02/03/1994 (2)
, ,
,"
"01
(
. '. . ~
'.
',',
r
.~+{ I
, d'
~"I:':l>:'~~~ i,:
O'
,
j',.
. "
,
I
, I
'. .,
~ I ..
l\.'
.r
\lo'
i, \;{
"
," j
~ ,
,I',
l:
1" .
...~,
,
. ,
...
,
"
:' '
, '.
. /' "/ '{
f', I.. '..
',' ~:,.' :..~ '~'::!,.:;, '::~:' ~/"<<-:' !:-.,: ;....~,.? (,.:
I
.
.1
.1
t~:~.'('. l./.; ~:.}.
. ,
'.
"
".
"
. ',.
'.(
.' ,r r>
~ . I: -.'
'.
'.
.,
.Il
. (
:":',~.~' ,
~.. ....t...;~ ~.~ :" '.. ':, ~.' <, I c"
:,~;.~.~.~. I~.~. . ,
. ......,. ..-....i'i..~. ".' ...
'''''I'''-~'~''''''~ . ,'.' -I.
T,......,,!"t.:'l.I.."l"...,.. :"
\\~tk~S.~'~~~: '>'.:".~ " ~ "
. ."'ttr.:rt~I?t!.J...1'"t~ .....,. h.\
~~t~~~~:~~:;. t~; '.:'~.'..",
. :~:.' ~', .".
",:' h' "
, I
CO'M,MISS.ION
City Commission
, ... ~ ,-i
,DATE
t /:3/99
\'
,",
;,
".
, ,.'.:;,,",,: ".: ,
. ts~~.' "
. J4i.. ~ . I
.tl.. .
.t..~ ~
u '~~~.,~
~;:'
. 1- JLciNrLsL
I .
L g ~rg
. . ~.
.,
,J'::.,W{~<'
. ,J,I,:,,~ ,
.~." ~~. .
. ~ ~.. ~ .... . ,
I,
r~.~.: . ~
., "
j.....
'.t.:~- .:. ~. .
ft~~';:'. J
: . '".} \{~~};~,~
,", ~M.,.'
,,' :~ :
.'
,.
. ,
, '
"
I
"
.,'\
.,
"
'.
_.'r'
, .
.,/,
~ ,l,}.. .,"
" ,
"
, ,
~~:.. ,;
'.,
,< , ,t
~;' ;:<~~~~~~--~:_'~_.::"
[.
'j
"
~ ..,i,,( ...
,;
, ,
"t..
,.
" I
,.
, .
, .
')
~ > '. . ~
~>:\:':'
; .
, >. ' ','
......,'.,. I
I" iii
,. . I- <'
c:.
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 1994
'The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall,
Thursday, February 3, 1994 at.6:01 p.m., with the following members present:
Rita Garvey
Arthur X. Deegan, II
Richard Fitzgerald
Sue A. Berfield
Fred A. Thomas
Also present:
Elizabeth M. Deptula
William C. Baker
M:A. Galbraith, Jr.
Peter J. Yauch
Scott Shuford
Cynthia E. Goudeau
Mary K. Diana
Mayor/Commissioner
Vice-Mayor ICommissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Interim City Manager
Acting Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
Acting Public Works Director
Central Permitting Director
City Clerk
Assistant City Clerk
The Mayor called the meeting to order. Police Chief, Sid Klein, introduced Brownie
Troop 155 who led the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was offered by Father James
Rous~l<is, Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity.
In order ,to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although
not necessarily discussed in that order.
(I",
. "
, ,
"'J.'
-.
ITEM #3 . Service Awards - none.
ITEM #4 . Introductions and Awards
Proclamation: Burn Awareness Week - Febru~ry 6-12, 1994
ITEM #5 - Presentations - none.
! .
ITEM #6 - Approval' of Minutes'
Commissioner Deegan requested on page 2, paragraph 2, the word UTaotess" be
changed to "Totoff." Commissioner Berfield questioned on page 8, paragraph ,3, sentence
, 3, the use of the word "and" and it was indicated the correct word should be "had."
Commissioner Deegan questioned on page 12, second sentence whether the statement
regarding Mayor Garvey and Commissioner Fitzgerald being unaware of the effort to
reduce the sale of alcoholic beverages in the N. Ft. Harrison area was correct. Staff to
review the tape. The minutes will be corrected to reflect changes if needed.
t.>
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
1
"
./'
'.
. ~ i
c\
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of
December 2, 1993, as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Aqenda
William Goodwin requested the Commission stay on track to use the Maas Brothers
property for a convention center. He said he has noticed a positive change in downtown
activity since allowing parking on Cleveland Street.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #8 - Public Hearing - Res. #94-1 authorizing placement of liens on properties for
. unpai,d utility bills (AS) ,
Several property owners have delinquent accounts with the utility system for
amounts over $100. The Utility Customer Service Division has notified these owners of
their indebtedness and the fact that the City may file a lien on their property for the
amount of the delinquent account.
The owners have also been notified by the City Clerk of the public hearing regarding
their indebtedness pursuant to Chapter 32, Section 32.072 of the City Code of
Ordinances.
, ,
IJ' Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to authorize the placement of liens on properties for
"tt",,' unpaid utility bills. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution 1194-1 and read it by title only.
, Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution 1194~1 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.
ltNays": None.
ITEM #9 - Declare citv-owned property (north 150' of SE 1 /4 of Sec. 19-27-17. IvinQ east
of Patterson Road less portion deeded bv city to William L. Jacobson together with north
150' of the west 1.394' of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 20-27-17) in HilIsborough County,
commonlv referred to as a portion of the "sludQe farm" (aporox. 11 acres) as surolus to
city needs for the purpose of selling or exchanging (eM)
. During the early 1980's the City purchased approximately 915 acres in Hillsborough
County for the disposal of sludge produced bV its wastewater treatment plants. Funds for
the purchase were provide~ by Sewer System revenues, Utility Revenue Bonds and Sewer
Tap (Impact) Fees. In August, 1991, the City ceased operation of the land spread of
sludge and the City has no further use for the property. '
l>
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
2
r. . " .~'
~ < , ~
,
::! "
o
At the .September 20, 1990 Commission meeting, 57.33 acres (Parcel A) were
declared surplus which excluded approximately 3 feet between the parcel and the half
section line to the north. At a January 24, 1991 meeting, all of Parcel B was declared
surplus, less the north 150 feet. In April, 1991, the City exchanged Parcel A with William
L. Jacobson for wato'rfront property of equal value on Island Estates. The City also
granted the same party an option to purchase Parcel B. That option expired unexercised
on July 1, 1993.
.1
Other than this parcel, all of the "sludge farm" property has previously been
declared surplus with the Commission declaring parcels C, D and E surplus at the January
7, 1993 meeting. Subsequent to that meeting, staff has been negotiating the sale of the
415 acres west of Patterson Road (Parcel E) with the HiIlsborough County Environmental
Lands Acquisition' Program (ELAPP). Those negotiations are presently continuing.
In March, 1993, The Centerline Group, Inc. performod appraisals of the current
market value of parcels C, D and E for the City. The combined value of parcels C and D
was placed at $1,300,000, approximately $5,109 per acre. The value of parcel"E was
placed at $2,300,000, approximately $5,542 per acre.
Following this declaration of the balance of the Hillsborough property as surplus to
City needs, all of the property will be advertised for sale or exchange through tho public bid
process.
, Commissioner Thomas asked if anyone can bid on property when it is declared
( '. surplus. Interim City Manager Deptula responded the process of advertising for bids is
~ -' followed.
Commissioner Thomas asked if a real estate agent was engaged to market Parcel E.
Ms. Deptula responded an agent was hired to specifically negotiate a sale to ELAPP.
Commissioner Thomas questioned why this was done. Ms. Deptula indicated the City was
approached for this purpose and the Commission agreed. .
Commissioner Thomas said those parcels that are not actively being marketed
should not be put in surplus. He recommended the City remove those parcels from surplus
and keep them as an investment. The City Attorney said the declaration of surplus can be
revoked.
Commissioner Thomas moved to declare approximately 11 acres of city owned
property in Hillsborough County, commonly referred to as a portion of the "sludge farm" as
surplus to city needs for the purpose of selling or exchanging. The motion was duly
seconded.
Bob Bickerstaffe spoke in opposition to selling the subject property indicating the
City should r.etain it until they can get back their initial investment.
Upon the vote being,taken, the motion carried unanimously.
( , ,!
~,
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
;.1, "
, ./.
c'
. Commissioner Thomas requested the City Attorney bring back for discussion
revocation of declaration of surplus on the remaining city owned parcels. He said he
would like to see an agenda item listing the pros and cons of revoking the surplus status.
He wants to see the citizens get the maximum return on the initial investment.
Majority consensus was to agenda for discussion the revocation of the d'3c1aration
of surplus for the remaining city owned Hillsborough property.
Commissioner Berfield asked if the Commission would consider a long term lease
and it was felt more information needed to be obtained.
ITEM #10 - {Cont. from 1/20/941 Public HearlnQ & First ReadinQ Ord. #5521-94 -
Amending Sec. 44.51, to provide for increased area for attached signs in residential areas
(CP)
The Commission requested that staff investigate revising the sign regulations to
, provide for increased area for attached signs in residential zoning districts. This request
was prompted by discussion of the Bayhouse condominium sign variance request.
Staff recommends attached signs for residential areas be limited to multiple family
zoning districts only. This would exclude single family districts, which staff believes to be
better'identified through freestanding signs at the entrances of the subdivisions.
(-."
In considering the area allowances for such slgnage, staff used the Bayhouse case
as a guide. The Bayhouse sign is' slightly over 63 square feet in area, and the building to
which it was attached is setback 265 feet from the street, making it eligible for a sign
bonus that allowed a sign area increase of 75 percent.
If a 40 square foot allowance for attached signs was adopted, the Bayhouse
development would have been eligible for an attached sign of up to 70 square feet, making
, the existing sign permitted without need of variance. In the case of a 300 foot or greater
setback from the street, the maximum sign bonus allowance under a 40 square foot
"base" sign area would, be 90 square feet; the current maximum is 54 square feet.
A 40 square foot figure is provided in the draft ordinance.
I>
I
, The Planning and Zoning Board and the Development Code Adjustment Board both
recommended approval of this ordinance.
f
In response to a question, Central Permitting Director Shuford responded a separate
section of the code addresses distances from rights-at-way.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a land development code amendment
poncerning residential signage. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5521-94 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance 115521-94 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
{ ,
~,.
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
4
, ". 'J
, ,
, .
".
I.
(....'.
.... '
"Ayest!: Fitzgerald, ~erfield; Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
Public Hearino - Second Readinp Ordinances .
ITEM #11 M (Cont. from 1/20/94) Ord. #5508-94 - Amending various sections within
Chapter 45 to establish minor variances and provide for minor variance approval by the
Development Code Adjustment Board (LDCA 93-24) ,
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5508-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5508-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
nAyesu: Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Naystt: None.
ITEM #12 - No item.
ITEM #13 - Ord. #5512-94 - Amending See: 42.34 to prohibit parking, displaying 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)
C' ,
, .
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the regularly scheduled
meeting of February 17, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #14 - No item.
ITEM #15 - Ord. #5522-94 - Annexation for property located at 1654 Owen Dr., Orange
Blossom Sub., N 10' of Lot 17 & 60' of Lot 18, 0.22 acres m.o.l. (Alexia des, A93-26) .
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5522-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5522-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
ttAyestr: Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
I
I
I
I
"Naystt: None.
ITEM #16 - Ord. #5523-94 - land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low for property
located at 1654 Owen Dr., Orange Blossom Sub., N 10' of lot 17 & 60' of Lot 18, 0.22
acres m.o.l. (Alexia des, lUP93-35)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5523-94 for second reading and read it' by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5523-94 on
second and final reading. The motion, was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
()
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
5
'J. J. I.
"
. I
v'
".
/' ; . /'
c
. U Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
IINays": None.
ITEM 1117 - Ord. #5524-94 - RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1654 Owen Dr., Orange
Blossom Sub., N 10' of Lot 17 & 60' of Lot 18, 0.22 acres m.o.1. (Alexiades, A93-26)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115524-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 115524-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call; the vote was:
"A yes 11: Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #18 - Ord. #5525-94 - Annexation for property located at 1914 Atlantis Dr., Sunset, .
Point Estates, Blk A, Lot 22, 0.14 acres m.o.1. (Touchette. Sr., A93-27)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5525-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5525-94 on
second and final reading. The motion wa,s duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
UAyes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
(:.l
'.. ':~
~ J .
"Nays": None.
ITEM #19 - Ord. #5526-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General for
property located at 1914 Atlantis Dr., Sunset Point Estates, Blk A. Lot 22,0.14 acres
m.o.!. (Touchette, Sr., LUP93-36) ,
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5526-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5526-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call. the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"NaysU: None.
ITEM 1120 - Ord. #5527-94 - CG Zoning for property located at 1914 Atlantis Dr., Sunset
Point Estates, Blk A, Lot 22, 0.14 acros m.o.!. (Touchette. Sr., A93-27)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5527-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5527-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
L>
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
6
I
I
'I
I I j ..
\ ,
. . . ~
< "
t ..
/ ~~
"
"
r
It Ayeslt: Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM 1/21 ~ Ord. #5528-94 - Establishing a reporting date of 5/15/94 re: Clearwater
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance /15528:-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance /l5528~94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayesll: Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
ItNays": None.
ITEM /122 '- Ord. #5530-94 - Vacating westerly 1.5' of the easterly 7.5' utility easement
lying along the easterly side of Lot 44, College, Hill Estates (Banks, V93-17)
, .
The City Attorney presented Ordinance /15530-94 for second reading and read it by
title' only. Commissioner Thomas moved tp pass and adopt Ordinance #5530-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call,' the vots was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.'
t' '
....;~
.'
~,.,"
lINaysn: None.
ITEM 1/23 - Ord. #5531 ~94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Institutional for property
located at 701 N. Missouri Ave., New Country Club Addition, Lot 8. Lot 12 less road on
west, and N 135' of unplatted Blk C west of the 1/2 section line, 0.97 acres m.o.1. (City,
LUP93-39)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 1/5531-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 1/5531-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
c.
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
ITEM #24 - Ord. #5532-94 - P/SP Zoning for property located at 701 N. Missouri Ave.,
New Country Club Addition,. Lot B, Lot 12 less road on west, and N 135' of unplatted Blk
C west of the 1/2 section line, 0.97 acres m.o.1. (City, Z93-53)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5532-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5532-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
7
r
nAyes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
, I.
. ,
I ,
"
"Nays": None.
ITEM #25 - Ord" #5533-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Institutional for property
located at 3190 McMullen-Booth Road, Turtle Brooke Sub., Parcel A, 2.55 acres m.o.1.
(Wright, LUf393-38)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 1/5533-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5533-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayesll: Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #26 p Ord. #5534-94 - PIS? Zoning for property located at 3190 McMullen-Booth
Road, Turtle Brooke Sub., parcel A, 2.55 acres m.o.1. (Wright, Z93~52)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5534-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5534-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
c....
4., -
... .'J
.J;!
"Nays": None.
ITEM #27 - Ord. #5535-94 - Vacating north 30' of Magnolia Dr., lying south of Lot 10, Blk
E, Edenville Sup., less easterly 20' (Chapin, V93-15)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5535-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5535-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Nays": None.
ITEM #28 - Ord. #5537-94 - Amending schedule of fees, rates and charges for traffic and
motor vehicles to establish a toll rate for the Jolly Trolley for the use of the Clearwater
Pass Bridge
,
L
,:
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5537-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5537-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
L/
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
8
r"~
i,
"Ayeslt: Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"
, "
. ~ L'
r'" ,
. "Naystt: None.
ITEM #29 - Soecialltems of widespread public interest
a} Community Consensus - Dr. Peter Graves
Dr. Graves used overheads to present the steps of the Community Consensus
Process. He said they are now at the step of reviewing the results. Dr. Graves noted the
process allowed the citizens to indicate the issues and help prepare the questionnaires. He
said in addition to the numerical conclusions drawn' from the results, the citizens have
been asked their opinions regarding the outcome.
He stated the structure of the questionnaire was not as clear as it could have been
and indicated this was intentional. Dr. Graves said the first question dealt with quality of
life and the citizens had to choose what issues were preferred over others. He said the
other questions dealt with what kind of services would enhance or maintain their quality of
life and sources of funding for the services or programs wanted. '
The content of the questionnaire was determined from a series of public input
meetings. To protect the integrity of the sampling, Dr. Graves indicated no two
questionnair,es were alike. The goal was to get a representative sampling of the City of
Clearwater using demographic norms. Approximately 1000 completed questionnaires
4",~~ were returned with more being gathered than needed to assure all those scored were valid.
~;I}' The total consensus was based on a properly balanced representative sampling of
Clearwater residents and numbered approximately 520. Dr. Graves said all valid
questionnaires were used in the sub-group analysis.
In having to choose between two issues, Dr. Graves indicated 200 comparative
decisions had to be completed. The results are not the same as found in an opinion poll;
this process gives a prioritized list of issues. The number one issue was an effective,
quality police force. Dr. Graves indicated it is difficult to get a good feel for the results
simply looking at the ranking of issues. He said the process sorts out the more important
issues from the less important issues. He indicated the citizens agreed on a lot of issues.
. Discretionary funding issues were listed lower on the list.
Dr. Graves said he has been asked to draw some conclusions where one might go
with this survey. He believes the consensus report can serve as a stimulus for the
Commission's upcoming strategic planning sessions. An optimal use of the report is to
begin an understanding of the ways in which different parts of town think differently about
issues. He felt this approach would strengthen neighborhoods. He said beyond the short
term, it is difficult to determine the best ways the results could be used. It is estimated
this data has a life span of approximately 18 months.
Commissioner Thomas thank~d the public for participating in the study.
L.i
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
9
r\
,,'
Commissioner Barfield pointed out the thing that impressed her most was the
people of Clearwater made up the survey.
Commissioner Deegan said the Steering Committee agroed they have come to the
end of the road., He thanked them for the time and energy spent.
Mayor Garvey also expressed her thanks to the Community Consensus Steering
Community on behalf of the Commission. She said they provided the direction, ran the
meetings, etc. She recognized the committee and staff members involved in the project.
Ms. Deptula said the report will be used in the budget process.
Commissioner Thomas moved to accept the Community Consensus Report. The
. motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Jean Montana said the report was great. She noted the report mentioned small
businesses. She said small businesses on Clearwater Beach are going downhill because of
actions by the Commission.
Commissioner Thomas requested the report be made available to anyone who
wants it.
b) Water Supply Status Report - William C. Baker
(.". , Acting Assistant City Manager Baker said the City has just concluded a
'>;... , hydrogeological study .of the water supply in the Clearwater area. The entire water supply
is dependent upon the hydrological cycle. Clearwater gets 50 inches of water per year
from precipitation and 11 inches per year from percolation. He explained the various
geological layers and how the water moves down through them. The top groundwater
layer is not drinkable. The upper A zone is freshwater with a chloride concentration of
around 15 parts/1,000,000. He noted the EPA safe drinking standards allow up to 250
parts chlorides. If a well in the upper A zone is pumped beyond water's capability to enter
from the side, brackish water will be sucked up from a deeper level. The study was to
determine how much water Clearwater can produce from the upper A zone.
d .)
~~"
Mr. Baker pointed out there is a reverse osmosis process available if there is enough
brackish water to implement this process. The study also looked at this.
He reviewed the history of the City's fresh water supply. As City wells were
pumped over the years, they increased in salinity. It was also found some wells were
,deeper than they should have bee. SWFWMD requested a cut back on the pumping and
the City had to fine tune this pumping so not to increase the chlorides. The following are
the effects of SWFWMD's 1939 Chloride Rule: 1988 ~ City produced 8 MGD from 25
wells and bought 6 MGD from the county; 1991 . City produced 2.9 MGO from 10 wells
and bought 13.3 MGD from the county; and in 1992 - City produced 2.3 MGD from 11
wells and bought 13.5 from the county. Mr. Baker said 8 wells were rehabilitated in 1993
and the City is now pumping 4 MGD from 17 wells and buying 11 MGD from the county..
!
"
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
10
:', .' >
I .~
('
l
Mr. Baker said the results of the study show the best water in Clearwater lies under
the area within a radius of approximately 2 miles of the intersection of Old Coachman
Road and S.R. 590; the former practice of constructing wells between 250 to 300 feet
deep has contributed to the degradation of the water quality in the well field area; fresh
water can be pumped from a single well. drawing from the upper A zone at a rate of .25
MGD with no upconing of that well and up to .5 MGD with little upconing after 10 years;
and the maximum yield of the strata under Clearwater is 6 MGD. The study also shows
brackish water pumping will result in immediate and severe up coning and there will be no
brackish water supply for the purpose of rever.se osmosis. Another finding is while the
concentration of production from the upper A zone minimizes the upconing of poorer
quality water, it increases the likelihood of other water quality problems such as iron.
Mr. Baker presented the following recommendations: (1) a plan of further study at a
cost of $240,000 to confirm and more precisely identify the results of the experimental
work done and to describe the appropriate water treatment process needed; (2.) if further
study indicates, rehabilitate two wells at 0 cost of $270,000 to increase our water supply
to .5 MGD; and (3) at a later date consider increasing to the 6 MDG maximum by the
con~truction of 9 wells at" a cost of $2,390,000 and with water treatment facilities
installed at each of the three reservoirs for a cost of $10,800,000. He said the City's
investment of $510,000 could be recouped in two years. These recommendations would,
cause a 1 3 percent increase in the budget.
He said somewhere along the way the City may decide to get out of the water
production business when it is no longer cost effective.
(,
Commissioner Thomas questioned whether the $240,000 study would prove
whether our wells can be rehabilitated.
In response, Mr. Baker stated the study is to prove if another 2 MGD of water for a
total of 6 MGD is obtainable. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether 25 percent of
the 2 MGD is in the two inoperable' wells and Mr. Baker said this is the case.
Commissioner Thomas said he did not understand the payoff on the extra 1-1/2 million
gallons which would take approximately a $2.3 million investment. Mr. Baker said this
amount would include treating the water. The $10,8000,000 would be to treat all the
facilities. In response to questions, Mr. Baker responded neither the City nor the county
treat their water currently. If the county treats its water, their costs would also increase.
There will be no payback for implementing all the recommendations unless the county's
price goes up.
Commissioner Thomas asked when desalination would give a payback. Tom Burke,
Camp, Dresser & McKee, responded the payback on going to full desalination has not been
completely identified, however, is being looked at in the county master water plan.
In response to a question, Mr. Burke responded by the time potable water reaches
$8.00/1,000 gallons we will be looking at alternate sources for water recovery. He said
by the time desalination is here the City will be faced with regulatory constraints regarding
F.-
a_",
~~L
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
1 1
to ..~~'~~f .~. I ..J . T ~.
, , .
'"
i j
;T.:
"I,
r
the handling of the by~products of desalination. He felt within the next 4-5 years the
regulatory requirements will stabilize.
Mr. Baker said we will not have to worry about availability of water but it will be
expensive. Commissioner Thomas said the City needs to look at storm water recovery and
get more aggre~sive on the building of lakes so water can be collected and reused.
, ,
Mr. Baker said an agenda item will be coming forward awarding the contract for the
$240,000 study.
The meeting recessed from 8:10p.m. to 8:24 p.m.
ITEM #30 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Aqenda
. Anne Garris stated the property between the Beach Diner and the Gulf was
purchased in. 1950 for parks 'and recreation purposes and is subject to referendum for any
other use., She said concerns have been expressed regarding reports on the convention
center to be considered.
ITEM #31 - Statement bv Jay Elliott (20 minutes)
A sworn statement in writing was submitted by Jay Elliott regarding his
rehabilitation contract.
Ms. Deptula introduced Alan Ferri the new Commun,ity Development Manager.
("
,
:...J
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
ITEM #32 - First Readina Ords. #5518-94 & #5519-94 and Res. #94-3 re: Annexation
Incentive Program (CP)
On October 1, 1992, the Commission approved six incentives to promote the
annexation of properties into the City. Staff has implemented four of these, but
postponed action on the remaining two while higher priority projects have been pursued.
The incentives with the corresponding changes to City regulations necessary to implement
them as:
1) Waive the annexation' application fee for all applicants who submit a petition prior to
AUQust 1993. The annexation application fee was eliminated by the Commission on
Decem ber 17, 1 9 9 2 by Resolution # 92.77.
21 Provide a City library card to applicants immediatelv followina Commission receipt and
referral of an annexation petition. Requires an amendment to Resolution #92-51 to permit
the issuance of a library card to an owner of real property outside the corporate limits of
the City following Commission receipt and referral of an annexation petition. The
proposed Resolution #94-3 would repeal Resolution #92~51. This has been "informally"
implemented since mid-summer, 1993.
L
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
12
~ '..
."J\
(~~
3) Change the City Code to allow waiver of the $200 City recreation facilitv imoact fee for
all aoolicants who submit an annexation oetition orior to AUQust 1993. Instead, the
Director of Parks and Recreation recommends a change in Section 54.22 of the code to
permanently exempt the annexation of residential developments of less than 8 units from
the Recreation Facility Fee which is currently $200 per unit. Proposed Ordinance #5518-
94 deals with this incentive.
5) Chanae the code to not reauire city sewer cDnnectiDn at the time Df annexation unless
there is a current public health problem Dr it is'reauested bv the property Dwner; there will
be no charae for sewer Dn the city utilitv bill until it is cDnnect'ed. Section 32.184 requires
all buildings for human habitation or occupancy IDcated within the Citv to be connected to
the wastewater collection system by the City. Code Section 32.195 requires the sewer
connection within 90 days of notice. of avallabitity.
4) Provide residential solid waste services immediately followina Commission receipt and
referral of an annexation petition. Solid waste in the City is governed under Article VII of
Chapter 32 of the City Code of Ordinances. Section 32.272( 1) reads as follows: "All
refuse accumulated in the City shall be collected, conveyed and disposed of by the City
. government." An addition to this section would allow the City to collect refuse
accumulated on properties being annexed by the City. Proposed Ordinance #5519-94
deals with this incentive.
The Finance Department has contacted the City's Bond Counsel in Tallahassee to
see if the proposed change would conflict with Section 16K "Mandatory Connection" of
If , the 1988 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. The Bond Counsel has responded that the
~,. City would run the risk of being challenged by bond holders or auditors. Therefore, staff
recommends deletion of this incentive.
6) Provide a City recreation card to aoplicants immediatelv fDllowina Commission receiot
and referral of an annexation petition. According to the Parks and Recreation Department,
there is no written policy on this matter, so they have begun issuing these cards.
However, to formalize this action, they recommend a rule or policy such a!;, "Following
receipt and referral Df a petition to annex, petitioners shall be permitted to obtain a
recreation card at the resident rate." The current recreation card charge for residents is
$3. The proposed City Commission Policy Statement deals with this incentive.
These incentives should foster good public relations as staff proceeds with
administrative annexation Df enclaves in accordance with the ELMS III legislation.
According to the iegislation, for unincorporated enclaves of 10 acres or less within the
City's jurisdictional boundaries, the City may annex these areas through its interlocal
.agreement with Pinellas County.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution, policy change and two
ordinances to implement the annexation incentives.
Permitting Manager Sandy Glatthorn reviewed the incentives of the annexation
program.
6. . ,
~/
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
13
,',,' i' ..' , . ,'~:; :<: , ; ',: . "", :".,,<,:' ":,, , C" ;,:':' ., ;:i,f: ',:;::' ",'"',,,; ::;,:.: /;, " ;' ;'::'" <,:',', ;:: .:~:':,'~:"'." '::', .";": ::),
Mayor Garvey introduced Boy Scout Troop 455 who were in attendance at the'
meeting.
-. '. ,
"< 1 "
.. <
;, .
" ( .
",.' "
,
, '
\.' ".
,
r:
~ .
In response to Mayor Garvey's cfuestion, Ms. Glatthorn responded the City has an
interlocal agreement with the county. Commissioner Deegan asked if this is a new
agreement and Ms. Glatthorn said it has been in effect since' 1990. It was noted the letter
. sent to the county a short time ago for an interlocal agreement involved administrative
annexation and was a separate issue. Commissioner Fitzgerald said the ELMS III bill
expands non~voluntary annexation.
Commissioner Thomas felt the incentives were not significant enough. He felt the
City needed to create a real economic incentive for six months, such as not paying
property taxes for three years. Mr. Shuford pointed out staff is proposing the maximum
they can under state law. The City Attorney said the issue regarding waiving taxes has
been raised before and it was felt this would cause an inequity for the taxpayers.
Commissioner Thomas requested asking the Pinellas Delegation to change the state
law and to address the annexation issue face on. This issue will be discussed at a later
date.
. I
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the amendments to the City Code and
proposed policies to implement the Annexation Incentive Program. The motion was duly.
. seconded and carried unanimously.
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5518-94 for first reading and read .it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5518-94 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5519-94 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzg~rald moved to pass Ordinance #551 9-94 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
." Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
t
i
The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-3 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-3 and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call,
o the vote was:
CT'
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
14
~ F '.
. '
. ..
: j:
\ : ~' ...' " ,
~ ., .
.i /,
., '
, .
~ .~.I'< '" .
i<
" I,
j'
~.
~. - ;'
, '
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
Mayor Garvey questioned if there is a tracking system in place to remove services if
an applicant backs out and Mr. Shuford responded there is.
Commissioner Thomas asked the City Attorney to come back with the steps.
necessary to create real incentives for annexing.
ITEM #33 - Res. #94-14 - Establish fees for minor variances (ep)
The Commission has approved Ordinance #5508-94 on first reading which
establishes minor variances. '
Staff has "held" the second reading of this ordinance until staff developed an
amendment to the fee schedule to provide for a fee which will cover city costs associated
with the consideration and granting/denying of minor variances.
As staff does not have any experience or an established track record with minor
variances, it is recommended to begin with a relatively minor fee. Staff's proposal is for a
$ 50 fee for these variances; appeals of any decision by the Development Code
Administrator will be treated as regular variances and charged the $475 fee that is
normally charged for all variance's.
(". ..
'II....! Mayor Garvey questioned whether the fee of $50 is too'low. Mr. Shuford
responded there are not a lot of costs involved and the Commission can adjust the fee at a
later date.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if "minor" is defined anywhere in the code and Mr.
Shuford responded in Ordinance 5508-94 adopted earlier.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the proposed fee schedule for minor
variances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-14 and read it by title only.
ComIT!issioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution 1/94-14 and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call,
the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
L,
minCC02a.94 .
2/3/94
15
'0
ITEM 1/34 - Receiot/Referral - Land Develooment Code Amendment re: requiring orooer
maintenance of fences and walls (LDCA 93-20HCP)
~. , ,.
:.::,
.' ,
The Community Response Team has requested a code amendment be prepared to
require that fences and walls be maintained in a structurally sound and aesthetically ,
pleasing manner. The Team is finding it difficult to require adequate fence maintenance
given curre':1t code language. '
The proposed amendment should provide the specificity needed to ensure adequate
enforcement.
Commissioner Thomas moved to receive a code amendment requiring proper
maintenance of fences and walls and refer it to the City Clerk for advertising for public
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM 1/35 - Receiot/Referral - RM-8 ZoninQ for prooertv located at 1551 and 1575 Druid
Road, Druid Groves, Blk A, Lot 1 and vacated r-o.w to the west, Lot 2 and west 45' of Lot
3, 0.40 acres m.o.1. (Drapkin, TRE/Sokol/Shimer, 294-01 )(CP) .
The subject property is located on the south side of Druid Road, just to the east of
the Clearwater Community Hospital. The hospital has agreements to purchase this
property contingent upon rezoning to Multiple-Family Residential and ,obtaining D
conditional use permit for non-commercial parking.
('."
The hospital is revising their existing site plan to include this property and will be
submitting an application for a conditional use permit for non.commercial parking. Their
intent is to develop the proposed parking in accordance with the Land Development Code,
including landscape buffers along Druid Road and between the parking area and adjacent
residential property. As part of this site upgrade, the hospital also plans to expand their
out-patient surgery facilities. The proposed revised site plan will be available for
Commission review at the time of first reading of the rezoning ordinance.
The hospital has been in contact with the surrounding property owners. On
January 6th, the hospital held a meeting with interested property 0 wners to explain the
proposed improvements.
Mayor Garvey noted Clearwater Community Hospital wanted to rezone this
property several years ago and the request was denied as it was felt it would result in an
. intrusion into the residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Berfield asked if this request would qualify as a "spot" zoning and
Mr. Shuford responded it would not. He said he was not aware of this request coming
forward before.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern this could become another issue where a
hospital engulfs a residential neighborhood.
C.,
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
16
,.,<
'"
. I,
r '/ . I .. ~
l:
Commissioner Berfield asked why the applicant was requesting multi-family rather
. than institutional. Mr. Shuford responded multHamily is the lowest intensity zoning to
allow parking'. Commissioner Berfield asked if the requested zoning will allow multi-family
buildings. Mr. Shuford responded it would but each lot could not be developed separately.
'In response to Commissioner Thomas' question, Mr. Shuford responded there are
single fami\y homes currently on these lots and the intent is to remove them.
. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether all receipt and referral items are automatically
approved. Mayor Garvey said this process allows for notice if there are any concerns arid
alerts the public to the issue.
Commissioner Berfield moved to receive the application for RM-8 zoning for the
subject property and to refer it to the City Clerk for advertisement for public hearing. The
motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken;, Commissioners Fitzgerald,
Berfield and Mayor Garvey voted II Ayell, Commi~sioner Thomas voted 11 Nay" .
Commissioner Deegan declared a conflict of interest and abstained. Motion carried.
ITEM #36 - Other Pendina Matters
a) No change to Res. #92-69, requesting a change to the Countywide Rules to permit a
. maximum 1.0 FAR for hospitals (CP)
(-~;
On September 16, 1993/ the Commission adopted changes to the City/s
Comprehensive land Use Plan and land Development Code standards to be consistent
with the Countywide Rules as mandated by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPCI under their
Consistency Program. One of the changes was to reduce the maximum floor area ratio
(FAR) for hospitals from 1.0 to .65. An associated resolution had been previously adopted
by the Commission requesting the ppe to change the FAR for hospitals to 1.0.
On January 19, 1994, the PPC reviewed and continued until February 16, 1994 tl1e
City's request to c,hange the Countywide Rules to increase the FAR for hospitals from .65
to 1'.0. The City's PPC representative, Commissioner Sue Berfield, encouraged the deferral
in order for the City Commission to review proposed new language to the rules drafted by
PPC staff as a compromise and cooperative effort with the Town of Belleair and Morton
Plant Hospital.
The PPC staff's proposed new language to the Institutional classification will permit
a 1.0 FAR for hospital developments except there is a maximum FAR of .65 in a 150 foot
perimeter area adjacent to another jurisdiction. In addition, when a hospital is located
within two jurisdictions or in one jurisdiction but adjacent to another jurisdiction, as is the
case with Morton Plant Hospital, then a mastAr plan will be subject to approval by both ,
jurisdictions. Further, the Town of Belleair would like language specific to their concerns
with Morton Plant Hospital to be added to the Rules, restricting ancillary uses such as the
hospital's energy center. While a few PPC representatives were receptive to considering
Belleair's additional restrictions, several council members felt the proposed restrictions
were specifically relative to only one hospital in Pinellas County (i.e., Morton Plant) and
therefore were not appropriate for the Countywide Rules.
'c/
mlnCC02a.94
2/3/94
17
Mr. Shuford reviewed the history of the Pinellas Planning Council Program and
indicated PPC rules allow a 0.65 FAR for hospitals. The City amended their code to
comply but adopted a resolution to request a special exception for hospital uses in ,the
institutional classifications. Mr. Shuford reviewed the options being considered: 1.0 FAR
for hospitals in institutional classifications; 1.0 FAR with a limit of 0.65 FAR in a 150 feet
wide transition area bordering another jurisdiction; 1.0 FAR with a limit of 0.65 FAR in a
200-300 foot wide transition area bordering another jurisdiction and a 1.0 FAR pursuant to
a development agreement between jurisdictions. Another option included allowing
variances to FAR which Mr. Shuford said the City has not done because the FAR is
considered to be intrinsic to zoning. He said this could be done by amending our code. No
PPC approval is needed to do this.
<.:
t \
< ,
o
Staff recommends the Commission adhere to the original request of a change from
.65 to 1.0 FAR for hospitals and reject the proposed language as there will be jurisdictional
and possibly legal difficulties associated with requiring an applicant to obtain approval from
two jurisdictions to develop in one jurisdiction. Staff feels any valid intensity concerns
associated with the development of Morton Plant Hospital can be handled through site
plan review as part of the planned development 'zoning process. Also, staff is concerned
about the precedent of developing Countvwide Rules that apply to only a single
circumstance.
l
, !
(."
"
, .
, ..
Mayor Garvey asked if this referred to any zoning district or just public/semi~public.
Mr. Shuford said it' coufd be limited however the Commission chooses. Another option
would allow a 1.0 FAR and rely on the PPC's future land use plan process. He said the
PPC 1.0 FAR rule is isolated to Morton Plant Hospital.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if we go with a FAR of 1.0 and the PPC does not
approve, what are our options with Morton Plant Hospital. Mr. Shuford said the
Commission would be encouraged to continue the process to the countywide planning
authority (County Commission) who would have the final say. An option would be to look
iQto a variance procedure for hospitals in this circumstance. He said it could get
complicated if the PPC requires the City to enter into a development agreement.
In response to a question, Commissioner Berfield said Morton Plant Hospital and the
City of Belleair got together and brought this rule to the PPC. She asked if Safety Harbor
would provide any protection for Clearwater where Mease Hospital backs up to Clearwater
residents. '
Commissioner Berfield asked if it would be to Clearwater's advantage to use the
variance procedure now. Mr. Shuford responded if we had this in place, it may give some
added leverage. He recommended discussing this with the City Attorney.
Mark Marquardt, attorney representing Morton Plant Hospital, stated the
Commission approved this amendment in December 1992. He said the issue may have
gotten off track due to concern from Belleair regarding buffer issues. He said a buffer plan
hAS been designed and will be tied into the master plan for Morton Plant Hospital. He
indicated there are probably some legal issues in terms of Clearwater giving up jurisdiction
I .
c,.
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
18
.. ' ~.
: ; ~
, '
",
, .,
. :;~, J
.... ~ ~. '. '. . < <.-
t;. ;r ,f j:l'>
I '
:. ..'
, '
.'
, ,
c"
"
over property within its boundaries. Mr. Marquardt said the hospital would like the City to
continue with the earlier resolution. The City now has a planning district for the hospital
and the hospital is required to submit,a master plan. He said an extensive study done
about hospitals on the west coast of Florida that were surrounded by residences sho wed
that a floor area ratio of .65 is not realistic. He believed the hospital is being mindful of
the surrounding neighborhoods.
Robert Kern, representing Harbor Oaks Association, said the floor area ratio should
depend on a hospital's location. He felt if a 1.0 FAR goes in, the development should be
in the center of the campus with a buffer zone. He said the hospital has offered Belleair a
buffer zone; however, has offered nothing to the citizens of Clearwater. He expressed
concern regarding the location of the energy units and the traffic noise.
Mr. William Heald felt the only way the hospital could justify their expansion was to
recruit patients from outside the community. He said the hospital needs dearty defined
borders and buffer areas. He indicated they piecemeal their development a little at a time
and did not feel this was fair to the neighborhood. He said he would like to see them be. a
good neighbor by stopping the expansion of their facilities. He questioned the meaning of
intergovernmental cooperation.
Mayor Garvey responded it is everyone working together but does not mean we will
always ag'ree with each other. She said we try and r~ach a compromise.
Mr. Shuford said it is also a law. There is a' special act that requires the City to go
before the Pinellas Planning Council whenever there is a land use plan change in
Clearwater. He indicated this has been further refined by the ELMS act.
Mr. Heald questioned whether intergovernmental cooperation is a mandate or just a
IJ:,:~~ saying. It was indicated it is a philosophy.
~v"'
Mr. Heald noted the Belleair Commission voted to support David Healy's proposal.
He said the generators at St. Joseph and Tampa General Hospitals could be heard from a
good distance away.
Commissioner Thomas asked jf the Commission was just reconfirming to the PPC
what they already approved. Mr. Shuford responded this is the case. Commissioner
Thomas felt it inappropriate to change the rule while the hospital is in the middle of
developing a master plan.
Commissioner Thomas moved that no change be made to Resolution #92w69
requesting a change to the Countywide Rules to permit a maximum 1.0 FAR for hospitals.
The motion was duly seconded.
l",
minCC02a.94
2/3/94 '
19
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
-'l'~ r, ~ oil
"
, <:,.'
.,
I"
i ~~~ . './ .
c' ;. ~ .
\' "
" .
(~~
Commissioner Berfield asked if staff is comfortable Clearwater will be protected on
McMullen Booth Road. Mr. Shuford responded Safety Harbor has development standards
that will protect Clearwater. He said any land use changes would receive PPC review.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
ITEM #37 - Other Citv Attornev Items
a) First Reading Ord. #5543-94 - Relating to public nudity: creating Section 21.13 to
prohibit public nudity
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5543~94 and read it by title only.
(.,
.':1
:.I."
Assistant City Attorney Rob Surette stated the ordinance is patterned after St. John
County's ordinance and has incorporated references to stlJdies of secondary effects and
reports from the Pinellas' County Sheriff. These studies and reports are the same as used
when considering the adult use ordinance. He submitted a video tape of the adult use
ordinance presentation as an exhibit. He said the tape is a presentation regarding the
secondary effects and contains a presentation by Oet. Deemers depicting some of the
activities in exotic dance clubs. The studies establish that nudity and semi-nudity offered
as entertainment have an adverse impact on property values. He said the reports also
indicated an adverse impact regarding increased criminal activity. He said this will lay the
foundation to establish the secondary effects of nudity and semi-nudity. 'The importance
of establishing the secondary effects studies is that cases have required that municipalities
establishing anti-nudity ordinances need to have some foundation on secondary effects
analysis. He said without showing that the intent of the ordinance is to address secondary
effects, the ordinance can be found unconstitutional. He said he has included studies.
showing the secondary effects as the basis of this ordinance. He indicated the definition
of nudity is modeled after St. John County's ordinance.
Paul Polgar, downtown business owner, said he is appalled that the City is
considering such an ordinance. He felt other communities will gain from the beach goers
going elsewhere. He said as a business owner in downtown, he is aware that the vast
majority of the residents in Clearwater do not care about "Tit backs or are in favor of
them. He summarized by saying the job of the Commission should be to bring people into
downtown Clearwater and not chase them away.
Neil Megnick spoke in opposition to the ordinance indicating it does not belong in
the City of Clearwater. ,He felt it will be detrimental to the businesses on the beach. He
said he did not see why people's moral judgments should be forced on others.
Paul Crumrine said some people confuse nudity with ,sex; others view nudity as a
return to innocence. He felt when government begins to regulate fashion, then all of our
innocence is diminished.
l.,
,
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
20
4,
~ . . i . .'
: . ~:. :.' ,'~ .. .~' .... .
! .' > /' ~~ . ..":
.., "'. I
I
,
,
. ,
.'.1,. .
, ,
~ (", f. ." r.' >
:::L:'." i. r
,':
Jim Harrington said he is a frequent visitor to Clearwater Beach and is not in favor
of any changes in the law to limit the choice of swim attire. He felt resources could be
directed at economic development.
(',
Michael Kimplan said the proposed ordinance represents unnecessary intrusion by
the government into the private lives of citizens and would impact on tourism. He
expressed concern for the attempt to legislate the dress code.
. E~ Stout, business owner on Clearwater Beach, felt the ordinance would destroy.
the tourism on Clearwater Beach. He felt the police department did not have the
manpower to control life threatening situations and that the priorities are all mixed up.
Bob Bickerstaffe said new businesses replacing businesses that have. gone under on .
the beach draw different crowds and create new trends. He indicated the proposed
ordinance is designed to help the overall City during its down trend. He believed the
Commission was doing the best job they could for the City. He felt it was not
advantageous to continue the current trends and indicated the quality of life in Clearwater
needs to come first.
Jim Tracey read a petition into the record. The petitioners asked the Commission,
to protect their civil rights when considering passing laws that'dictate swimwear styles
and urged the Commission to vote against the ordinance regulating beachwear. He noted
that Spring Break is approaching and there is a need to get people on the beach. He
expressed concern businesses are going bankrupt and the ordinances being adopted are
(" . ; not helping.
'0..
Pam Olson commended the Commission on an excellent ordinance. She said
families have been staying away from the beach due to the "T" backs. . She said the
European tourists come to Clearwater because of the beaches and believed will continue
to come even if liT" backs are banned.
Christine Robertson expressed her gratitude to the Commission for proposing the
. ordinance as it affects.the adult entertainment establishments as well as the beaches. She
felt that standards of conduct must be established. She believed the ordinance would not
have an adverse impact on tourism.
Elizabeth Counts found the ordinance to be revolting. She said she grew up in
Daytona and Spring Break is what makes Daytona not the family business. She said she
and her friends come from Tampa to Clearwater because they can wear "T" backs.
Laurie' Labreck ex'tended her thanks to the Commission for the ordinance. She read
a letter to Mayor Garvey dated July 1993 from visitors to Clearwater Beach. Due to the
public nudity on u.s. 1"9 and on the beach they no longer frequent Clearwater or
Clearwater Beach. She said the ordinance is addressing the lack of clothing not regulating
what people wear. She referred to a Supreme Court ruling that upheld an Indiana public
indecency law;
L.
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
21
. ,
..I~ c :'.
.. " '.
"
" i'
, "
, ,
.,'
"
.
, "-'c
"
. '
. (~\
, Ken Rosenow, motel owner and operator on the beach, said he is not speakiD9 for
or against the ordinance. He said those people who think businesses on Clearwater Beach
will be salvaged by changing a nudity law are wrong. He said the total picture of the
beach needs to be addressed. The study prepared by the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon
Task Force needs to be studied in its entirety. He said many of his customers have
written they would not be back due to the deterioration of the family attitude on
Clearwater Beach.
Barbara Sealand, business owner, said there are a lot of economic challenges and it
is time to face up to. them. She felt the majority of people learn through visualization. She
said we need to be t;;lreful what we see and what we allow our children to see. . She said
she respects what the Commission is trying to do and feels they will make the right
decision.
(':';
Jana Carpenter commendei~l Mr. Surette for the ordinance as she felt this was
definitely a step in the right directiom' She said she lives within a mile of the beach;
however, has not been to the beach ir: .over 4 years. She says she has a large family and'
expressed concern regarding the visual impact on them in seeing people basically nude.
She said she would like to be able to go'. back to the beach. . .
i .
.1
. Anne Garris noted that Clearwater Beach is half residential and half commercial and
there has been a struggle to keep a balance. She said maybe the reason tourism was
better on Clearwater Beach 10 years ago was because it was family oriented. She felt the
beach will prosper when we can be uniquely family oriented. She said the conduct on the
beach is public not private.
.1
t
i
,
i
Jay Keyes said he has been involved in tourism promotion in Clearwater for
approximately 20 years and the agency he workod WIth always promoted Clearwater as a
family destination point. He indicated the family bUSIness in Daytona has been totally
destroyed by the bikers, Spring Break, etc. He said it is time to get back to the family
. oriented beach business.
Laurie Diane Kaye thanked the Commission for tabling the City Hall project and .the
citizens for speaking up. She expressed concern regarding the activities taking place on
. the beach today. She said tourists and families should not be subject to this flagrant
beh'avior and urged the Commission to sup'port the ordinance.
Roger Meeks spoke in support of the ordinance.
Jason Jacobsen felt there were two issues involved, the individual's free choice to
wear what they want on the beach versus nudity for entertainment for commercial gain.
He said it would be better to see people have a more accepting attitude of their bodies.
. .'
Don Jennings thanked the Commission for considering the ordinance. He said he
and his family have not been to the beach for several years as he is not pleased with what
he has been seeing there.
t '
""""J
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
22
, ,
.... r :.
)'
, , J
~. ,. ~ I
~ '
.,>....
.'. j
. i' .
L'
Jim Berfield said in listening to those in opposition to the ordinance it became very
clear that there are monetary interests in not banning "T'1 backs. He asked the
Commission to consider all of Clearwater. He found this to be a moral issue and
commended the Commission for looking at it from this standpoint. He said his interest is
in a better Clearwater. .
Commissioner Fitzgerald said he is against the ordinance as he believed there has
been no need for it shown. He said his discussions with average citizens have failed to
show a problem and in most instances he found favor for leaving the situation alone. He
said passage of this ordinance would raise a serious issue of enforcement. He felt the
ordinance would have an adverse economic impact particularly on foreign tourist trade. He
said he found it a quantum leap to try and extend. the adverse secondary effects of adult
use es~ablishments to apparel on the beach. He had difficulty expanding t~e definition of
nudity to include "T\I backs. He felt passage of the ordinance would take away the right
of citizens to choose what to wear. He asked the Commission to examine the issue
closely.
(~"l
Commissioner Berfield said this country is made up of laws, codes and ordinances
to allow us to Ilve together. She noted this ordinance is not being aimed at Clearwater
Beach, it is for all of Clearwater. She said passage of this ordinance will not save or
destroy businesses. She indicated the issue of safety is why we are losing tourist trade.
She said Clearwater was built on family oriented businesses and unless we get a handle on
the situation, there will not be any family businesses left. She said it is time to bite the
bullet and make a stand to clean up the City and take care of the secondary effects. . She
believed this would not deter the European tourists from coming to Clearwater. She said
each city needs to make a choice for themselves.
Mayor Garvey found "T" backs and the postcards reflecting them offensive. She
said this ordinance talks about more than just the beach. She believed passage of this
ordinance was for the betterment of Clearwater. She said there are a number of concerns
that need addressed such as police enforcement and how to get the message out. She
questioned whether the City should wait in passing this ordinance until the St. John's
County court case is settled. She noted the Chamber of Commerce requested this
ordinance be continued until they do a study.
Commissioner Deegan said he has seen no clear record to show the relationship of
wearing scanty attire on the beach with criminal activity but he believes this attire must be
taken into account with regard to the secondary effects. He said many see the attire on
the beach as a form of sexual harassment. He said the wearing of "Tn backs is not just a
simple matter of getting a tan; it is the titillation that takes place of those who wear the
scanty attire and those who view it. He said opinions from medical professionals have
shown it is sexually abusive for children to be visually subjected to almost complete
nudity. He felt there has been a downslide in what has been considered decent clothing.
He said he wants to create a family oriented atmosphere and strongly supports the
ordinance. .
!>
L,,'
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
23
c.. '
'.
"
,
,
,
,
~'I~~: : c
, "
, .'
.', '.~ '. ,\'. ,t. .! ~
(>
Commissioner Thomas said the issue does not have to do with nudity such as in
art" He said we are dealing with the ,secondary effects, the sexual perversion, and the
, criminal acts by people' who go to the beach and are titillated and take it out o'n young
children and young women. He said he is very proud of the Commission for taking this
stand. He said the Commission will not stop until Clearwater is a clean family-oriented
community.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5543-94 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5543-94 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": Fitzgerald.
Motion carried.
The meeting recessed from 11 :05 p.m. to 11: 1,5 p.m.'
ITEM: Marcus v. City of Clearwater
(l;' 'l,
'~h.
This is a civil rights case alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution for trespass
by Charles A. Marcus against Police Officer Carrasquillo and the City of Clearwater. The
City Attorney is requesting authorization to retain Fowler, White for the appeal. He said he
has been in contact with the law firm regarding the personnel who will be assigned to the
appeal.
He said the City's case will be handled by Robert Stoler, who ,tried the case; George
Vakia, head of the firm's appellate department; and Nancy Lauten, an experience appellate
attorney.
Commissioner Thomas moved to retain the law firm of Fowler, White based on the
people recommended by the City Attorney to handle the Marcus appeal. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM: All v. City of Clearwater
The 'City Attorney presented a status report from Mark Hanley of Thompson,
Sizemore and Gonzalez: He said the City has been defending the AU claim since 1992 but,
as Mr. Hanley reports, we are now dealing with two cases. . The first is on appeal after a
voluntary dismissal, and the second is a reWed lawsuit which was served on us last week. .
The appeal is from a condition imposed by the trail court that the plaintiff pay the City
approximately $3,000 in costs and fees as a condition to refiling the suit. The refUed
lawsuit amounts to a direct challenge by the plaintiff of the trial court's imposition of that
condition--he has not made the payment, but he has refiled the lawsuit. Their best
estimate is that the cost to defend both the appeal and the new suit would be $15/000.
l,
r'
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
24
, !
"
.; '.. - ,~., ".',; . +
~j "I' :' . , . 'j'
5}L"::', ",' i;.-,.,...;, ~.',:,
, ,
"
r'
This is within the budget for outside counsei fees, but the impact of the Marcus case on
the budget is that the legal department is approaching the budgeted limit on outside
counsel fees with only one.third of the year gone. Information regarding expenditures for
outside counsel will be discussed during the first quarter budget amendments.
I .
ITEM: Newsrack ReQulation
. The City Attorney reported that letters have been received from the St. PetersburQ
Times and the Tampa Tribune threatening litigation and raised some issues relating to due
process regarding the removal of newsracks. The issues that are being dealt with are the
seizure of the racks without notice and a chance to be heard.
Commissioner Berfield asked who would be sued if a child runs into the newsrack.
The City Attorney said he doubts whether there was any liability on the City's part.
The majority consensus was for the City Attorney to bring back an amendment to
address due process.
ITEM #38 - Citv Manager Verbal Reports - none.
ITEM #39 - Commission Discussion Items - none.
i
ITEM #40 - Other Commission Action
Commissioner Fitzgerald distributed a petition form from the Mayors' Council: He
said the council is asking consideration be given to supporting a resolution stopping early
release of plisoners. He questioned how the Homeless Shelter was working.
l,,/
minCC02a.94
2/3/94
25
. .'
I
. ,
. .' ~
,.,
. (.
t,{;I$~':{iY'::f;', .
~ '. . . ~
,'J.
, '
,:
, '.1..
_, c' >..'
. ...~ '... f, .:
, .
.!
, . ,
~<':::", ,.. ,", ~.
{:.~,; ~.':r' .,1,: ,"
I 'k",':.'
:'f ", ~ '. .
-. '.' .
'f'.~~, ::~ t ~~:. "
"
....: C j
, .\.... :.: i
+" "
;,
. .
c', ':,' l: ~ ,~. .. : ;.
.... . , '. J" f
,.
'," ,
, .
, '
~:!ij;:::'>~': ~,{ ,~~~:~~:~:':::/\~})r:<'{:~\:.:';~,'~.:':',;'.;~.!).!:::'" ;.'
".' t-;.
..
"'C\
. ,
Commissioner Deegan stated they have had a full h'ouse since January 10, 1 994. He .
reported the homeless task force is trying to address the problems created by some of the
homeless using the .STEPPs property all day long. Also being addressed are concerns'
regarding some really in'need having to be turned away. He reported the 1st Homeless
Help Fair was held a week ago Saturday.
"
. Mavor Garvey: referred to a letter from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
regarding examining 'current eminent domain laws and enacting legislation to address the
cost of providing necessary transportation facilities. The City 'Attorney is to review.
ITEM #41 - Adiournment '
, ,
,The 'meeting adjourned at 11 :40 p.m.
f{~
ATTEST: 0.J~z. f:L .QLc..-=
. " -n-. City ~l,erk .
,,'
'. I
-::,. IfkJ.: .
,,' ~t
"
'. (
,\
;, .
I,
I i' ;
, ,
'. I
, ,
C'"
. . ,
minCC02a.94
, ,
2/3/94
. ,
26
. '
, ,
I '
"
. '.
'. '.
<".
(.:
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
I.AST NAME- FIKsr N^"II;--MlJ)UU: :-IM,II:
o E:J~'(; A /u Ar?- r It vi?- X. I
I S'- A-V () LA.! ..4 Y
"',o\MI: OF UU^RU.l'OUtKIL, COMMISSIOS. ,\In !lORn v. 01\ COMMlTl EF.
C LtAl2.w It 'fEll. C,.,. CO fl1 t11/f..r/o/v
MAILING ADDRESS
Pi I'
Cl, 2. ftfl w f,.rrz.t..
1 HE 1l0,o\RU. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. ^UTlIORIlY OK COMMIl,EE ON
WHICII t Sr:R VI! IS ^ UNIT OF:
I( CI rv
o COUNTY
o (}TIlER 1 OC^I. AGENCY
('\Ty
COUSTY
f?/ ,JJJ'bV~ ~
NA~t1; OF POLlIICAL SUUDI\'ISIOS:
C t.. f 1+ tL lJ...) /f T [, tC
\)^1 E OS WIIlCII yon: OCClJRHW
Fc-6 g. /'tft(
PIt \' I'OSIIION IS:
d:.. ElECTIVE 0 APPorSTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any \)erson serving al the county, city, or other ]ocullevcl of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authorit)" or commillcc. It applies equally to membcrs of advisory and non.advisory bodies who arc prcsented
with a voting connict of intcrestllnder Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. .
I . ,. . " '.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a connict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointivc position. For this reason. please pay close allcntion to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and riling the form. ' .
L
~. -
I
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112,3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective '01' appoinlivecounty, municipal. or othcr 10c.11 public office MUST A DST A IN from voting on a mensufC
which inures to his special private gain. E.1ch elected or appointed local orficer also is prohibited from knowingly vOling on a measure
which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained (including the purel1l
orga~ization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he is retained); to the special p'rivate gain of a relativc; or to the special
- private gain of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F,S., and
onicers orindependent special tax districts elected on n .one-acre, one-vote basis arc not prohibited from voting in that c.lpacity.
For purposes of this law. a "re]ative'.' includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-
law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means nny person or entity engaged in or c.lrrying on a business
enterprise with the onicer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the
corporation arc not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
j
I
~
,'1
.!
. ;
,
I
. .
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in lhe meaSUre on
which you arc abst3ining from voting; and
WITHIN IS DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with lhe person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
. APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must ,abstain from voting in the situations described above, YOll otherwise may participate in lhese matters, However,
you must disclose the nature of the conniet before making any allempt to influence the decir.ion, whether orully or in writing and
. whether made by you orat your direction. .. .0 ........ '"_~''' '0' ....__.... . .............. .....
...IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY A1TEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH.
.THE ,VOTE WLL BE TAKEN: ..
. ~'c~J'...'.. .' '.~. . "'.' ,;,-,.' . I.: I.'(..~
( .i.,~<'you.. ~ust complete and file thi~ .form. (be~o~c making any :lllempt to il1~uence tl~~ decision).. \~'ith the person respo~sible.i for:
~r in: ~S~r?I~g ~I~e "?lI!,~~e~ of t.h~.~e~tlllg,. W~~,wlllllle9rpornl.e ~hc.fo~m In. the mrnut~s.,,:!., .':':,'.' . "~\ . '" '.'. '. ; ,..".... ::~: .'.'
:,: · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members' of the agency,", ., .;,;.: "....' ....' .... ~l t..; ,
J~:~~:rhe form mu~t be,read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed, ' ... 0 .
;:!" ....;..-1; .1 ")~'P.~
.,.'
:~~ ~~ fO~.M .80.10.91
" "1-> ~ ~
:1' ~<.",'"
, "
, I
. ,
, ,
" .
}, ':,
". I ~.
! '
"f "I
. .,: (
IF YOU MAKE NO A'TEMPT TO INFl.UENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT TilE MEETING:
· You must disclose orully the llnlure of your conniel in the m~nsure befpt"e participating.
iJ,', · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vole occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of
the meeting, who must incorpomle' the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other
members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the \1ext meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
At.. "T).k;~ X. 1) IT C' ~. hereby disclose that on f' e:rJ tz..c.J IT(2. 'I
.5
,194:.'
I,
(a) A measure c....mc or will come before my agency which (check one)
_ inured to my specinl private gnin;
...........inurcd to the special gain of my business nssoci:lle, C.. L ~Jt/2..w~ C OMIt{ (/,(/( rr Hai'pl rn-t.- ;
. _ inured to the specilll gain of my rclativc,
_ inured to the special guin of , by
. whom 1 am retained; or
_ inured to the special gain of
is the parent organi111tio~ or subsidiary of a principal which has retnincd me.
, .
(b) The measure before my agcncy nnd the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
I which'
"
2.oAJ /flJ ~ CI-l-;+~l/c,E... ,Lf:-l:Q uU r y-o ~$ ;e..Jt.t( { 4PPI nOA.J,KJ-'L,
f IJtl J( I;.J G 0 tv p;z,O flfl...,r UN D~ tt:. CON ~ A-c'( to IS E.
[JOve I-f-r P;ZO/IU ,A.J.fltlftfd"€/fl}6 ;t&I'/ PE/L/'f;S /I Y
c c... ~~ A- '(E..rL CD I"'" ItA u ~U / ;- 7 ~ PI n9 L , C)/V
W }JoSE.- t1 (J /fit D .J: S~Jtug ~ C+/-,q.t fL.(? of /Z..r 0 J
('i>
, '.
,
J. 'j
..
,'I
. i
( !
....
, . , 3;4~4,f"~
Date Filed .
f2~ ;(~
Signature
C:,.
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES g] 12.317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
JMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN
SALARY) REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
CE FORM 8B - 10-91
.. .,. PAO
I "...~ >\\~'):""':~;t.\j;~~1~('''''')'i'~'{.~~:~:''' ~'f'~"...~.:"i","..,'lU.; ,