22 '
E:fW('Y:;-:"" ',"
. . ~
r'
,,'
". ~" c -.. jo .
, t ,I ~ .
)""',, '
1 ! ;"," " ~.
p"",:,- "
:.' ; \ : j:-.' ~ ~;
~?-::',:,;,:~<,:>"" ',.'
".'.
, '1
, I,
"
I' ,"
, '
, ,
.r.; l ~ ~ i., I '
(: ,,'
:.., . ~ .
" .
"
, .
I'
, "
K:,,(~;', ,:; Lii;{i;,"" 'iL;i;~i;:; ." ^"..'
, "
'.
, ,
" ,
, ,
-/.. ~ ~ J-
, ~
"
c
Commissioner Berfield questioned whether Code Enforc'ement Review Task Force
members resigning should be'replaced. Ms. Rice pointed out only a few 'issues remain to
be addressed. Consensus was to not replace 'm~mbers.
ITEM #33 - Adiournment
The meeting adjourned at 10: 16 p.m.
, .
<.. ",
",
er
\, ,,"
,\ ,
"'~'Ji
" , " '. -- . .
AT~EST:', . _~" __011.,
, . '" 'City Clerk
. 1 , , . l : . . ~. .
.:<...
I,
"
'( #Ii'
:,::,,:~~
. ~ ' ~
'j
,.'
; ,
"l . (
I.
, '
"
, ,
minCC01 b.94
[,'
t,~~
1/6/94
'23
, '
'1:
.t.t.
,,;
\
\
, ,
.: .f~ "
. '.'
,. . s /