02/16/1995 (2)
c' " .. .
\' ;, ~. .:. .~. ' .
. ., ,. .
. ,. .
. .....
<'. .
,
\'".
",. .
,".
:,..'.:'.] <I'
1:": " <."
, .'
j:<'
"r'
:l!, .
" .
\. .. 'I
',"i .
~~Y';~"::"."''''..H:P'~'' .:>;' :'., < ....~:".,~~~ 'j";(>>:":.~ I :' '.~'.:~ >.
. i. . ", c,.~. .~, ; "" <..
. ~ ". I' , -'.
'c'. .v~ . ;'.'l . . ~'p' "; :,: -, "Ic':"'. "I'" ," . ........' 1'''I~,
-.'.-...,
............>
COMMISSION
"
City Commission Minutes
'::'0'
Date Fehr~ /ILI 1'19s--
-!~ /Jv /
...... ~~
~,'
',~
fr~1,~~:"f;: :". !
. ,:" '-. ~. ,
.~ '" .: ~t~;
. ....n.
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
,--.
February 16, 1995
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall,
Thursday, February 16, 1995 at 6:01 p.m., with the following members present:
Rita Garvey
Fred A. Thomas
Richard Fitzgerald
Sue A. Berfield
Arthur X. Deegan, II
Also present:
Elizabeth M. Deptula
Kathy S. Rice
William C. Baker
Pamela K. Akin
Scott Shuford
Cynthia E. Goudeau
Patricia Sullivan
Mayor /Commissioner
ViceMMayor /Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
Central Permitting Director
City Clerk
Board Reporter
.()
The Mayor called the meeting to order. The invocation was offered by Reverend
Thurman Rivers. The Mayor led the Pledge of Allegiance.
In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although
not necessarily discussed in that order.
ITEM #3 - Service Awards - None.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards
The 1994 Mayor's Award in recognition of citizens' volunteer service in City
programs was presented to the Nagy Family.
The 1994 City Commission Award in recognition of a City employee's volunteer
service to the community was presented to Terry Schmidt.
David little said Terry Schmidt is a tribute to the community.
ITEM #5 - Presentations
a) Development Code Adjustment Board - Annual Report - Continued.
ITEM #6 - Aporoval of Minutes
\
'-.,
mincc02c.95
1
02/16/95
, . . t'. . . ~ ~ '.. + . I. ~ .
'''---
Commissioner Barfield moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of
February 2, 1995, as corrected by the City Clerk and the special meeting of February 2,
1995, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each
Commissioner. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Aoenda
David little congratulated the Commission for the positive changes in downtown.
He concurred with staff's recommendation to make parking on Cleveland Street
permanent. He said the Harborview Center is a great asset and will help keep business in
Clearwater.
Dina Atkins read two letters her stepMfather, Jay Elliott, wrote to the City Attorney.
He requested a response to Commissioner Thomas' letter that was never addressed by the
C~arter Review Committee. The second letter questioned if Mr. Elliott's rehabilitation
contractor had broken any laws.
\ ._m_ <)
'......
Bob Bickerstaffe expressed concern that the wording of the sixth question on the
March 14, 1995 ballot, was confusing becausD it listed street names instead of referring to
the land in question as the bayfront. The City Clerk indicated it is too late to change the
wording. Mr. Bickerstaffe said it was important people realize the Question refers to
Coachman Park. The Mayor said it does not refer to Coachman Park. The ballot refers to
property between Pierce and Drew Streets, west of Osceola to the harbor. She indicated
she opposed the ballot measure. Mr. Bickerstaffe said he favored it.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #7a - (Cont'd from 02/02/95) Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5743-95.
#5744-95 & #5745-95 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential/Office
/Retail & CPD Zoning for property located at 24244 US 19N, Annexation/LUP for Haas
Sub., Lots 3M8 and Blackburn Sub.. part Lot 3 & abutting rMo~w for Lawson Rd. ,& Haas
Ave.; Zoning for Haas Sub., Lots 1-8 and Blackburn Sub., Lot 3 (Ridge Haven Associates,
Ltd., A94-28, LUP94-32)(CP)
The subject property is north of Sunset Point Road on the west side of US 19N.
The applicant is annexing the westerly 360 feet of Ridge Haven Trailer Park and combining
it with the easterly 200 feet of the mobile home park to form a Commercial Planned
Development. The development will have a 42,933 square foot main building and a 3,255
square foot out-building. The main building will have setbacks of 50 feet from Lawson
Road, 20 feet from Haas Avenue, and approximately 288 feet from US 19N. The out-
building will have a setback of five feet from the south property line with a setback from
the center line of US 19N of 226 feet.
All property within the proposed planned development has a Countywide Future
Land Use Plan Classification of Residential/Office/Retail. The City and County also have
the same classification for the portions under their jurisdiction. The City portion is zoned
mincc02c.95
2
02/16/95
, . , .~ .., 1.... . i " .' . ~ . 1~ , + . ~',._.
;' --....
Highway Commercial while the County portion is zoned Commercial Parkway District. It is
proposed to assign a City Future Land Use Plan Classification of Residential/Office/Retail to
the annexed property, the same classification as the portion in the City. Proposed zoning
for the entire parcel is Commercial Planned Development.
The Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) has included an overpass at
Sunset Road and US 19N in its work program. Right-of~way acquisition is programmed
over a four year period beginning in FY 1996/97. Without a major program revision,
construction would not take place until the turn of the century. Part of the subject
property along US 19N is expected to be acquired for this work. The applicant has
discussed their proposed access from US 19N with FOOT and has received a preliminary
evaluation that the access indicated on the site plan is acceptable to FOOT.
Signage recommended by staff and the Planning and Zoning Board will permit one
freestanding sign on Haas Avenue and one on US 19N limited to a maximum area of 150
square feet and maximum height of 20 feet, unless the US 19N sign is allowed a height
bonus due to overpass construction. Freestanding signage on Lawson Road shall be
limited to one sign oriented perpendicular to Lawson Road with a maximum area of 11 2
square feet and a maximum height of 20 feet. To protect residential uses across Lawson
Road, this sign's north side shall not be illuminated. The main building shall not have any
signage on the west side (Lawson Road), but would be permitted signage on the south
side. On the east side facing US 19N, the main building shall be permitted 300 square feet
of attached signage.
I' ,....\\
.....I?A./
For attached signage, staff notes the main building is setback between 288 and
296 feet from US 19N. Such a setback would normally allow 262.5 square feet of
attached signage based on 150 square feet of permitted signage plus a 75% distance
bonus. Staff recommends "splitting the difference" between 262.5 square feet and the
337.5 square feet that would have been allowable if the building met a 300-foot setback.
The applicant has revised the signage request for the outbuilding. Previously the Planning
& Zoning Board concurred with limiting attached signage to 1.5 square feet per lineal foot
of frontage, up to a maximum of 150 square feet for the north, east and west sides of the
building, with no signage on the south side. The applicant desires signage of up to 60
square feet on the outbuilding's south side with no signage on the west side. Signage on
the east side would be limited to 60 square feet. These signage limitations are shown on
the site plan. Staff has no objection to the applicant's proposal.
The entrance from Lawson Road at the property's southwest corner has been
widened to provide easier truck access to the rear of the main building. The applicant has
agreed to improve Lawson Road from the entrance to Sunset Point Road. The applicant
has also agreed to improve Haas Avenue by placing a two-inch asphalt overlay from US
19N to Lawson Road. On February 2, 1995, the Development Review Committee
reviewed the site plan and recommended these changes. Conditions for approval of the
site plan are: 1) Prior to certification, the Dumpster Requirement Form must be completed
and returned to the City Solid Waste Department; 2) Prior to certification, a copy of the
SWFWMD permit application is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review; 3) Prior to
mincc02c.95
3
02/16/95
. . ~ . . "
. . , . > . .
. . . ,-
the issuance of a building permit, a copy of the approved SWFWMO permit is to be
provided to Engineering Site Plan Review and Environmental Management; 4) Prior to
certification, the final site plan must be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer
registered in the State of Florida; 5) A PineJlas County Public Health Unit Permit,
Ingress/Egress and a 10 foot Utility Easement over the proposed water mains up to and
including meters, backflow prevention devices and hydrants are required prior to the
issuance of a building permit; 6) Backflow prevention devices must be installed by the City
with applicable fees being paid by the owner; 71 Prior to certification, plans are to show 50
feet of adjacent topography around perimeter of site; 8) Dimensions to be shown on the
plan to denote measurements for aisles, parking stalls, entrances, etc.; 9) The requisite
building permits must be procured within one (1) year from the date of certification of the
final site plan and all requisite certificates of occupancy must be obtained within three (3)
years of the date of certification of the site plan; 101 A Unity of Title shall be recorded with
Pinellas County Official Records prior to issuance of any building permit; 11} All permitted
uses and any approved conditional use permits or variances for the Commercial Planned
Development shall be listed on the final certified site plan; 1 21 The applicant shall contact
Parks & Recreation for the required recreation/openMspace assessment fee, which shall be
paid prior to certification of the site plan; 131 FDOT approval of proposed access to US
19N shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit; and 141 Prior to a certificate of
occupancy, the applicant shall improve Lawson Road and Haas Avenue in conformance
with the requirements of the City Engineer.
,--,\
- ",-"I
On January 10, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended
approval of annexation, Zoning Atlas Amendment to Residential/Office/Retail, Zoning Atlas
Amendment to Commercial Planned Development.
Florida State Statutes place special requirements upon mobile home park owners
and governmental agencies when rezoning mobile home park property and/or removing
mobile home owners (F.S. 723.081 & 723.083). Staff feels these requirements have been
satisfied by the applicant. The applicant notified the City that he had obtained purchase
agreements from more than 90% of the mobile home owners and provided a report listing
mobile home spaces available in the general area where remaining mobile home owners
can relocate.
Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford indicated this item was continued because
of site revisions. He distributed copies of the revised site plan resulting from the DRC's
final review.
Mr. Shuford noted Ridge Haven mobile home owners expressed concern that their
interests would be protected when the Commission first addressed the planned
development. He said no one spoke against the development at the last Planning and
Zoning meeting on January 10, 1995. Mr. Shuford said the applicant has agreed to
increase the 1 1/2~inch asphalt overlay to two-inches on Haas Avenue from US 1 9N to
Lawson Road. Staff had also request'l3d the property's existing square feet be indicated on
the site plan. Otherwise, there were no other changes.
'.
mincc02c.95
4
02/'6/95
. , .'. ,,' .'. - ". .. . . .
. '. ... . .
,c .......
Ed Armstrong. attorney representing the purchaser of the property. said he was in
accord with staff's recommendations. He noted agreements have been reached with
owners of 61 of the 66 mobile homes.
Commissioner Deegan was pleased with plans to place an overlay on Haas Avenue.
He noted Lawson Road is partially in the County and questioned how far the Lawson Road
improvements will extend. Mr. Shuford said the improvements will extend from Sunset
Point Road to the property's south entrance. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the
balance of the road was unpaved. Mr. Armstrong reported the County recently paved their
section of Lawson Road.
Commissioner Deegan noted when this item was first brought to the Commission
for Receipt and Referral, residents of the mobile home park indicated the offers made for
their homes were too low. He questioned if the offers had been increased. David
Freeman, President of Harrison Bennett Properties, Inc., indicated $500 was initially
offered but most properties were purchased for $2,500 to $3,500. Commissioner Deegan
questioned why agreements had not been reached with the five remaining owners. Mr.
Freeman said he was working at communicating with the owners and expected to resolve
the issue soon.
\~;,,')
Commissioner Berfield questioned if a larger sign would be permitted because of the
planned overpass. Mr. Shuford said the sign's permitted height is now 20 feet. Should
the overpass be constructed, the sign's height could increase to 30 feet, or 10 feet above
the crown of the road. He said the 150 square foot sign is the same size permitted for
shopping centers.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the mobile home owners moved their units or
vacated them. Mr. Freeman indicated the majority vacated their homes and found other
accommodations: some relocated. Commissioner Thomas questioned if any of the units
were moved to other mobile home parks. Mr. Freeman said none was moved.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern regarding what will happen to the remaining five
owners. Mr. Freeman said he will treat them the same and noted a petition signed by 20
owners stating they had been dealt with fairly. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the
owners wanted their units moved to another park if Mr. Freeman would do that. Mr.
Freeman said he has been working with the people and has been flexible.
Mayor Garvey referred to a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding the
conversion of mobile home parks to commercial development. The City Attorney said the
state statute that required compensation was stricken by the court. No current statute
addresses how mobile home owners should be compensated.
Commissioner Thomas said this issue deals with zoning and the Commission does
not have to approve the annexation. Mayor Garvey noted the applicant would develop in
the County if the City turned down his annexation request. Commissioner Thomas said he
was satisfied Mr. Freeman is working with the mobile home owners and noted Mr.
Freeman stated under oath that he would treat the remaining owners in the same manner
as he treated the other owners.
"........./
mincc02c.95
5
02/16/95
< ' . ~ ~. " " ' . ...* .' '
, .
?":'--
t'--,
'.......1
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the petition for Annexation, Future Land
Use Plan Amendment to Residential/Office Retail for Lots 3 through 8, Haas Subdivision
and Lot 3, Blackburn's Subdivision, less the east 200 feet thereof, together with the
abutting right-of-way of Lawson Road and the right-ow-way of Haas Avenue from its
intersection with Lawson Road to US 19N; and Zoning Atlas Amendment to Commercial
Planned Development for Lots 1 through 8, Haas Subdivision and Lot 3, Blackburn's
Subdivision. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5743M95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5743-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayesl1: Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"NaYst': None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5744-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5744-95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
I....;.'") The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5745-95 for first reading and read it by
"'<#' title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5745-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #8 - Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 430 S. Gulfview Blvd.,
L1oyd-White-Skinner Sub., Lots 33-35 & part of 36 (HBE Florida Corp.lAdam's Mark Hater,
5V95-10){CP)
A letter from HBE Corporation indicated the property has a new General Manager,
William Bretches, and requested the item be rescheduled. Commissioner Thomas moved to
continue this item until March 2, 1995. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
ITEM #9 - D~c'arim:l City owned oropertv known as the "Standridoe" oropertv and a
portion of s. Shore Blvd. surorus and exchanging for real property taken from Fisherman's
Wharf of Clearwater, Inc. (CA)
On September 14, 1993, the City Commission adopted Resolution 93-56,
authorizing staff to acquire, by eminent domain, sufficient property for a right-of-way for
the new Clearwater Pass Bridge. On the same date, the City Commission authorized
mincc02c.95
6
02/16/95
'. ~ > . . . . . '. ~ . ': '. ~. . ".
...'" 0",. ~,' .
,.--..,
purchase of a vacant lot owned by James Standridge across South Shore Blvd. from the
parcel owned by Fisherman's Whorf. On November 18, 1993, the City Commission
authorized staff to bring action to seek to quiet title to South Shore Blvd. so part of that
property could replace part of the Fisherman's Wharf's property which had been
condemned. On January 12, 1995, the Pinellas County Circuit court granted the City final
judgment in the action to quiet title.
The City plans to exchange the property, known as the "Standridge" parcel,
together with a portion of South Shore Blvd. for a portion of Fisherman's Wharf's property
needed for construction of the Clearwater Pass Bridge together with three temporary
construction easements. The property being transferred by the City is appraised at
$526,643 - $559,000 and the property being transferred to the City is appraised at
$632,000 - $657,600.
Environmental cleanup continues on the JiStandridge" property. The escrow fund,
established to insure the cleanup's cost, will be in force until the site is determined to be
clean.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the City Attorney was satisfied with the
agreement and wording. The City Attorney indicated she is.
. ,- .,\.\
''r~
Commissioner Thomas moved to declare City-owned property known as the
"Standridge" property and a portion of S Shore Blvd. to be surplus and to accept and
approve a contract for exchange of property between the City and Fisherman's Wharf of
Clearwater, Inc., as part of a settlement of the civil action now pending in the circuit Court
of Pinellas County, styled City of Clearwater v. Fisherman's Wharf of Clearwater. Inc.. at
21., Case No. 93-3295MCIM7 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute
same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #10 - (Cont'd from 01/19/95) Public Hearing & First Readina Ord. #5713-95 - LDCA
re neon lighting, illuminated area of signs & sign bases; Amending Secs. 44.05,44.51,
44.55 & 44.57 (LDCA94~24HCP)
On August 18, 1994, the City Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance
addressing problems identified by the Code Enforcement Review Task Force (CERTaF)
concerning neon lighting, signs' illumination and sign bases. The proposed ordinance
accomplishes this purpose, regulating: 1 ~ neon lighting; 2) illuminated portions of
freestanding signs; and 3} the size of freestanding sign bases. The City Attorney
recommends that Section 4 of the draft ordinance, received and referred by the
Commission, be dropped to improve clarity. This recommended deletion was incorporated
into the proposed ordinance.
Staff recommends the City not restrict the size of sign bases since desirable signs
such as the Cypress Point Shopping center on US 19N and the Ramada Inn on Clearwater
beach would not be allowed. This can be accomplished by deleting the second added
sentence in the definition of "area." This change, while recommended, was not
incorporated into the proposed ordinance since it represents a substantial change from
direction received from the Commission.
'.J
mincc02c.95
7
02/16/95
, . .
. ' '.' . .~ . . f . -' . ,
'fI':" 'c
i~
On November 1, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended
denial of this ordinance. They felt it overly restricted the design of site lighting displays,
signs and sign structures. On January 12, 1995, the Development Code Adjustment Board
tDCAS) unanimously recommended approval of this ordinance, agreeing with staff's
recommendation to remove limitations on the size of sign bases.
Mr. Shuford said this ordinance would regulate neon lighting, and allow
consideration of the illuminated portions of a sign structure as part of its total sign area.
The proposal would also regulate the base size of freestanding signs which staff does not
recommend.
Mayor Garvey questioned if the City wanted to encourage a proliferation of signs
with large bases and recommended addressing the size of the base in the ordinance. Mr.
Shuford said the ordinance would not subject existing nonMconforming signs to
amortization nor change current procedure. Due to the high cost of large bases, staff did
not 3xpect them to .become common. He felt existing signs with large bases have been
attractively designed. He said if the size of 8 sign's bast! is more than 50% of the sign
face's area, the portion of the base greater than 50% would count toward the sign's
oVBrall size.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if staff recommended deleting from the
ordinance, "Also, any portion of the surface area of a freestanding sign structure that
exceeds 50% of the permitted area of the sign face shall be considered part of the sign
area." Mr. Shuford said that was correct. He recommended the portion, "Illuminated
portions of a sign structure shall be considered part of the sign area" to remain.
I."""')
""","' Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned the rationale of the Planning & Zoning Board's
(P&Z) unanimous recommendation for denial. Mr. Shuford said the board had a long
discussion on the matter and referred to specific cases such as Calypso Bay and Fat
Tuesdays. The board expressed concern that regulation of the creative use of neon was
not something they wanted.
Commissioner Serfield questioned if the original sign ordinance was approved by
P&Z. Mr. Shuford said they had been approved it. Commissioner Berfiald questioned if the
vote was unanimous. Mr. Shuford did not recall.
Commissioner Thomas said he opposed the ordinance the way it is written,
especially the neon issue. He felt the Church's Chicken sign is not obtrusive during the
day. The Mayor said that sign is large because of the design of the illumination.
Commissioner Berfield questioned this ordinance's impact on Church's sign if it were just
proposed. Mr. Shuford said the same sign would be permitted but the sign's base could
not be illuminated. Commissioner Berfield questioned how much the sign would have to be
reduced if the business chose to light the base. Mr. Shuford said the logo and words
would have to be reduced and indicated the existing sign would not be permitted. The
Mayor said the sign is huge, even when not illuminated. Commissioner Berfield questioned
it the sign is currently legal. Mr. Shuford indicated it is and noted the base of the Church's
sign is not solid like the Cypress Point Shopping Center sign which has a huge base and
small sign. The Mayor felt there was a difference between a shopping center sign and one
that stands alone.
mincc02c.95
8
02/16/95
... .". ' " . ',"" > ". ." ., ",
~ . , ~ > ...
..__1" " .
.'....-....,
i
Commissioner Deegan questioned if staff wrote the sentence addressing the size of
sign bases based on concerns expressed by Mr. Zinzow and CERTaF. Mr. Shuford agreed
that sentence was written to address sign bases. There is no present mechanism to limit
the size of sign bases. Commissioner Deegan questioned why staff now recommended
deleting this sentence. Mr. Shuford said staff reviewed the City in terms of signs they
found attractive and City Commission action regarding the Cypress Point Shopping Center
sign and concluded the sentence was contrary to some positions the Commission has
expressed. Commissioner Deegan said the Commission has tried to be clear and
consistent in their actions. He questioned if Mr. Shuford understood the Mayor's point
that the signs for stand alone businesses and shopping centers differ greatly. Mr. Shuford
recommended deleting the sentence but indicated he would be comfortable with whatever
decision the Commission made.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if DCAS approved the ordinance with that
sentence removed. Mr. Shuford said they did.
Mayor Garvey noted the Cypress Point sign variance was approved for an existing
sign. She suggested the Commission probably would not have approved new construction
for such a sign.
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern that the Commission is not
accomplishing what they set out to do and questioned if the Commission should approve
something about which they have doubts. He questioned if the proposal had bean
thoroughly examined.
I,:) Commissioner Serfield questioned if the sentence regarding the bases was included
if someone could request a variance to build a base for a sign. Mr. Shuford said that was
correct. A prohibition against large sign bases was not included to allow flexibility. The
applicant would be able to choose verbiage on a sign versus the size of the base.
Commissioner Thomas suggested looking at the footprints already in the City and
questioned how many signs with oversized bases are ugly. He recommended allowing
businesses owners the flexibility to erect attractive sign bases. He concurred with staff's
recommendation to remove this sentence. He noted the City has a very restrictive sign
ordinance. He agreed the City is better looking because many signs have been removed.
He agreed with P&Z that neon is an art form. He recommended allowing freedom of
expression in the City when it comes to artistic art form. He supported limiting sign
structure illumination.
Commissioner Deegan questioned the ordinance regarding outside murals. Mr.
Shuford said if a mural relates to the business at that location, it is considered a sign. A
mural would not be prohibited if no element in the mural could be traced to the business.
Commissioner Thomas referred to a mural depicting a Mexican fiesta outside a Mexican
restaurant. Mr. Shuford indicated that mural is c\ose to being a violation. Commissioner
Deegan suggested a parallel between neon and murals. He felt something is either art or
commercial regardless if neon or paint is used. He requested that point be made clear in
the ordinance so the City is consistent.
'.....J
mincc02c.95
9
02/16/95
." 0",' " , . " . '."' , " '. .. . 'I oI!I :" . I. _. "
,'I,":' -
--..
, .
Commissioner Thomas moved to deny the amendment concerning neon lighting,
illuminated area of signs and sign bases and send it back for staff rewrite. The motion was
duly seconded.
Commissioner Deegan said he was dissatisfied with the parts the Commission is
questioning. He noted CERTaF brought their recommendation to the Commission to avoid
a trend toward a proliferation of obtrusive signs and neon. He agreed that neon should be
allowed to follow a building's architectural lines and be non-artistic. He opposed neon as
used at Calypso Bay. He recommended including language to make regulations for neon
similar to those regarding murals. He said something must be done to control the
proliferation of massive bases. Mayor Garvey suggested separating restrictions on neon
from lighting. Commissioner Berfield agreed the sentence regarding the base size should
remain and noted it still would be possible to request a variance. Commissioner Thomas
expressed concern regarding adding an unnecessary expense. The Mayor noted at least
three Commissioners believe addressing the size of bases is important.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the ordinance can come back in pieces. He
questioned if there was consensus regarding the lighted frame or structure. He said he
could support not permitting the illumination of a sign's base.
, ,
1"1><,,'';
Commissioner Berfield questioned if the neon could be addressed where the
ordinance addresses murals. Mr. Shuford requested direction whether a mural constitutes
signage. Commissioner Thomas said art improves a city. He did not think the Commission
should restrict creative people from placing art around town. Commissioner Berfield said
these issues are coming up because of businesses attempting to find loopholes in the sign
code. She recommended addressing this issue.
Commissioner Thomas referred to the Birge Meat Market case. He felt the business
owner was put through the wringer by the City after he painted his business with cuts of
meat.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Fitzgerald, Deegan and Thomas
voted "Aye"; Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Shuford was clear on what to do. Mr.
Shuford said the majority wants to regulate the siza of the base of a sign and the
illumination the sign structure. He will come back with alternatives for further direction
regarding neon. Commissioner Thomas felt Commissioner Deegan's point comparing the
art of neon versus murals was valid.
ITEM #11 - lCont'd from 11 /17/94 & 01119/95) Public Hearinc:1 & First Readino Qrd.
#5683-95 - LOCA re Wetland Area Setbacks (Amending Sec. 42.28 to require vegetative
buffer setbacks adjacent to "Jurisdictional Wetlands" under jurisdiction of the State of
Florida)(LDCA 94-21 HCP)
This item was continued to allow staff to respond to Ed Mazur's concerns about the
ordinance. SomB minor revisions have been made pursuant to these comments.
.....
mincc02c.95
10
02/16/95
i-lc......:
As staff processed the Bayview Gardens Nursing Home proposal, a problem was
identified in the City's current procedural requirements for wetland and preservation area
setbacks. City code requires a setback from a Preservation zoning district boundary;
however, not all wetland areas have been zoned Preservation. City procedure to require
submittal of rezoning requests for such areas not zoned Preservation delays finalization of
development projects until zoning changes can be processed. It is impossible to seek
variances from setback requirements until the rezoning occurs, even if variances are
desirable from a technical standpoint.
To correct this problem, staff proposed language change in the existing ordinance.
The intent of the changes is to expand setback requirements to include all jurisdictional
wetland areas. Larger wetland areas, identified in the site planning process, will be
, rezoned to Preservation. Due to the difficulty in establishing practical legal descriptions,
the smaller wetland areas will not be rezoned. Under the ordinance, all wetlands will
receive appropriate protection.
The Planning & Zoning Board and the Development Code Adjustment Board have
recommended approval of this ordinance.
City Engineer Rich Baier noted several items need to be amended. He noted safety
concerns regarding the encroachments along the top of banks and the sedimentation and
erosion problems experienced within the City.
Mike Quillen, Water Resource Engineer, said staff is proposing an amendment to the
';~'H\ existing wetlands setback ordinance. Regarding the tops of banks, Mr. Quillen noted the
t'<1!',i top of the bank is often out of jurisdictional lands and a setback may not apply. Staff is
proposing a change from a required 25 foot setback from only preservation zoned lands, to
a required 25 foot setback from all State jurisdictional wetlands and a 15-foot setback from
the top of banks of creeks, ditches and similar waterways.
Mr. Quillen said staff has received public input. A public concern was indicated
regarding a definition of "top of bank." Another concern was how this change would
affect existing structures. Mr. Quillen said staff reviewed an aerial photo survey of most
of the City's major creeks and ditches and counted more than 450 structures along these
waterways of which 10% or less may be affected by this ordinance. The ordinance states
any ordinary maintenance expense can be done on a structure without triggering the 50%
rule requiring conformity.
Staff reviewed the County ordinance that has a provision for an average buffer.
Improvements in the City's ordinance include the definition of "top of bank." He noted the
County requires a 50-foot setback from wetlands and the City requires 25 feet. The
biggest difference is the City's ordinance applies to all single family residences. He
reported the Development Code Adjustment Board, the Planning & Zoning Board and the
Environmental Advisory Board have all recommended approval of this ordinance. Mr.
Quillen noted an additional benefit relates to flood insurance. The City needs to submit a
new five year plan to FEMA regarding actions the City has taken to address encroachment
into flood plains and minimize flood damage. He said this ordinance would be an excellent
addition to the report and may help lower flood insurance rates.
I.J
mincc02c.95
1 1
02/16/95
.' .
. I "., . , . , ....~
101"."'"
. ,"' ~"O
, r-....
\
!
Commissioner Thomas questioned why Clearwater's setback is only 25 feet while
the County's setback is 50 feet. Mr. Quillen noted unincorporated Pinellas County has
large undeveloped tracks of land and the County ordinance only applies to new
development. The City's ordinance applies to existing development. The City Manager
noted the City's ordinance applies to residential property while the County's does not. She
said that difference is significant.
Alan Stowell, representing the Environmental Advisory Board, said the ten members
of the board carefully deliberated this issue and urge the Commission to support the
ordinance.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a land Development Code amendment
concerning setbacks from wetlands. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Barfield questioned if Tom Miller, Assistant Director of Engineeringl
Environmental agreed with staff's recommendation. Mr. Miller said the ordinance
"absolutely" and complimented the fine job done by staff and the Environmental Advisory
Board.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5683-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5683M95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
I~
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #12 - Public HearinCl & First Reading Ord. #5740-95 - LDCA re temporary commercial
parking lots (LDCA 94-27)(CP)
On October 6, 1994, the City Commission directed staff to develop a code
amendment to allow greater flexibility in the use of temporary commercial parking lots on
Clearwater beach. The Planning & Zoning Board and Development Code Adjustment Board
(DCAB) recommended approval of the amendment, with DCAB's approval contingent upon
the requirement that no parking spaces on public property be utilized for temporary
commercial parking.
Mayor Garvey referred to Section 41.171 (6}(il and recommended, for clarification,
adding the word "sign" to read: . .. shall be permittod one attached "sign," sandwich
board "sign," . . .
Commissioner Deegan indicated his appreciation regarding staff's action on this
Commission request.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Land Development Code amendment
concerning temporary commercial parking lots. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
mincc02c.95
12
02/16/95
, .". '. ~ . . , I .' . .. - , .
i~~~'''':'''' . .
.V~W .
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5740~95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5740-95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vota was:
---...,
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"
"Nays": None.
Public Hearing - Second Readina Ordinances
ITEM # 13 - Ord. #5720-95 - LDCA prohibiting nonresidential driveway access across
residential zoning boundaries and adjusting the lot area requirements for manufacturing
uses in the Cl district (LDCA94-29)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5720-95 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5720-95 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.
ITEM #14 - Ord. #5746-95- Annexation for property located at 1947 W. Skyline Dr.,
Skyline Groves, Lot 105 (C.M.L. Building Co., Inc., A94M27)
o
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5746-95 for second reading and read it by
title onfy. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5746-95 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call. the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Barfield. Deegan. Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #15 - Ord. #5747M95 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low for property
located at 1947 W. Skyline Dr., Skyline Groves, Lot 105 (C.M.L. Building Co., Inc., LUP94M
31 )
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5747-95 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5747-95 on second
and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes't: Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM # 16 - Ord. #5748-95~ RS-B Zoning for property located at 1947 W. Skyline Dr.,
Skyline Groves, Lot 105 (C.M.L. Building Co., Inc., A94-27)
mincc02c.95
13
02/16/95
'. . '.." . . , . . . . r . I
......".... .
. . ~', E J
-,
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5748~95 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5748-95 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.
ITEM #17 - Ord. #5756-95- extending term of franchise agreement with Vision Cable of
Pinellas, Inc., to 08/21/95
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5756-95 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5756-95 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes.t: Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
tfNays": None.
ITEM #18 - Ord. #5757-95- granting to GTE Florida, Inc., permission to occupy municipal
streets & rights of way in Clearwater as a means of providing telecommunication services;
prescribing terms & conditions accompanying grant of franchise
The City Manager indicated staff's request to continue this item indefinitely.
(:~)
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item indefinitely. The motion was
duly secoflded.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the delay would affect current GTE issues.
The City Attorney said the City is coveTed and indicated GTE has been operating without
an agreement for a short time. She stated GTE will continue paying their franchise fees.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if they could stop paying those fees. The City Attorney
said they could not.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion was carried unanimously.
ITEM # 19 - Ord. #5764.95 - CI Zoning for property located at 1 200-1 222 N. Betty Lane
and 1209-1223 Fairburn Ave., Fairburn Addition, Blk. C, Lots 1-4 & 7-12 (Homeless
Emergency Project Inc., Z94M16)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5764~95 for second reading and fead it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5764-95 on second
and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
v
mincc02c.95
14
02/16/95
. ~ . . /, ~ . . .' i . ~., , . D:
~P"'''' 'r T
"'--'"
ITEM #20 - Soecialltems of widesoread DubUc interest - None.
ITEM #21 - Citizens to be heard fe items not on the Agenda
Bob Bickerstaffe noted he had earlier addressed the need to strengthen the
Municipal Service Complex parking garage's foundation to allow future expansion. He said
it would make sense to also strengthen the Municipal Services building's foundation to
accommodate two or three additional floors. He said once the foundation is poured, the
building's height is limited. He said the City has the opportunity to prepare for the future
and recommended the foundation be strengthened now.
Commissioner Thomas said he reviewed Mr. Bickerstaffe's previous
recommendation and found enough land is available on the site for horizontal expansion of
both facilities. He noted the Commission has to be prudent regarding costs and noted the
high expense a stronger foundation would entail. Mr. Bickerstaffe did not think it prudent
to proceed with the project before upgrading the foundation. Assistant City Manager
William Baker said the plans include the ability to add stories to the Police Department and
expand the administrative building horizontally. He said the architect is reviewing plans for
the parking garage to see if the foundation can be strengthened to allow the addition of
future floors. Mr. Bickerstaffe said it was important to take advantage of a building's air
space.
Mr. Bickerstaffe thanked the Central Permitting Department for working to get the
codes and ordinances to a point where they are more friendly.
{...:JJ~,
"'tr>m' John Doran, President of the Clearwater Beach Association, thanked the
Commission for attending the opening of the Clearwater Beach Recreation Center. He
noted the hard work of Helen Nash, Anne Garris, and the Parks & Recreation staff. He
thanked the City Commission for approving the center's rehabilitation.
The Commission recessed from 7:54 to 8:08 p.m.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #22-27) - Approved as submitted.
ITEM #22 - Aoreement for Pinellas Plannino Council's local Government Grant for Fiscal
Year 1994M95 (CP)
ITEM #23 - Receiot/Referral - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low &
RS~8 Zoning for property located at 1701 St. Croix Dr., Virginia Groves Terrace, Fifth
Addition, Lot 1, 0.19 acres m.o.l. (Nenadovich, A94-30, LUP94-36)(CP)
ITEM #24 - Receiot/Referral - LDCA re Fences in Structural Setback Area for Waterfront
Property (Single Family Zones Only}(LDCA 95M03){CP)
ITEM #25 - Receiot/Referral ~ LDCA re Additional Permitted & Conditional Uses for the IL
Zoning District (LDCA 95-04HCP)
\...J
mincc02c.95
15
02/16/95
. . '. \'" ". . ." ,I . :' . I..
"'
.';'.. J
.,.-...",
ITEM 1126 ~ Receiot/Referral - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Industrial Limited
& IPO Zoning 2ill! conceptual site plan for property located at 2000 Calumet St.,
Clearwater Industrial Park, Lot 8, 5.00 acres m.o.l. (Salvage Properties, A95.01, LUP95-
01 Hep)
ITEM #27 - Receiot/Referral - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low &
RSM8 Zoning for property located at 1748 Ragland Ave., Cloarwater Manor, Lot 53,
together with abutting r-o.w of Ragland Ave. (Downin, A94M29, LUP95-35)(CP)
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted and
that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
ITEM #28 - Other Pendina Matters
a) (Cont'd from 02/13/95) Status Reoort & direction re Tower. Pavilion & Life Guard
Station
Assistant City Manager William Baker indicated two tower proposals were received
in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) for an observation deck and tower
restaurant as an element of the three-acre track on Clearwater beach intended for a park.
Responders were advised to also express other ideas. Media Innovative Technologies, Inc.
of Pinellas Park proposed the 700-foot Pierside Sky tower with a restaurant, lounge,
, ,,';i'j banquet facility, observation deck and concession area at the top and a motion simulator
'.~ theater, concession areas, and a restaurant near the base. A 60-passenger monorail would
connect it to the Harborview Center Downtown. The Landmark Tower Corporation of Ft.
Worth, TX proposad the 900-foot Landmark Jewel Tower to include a hotel and
conference center. A monorail would connect it with the Civic Center parking lot.
Mr. Baker said neither company structured a proposal to include a lease, business
and management plans, revenues, and expenses although some revenue streams were
identified. He said the proposals were beyond the scope of the RFP. Staff did not rank
them and forwarded them to the City Commission for direction.
Commissioner Deegan said the proposals submitted were truly different from what
the City Commission had in mind. He said the RFP was released in response to a City
advisory board recommendation to the Commission that a moderate sized tower be
included in plans to improve the entry way near Pier 60. He said the companies who
submitted proposals clearly misunderstood the request. Commissioner Deegan
recommended disregarding both proposals. The Mayor agreed neither suggestion should
be considered. Commissioner Fitzgerald concurred. He felt the issue had gotten out of
hand and should be stopped so no one incurs additional expense pursuing this matter.
Commissioner Thomas requested those who submitted proposals to revisit the
Commission'~ original request for a 250 to 350 foot tower with an open air base that does
not obstruct the Gulf view and submit new proposals if interested. He opposed both
proposals received.
'~
mincc02c.95
16
02/16/95
, '. " ,
. ',. f'. ',",..
.,-.;":"" ' ....,...
....--..
Commissioner Berfield said she liked the proposals but felt the mainland would be
the proper location. She expressed concern the City would lose the beach if either tower
was constructed. She thought the proposals included good ideas and suggested the
applicants consider other City locations. Commissioner Thomas agreed with Commissioner
Berfield's recommendation regarding the mainland location. Mayor Garvey reiterated the
project would not be considered for the beach.
Commissioner Deegan said the RFP was issued in respect to the committee who
submitted the recommendation and as an attempt to find a new stream of revenue on the
beach to finance the removal of parking meters or construction of a new beach swimming
pool. He recommended closing the door on these two proposals.
Mayor Garvey questioned jf the Commission wished staff to continue pursuit of the
original proposal. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted most residents have indicated they do
not favor a tower on the beach. He recommended finding another location for it. The
Mayor indicated many people on the street questioned her regarding why the Commission
was considering this. Commissioner Deegan noted residents' concern was heightened by
the media presentation of the issue.
Consensus was for staff to do nothing more to pursue this issue.
I' ""~'\
"~
Mr. Baker referred to plans to develop the park at the foot of Pier 60. He said the
current buildings would be razed and the landscaped mound moved. Mayor Garvey
questioned if the Clearwater beach sign would remain. Mr. Baker said the Commission's
'request for a vista of the beach and pier would require the mound's removal.
Commissioner Thomas suggested the sign is not very high and could remain.
Mr. ,Baker said the park will include walkways, a covered playground, and a new,
smaller concession stand with deck. He questioned if the Commission wanted work to
begin now. Commissioner Deegan indicated no buildings should be razed until after tourist
season. Mr. Baker said staff would work to develop plans.
Mr. Baker referred to the recommendation to construct a pavilion on the beach for
concerts or dances. He reported the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) has indicated their intent to deny the City's application for a permit to construct a
5,000 square foot pavilion, 120 feet seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line
(CCCL). Their main concern is to protect nesting areas for turtles. Mr. Baker said if the
City fights, it may get a permit for a pavilion with a canvas roof further back on the beach
than desired. This is not what the City had envisioned. He said the City can build a
structure of its choice landward of the CCCL. A 3.200 square foot pavilion could be a
feature of the park though Mr. Baker recommended it not be erected too close to the
Holiday Inn. He suggested the pavilion could be built further south where plans are to
remove and replace the beach lifeguard headquarters near the south tollbooth of the Pier
60 parking lot with a tropical seascape structure. Staff proposes to construct the new
lifeguard station adjacent to the restrooms by the tollbooth. Alteration of the tollbooth roof
will complete the tropical seascape appearance of that cluster of facilities.
j
mincc02c.95
17
02/16/95
,,,....~ ",
:~
The Mayor questioned where the playground would be built if the pavilion is erected
in the park. Mr. Baker indicated there is adequate space for both projects now that the
tower will not be constructed. Mayor Garvey agreed the pavilion may be perceived as part
of the Holiday Inn if it is located too near the hotel.
Commissioner Thomas suggested removing some parking and locating the pavilion
as close to the CCCL as possible. He noted additional parking would be picked up when
the lifeguard headquarters is razed. Mr. Baker agreed that idea could work. Commissioner
Thomas noted the goal to beautify the entrance to Pier 60.
Commissioner Dcegan noted if the pavilion is located near the Holiday Inn, the hotel
would attempt to include it as a part of that resort. He pointed out the City had requested
a permit to locate the pavilion on the beach so it would be surrounded by sand and include
adequate seating space on the sand for crowds. He recommended locating an elongated
pavilion as close to the CCCL as possible, surrounded by sand. Commissioner Deegan
disagreed with losing any parking spaces. He said people utilize Pier 60 to fish and
recommended separating the pavilion and its activities from the pier.
,~"'I\-t.,)
,,~
Commissioner Barfield noted handicap access will need to be provided for the
pavilion. She suggested locating it south of the park to avoid conflict with children playing
in the playground, the Holiday Inn, and Pier 60. Commissioner Thomas preferred the
hexagon design and agreed with Commissioner Berfield's recommendation for location.
Commissioner Berfield recommended scaling down the pavilion's size to 3,200 square feet.
Commissioner Thomas recommended letting staff maximize what will fit in that location.
Mr. Baker suggested the parking lot could be r8configured to provide space.
Commissioner Deegan questioned other alternatives for the location of the lifeguard
station. Mr. Baker said placing it on top of the toll gate had been considered but the
lifeguards indicated they need covered space below the station for storage. Commissioner
Deegan noted the Commission has been fighting to increase the open view of the beach
and pointed out that locating the lifeguard station next to the restrooms adds a two-story
structure on the beach. He recommended building a station large enough to meet storage
needs on top of the toll booth. Mr. Baker said placing the station above the tollbooth,
which must be at least 14 feet high, would result in a tall structure.
The Mayor suggested building the lifeguard station on the left side of the restrooms
facility. Mr. Baker said that was possible. Commissioner Berfield questioned if it could not
be rebuilt in its present location. Mr. Baker agreed that was possible. Commissioner
Deegan noted additional parking spaces would be created if the structure is relocated.
Commissioner Thomas recommended locating the lifeguard station above the tollbooth and
establishing storage space next to it. Mr. Baker suggested building the station seaward of
the tollbooth as a building extension.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concern regarding costs and suggested money
could be saved by building the station above the tollbooth and negating the need to install
a new tropical seascape roof. The Mayor pointed out Mr. Baker's suggestion would create
'"J
mincc02c.95
18
02/16/95
>",,~ ,.., .
. ,.-....,
a structure that looked like one building. Commissioner Deegan felt the addition of the
new roof on the toll booth would make that project more expensive. Mr. Baker noted the
new roof was only for decoration. Commissioner Thomas recommended the least costly
alternative. Mr. Baker indicated he will come back to the Commission with cost estimates.
Mr. Baker noted in his February 14, 1995 memorandum, the David Volkert report
summarizes a strong case against retaining any portion of the old Clearwater Pass Bridge
for fishing. Approximately $1.4Mmillion would be needed to renovate part of the bridge for
fishing and the aesthetics would probably be deplorable. The report reveals a new pier
designed for fishing and located west of the new bridge would cost $800,000. Pinellas
County Parks Department indicated they are considering establishing a fishing structure
near this location. Staff recommends removing the old bridge according to project plans
and continue discussions with Pinellas County regarding a fishing pier.
Consensus was not to save a portion of the old Clearwater Pass Bridge.
Mayor Garvey questioned how the City can afford to pay for R new fishing pier.
She suggested working with the County and sharing the project.
\ .'v,.,'!,
'''''!I':'P.I
Mr. Baker reported a temporary ferry dock will be established at the Clearwater
Sailing Center and the City Marina on Clearwater beach to accommodate those wishing to
travel across Clearwater Pass when the bridge is closed to traffic. The closure is estimated
to occur during a two month period around September 1995. Permit applications have
been submitted. Clearwater Ferry Service indicated a preference for a simple lump-sum fee
based on the timeMframe and number of daily trips rather than on a per passenger basis.
Mayor Garvey questioned the lump sum being requested. Mr. Baker indicated none was
stated.
Commissioner Thomas questioned plans for Memorial Causeway. City Engineer
Rich Baier said the bridge will be closed from 1 :00 to 6:00 a.m. for four weeks during a
time not yet determined. Bridge traffic will be limited to two lanes for 360 days starting in
May. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the number of bridge openings can be reduced
by 50% during this time. Mr. Baier said he could pursue that with FDOT but indicated
reducing the number of openings is not included in the contract. Commissioner Thomas
expressed concern regarding traffic jams. He recommended opening Dunedin Pass under
emergency conditions.
b) Selection of enerClV system for Municioal Services BuildinQ & Police Deoartment
Dean Rowe reported in his February 15, 1995 letter that the Design-Construction
Team worked with Clearwater Gas System (CGS) on alternate energy systems for the
Municipal Services Complex including where and how the systems might be physically
housed.
Alternate One would locate a central plant for the Police building on City property at
the corner of Franklin Street and East Avenue to house gas-engine driven, water-cooled
'0
mlncc02c.95
19
02/16/95
. '. . ' . .', , ," . ~ . "'. ' , . '. t' , '.' . .: _ ' . _ :
~.
chillers and required diesel emergency generators. Cooling towers and the large diesel tank
needed for emergency generators would be in a wall screened yard adjacent to the
building. The estimated associated construction cost above that included in the
Guaranteed Maximum Price lGMP) is $364,000 for the gas related components, plus
$75,000 for the under street electrical lines required for emergency generation. CGS has
proposed to fund a $299,000 loan to the project from bond funding to be repaid by energy
costs. The $140,000 differential could be funded from the project contingency included in
the GMP.
Alternate Two would provide a central plant for the entire complex that would
house all components identified in Alternate One plus gas engine driven water cooled
chillers and additional cooling tower capacity for the Administrative Office building. The
estimated associated construction cost above the GMP is $740,000. CGS has proposed to
fund a $475,000 loan to be repaid by energy costs. The differential cost of $265,000,
plus the same $75,000 eJectricalline costs identified under Alternate One could be partially
funded with $140,OOOfrom the contingency fund within the GMP. The $200,000 balance
would have to be funded with an increase to the GMP by the City Commission.
Mr. Rowe recommended the Commission approve Alternate Two. If approved, this
will provide a significant demonstration for future consideration and as a model for other
public and private buildings, thus enhancing future markets for CGS. It also represents a
significant improvement in the project's energy performance.
~.....
!,..,.)
Mr. Rowe said the central plant could not be included within the GMP and alternate
recommendations were for air cooled chillers on the roof. He spoke with CGS regarding
the cost differential. CGS proposed funding the cost differential and paying for it with
savings in energy costs. He expressed concern with present plans to place emergency
generators close to an existing day care center. He recommended a central plant for the
Police Department because it is a 24 hour, seven day a week operation.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern that Alternate One includes a plan to
spend $364,000 to save $299,000 over 20 years. He stated a capital expenditure should
only be made if money is saved. He said the loss listed under Alternate Two was higher.
Chuck Warrington, Gas System Managing Director, said an electric, water cooled central
plant was compared to a gas, water cooled central plant and the central plant was
compared to placement of electric chillers on the roof tops. He said the payback occurs in
1.1 years when comparing the two central plants. The large expense occurs when
comparing a roof top system with a central plant.
Commissioner Thomas said the proforma is sadly lacking. He requested a solid
written proforma that includes a comparison of the costs to build the system and energy
use as budgeted with the proposed system and its energy costs. He said the proposed
system indicates a loss., Mr. Warrington said their initial study includes those figures. He
said the issue regarding the location of the chillers is intertwined with the choice of energy
source. He stated the City'S Engineering and Architectural services recommend a central
plant. If a central plant is chosen, the savings by using gas arB apparent. The Mayor
noted the savings are not apparent.
\~
mincc02c.95
20
02/1 6/95
,....-.\
Commissioner Thomas felt too many issues were being mixed into the discussion.
He suggested Mr. Warrington should remove himself from the issue because of his
attachment to CGS. He requested the architect submit a proposal comparing the approved
energy plans with alternatives that list how much the alternatives cost and the predicted
energy savings that would result. Mr. Rowe said a study has been completed that
compares the costs of electric energy with natural gas. Mr. Baker noted Alternate Two
would result in a savings of $34,000 per year in energy costs. After the 20Myear loan from
CGS is repaid. the City will realize those savings annually. Commissioner Thomas noted
Alternate Two will cost $740,000 and result in savings of only $680,000 over 20 years.
Mr. Baker said Alternate Two would provide the City with a central plant which is a
more desirable facility. Commissioner Thomas questioned why. Mr. Baker said if part of
the air conditioning breaks down, the Police Oepartment can have all the cooling they need
overnight by redirecting the flow from the central plant. Mr. Warrington said the central
plant would include multiple units. Except for peak times when temperatures are highest,
no would notice if one unit broke down. Mr. Baker said the proposal for a central plant
includes a maintenance contract that would keep the air-conditioning units in a new
condition. Commissioner Thomas questioned the value of that contract. Mr. Warrington
indicated the maintenance contract is valued at $16,000 per year and would be paid for
out of the estimated $50,000 in annual energy savings. He said the equipment would be
maintained to remain in a like new condition.
~'ol.4':"
l.~)
Mr. Baker said the City will be able to keep the $34,000 annual savings after 20
years. Commissioner Thomas said Alternate Two costs $740,000 to build and savings are
estimated at $680,000. He noted it would take an additional two years to cover the
$60,000 shortfall. He noted none of these figures considers the cost of money. Mr.
Warrington said. according to staff analysis, the breakMeven point occurs at twenty years.
Commissioner Thomas said that result confused him.
Mr. Saker said under Alternate Two, the City gets to be a CGS customer.
Commissioner Thomas indicated he wants to be a good customer of the gas company. He
said he would support the proposal if staff can show a savings. Mr. Baker said cooling
with electricity is more expensive than gas and indicated the electric air~conditioning
equipment will wear out. Commissioner Thomas said Mr. Baker may be correct but the
information presented the Commission does not explain that clearly. Mayor Garvey
questioned if a decision must be reached tonight.
Commissioner Berfield pointed out the difference between the equipment's value
after 20 years may be greater than $60,000 if the gas equipment is maintained and the
electric equipment is not. Mr. Warrington agreed at the end of 20 years the City would
have something of value with the gas system. He said the value of moving the generators
off site to an ideal location has not been examined. Commissioner Berfield questioned how
often the generator needs to be powered. Mr. Rowe said once a week. Commissioner
Berfield questioned if it could be powered at night when no children are present at the day
care center. Ron Mcilveen, of Architectural Engineering, Inc. (AEI), said the system could
be powered up at night but indicated the generator will operate during the day as power
u
mincc02c.95
21
02/1 6/95
. . . . . '. '. I .. .', ., ',' " . .' . I ... . ~ " . . I .
"""l',-::i.....' ...
.",..-....~~
interruptions and outages occur. Mr. Warrington said the generator ideally should be
powered and tested during peak usage times to be certain it is operating properly.
Commissioner Thomas referred to the cost of a 20 year, $740,000 mortgage at
6.5% and indicated the cost of money must be included in the calculation. He
recommended getting with staff and reaching a decision in two weeks on February 27.
1995. Mr. Rowe indicated that delay would impact the schedule by 11 days. He pointed
out it is difficult to calculate a number of intrinsic values in terms of money. Commissioner
Thomas noted staff could not tell him how much money would be saved on energy costs.
Mr. Warrington said the City will break even on a 20-year investment except for the
$340,000 presented by Mr. Rowe as $140,000 out of the contingency fund and
$200,000 as a budget increase. Commissioner Berfield noted the $340,000 could be
applied toward the cost replacing the electrical plant after 20 years. Commissioner
Thomas questioned the cost of the budgeted electric cooling system and its power
consumption. Mr. Mcilveen did not have the itemized costs on hand.
Commissioner Fitzgerald agreed with Commissioner Thomas that the figures
presented do not clearly identify all costs. He recommended the best course of action
would be to regroup and bring it forward in a clear and concise manner that is
understandable. Mayor Garvey noted Commissioners want to do what is best but not
enough information is presently available. Commissioner Thomas said he will meet with
Mr. Baker and staff as soon as possible.
t::J
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to continue this item until February 27. 1995. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CITY A TIORNEY REPORTS
ITEM #29 - Other City Attornev Items - None.
ITEM #30 - City Manager Verbal Reoorts - None.
ITEM #31 - Commission Discussion Items - None.
ITEM #32 - Other Commission Action
Commissioner Barfield reported her attendance at a meeting of the beach small
hotel/motel owners and requested the Commission review materials on kiosks available for
advertising Clearwater and Clearwater beach at Florida's Welcome Centers prior to the
February 27, 1995 discussion on beach issues. She provided the City Manager with
materials on opportunities at the four Florida Welcome Centers and indicated the
Department of Commerce has approved the kiosks.
Commissioner Serfield commended the Engineering Department for working with
FDOT to have Gulf to Bay Boulevard patched. Mr. Baier indicated work will begin in six
months.
o
mincc02c.95
22
02/16/95
If'....."
......,
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern regarding the Commissioners' Award. He
questioned how the City Commissioners could give out an award he knew nothing about.
The Mayor said the selection is made by community volunteers who are impartial.
Commissioner Thomas questioned why it is assumed that all Commission decisions are
political. The Mayor said she would forward him information regarding the program.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the Commission agreed with not participating in the
decision regarding the Commissioners' Award. Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated the
Commission agreed to the award's title several years ago and established how it would be
determined. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the Mayor chose the recipients of the
Mayor's Award. The Mayor stated the same group of volunteers made that decision.
Commissioner Deegan said his discomfort resulted from not knowing the award was
to be presented at this meeting.
Information regarding the program will be provided.
Commissioner Thomas said Tampa funds their Chamber of Commerce at a higher
rate than Clearwater but noted that Tampa does not allow their Chamber to be involved in
city elections. He said Clearwater's Chamber of Commerce makes recommendations
through their political action group. Commissioner Thomas requested an ordinance or
resolution be brought forward that would prohibit City funds from being given to any
organization that attempts to influence the outcome of City elections. Commissioner
Fitzgerald said that could be broadly interpreted. The Commission supports many elements
(~"'>'\ of the City. He recommended the action apply to all groups. Commissioner Thomas
'~ recommended reviewing the whole issue to determine where the line is to be drawn.
Commissioner Thomas requested staff approach the Coast Guard regarding opening
Dunedin Pass under an emergency condition while Memorial Causeway traffic is limited to
two lanes beginning in May 1995 for approximately 360.days.
Commissioner Deegan requested the Planning & Zoning Board (P&Z) be fully
informed of the Environmental Advisory Board's (EAB) findings and discussion regarding
water wells in' Bayview Subdivision in relation to the rezoning at the Fina Station. He
requested the City Manager ask Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford if the P&Z had
enough information from the EAB. Mr. Shuford said the EAB took up that issue yesterday
where Mr. Baier addressed a wide range of issues associated with the site plan. The EAB
indicated their wish to gather additional information regarding pollution from the Fina
gasoline station. The P&Z is scheduled to address this topic at their meeting later this
month. Staff will be certain the Commission receives all EAB comments. Commissioner
Deegan wanted to certain the P&Z had received all applicable information from the EAB
before reaching a decision. The Mayor hoped the P&Z would be basing their decision on
professional ground work.
Mr. Baier said he is working with the EAB. Staff is gathering information and will be
asking for a legal opinion from the City Attorney. All of this information will be shared
with the EAB and discussed at their next meeting in March.
\......J
mincc02c.95
23
02/16/95
~:";.~;. .: .', ,'.'C: >.
I. d
'. ..,.;. J
" .:~ ~~ .~,C'
'"
',.1'--
-/ ,
, .
, -
,\.cf
~t+,~....t~"";'~(~"~~I""""~'. ..... ~t>: "~'.: . !
, "....,,'
. .,: ~'. .
, ~ ':: ~ .
'~>. , :>Mi :~~, '\~; '.'."J".~.:~. i::..:.~,,,,,,, ~ ....~. -' :~::'~~~f
t.............
\",\yJ
Commissioner Deegan noted this information would be not be available until after
the P&Z is scheduled to hear,the case. Mr. Shuford questioned if the Commission wants
the P&Z to delay action on this issue until after they receive this information from the EAB.
Commissioner Deegan Questioned if a delay would upset the applicant. Mr. Shuford said
staff will advise the applicant and P&Z regarding the Commission's interest in this item.
ITEM //33 - Adjournment
ATTEST: ~ L. j:j _. \::l~_
City Clerk
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
. i
I
-\
'.0'
\.J
mincc02c.95
24
02/16/95