03/16/1995 (2)
. , . " ,,.
, . L, 'I- . . .' . <, '.,' .
(;';~~: I:'~}~~'~: , :':,' . ",' : .
. . . ~ . ':~ ~~' :--.
~". .' .
..
" ,
, ,
",: '1
"
~'?:--: '.:
?'.~ ~'" .
,'.? '.' .
. , '
.~, ;. '~' .
1'. .. .1:'
t:.' :.~~.: '.. .. .
'';"1 ,
.' - , .
, "
I' , .
" , '
, , " .
, '
.. ....
...... ,
. ' . .
. t. '. . >
\{~". /.I..~~":J:;l-;.~...t'.~:~,1:!!~(i'~~J~:~;~~~"\:'::~J!'~~I.~:\',: ~:t~ ~'..:":\~,~~:t ~}{"~~'I ~':."f ~"':\:"~, ....~~...~:.~\... ': " ' :, '". ".' '. .
+ '~'. .~ . .,
.. ~..'. ~ ',' .>. '........;. ., '~: :.". .-n.', >. . " I
.< ~.,::.,{ '..:'. I.,'.~: ..~..:r...;./'''.~\....:.~ ...>.'~.:~ -;~ \. ',~' .\.:.>:~:ti";\~
'.-......
" \
, ,
'.
\
COMMISSION
City Commission Minutes
"'0
. Date ~ /(P ~ 1'l9S-
,
-!-/r;s-7
"
..<>.
u
,
I
)
1
\
(
(
I
i
,
. . '
. . . . ' ~.: . I .' I . . '.' I , > . . .
'~::~.'t'V,[,,';'J~'. "
}~:r ~: 1 .';,
g/:'L,J' ::,
'I'.
,~
~.. . ~
ACTION AGENDA. CLEARWATER CITY COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, March 16, 1995 - 6~OO P.M. . Chambers
Welcome. We are glad to have you join us. If you wish to speak please wait to be recognized, then
state your ~ and address. Persons speaking before the City Commission on other than Public
Hearing items shall be limited to 3 minutes. No person shall speak more than once on the same
subject unless granted permission by the City Commission. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY
REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING,
SHOULD CALL 8131462-6684.
1. Invocation
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Service Awards
4. Introductions and Awards
5. Presentations
6. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting
3/2/9~
7. Citizens to be heard ra items not on the
Agenda (maximum of 30 minutes)
1. Rev. Otis Green, Everybody's Tabernacle.
2. Mayor.
3. 1 award presented
Employee of the Month 3/95 . Charles
McAbee, Public Works Department.
4. Proclamation: GFWC Florida Federation
Centennial Celebration Day 4/2/95.
5. None.
6. Approved as submitted.
7. Dina Atkins questioned jf the Commission
was aware bubbles are forming under her
mother's vinyl floor. Complained that
minutes do not accurately reflect her
comments.
,.,hl',~
~' )
> ,'7"f"'"
PUBLIC HEARINGS
All individuals speaking on public hearing items will be sworn-in.
Not Before 6~OO P.M.
Variance public hearings:
Staff states and summarizes reasons for recommendation (2 minutes).
Applicant presents case. Witness may be cross-examined (1 5 minutes).
Staff presents further evidence. May be cross-examined (10 minutesl.
Public comment (3 minutes per speaker).
City Commission discussion, and may question any witness.
Applicant may call witnesses in rebuttal (5 minutes).
Conclusion by applicant (3 minutes).
Decision.
8. Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property
located at 1520 N. McMullen Booth Rd'l
South Oaks Fashion Square, Lot 1 (Goral
Tov, lTD/Musicana Dinner Theatre, SV95-
09Hep)
8. Approved variance of 1 window sign to
permit 4, area variance of 290.5 sq. ft. to
allow 440.5 sq. ft. of attached signs, and
ratio variance of 2.9 sq. ft. to allow 4.4
sq. ft. of attached sign area per foot of
building width.
~"J 3/16/95
1
, . ". .' : ~.',' '. ~ . , . ..,.. . .' .'
,'~, "';'" ,:"
h:.r,t.,(, ~ ,J - .
~(:r-~~ '::..,. .
.y, ~> .r
,~9.
\1
.t:'
," '"....
, "
9. Approved variance of 1 freestanding sign to
permit 2, and area variance of 45 sq.ft. to
allow freestanding signs with a cumulative
area of 93 sq. ft. subject to the condition
there shall be no additional freestanding
signs on this property.
10. Approved area variance of 10 sq.ft. to allow
74 sq. ft. of attached signs.
Administrative public hearings:
Presentation of issues by City staff.
Statement of case by applicant or representative (5 minutes).
Commission questions.
Comments in support and in opposition (3 minutes per speaker).
Commission questions.
Final rebuttal by applicant or representative (5 minutes).
Commission disposition
'.-...')
j ,
....-
1
\-../ 3/16/95
.../ :
Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property
located at 1060 Gulf Blvd., Sec. 17-29-15,
M&B 32.00 (PinelJas County/Sand Key
Park, SV95-1 2){CPl
10.
Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property
located at 675 S. Gulfview Blvd./ Bayside
Sub. No.5, Blk Ct Lots 12-15 (Continental
Towers, 8V95-14)(CP)
11 .
Referred to staff.
11.
Public Hearing - Declare surplus W 159' of
city owned "parkway" abutting N boundary
of Lot 12, Blk 8, Country Club Addition for
the purpose of granting a revocable, non-
exclusive, month to month, ingress/egress
easement to Dean Roofing and Sheet Metal,
Inc., for $1 (EN)
Public Hearing & First Reading (Barnett
Bank of Pinellas County)(CP) :
A) Ord. #5776-95 - CG Zoning for Loveland
Sub., Lots 19-21, part of Lot 18 & 22, and
part of Sec. 27-29-15, part of M&B 21.01
& 21.011 1294-12)
8) Ords. #5772-95 & #5773-95 - Land Use
Plan Amendment to Commercial General &
eN Zoning for Loveland Sub., Lots 3 & 4,
and part of Sec. 27-29-15/ part of M&B
21.011 (LUP94-34, 294-13)
C) Ords. #5774-95 & #5775-95 - land Use
Plan Amendment to Preservation & P
Zoning for a & b: a) Sec. 27-29-15, part of
M&B 21.011/ b) Sec. 27.29-15, part of
M&B 21.01 & 21.011 (LUP94-33/ 294-14)
01 Ords. #5785-95 & #5786-95 - Land Use
Plan Amendment to Residential/Office
General & OL Zoning for Loveland Sub.,
lots 14-17, part of lot 18, and part of Sec.
12.
Approved.
12.
A) Ord. #5776-95 passed 1 st reading.
B) Ords. #5772-95 & #5773-95 passed 1 st
reading.
C) Ords. #5774-95 & #5775-95 passed 1 st
reading.
D) Ords. #5785-95 & #5786-95 passed 1 st
reading. .
2
. I . .' ~ . " 4 . ~ I '. " , " .'
~c;'"i';.';~'.'~ ,." ;, ,'.', ,
't~1',I\:<"i, .,: ',,' '
.;{.;oo-~l~"t.:,~"':".'" ,".
",~, '. , '
,.oj>, :. . .
~ I . ~,' (.,
'. . . . "~ . > \ ' ::'
1)
'-' 13.'
27-29-15, part of M&B 21.01 & 21.011
(LUP95~05, Z95-01)
Public Hearing & First Reading Ords.
#5783-95 & #5784-95 - land Use Plan
Amendment to Commercial General & CI
Zoning ior property located in Lake
Belleview Addition, Blk 1 Lots 1-22 and Blk
2, Lots 1-16 (re Lakeview Avenue Zoning
Study) (CP)
Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5768-
95 ~ LOCA re Infill Commercial District
(lDCA95-02) rCP)
Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5782-
95 - LDCA re additional permitted and
conditional uses for the IL Zoning District
(lDCA95-04HCP)
(Cont. from 2/2/951 Public Hearing & First
Reading Ords. #5741~95& #5742-95-
land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial
General & CPO Zoning for property located
at 509 Bayview Ave. & 508 Meadow Lark
Lane, McMullen Bayview Sub., Tract A, Blk
3, lots 1 & 2 and S 1/2 of r-o-w to the N
(R. Roy MeaQor, LUP93-43, Z93-54)(CP) -
Request by applicant to Cont. to 4f20J95
14.
15.
16.
/"-.\
'..J
'.f,
'..
13.
Approved. Ords. #5783-95 & #5784-95
passed 1st reading.
14.
Approved. Ord. #5768-95 passed 1 st
reading.
15.
Approved. Ord. #5782-95 passed 1 st
reading.
16.
Continued to 4/20/95.
Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances
17. Ord. #5765.95 - LDCA rescinding existing
Sec. 36.038 eliminating the North
Greenwood Design Review Committee;
creating Sec. 36.038 to establish a design
review board, establishing powers, duties
and jurisdiction for board (LDCA 95-01) *
1 st reading of this ordinance was
withdrawn on 3/2/95
18. Ord. #5767-95 - Relating to standard codes
for building regulations, amending Ch. 47 to
update city code with 1994 editions of
standard codes
19. Ord. #5771-95 ~ RM-8 Zoning for property
located at 1550-1570Jasmine Way, Druid
Groves, Blk A, lots 7-12 & vacated r-o-w
adjacent to west side of Lot 12 (Clearwater
Community Hospital, Z94-1 5) * 15t reading
of this ordinance on 3/2/95 was continued
to 4/20/95
\
\....) 3/16/95
1 7. Withdrawn.
18. Ord. #5767-95 adopted.
1 9. 1 st reading of this ordinance wilt be on
4/20/95. Continued.
3
. .. . ~ . '. I. " . . .',... . . _
"
. '
;~~?\'~.'l;.;":~.~..~'t.; "
1-4~'"... ". , ' "
~J:..:~'" <.l ."J"
;....,.
~20.
I I
d._" 21.
Ord. #5777~95 - 1994-95 operating budget
amendments
Ord. #5778~95 - 1994-95 capital
improvement program budget amendments
Ord. #5779.95- Amending Sec. 6.21 to
create a new definition of alcoholic
beverages
Ord. #5780~95 - Amending Art. II of Ch.
22, to create Sec. 22.59 prohibiting the
possession of alcoholic beverages on park
property
Ord. #5781-95- Amending Art. I of Ch. 21,
to create Sec. 21.16 to provide for a
definition ot solicitor and to prohibit
solicitors from entering a private residence
posted with a "No Solicitation" sign;
providing an exemption
(Cont. from 3/2/95) Ord. # 5753-95-
Relating to Downtown Development Board;
amending Sec. 2.150 to remove the power
of the Board to receive proceeds of certain
ad valorem tax; repealing Sec. 2.151 which
authorized the levy of ad valorem tax;
repealing Sec. 2.152 which provided for
millage limitations
20. Ord. #5777-95 adopted.
21. Ord. #5778-95 adopted.
22.
22. Ord. #5779-95 adopted.
23.
23. Ord. #5780.95 adopted.
24.
24. Ord. #5781-95 adopted as amended.
24a
24a Denied.
,8
25. - Special Items of widespread public interest - None.
26.
Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda
Dave Camobell commended Carrie Huntley for responding to his request that the time be displayed
during broadcast of Commission Meetings.
John Doran requested review of SUnsets at Pier 60 be scheduled for 4/6/95 agenda.
Tom Selhorst reported on activities in the Infill Commercial zone.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #27-32a) - Approved as submitted less #s 27 & 32a.
The following items require no formal public hearing and are subject to being approved in a single
motion. However, any City Commissioner or the City Manager may remove an item from the Consent
Agenda to allow discussion and voting on the item individually.
27. Approved with understanding no right~of-
way to be given to property on site plan.
27. Preliminary Site Plan for Monin. Inc. located
at 2100 Range Rd.; authorize D RC to
approve final plan subject to conditions; and
accept Open Space fee in lieu of land
dedication ICitizen's Bank of
L~ 3/16/95
4
~i:'f,:>:,::::'::'; ',','~,
~28.
'"
U 3/1 6/95
"
. .-:,:.". . I .
\-' i"
.: t. ~. : ~ 1 ~ ~, ". J ",
" '
", .',' .,,',
29.
Clearwater) (ep)
Receipt/Referral 4 Annexation, Land Use
Plan Amendment to Residential Low & RS-6
Zoning for property located at 511 Dora
Dr., Rolling Heights, lot 19 {Haglund, A95-
02, LUP95-02)(CPl
Receipt/Referral - Annexation, Land Use
Plan Amendment to Industrial limited & IL
Zoning and request to approve sewer
connection for property located at 2020
Calumet St., Clearwater Industrial Park,
parts of lot 9 {Kent, A95-03, LUP95-
03)(CPt
Receipt/Referral 4 Annexation, land Use
Plan Amendment to Residential Low & RS-8
Zoning for property located at 1 513 Laurel
Dr., Nob Hill Sub:, Lot 3 (Lugo, A95-04,
LUP95-04)(CP)
Receipt/Referral - lDCA clarifying
conditional use approval standards
(lDCA9 5-061 (CP)
Receipt/Referral - lOCA ra Adult Day Care
(lDCA95-07HCP)
Pasco County Territorial Settlement with
Peoples Gas System (GAS)
30.
31.
32.
32a
, ,"\~,I.:. :,; ,
."',.."< . ~\I:;~';~
, ~ ,';Ie
32a Approved.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
33. Final Site Plan for Bayside Nursing Pavilion
located at western portion of existing
Bayview Gardens Continuing Care
Retirement Community; approve subject to
ORe & P&Z conditions (The Morton Plant
Hospital Association)(CP)
34. Final Site Plan for Morton Plant Central
Utility Plant located on S. Ft. Harrison Ave.,
between Grand Central Ave. & Pinellas St.;
approve subject to conditions (Morton Plant
Health Systems, Ine.HeP)
35. Preliminary Site Plan for the Trade Center
located between Cleveland St.t Garden AVe.
& Park S1., authorize ORC to review, and
return final plan to Commission tor approval
subject to conditions (TsafatinosHCP) *To
be Cont.
\
,
33. Approved subject to conditions.
34, Approved subiect to conditions.
35. Continued for 2 months.
5
. . . . . ...". I ~. . ~ '. .
'~~~':~:-'~(.\:':/ ;;. ,/ '~' .:~:,.::;::",':'/: :"::
: .,~ ,~' . .
;' ~ I.
, ;':,,~,
,-",36. Res. #95~27 - extending the deadline for
the Occupational License Equity Study
Commission report on the occupational
license tax structure to 6/15/95 (CPl
37. Other Pending Matters
al Selection of energy system for Municipal
Services Building & Pollee Department
36. Res. #95-27 adopted.
37. a) Denied additional expenditures, return to
original plan.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
38. Resolutions
a) Res. #95-26 - Assessing property owners
costs of mowing or clearing owners' lots
b) Res. #95-25 - Unsafe Building Abatement
Costs Lien - 310 Pennsylvania Ave., Plaza
Park Sub., Blk C, Lot 1 & part of Lot 2
(Kenneth & Betsy Roush)
39. Other City Attorney Items
38. a) Res. #95-26 adopted.
b) Res. #95-25 adopted.
39. Res. #95-33 adopted re Tourist
Development Tax.
I
40. City Manager Verbal Reports
(:):~:
Commission Discussion Items
Other Commission Action
40. CM recommended canceling 3/20/95
Strategic Planning Session. Consensus to
do so.
41. None.
42. Berfield questioned who would be
responding to a letter re sidewalks on
Highland Avenue.
Berfield reviewed '95 Legislative Bulletin;
requested City position be forwarded to
legislature.
Thomas requested consideration of Res.
#95-35 changing Commission Rules to
change Monday meetings to worksessions.
Res. #95-35 adopted.
Deeqan noted several items he wished to
bring up and pass on as this was his last
meeting: 1) Bayview Historic Area
Designation, 2) Designating McMullen
Booth as a Scenic Corridor, and 3)
additional gas tax to fund PST A.
Garvev referred to a letter from John Doran
requesting second beach tourism survey be
done in July rather than May. Consensus
to do in May.
43. 1 :20 a.m. 13/17/95)
43. Adjournment
V 3/16/95
6
'.
. '...
~").1l'>+..j""C"" .,'1
~;t~.:,::,' ,~ ,.;., .'
"
}', '...
, "
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
"
March 16, 1995
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall,
Thursday, March 16, 1995 at 6:00 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
Willialn C. Baker
Pamela K. Akin
Scott Shuford
Rich Baier
Cynthia E. Goudeau
Patricia Sullivan
Mayor/Commissioner
Vice-Mayor/Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
Central Permitting Director
City Engineer
City Clerk
Board Reporter
....~L
U
The Mayor called the meeting to order. The invocation was offered by Reverend
Otis Green of Everybody's Tabernacle. 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
One service award was presented to a City employee.
Charles McAbee, Public Works Department, was presented the March 1995
Employee of the Month award.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards
Proclamation: General Federation of Women's Clubs (GFWC) Florida Federation
Centennial Celebration Day - April 2, 1995.
ITEM #5 - Presentations - None.
ITEM #6 - Aooroval of Minutes
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of
March 2, 1995, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each
Commissioner. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
....,.........:
mincc03c.95
1
03/16/95
1':,,;
, -......,
ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Aaenda
Dina Atkins questioned if the Commission knew her mother's vinyl floor, installed
four years ago by change order to a COBG funded contract, is bubbling. Ms. Atkins
complained the minutes of her remarks at previous Commission meetings were not
recorded verbatim and did not accurately reflect her comments. She requested her
concerns be addressed in writing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #8 - Variance(s) to Sign Regulations far property located at 1520 N. McMullen Booth
Rd., South Oaks Fashion Square, Lot 1 (Goral Tov, LTD/Musicana Dinner Theatre, SV95-
09HCP)
The applicant is requesting: 1) a variance of one window sign to permit four
window signs; 2) an area variance of 290.5 square feet from the permitted 1 50 square
feet to allow 440.5 square feet of attached signs; and 3) a ratio variance of 2.9 square
feet of attached sign area per foot of building width to allow 4.4 square feet of attached
sign area per foot of building width.
The subject property, in the South Oaks Fashion Square on the southwest corner of
McMullen-Booth Road and SR 590, is zoned Industrial Planned Development. The variance
is requested to permit the existing attached signs to remain. The Musicana Dinner Theatre
has five attached signs that do not conform to code because they are larger than
permitted. Four of the signs are the same type and the ratio of sign area to building width
',.j is exceeded.
The five signs have a cumulative area of 440.5 square feet, approximately three
times the code allowance. The business' primary sign is 148 square feet and attached to
the building facade over the entryway. The other four are window signs. By removing the
window signs, the business would comply with the sign code but, given the limited
visibility and low impact of these signs, little public purpose would be served. Visibility is
limited because the adjoining street right-af.way is a considerable distance from the
building front and the property's topography diminishes the visibility of the signs from the
street. The signs are approximately 600 feet from McMullen-Booth Road and the property
is steeply inclined near the roadway. Staff feels the existence of 440.5 square feet of
attached signs will not detract from nearby businesses that have conforming signs and will
not adversely affect the appearance of the property or the City.
Senior Planner John Richter noted the request is for three times the permitted
slgnage, a large variance.
Jack Lascha, Musicana Dinner Theatre President, verified pictures of the property
presented him by Mr. Richter.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if approval of the requested variance would
permit the theater to convert the signage to neon or moving characters. Mr. Richter stated
the signage variance would not allow a different type of sign.
',,-- '
mincc03c.95
2
03/16/95
It<-> ~:':" . .
'" .
-,
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the following variances: 1) a variance of
one window sign to permit four window signs; 2) an area variance of 290.5 square feet
from the permitted 150 square feet to allow 440.5 square feet of attached signs; and 3) a
ratio variance of 2.9 square feet of attached sign area per foot of building width to allow
4.4 square feet of attached sign area per foot of building width, on property identified as
South Oaks Fashion Square, Lot 1, for meeting Sec. 45.24 Standards for Approval, items
(1 H4) and that the silhouette signs be maintained. The m~tion was duly seconded and
canied unanimously.
ITEM #9 ~ Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 1060 Gulf Blvd., Sec. 17~
29~15, M&B 32.00 (Pinellas County/Sand Key Park, SV95~12)(CP)
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1} a variance of one
freestanding sign to permit two freestanding signs and 2) an area variance of 45 square
feet from the permitted 48 square feet to allow freestanding signs with a cumulative area
of 93 square feet.
The subject property is located on the west side of Gulf Blvd., south of Clearwater
Pass, and is in the Public/Semipublic zoning district. The variance is requested to permit
the existing freestanding signs to remain. Sand Key Park is identified with two signs, one
more than allowed by code. Each sign has an area of 46.5 square feet. Code permits a
total of 48 square feet.
Special circumstances favor variance approval. Most freestanding signs are double-
faced. The two panels at Sand Key Park are not mounted back.to~back but are mounted
on walls abutting the entrance drive. The signs are located 91 feet from the Gulf Blvd.
right-of~way, a substantial distance. Erecting a back~to.back sign five feet from the Gulf
Blvd. right~of~way would not advance the City's traffic safety or aesthetic interests and
would serve no purpose. Staff feels the continued existence of these two freestanding
signs with a cumulative area of 93 square feet will not detract from properties that have
conforming signs and will not adversely affect the appearance of Sand Key or the City
Fred Bruder, representative for the applicant, verified the pictures of the property
presented him by Mr. Richter. Mr. Bruder indicated the signs help with the heavy traffic by
the park from Spring Break through October.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the following variances: 1) a variance of
one freestanding sign to permit two freestanding signs and 21 an area variance of 45
square feet from the permitted 48 square feet to allow freestanding signs with a
cumulative area of 93 square feet, on property identified as Sec. 17-29-15, M&B 32.00,
for meeting Sec. 45.24 Standards for Approval, items (1 )-(4), subject to the following
condition: There shall be no additional freestanding signs on this property. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM 1f1 0 ~ Variance(s) to Sian Reoulations for property located at 675 S. Gulfview Blvd.,
Bayside Sub. No.5, Blk. C, Lots 12-15 (Continental Towers, SV95-14)(CP)
mincc03c.95
3
03/16/95
. ' . . . ,_ ...... . ...... ,,",'~ " ".' ~. ,'.:. . ",' , .. I. . ~ _.
"
~"it. ' , .
"rO."
"
The applicant is requesting an area variance of 1 0 square feet from the permitted
64 square feet to allow 74 square feet of attached signs.
The subject property, east of the Bayview Blvd. intersection on the south side of S.
Gulfview Blvd., is zoned Resort Commercial 28. The variance is requested to allow the
"Continental Towers" sign, attached to the north face of the building, to remain.
This condominium is identified to the public with letters affixed to the building's
north face that spell "Continental Towers." To minimize the variance request, the sign
area is computed by taking the sum of the area of the two words measured separately and
the space between the words is not included. This measurement technique is permissible
because the code allows a maximum of three wall signs. The attached sign area is 74
square feet, 10 more than permitted by code.
Special circumstances support granting this variance. The variance is minimal and
only deviates from code by 16%. The sign is in scale with the 12~story building on 1.5
acres., The public benefit derived from strict enforcement of the code would pale in
comparison to the hardship imposed upon the applicant to reconstruct the sign, which is
the only sign on the building and the property. The existence of 74 square feet of
attached signs is in character with the scale of the development of this property and wlll
not divert attention from nearby land uses. Granting this'variance will not detract from
properties with conforming signs and will not adversely affect the appearance of the area
or the City.
Skip Andrade, representative for the applicant, verified pictures of the property
presented him by Mr. Richter.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve an area variance of 10 square feet from
the permitted 64. square feet to allow 74 square feet of attached signs, on property
identified as Lots 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block C, Bayside Subdivision No.5, for meeting
5ec.45.24 Standards for Approval, items (1 H4). The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
ITEM #11 - Public HearinQ - Declare surolus W 159' of city owned "parkway" abutting N
boundary of Lot 12, Blk. 8, Country Club Addition for the purpose of granting a revocable,
non-exclusive, month to month, ingress/egress easement to Dean Roofing and Sheet Metal,
Inc., for $1 (EN)
K.A. Williams owns Dean Roofing, 506 N Greenwood Avenue, and Lot 12, Block 8,
Country Club Addition, a vacant lot loned Low Density Residential across the street, on
the east side of Greenwood Avenue. For many years, Mr. Williams has stored vehicles and
mobile roofing equipment on the lot. Residential neighbors have requested Mr. Williams to
construct a privacy fence to screen the stored equipment from view. Mr. Williams applied
for a City permit to construct a driveway apron on Greenwood Avenue to proved access
through the propose fence. Central Permitting will not approve the driveway apron
independent of the property's development.
'-
mincc03c.95
4
03/16/95
,: '" . #. I.......... , . .:. , . .. ",:, ~ I . , .... .... :
oJ \~":~': '
'., d
....-..,.
The City owns a 40~foot wide strip of vacant land identified as "Parkway" on the
plat of County Club Addition. The strip, running from Greenwood Avenue to Betty Lana,
separates Mr. Williams' lot from the CSX Railroad right-ot-way to the north and has a
driveway cut on Greenwood. Granting Dean Roofing ingress/egress across the parcel
would allow Mr. Williams to completely fence Lot 12 without permitting a driveway apron
onto the lot from Greenwood Avenue.
Conditional to the easement grant, Dean Roofing, at its expense, would install
bollards with a 12-foot opening transversed by cable and secured with a City lock at one
end and a Dean Rooting lock at the other, permitting both parties access to the premises.
The easement may be terminated by the City at time with 30 days written notice to Dean
Roofing.
City Engineer Rich Baier said staff recommended approval to allow the applicant to
install fencing to shield neighbors from a view of the equipment.
."",,
J
'",."".
Commissioner Thomas questioned why the property had to be declared surplus and
if a driveway could be permitted without that declaration. The City Attorney indicated she
had not researched that issue. She said if the City wants to grant any sort of interest in
the land, it must tirst declare it "surplus." Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford said
the City has worked through the Code Enforcement Team to negotiate with the property
owner and adjoining neighbors and solve this longstanding problem with equipment storage
and the overgrowth of the lot. Commissioner Thomas questioned why the City does not
sell the property. He noted Dean Roofing has been trespassing all these years and staff
proposes to give away a City lot for $1 a year. Mayor Garvey suggested this would help
the economic viability of a local company.
Assistant City Manager William Baker questioned if the City owned the subject
property. The City Attorney indicated she did not know. Mr. Shuford thought the property
was right-af-way. Mr. Baker said if that is correct, a City engineer can issue a right-ot-way
utilization permit. Mr. Baier recommended staff review the proposal and see jf a right-of-
way utilization permit would be appropriate.
Commissioner Thomas said if Dean Roofing has been using City property for years
without maintaining it, the City is at fault. He recommended the permit include a condition
that Dean Roofing maintain a clean piece of property.
Commissioner Berfield questioned jf the owner has indicated an interest in buying
the subject property. Mr. Shuford said because of future use, the City did not want to give
up the property.
Commissioner Thomas moved to refer this issue back to staff. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #12 - Public HearinQ & First ReadinQ (Barnett Bank of Pinellas County)(CP) :
'--
mincc03c.95
5
03/16/95
, . '. , ' . _ i.~ " " . " . , '. ' .
, . ,- ',~,
! .....~:
-',
The subject property is between Greenwood Avenue and Missouri Avenue on the
south side of Belleair Road. The applicant wishes to develop the upland portion of the
property as commercial and limited office and to designate the wetlands as preservation.
On January 19, 1995. the City Commission received a separate application for the replat
which will divide the property so each proposed zoning district is composed of one or more
lots. The applicant's development program proposes demolishing the Barnett Bank building
and constructing a new Barnett Bank at the southeast corner of the property on Missouri
Avenue. Walgreens Drug and liquor stores will be constructed at the property's northeast
corner near the intersection of Belleair Road and Missouri Avenue. The applicant has
received conditional use approval for package liquor sales for Walgreens.
At the time of receipt and referral, decreasing the intensity of upland property west
of the proposed Walgreens to buffer residential property to the north and west was
discussed. The applicant modified his application to request a Future Land Use Plan
Classification of Residential/Office General with zoning of Limited Office for these five lots.
These designations will allow either office or residential development of up to 1 5 units par
acre. The Land Development Code sets a minimum area of two acres for a new Limited
Office District. unless the City Commission agrees to a reduced area. Staff believes the
desirability of buffering the commercial district from existing residential properties justifies
this undersized district.
J
-..r'"
The property at the southeast corner of Bellealr Road and Greenwood Avenue has a
Future Land Use of Residential Urban. The existing grandfathered, nonconforming fruit
stand will remain. The southwest corner of this intersection is in the County and has a
Future Land Use of Commercial General with a zoning of C-2. The use of this property is a
retail fish market/fruit stand. The northeast corner is vacant and is in the City with a
Future Land Use of Commercial General and zoned Neighborhood Commercial. The
northwest corner of this intersection is in the City and has a Future land Use of Residential
Urban with Single-Family Residential "Eight" zoning. The lots, used for single-family
residential, run from Ewing Avenue to Greenwood Avenue. The first two houses front
Ewing Avenue. .
, ... ...~.
The lots along Selleair Road east of the applicant's property are in the County and
developed as single-family residential. The house next to the property proposed to be
zoned Neighborhood Commercial has a home business, Carl's Saw Shop, which appears to
cater to walk-in and customer delivery and pickup.
The proposed amendments would assign the same Future Land Use as presently
exists on two of the corners and the same zoning as presently assigned by the City to the
northeast corner. The proposed zoning would legitimize the existing retail use.
SWFWMD has defined the jurisdictional boundaries of the wetlands which the
applicant has fenced. The Future Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas Amendments to
Preservation will delineate these wetlands on the Future Land Use Map.
The property at the southwest corner of Belleair Road and Missouri Avenue is
--
mincc03c.95
6
03/16/95
, " \. ' , " , . ',., " -
~~:"i. ._,'
presently zoned Commercial Center and is proposed to be subdivided into lots that will be
independently developed. The proposed General Commercial zoning is more appropriate
for this type of development than the current Commercial Center zoning. No Future Land
Use Plan Amendment is involved for this part of the subject property as it already has a
Future Land Use Plan Classification of Commercial General.
Mr. Shuford said the original proposal to extend commercial zoning down Belleair
Road was modified to place office zoning along a portion of the property abutting Bellealr
Road. On February 28, 1995, the Planning & Zoning Board unanimously recommended
approval of this Land Use Plan and zoning change. He reviewed a map of the property and
pointed out the large fenced wetland and preservation area. He noted staff's
recommendation to change some commercial zoning to office to provide a buffer between
commercial and residential uses. Ha noted although the City's boundary with Largo is
normally Bellaair Road, this area had been kept within the City's jurisdiction. He
recommended it remain part of the City. '
Michael Smith indicated he was present to represent the applicant.
~~"~h
Commissioner Thomas questioned what would be placed on the lots proposed to be
designated "limited office. II Mr. Shuford did not know. He said this zoning change does
not relate to any site plans received from the applicant. He said low intensity office uses
would be permitted. Commissioner Thomas noted the residential houses on the lots and
referred to his request to maintain a residential buffer. Mr. Shuford said medium density
residential or low intensity office will buffer the residences from the Walgreens
development. Commissioner Thomas questioned how many apartments or offices could be
built on those lots. Mr. Smith indicated the applicant had no plans for developing those
parcels at this time. Mr. Shuford estimated eight residential units or 5,000 square foot of
offices could be constructed on those lots. He will issue a memorandum confirming his
calculations' before second reading. ,,\
;
"~-/
Commissioner Berfield verified that construction of the Walgreens is not planned for
the subject property. Mr. Shuford agreed.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve applications for: 1) Future Land Use Plan
Amendment to Commercial General and Zoning Atlas Amendment to Neighborhood
Commercial for Lots 3 and 4, Loveland Subdivision and Part of the Northeast 1/4 of the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 27-29~15, a triangular portion at the northwest corner of M&B
1 2/011 ; 2) Future Land Use Plan Amendment to and Zoning Atlas Amendment to
Preservation for Part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27-29-15,
consisting of Westerly Part of M&B 21/011 less a triangular portion in its Northwest
corner; 3) Future Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential/Office General and Zoning Atlas
Amendment to Limited Office for Lots 14 through 17 and Part of Lot 18. Loveland
Subdivision; and 4) Future Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General for Lots 19
through 21 and Part of Lots 18 and 22, Loveland Subdivision, plus M&8 21/01 , and the
Easterly Part of M&B 21/011 both being part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 27-29-25. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
---
mincc03c.95
7
03/16/95
.' . 1-. .,' .. ," . ' . J " ' . " ": ., . . . I .' . . I .. .~,
~:.:j'~ ,I~: .. ,
._....~
A) Ord. #5776-95 - CG Zoning for Loveland Sub., Lots 19-21, part of Lot 18 & 22, and
part of Sec. 27-29-15, part of M&B 21.01 & 21.011 (Z94-12)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5776-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance 115776-95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayest!: Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
B) Ords. #5772-95 & #5773-95 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General & eN
Zoning for Loveland Sub., Lpts 3 & 4, and part of Sec. 27-29-15, part of M&B 21.011
(LUP94-34, Z94-13)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5772-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance 1/5772-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
l
, .,-",,/
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 1/5773-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5773-95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
C) Ords. #5774-95 & #5775-95 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Preservation & P Zoning
for a & b: a) Sec. 27-29-15, part of M&8 21.011, b) Soc. 27-29-15, part of M&B 21.01 &
21.011 (LUP94-33, Z94-14)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5774-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5774-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
nAyes": Fitzgerald. Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5775-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5775-95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call. the vote was:
'--. ,.
mincc03c.95
8
03/16/95
/'
"
~\~ '
.',
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
D) Ords. #5785-95 & #5786-95 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential/Office General
& OL Zoning for Loveland Sub., Lots 14-17, part of lot 18, and part of Sec. 27-29-15,
part of M&B 21.01 & 21.011 (LUP95-05, 295-01)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5785-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5785-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5786-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5786-95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roU call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
",-.,,,<'
ITEM #13 - Public Hearina & First Readina Ords. #5783-95 & #5784-95 - Land Use Plan
Amendment to Commercial General & CI Zoning for property located in Lake Belleview
Addition, 81k. 1 Lots 1-22 and Blk. 2, Lots 1-16 (re lakeview Avenue Zoning Study) (CP)
On December 1, 1994, the City Commission approved rezoning several properties in
the lakeview Road zoning Study area. The Commission postponed action on rezoning
other properties until staff could modify the permitted and conditional use lists for the Infill
Commercial District to accommodate areas of concern.
Following this direction, staff prepared two ordinances amending the Land
Development Code. The first ordinance, adopted February 16, 1995, establishes a
requirement that prohibits driveways crossing a residential zoning boundary to serve a
nonresidential use, unless no other access is feasible. The second ordinance amends the
permitted and conditional use lists for the Infill Commercial Zoning District and is scheduled
for Commission consideration tonight.
Mr. Shuford stated the subject area is on lakeview Avenue east of Ft. Harrison to
Ewing Street. He noted the Commission recently adopted an ordinance that precluded
commercial access across a residential zone. He indicated these proposed changes will
require a lengthy review process through the Pine lias Planning Council (PPC) and the State.
The Mayor noted letters of opposition have been received.
mincc03c.95
9
03/16/95
. .'. .. . . '. , , : I ' '. . '. . ~ '. I. .,.., .' I : . :.. ~ ," I
--
Steven Infinger opposed the proposed rezoning because it would result in adverse
effects to the area. He noted the subject property is less than 100 yards from lake
Bellevue and expressed concern that stormwater runoff will drain into the lake. He said the
influx of professional offices improved the area and recommended maintaining current
zoning. Mr. Shuford said redevelopment will result in a better situation regarding
stormwater runoff than presently exists. Mr. Baier said developers will be required to treat,
and attenuate according to the City's standards. Mr. Baker pointed out it is not legal to
discharge hydraulic fluid or oils into the lake. He said the City will send someone to check
if illegal materials are being discharged.
John Horton said every house on Lake Bellevue has signed a petition against the
proposed zoning change. He said this would be the only place on lakeview Avenue zoned
commercial. He said storm drains go directly into the lake and runoff will increase witt'.'
commercial development. He expressed concern that dumpsters and increased traffic will
not be conducive to residential neighborhood. He recommended the zoning not be
changed.
Pauline Starr felt erecting a fence to separate commercial and residential uses is not
practical. She said the policy is inconsistent as she was previously denied a permit to
teach sculpture in a nearby studio because of City concerns regarding increased traffic.
She objected to the change and its effect on fish, birds and wildlife around the lake. She
noted the change will disrupt the peace of the nearby cemetery. She requested the
Commission view the subject property to see it is not suitable for commercial development.
Edward Smith said he wants nothing more than to improve his property. He said
there has been a misconception about his business, a starter and alternator rebuilding
shop. His business does n9t pollute the environment, perform oil changes or brake jobs.
He presented a colorized pIcture of the proposed 2,400 square foot addition 'at his site if
the change is approved.
Commissioner Thomas questioned how long Mr. Smith has been in business at that
location. Mr. Smith said 16 years. Commissioner Thomas questioned if a business had
been located on that site previously. Mr. Smith stated Harland Engineering laboratories, a
commercial business, occupied the site for 1 5 to 20 years before that. Commissioner
Thomas said commercial businesses have occupied this site for 35 years and noted Mr.
Smith's plan to improve the property includes storm water retention to improve water
quality in the lake.
The Mayor noted medical facilities, permitted under Limited Office zoning, result in
higher traffic and more disposal problems than the proposed zoning. Mr. Shuford
confirmed that was true. Commissioner Thomas said it was important to realize that
development of new properties has not been planned.
Commissioner Deegan said the one facility has been there as a non-conforming use
for some time. He expressed concerns a new commercial district will be created along the
entire strip. Mr. Shuford agreed the use has been non-conforming for quite some time.
mincc03c.95
10
03/16/95
i~. c~:' ' r..
,\
-...,
Other buildings, including the flower shop, are also non-conforming uses. He said this
change will provide the opportunity to keep this business in Clearwater. A conditional use
permit and development review will be required before the property is developed as
proposed. The Mayor said she is very familiar with the arBa and noted other non-
conforming uses exist.
Commissioner Deegan noted traffic can be limited to Lakeview Avenue. He
questioned if the zoning line is centered on Dempsey Street. Mr. Shuford said the legal
description designates the zoning line runs along the southern border so no commercial
development can access Dempsey Street. The Mayor noted the intent was to not permit
commercial traffic on Dempsey. Commissioner Deegan said medical office traffic also
would have to stay on Lakeview Avenue. Commissioner Thomas stated the Commission
had previously addressed keeping commercial traffic off Dempsey Street and permitting
access to commercial uses off lakeview Avenue only. Mr. Shuford agreed that ordinance
had been adopted and is on the books. He noted the Commission had also directed staff '
to remove indoor recreation, gasoline stations and convenience stores from the permitted
use list and make them conditional uses.
Mr. Smith assured the residents that his sole interest is to continue his business and
beautify the area. He indicated his expansion is mostly for warehouse space.
t.,;~~
Mr. Horton said a small rezoning is not being proposed. The subject property
covers two city blocks. He said the only commercial uses are the alternator shop and the
flower shop, which has been condemned and is to be torn down. He objected to changing
the zoning to commercial and expanding commercial uses. The Mayor said, according to
the map, this is an area that is commercial. Mr. Shuford noted the maps have not been
updated since the area to the west was recently rezoned lnfill Commercial from
Neighborhood Commercial. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the subject property is
south of Public/Semi-Public. Mr. Shuford said the subject property is on the north side of
the street, west of Myrtle and is currently zoned Limited Office. Commissioner Deegan
noted the Commission had addressed the area west of Myrtle and had delayed approval of
zoning changes here until first limiting some permitted uses by requiring conditional
approval.
Tom Sehlhorst said his business' location near residential property is similar. He
said similar businesses will deteriorate if they are not permitted to expand. He
recommended allowing the alternator business to expand as long as it does not take over
the neighborhood. He said the planned construction will look good.
Keith Estes, owner of property on both sides of the alternator business, said if Mr.
Smith is unable to expand, he will move his business to another area. He recommended
the business be allowed to continue in its present location. He stated the business does
not have five bays and does not serve normal automotive repair accounts. He said the
back of the proposed building will be beautified with landscaping. He recommended this
type of buffer extend up Dempsey Street. He recommended the City, residents and
neighborhood association cooperate for a weJl.run neighborhood. He felt the change would
mincc03c.95
11
03/16/95
~:~~: . '. .
,'..
-..
be beneficial ta the residents and those who wish ta expand some commercial uses. He
predicted this change will work out fairly for both parties. He said as development occurs,
stormwater runoff and spillage into the lake will decrease. He stated Mr. Smith has
planned to mave the trailer and place the lift inside the building.
Rabert Gregg, architect of the site plan, said Mr. Smith's intent is far the building's
design ta look more office-like and less industrial. The large area of landscaping in the rear
will include retention ponds and will limit runoff. He noted this type of expansion was
permitted when Mr. Smith purchased his property. Subsequent zon{ng changes limited this
ability. If the zoning is not changed, the business will move out of Clearwater. He said it
is unlikely houses will be built on this property in the future. He said the landscape buffer
will provide the residents behind with a quiet neighborhood. The Mayor noted the issue is
whether or not the zoning was appropriate; not if the Commission liked this business or
not.
Commissioner Fitzgerald said he was bothered by the extent of the proposed
rezoning. He expressed concern regarding future uses on the remaining properties in the
subject area. He questioned how future uses of the other properties will be controlled.
Mr. Shuford could offer no assurance regarding any future development in this area. He
noted the Commission was not addressing the proposed site plan. He stated any permitted
use will be allowed in the area. He noted this area has escaped past redevelopment
efforts. Limited Office zoning, in place for many years, has failed to spark development.
Mr. Shuford said Infill Commercial zoning would be compatible with the surrounding
residential uses. He felt the alternator shop could be a catalyst for redevelopment in the
area. He said the proposed area's size was chosen to provide consistency to Ewing
Avenue.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns similar to Commissioner Fitzgerald. He
noted residents do not object to the proposed redevelopment of the alternator shop and
recommended permitting spot zoning. He said there was no need to extend Infill
Commercial zoning to Ewing Avenue and spoke against overriding the wishes of Dempsey
Street residents.
Mayor Garvey reiterated that medical offices more negatively impact neighborhoods
than Limited Industrial and questioned why the current Limited Office zoning is preferable.
Mr. Infinger said Dempsey Road residents do not object to the alternator shop
cleaning and redeveloping its property. He agreed with Commissioner Deegan's view. He
said the psychiatrist office in the subject area generates minimal traffic. He opposed
industrial type development by the lake and in front of their houses.
Ms. Starr questioned who would monitor future development if the property is
rezoned. She requested not changing the zoning unless the City can guarantee that the
balance of nature and quality of life will not be disrupted. The Mayor said the City will
oversee development no matter what zoning is in place.
mincc03c.95
12
03/16/95
.....~. .. .
, ,
Mr. Horton agreed with Commissioner Deegan's recommendation. He did not
object to the proposed redevelopment of the alternator shop but did not want this type of
development to continue down Lakeview. He expressed concern the lake would be ruined.
The Mayor noted Limited Office development would also affect the Dempsey Street
neighborhood with dumpsters and protective lighting.
Commissioner Berfield said the proposod zoning change would provide an
advantage by giving citizens more protection from business development because a wall
will be required. Mr. Shuford said office developments would be required to install
perimeter landscaping. Once the zoning line on Dempsey Street is updated, office
development could not access Dempsey Street. That protection already exists. He said
residents are most concerned regarding industrial uses which are conditional uses requiring
careful review by the Planning & Zoning Board where public comment can be expressed.
This step will provide the residents with a level of protection.
Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the proposed Future Land Use Plan
Amendment and leave the zoning the way it is. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Thomas indicated he would vote against the motion unless the
Commission first solves the problem to allow the alternator business to improve itself. He
said improvement to that business would be delayed by the proposed action. Mayor
Garvey spoke against the motion and agreed with Commissioner Berfield that the proposed
changes will provide residents with added protections.
~\"'~.~
~ 4~~~t'
Commissioner Thomas questioned how long the proposed property has been zoned
Limited Office. Mr. Shuford stated approximately 10 years. Commissioner Thomas
questioned if anything has happened to this property except further decline. Mr. Shuford
said there has been little redevelopment activity. Commissioner Thomas questioned if a
landscape barrier would be required between Limited Office development and the
residences under current zoning. Mr. Shuford indicated perimeter landscaping would be
required but the offices would be permitted access to the rear of their propel.ty.
Commissioner Thomas suggested the situation for residents is worse under current
regulations. Mr. Shuford said development under both Infill Commercial and Limited Office
development would be required to install a five-foot landscape strip along Dempsey Street
and to screen all dumpsters. He indicated a great deal of difference does not exist
between the two zoning designations. Staff feels the Infill Commercial designation will
result in more redevelopment potential.
Commissioner Thomas referred to the "conditional uses" listed under Agenda Item
#14, Land Development Code Amendment - Infill Commercial District, and expressed
concern that convenience stores, indoor commercial recreation/entertainment facilities, and
gasoline stations may be allowed as conditional uses. He recommended removing some
conditional and permitted uses such as restaurants with bars. He did not want to see a
great deal of commercial development in the subject area. He indicated he would not want
some of the permitted and conditional uses occurring in his back yard. The Mayor pointed
out these concerns are similar to those of many neighborhoods that border commercial
development.
mincc03c.95
13
03/1 6/95
"
"
,..-.....
Commissioner Berfield questioned how the Myrtle/N Ft. Harrison Brea was zoned
before it was changed to Infill Commercial. Mr. Shuford said that area was zoned
Neighborhood Commercial. Although some successes have occurred since the zoning was
changed, Mr. Shuford noted a zoning change alone will not save any area. Commissioner
Berfield questioned if the Planning & Zoning Board had approved this zoning change
recommendation. Mr. Shuford indicated they had, although the vote was not unanimous.
Commissioner Deegan questioned what would happen to Mr. Smith if the motion
passed as stated. Mr. Shuford said staff would need to return to the drawing board. He
suggested the number of lots involved could be reduced and Mr. Smith could apply for a
Commercial Planned Development for his property. The City Attorney indicated the
ordinance could not be modified as suggested. Mayor Garvey said that would be spot
zoning. Mr. Shuford stated a provision in the planned development section states spot
zoning is permitted as long as the Commission concludes that rezoning an area less than 4
acres serves the public interest.
r."',
J
'\...--.,.....
Commissioner Deegan questioned if he could modify his motion to deny staff's
recommendation and permit the Commercial Planned Development for Mr. Smith's
property. The City Attorney indicated the motion represents a drastic change from the
proposal and a new ordinance would be required. Mr. Shuford said staff could expedite
the change. A City initiated ordinance requires a longer advertising requirement. He
suggested the proposed action would delay Mr. Smith's project by approximately two
months. Mayor Garvey questioned why Mr. Smith's application is good for the
neighborhood while the proposed zoning change is not. Commissioner Deegan said the
difference was between two parcels and two blocks.
Commissioner Berfield questioned how large an area was addressed on Myrtle and
Ft. Harrison. Mr. Shuford said that change was quite large and addressed more than 40
acres. The Mayor noted it is difficult to tell the difference between Infill and Neighborhood
Commercial. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern the whole area could change if the
zoning is modified all the way to Ewing Street. Mayor Garvey suggested the change might
be positive.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if delaying Mr. Smith's project by 60 to 90 days
would cause him undue harm. Mr. Smith said it would not. He indicated he has been in a
hardship situation for 10 years since he first tried to expand his business. Commissioner
Thomas expressed concern that the area has been zoned for offices for 10 years and no
one has followed through on that type of development. He stated if staff's recommended
change will increase the property's value, he agreed with it. He expressed concern that
the neighborhood not be impacted negatively. He said it was wrong to mislead Mr. Smith
because the Commission cannot assure him his application will be approved 90 days from
now. Mr. Shuford stated Infill Commercial district was developed to provide a wide range
of land uses at a neighborhood level scale. He noted controls have been added. He
thought property values would increase under the change. Uses concerning the residents
would require conditional use permit approval and site consideration by the Planning &
Zoning Board.
mincc03c.95
14
03/16/95
~t~..t.~>..~: ",
.:. .. '
.., ".
." J
.-...,
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the change is approved, if the ordinance could
be modified before second reading to exclude gasoline stations and convenience stores.
Mr. Shuford said those uses could only be excluded under a planned development type of
zoning. He said the City wants to permit these types of uses in Infill Commercial districts.
The Mayor noted that was why some permitted uses were changed to conditional uses,
requiring Planning & Zoning Board approval.
Upon the vote being taken. Commissioners Fitzgerald and Deegan voted "Aye";
Commissioners Berfield and Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion failed.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve Future land Use Plan Amendment from
Residential Office to Commercial General for Lots 1 through 22, Block 1. and Lots 1
through 19, Block 2, lake Belleview Addition, and from Transportation Utility to
Commercial General for lots 11 through 16, Block 2, lake Belleview Addition. The motion
was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield and Thomas and
Mayor Garvey voted "Aye"; Commissioners Fitzgerald and Deegan voted "Nay." Motion
carried.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5783-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5783-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas and Garvey.
()
"Nays": Fitzgerald and Deegan.
Motion carried.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5784-95 for first reading and read it by
titl~ only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5784-95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield. Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": Fitzgerald and Deegan.
Motion' carried.
ITEM #14 ~ Public HearinQ & First Reading Ord. #5768-95 ~ lDCA re Infill Commercial
District (LDCA95-02)(CP)
On December 1, 1994, the City Commission approved rezoning several properties in
the lakeview Road zoning Study area. The Commission postponed action on rezoning
other properties until staff could modify the permitted and conditional use lists for the Infill
Commercial District to accommodate areas of concern.
'.~'
mincc03c.95
15
03/16/95
/
,;
. - ~ '0:
. '-'"
Following this direction, the staff prepared an ordinance amending the permitted and
conditional use lists for the Infill Commercial Zoning District in accordance with City
Commission direction.
On February 14, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously endorsed the
adoption of this ordinance.
Mr. Shuford reported this amendment addresses the lnfill Commercial district and
changes to conditional use the permitted uses: convenience stores; indoor commercial
recreation/entertainment: and gasoline stations.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if this ordinance addresses the whole City. Mr.
Shuford indicated it does. Commissioner Thomas suggested making restaurants a
conditional use. Mr. Shuford said that could not be done with this ordinance. He
recommended against that change as restaurants are permitted under all commercial
classifications. Mayor Garvey noted not all restaurants serve alcoholic beverages.
Commissioner Thomas spoke against permitting a restaurant in the lakeview neighborhood
addressed in Item 13. He recommended tighter controls be established for areas zoned
Infill Commercia'. Mr. Shuford said that change would require a new ordinance. He
referred to the Commission's lengthy discussions on alcoholic beverages when it was
decided that restaurants should be permitted uses.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the land Development Code amendment
concerning the Infill Commercial District. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote
being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Fitzgerald and Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted
"-", "Ayen: Commissioner Deegan voted "Nay." Motion carried.
'.,..J
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5768~95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Barfield moved to pass Ordinance #5768w95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon 'roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield and Thomas and Garvey.
to Nays tt: Deegan.
Motion carried.
ITEM #15 w Public Hearing & First Readina Ord. #5782~95 ~ lDCA re additional permitted
and conditional uses for the IL Zoning District (lDCA95w04)(CP)
On December 1, 1994, the City Commission approved rezoning several properties in
the lakeview Road zoning Study area. The Commission postponed action on rezoning
other properties until staff could modify the permitted and conditional use lists for the Infill
Commercial District to accommodate areas of concern.
Following this direction, the staff prepared an ordinance amending the permitted and
conditional use lists for the Infill Commercial Zoning District according to City Commission
direction.
mincc03c.95
16
03/1 6/95
.. ~ .~
.~.. r 1>' <
,r:,: ,
" '
-,
On February 28, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously endorsed the
adoption of this ordinance.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve land Development Code amendment
concerning the InfiU Commercial District. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5782~95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5782-95 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 #16. (Cont'd from 02/02/95) Public Hearino & First Readina Ords. #5741-95 &
#5742-95. Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General & CPD Zonina for property
located at 509 Bayview Ave. & 508 Meadow Lark Lane, McMullen Bayview Sub., Tract A,
Blk. 3, Lots 1 & 2 and S 1/2 of r-o-w to the N lR. Roy Meador, LUP93-43, Z93-54HCP)-
The City Manager indicated the applicant has requested a continuance.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item until April 20, 1995. The
motion was duly seconded.
";0:..",,
; !
..........
Commissioner Deegan indicated the Commission had received a letter with 22
signatures objecting to the continuance of this issue and suggested they deserve an
answer. Mr. Shuford said he did not have a copy of the letter but knows of the frustration
expressed by neighborhood residents regarding this item. He said neighborhood residents
have been aware, for quite some time, that the applicant would request continuing this
item until April 20, 1995. Commissioner Deegan said the letter represents the
neighborhood's response. Mr. Shuford reported he and the City Manager met with a
contingent of neighbors and advised them of the recommendation for continuance. Staff
complied with the neighbors' request by posting a sign on the property regarding this
delay. He noted neither the applicant nor neighbors are in attendance.
Commissioner Deegan noted the neighbors had requested an explanation of why the
objections they had raised were not reasonable. He expressed concern that an item should
not be automatically continued because an attorney has made that request. Mr. Shuford
noted the item was advertised as a Public Hearing. Commissioner Deegan questioned the
Planning & Zoning Board's recommendation. Mr. Shuford indicated they voted 5-2 to deny
the Commercial Planned Development request. The Mayor noted in the past, the
Commission has acknowledged and granted requested continuances. Commissioner
Deegan stated that no such policy had been established. City Manager Elizabeth Deptula
said ,when she and Mr. Shuford met with the neighbors, they indicated they would strongly
recommend a continuance. She said in the past, Commission policy seemed to be that
specific reasons were not scrutinized when an applicant requested a continuance. She
stated staff addressed the concerns expressed in the letter. Ms. Deptula noted no one has
a copy of the agenda item for staff to fairly present both sides of the issue.
mincc03c.95
17
03/1 6/95
~';~.::t:' ,.;') .
."'"
Commissioner Deegan expressed concern regarding the timing of the continuance
and suggested it was done for political reasons to overcome the previous denial.
Joe Evich, representative of tho Clearwater Coalition of Homeowners' Association,
indicated his organization wrote a letter to the Planning & Zoning Board recommending the
denial of this application.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
The Commission recessed from 8:13 to 8:28 p.m.
Public Hearina - Second Readina Ordinances
ITEM #17 - Ord. #5765M95- LDCA rescinding existing Sec. 36.038 eliminating the North'
Greenwood Design Review Committee; creating Sec. 36.038 to establish a design review
board, establishing powers, duties and jurisdiction for board (LDCA 95-01)
The Mayor indicated this item is withdrawn as the first reading of this ordinance
was denied on March 2, 1995.
ITEM #18 - Ord. #5767-95 - Relating to standard codes for building regulations, amending
Ch. 47 to update city code with 1994 editions of standard codes '
.:)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5767-95 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Barfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5767-95 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 #19 - Ord. #5771-95- RM-8 Zoning for property located at 1550-1570 Jasmine
Way, Druid Groves, Blk A, Lots 7-12 & vacated r-o-w adjacent to west side of Lot 12
(Clearwater Community Hospital, 294-15)
Due to the first reading of this ordinance having been continued, Commissioner
Fitzgerald moved to continue this item. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
ITEM #20 - Ord. #5777-95 - 1994-95 operating budget amendments
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5777-95 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5777-95 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.
mincc03c.95
18
03/1 6/95
, l ~ , . . . . "/'.. . . . I"
;r~;::?'" :~~';'
.--.,
ITEM # 21 . Ord. # 5778.95 - 1994~9 5 capital improvement program budget amendments
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #6778-95 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5778-95 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nayslf: None.
ITEM #22. Qrd. #5779-95 - Amending Sec. 6.21 to create a new definition of alcoholic
beverages
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5779-95 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5779-95 on second
and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll ca~I, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald. Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #23 - Ord. #5780-95 - Amending Art. II of Ch. 22t to create Sec. 22.59 prohibiting
the possession of alcoholic beverages on park property
.,......... The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115780-95 for first reading and read it by
I \
'..../ title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5780-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: '
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #24 - Ord. #5781-95 - Amending Art. I of Ch. 21, to create Sec. 21.16 to provide
for a definition of solicitor and to prohibit solicitors from entering a private residence posted
with a "No Solicitation" sign; providing an exemption
The City Attorney distributed amendments to Ordinance #5781-95. As a point of
clarification, the words lithe premise" and lithe premisesn were amended to read "the
property. It
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115781-95 for second reading as amended
and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance
#5781-95 as amended 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.
mincc03c.95
19
03/16/95
.. " " . '.' ......... . '. < I I' ... .
~. ' . 'it
~i >,:"
.')
,-,
ITEM #24a ~ (Cont'd from 03/02/95) Ord. # 5753-95- Relating to Downtown
Development Board; amending Sec. 2.150 to remove the power of the Board to receive
proceeds of certain ad valorem tax; repealing Sec. 2.151 which authorized the levy of ad
valorem tax; repealing Sec. 2.152 which provided for millage limitations
Commissioner Fitzgerald read his March 15. 1995 memorandum. requesting this
item be continued for 30 days, pursuant to City Commission Rule 12, because he felt this
decision was consequential and should be made after the planned Downtown Development
Board (DDB) retreat.
Commissioner Thomas moved to deny Commissioner Fitzgerald's request and
offered an amendment to Rule 12. There was no second.
Commissioner Fitzgerald requested a point of order. He stated his request was
made under an existing rule and changing it at this point would be out of order. He did not
object to discussing a change to Rule 12 but noted Agenda Item #24a was being
addressed. He suggested the proper time to discuss changing Rule 1 2 would be during
Agenda Item #42, t10ther Commission Action. "
Mayor Garvey questioned how a rule could be changed in the middle of a meeting.
Commissioner Thomas stated this issue regarding the DDB has already been delayed
several times and felt further delay was political.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if he had the right to make a motion to change
........, Rule 12 at this time. The City Attorney said changing Rule 12 is not listed on this
...J meeting's agenda and the rules would have to be waived for him to bring up this item at
this time.
Commissioner Thomas moved to waive the rules regarding the normal agenda item
process. The 'motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Fitzgerald said it was ironic that Commissioner Thomas was
requesting to change a rule he had aided in instituting. He said this change is to preclude
the continuance action he had requested. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern that
this change of rules seemed to fit personal desires. He felt the proposed action is
inappropriate because the rule is specific and the action being pursued by Commissioner
Thomas would no longer permit the Commission to follow the rule that allows a
Commissioner to request a one.time continuance of an item to a date not to exceed 30
days. Commissioner Fitzgerald felt this request for a rules change was made because of
Commissioner Thomas' feelings regarding Item #24a. Commissioner Fitzgerald strenuously
objected to changing rules in midstream as grossly inappropriate. He requested the
Commission treat him with a degree of courtesy and respect his request. He stated his
rationale for continuance is good. Action to rescind the ODB's taxing authority is
irreversible.
Commissioner Fitzgerald said this action reminded him of the Commission vote to
purchase the Sun Bank building two years ago when an incoming Commissioner took great
umbrage at that action and wanted rules changed and actions reversed. He suggested
,-'
mincc03c.95
20
03/16/95
1~~. ,:> '.'
,"-.
Commissioner Thomas was requesting the same type of action regarding item #24a.
Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated Rule 12 stands and his request was based on this rule.
He knew of no reason to change the rule to prevent this request. He reiterated that action
to deny his request would be grossly inappropriate.
Commissioner Berfield stated the Commission may be able to reach an agreement
with the DDB in an amicable way. She referred to a brief paragraph she had distributed
regarding a potential agreement with the DDS and Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA). Mayor Garvey said this recommendation does not answer the question regarding a
Commissioner's right of request a continuance. Commissioner Barfield agreed but felt if
the Commission addressed her agreement, the issue could be put to rest. Mayor Garvey
noted the rule is the issue being addressed.
Commissioner Deegan said the issue on the table is the waiver of rules. The City
Attorney said, according to Robert's Rules of Order, the suspension or waiver of rules
requires a 2/3'5 vote or 4~1. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if his request would be
addressed if the motion passes. The City Attorney said if the motion passes, the
Commission will consider Commissioner Thomas' resolution to amend Rule 12. If the
motion fails. the Commission will consider Commissioner Fitzgerald's request and can
address the resolution to amend Rule 12 during "Other Commission Action. II The City
Attorney stated the motion is to waive the agenda order and discuss Commissioner
Thomas' resolution to amend Rule 12 before Commissioner Fitzgerald's request to continue
discussion of Agenda Item 24a for 30 days.
..-."\ Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas voted
'J "Aye"; Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion failed. (Super
majority required.)
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the Commission must comply with
Commissioner Fitzgerald's request to delay discussion of 24a for 30 days. The City
Attorney stated the way Rule 12 is written, the Commission "shall honor" the request.
Commissioner Deegan requested discussion. He said the rule states the request will
be honored for a one-time continuance not to exceed 30 days. He noted this was the third
request to continue this item. Commissioner Fitzgerald said this was his first request.
Commissioner Deegan stated the intent of the rule was not to permit items to constantly
be continued. He said only one request should be permitted.
The City Attorney said to be clear on the Commission'S intent, she reviewed the
minutes and listened to the tape of the Commission's discussion of this rule at the two
meetings when it was adopted. She stated one comment during the discussion when the
rule was adopted addressed the issue raised by Commissioner Deegan. The City Attorney
reported Commissioner Berfield had made a comment" . . . and each person could only
ask once." The City Attorney stated this comment implied another Commissioner could
request a continuance of the same item. Her interpretation was that the rule allows each
Commissioner to continue an item once. This interpretation is based on a comment in the
record at the time the rule was adopted.
mincc03c.95
21
03/16/95
...~~.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if his resolution regarding Rule 1 2 is adopted at
the end of the meeting, would he have the right to reconsider the ordinance at the end of
the meeting. The City Clerk stated the item can be reconsidered during this meeting if the
request is made by someone from the prevailing side. The City Attorney stated each time
a similar request for a continuance has been made in the past, the Commissioner with the
reqU13st has made a motion to continue and the Commission has voted on that motion.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to continue Agenda item 24a for 30 days. There
was no second. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated the Commission has no honor.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5753-95 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5753-95 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded.
Joe Evich complimented the City Attorney and her knowledge and research of the
issues. He extended his appreciation to Commissioner Fitzgerald and Commissioner
Deegan for their service on the Commission. Mr. Evich noted the DDS issue is not City-
wide. He suggested including in the DDB bylaws a req'uirement that businesses must
continue contributing to the DDB if the taxing authority is removed. He said this change
would permit taxing by choice and the DDB would not cease to exist. He suggested the
DDB decide how to tax itself.
I""""
"O~
Elise Winters, representing David Stone, referred to a discussion with Commissioner
Berfield regarding a possible resolution that could be fleshed out at the retreat and includes
cooperation between the CRA and ODB.
The recommendation reads: The DDB and the eRA agree that the DDB will
coordinate all programs, projects and promotions that relate to the downtown development
plan with the CRA prior to implementation. FurtHer, all programs, projects and promotions
will be consistent with the stated mission of DDS to promote and market downtown and
act in an advisory role to the City and the CRA. The purpose of this agreement is to use,
in the most efficient fashion, the resources of both the DDB and the CRA to further the
purposes and objectives of each in the redevelopment of the downtown.
Ms. Winters stated the agreement includes DDB's ordinance to which the DDS does
not object. Coordinating is something the DDB has been trying to do with the downtown
partnership. She stated no DDB member objects to this solution.
Ms. Winters, representing herself. said if the taxing authority is removed, the DDB
will face the following options: 1) Continue and try to find funding elsewhere ~ not realistic;
2) Become a non-funded advisory board to the City ~ if the issue is not resolved, another
tiff could result in arguments regarding further amendments to the ordinance; 3} Fold up
the DDB tents - this option does no good for anybody; 4) Create a totally independent
organization - downtown cooperation would be lost; and 5) Legal option - lawsuit.
Dennis Henegar requested an answer to questions he asked at the previous
meeting. It was indicated they were available for him. He said downtown property
owners have paid this tax for 20 years and all there is to show for the more than $2-million
mincc03c.95
22
03/16/95
. ---.
contribution to the DDB are large salaries, big titles, and no responsibilities. He expressed
concern that the proposed Enterprise Zone encircles, but does not include his business.
Lillian Trickle expressed concern the City Commission was trying to destroy an
independent board, in existence for 24 years, "'to satisfy egos." She referred to the March
14, 1995 election, and said people are tired of the Commission's actions. She said she
has served on the DDS for 1 5 years and has done everything she could to satisfy the City
Commission. She said the same Commissioners will not be sitting on the dais after the
next election. She stated DDS's recent election was perfectly legal. She said one party
lost her board seat by one vote and is now ....out to get" the DDS. She felt that person has
been a poor loser.
Jackie Henegar said nobody solicited her to get rid of the DDS. Her business has
paid this tax for 20 years. She said she represents 1 24 parcels of land in the downtown
core tired of paying this tax. She said she has a copy of a letter mailed to the DDS in
1978 questioning why the DDS did not disband after a 4-1 vote to do so. She said the
board does not have to disband if it does not want to. She felt the DDS is arrogant and
noted a total turnaround in attitude when the taxing authority was threatened. She does
not want to belong to this board and suggested the ODS can raise money through
membership. She requested removing the tax from those who do not want to pay it.
.... ......~.
Kate McCollough, DDS member, said what got her excited about working in
downtown was when she heard about the Main Street approach and downtown
partnership. She indicated she had told Commissioner Barfield she would go along with
anything that is reasonable and agreed with the proposed agreement. She said if the
funding is taken away, the board will go away, the downtown partnership will dissolve,
and the possibilities will cease.
)
'-
Dan Lieter, DDS Chair, said if funding is voluntary, money will be collected from and
burden the same pro-active people who already devote their time and effort to downtown.
The rest of downtown will ride free on the backs of a few. He notad the board consists of
unpaid volunteers who cannot also handle fund-raising chores. Mr. lieter said the DDB has
a role in the new downtown plan. He felt if the DDS is dissolved, the plan will be more
difficult to realize. He spoke in favor of Commissioner Barfield's resolution.
Alan Carlson said he owns property in the core area and ran a downtown business
until two years ago. As a property owner, he did not recall ever receiving notice of the
taxing authority. He felt the tax is unfair and discriminatory and noted many downtown
establishments have gone out of business. He said a great deal of bickering occurred at
the DDS meetings he had attended. He was appalled at one expensive DDB plan to hire an
advertising agency to attract Japanese tourists. He expressed concern that most of DDB's
tax money goes to salaries. He said wonderful people hava served on the DDS but
questioned what they are accomplishing. He was miffed that lights and landscaping the
DDB installed did not front his properties. He recommended repealing the DDB's taxing
authority.
Margaret Hyde expressed concern that Commissioner Fitzgerald was not shown the
same respect he has shown the rest of the Commission. She said she believes in
mincc03c.95
23
03/16/95
:!.,,;;.
.- .~.....
democracy and that elected officials should listen to the people. She stated tha people
downtown voted overwhelmingly to keep the tax.
Mr. Henegar said he did not vote regarding this issue. He did not think it was fair
for any citizens to threaten the Commission with their vote at the next election.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned what Commissioner Berfield is proposing with
her DDS/CRA agreement. Commissioner Barfield said she spoke with four DDB members
who committed to abide by this agreement that would run DDS plans through the CRA
before implementation. She was resentful of the threatening calls she has received and of
those who threaten the Commission with their votes. She thought she had worked out an
agreement. Commissioner Serfield stated she would never vote for or against anyone
because of a political career. She stated remarks regarding the election were out of order
and unwarranted.
,','" \
t ,J ,
~;"
Commissioner Fitzgerald said his reason for requesting a c"ontinuance of this item
. was to try to work out an agreement. Commissioner Berfield said the majority of the DDB
have indicated they are willing to agree with her proposal. She agreed with Mr. Carlson
that nothing has been done for his part of the downtown district. She said she has
listened to "the people," as one person suggested. and worked out this agreement. She
hoped the Commission and DDS can get to a point where they can work together and stop
threatening elected officials. She said no matter what she does, people will be angry with
her. She said she has taken four people's word that they will work with the Commission
and address the concerns of everybody in the DDS district. Mr. Henegar said four board
members may have given their word but questioned what will happen after new board
members are appointed in next year's elnction. Commissioner Berfield said this agreement
binds aU future boards.
David Campbell expressed concern that the DDS spends a high percentage of their
budget on employees. He questioned if this would be the case if the DDB raised their own
funds. He questioned if this agreement would change matters significantly and if the
funding method would impact the agreement. Commissioner Berfield said if the funding is
stopped, the City would have no input to the organization. Mayor Garvey said if the
funding source is repealed, the ODS would not have to abide by the agreement.
Mr. Carlson apologized for downtown property owners who do not show up for
these meetings. He said he has not received enough income from his properties in 10
years to pay his taxes. He questioned what the Commission would do with the funds if
the DDS does not continue and suggested the Commission lower the millage rate.
Bob Henion, downtown partnership volunteer, thanked Commissioner Barfield for
her efforts to reach a reasonable solution.
Joe Evich said if the City had voted its ballots regarding the continuation of the tax,
this issue would not exist. The City Manager said several City properties are leased and
taxed. The lessee pays the tax. Mr. Evich said the City pays some tax as property
owners. He expressed concern that the City waived his right to vote regarding the
continuation of this tax and said the City should have voted on this matter.
\..../
mincc03c.95
24
03/1 6/95
I . ~ . ~ . ..' . . ' . " . I.' . .
~~/":. <
...........
.....c.1..'\
........)
Commissioner Thomas said threatening Commissioners is not part of a democracy.
He said this is not an ego position and does not give anyone's ego gratification. He said
he is Mrs. Trickle's best friend when he does what she wants him to do, i.e. parking on
Cleveland Street. He said watching the DDS waste money has become his problem. He
said he has no problem as a Commissioner or CRA member in giving the DDS money. He
said he was sick and tired of seeing the DDS "blow" taxpayers' money. He said the DDS
has shown no responsibility to protect the taxpayers. He said he will support any future
DOB action where the money comes from the general pot and goes to the promotion of
downtown, not to personnel salaries.
Commissioner Deegan suggested the question regarding the DDB's taxing authority
should be resolved before the retreat so the DDS can address goals. He referred to
Commissioner Berfield's agreement and noted the language is similar to the ordinance that
clarified the ODB's duties and responsibilities. He questioned if the board did not follow an
ordinance, how could they be trusted to follow an agreement. He referred to the argument
that those who pay the tax voted to continue it. He noted the straw poll counted parcels,
not people. Mayor Garvey said owners of 10 parcels pay taxes on 1 0 parcels and have a
right to those votes. Commissioner Deegan said that is not how it works when citizens go
to the polls. Mayor Garvey pointed out this is the way it is set up with the DDB.
Mayor Garvey said the proposed ordinance is offensive. She referred to "Whereas,
the CRA and the DDS cover the same boundaries and were established for similar
purposes, which purposes are now being accomplished by the CRA"; and said that
statement has not been proven to be true. She said she would argue with "Whereas, since
\ its creation the DDB has collected approximately $2-million in taxes ... without
substantial measurable accomplishment of its purpose of promotion and development. . . "
She said she disliked the statement, uWhereas, the DDS has been unnecess?ry and
redundant since the creation of the CRA . . . " She expressed concern with Sec. 2.1 50( 1 )
which would permit board members to be sued with no funding. .
Commissioner Berfield requested the Commission consider the agreement, which is
not a legal document. She said she has the word of four DDS members, the majority of
the board, that they will abide by this document. Many downtown property owners are
unhappy because they are not getting their money's worth. She requested the
Commission unanimously agree to accept this agreement. She said many people have a
right to be upset. Concerns about high salaries are being addressed. She felt it would be
an injustice to not give this agreement a chance to work. She said a new City Commission
will soon be seated and their concerns cannot be prejudged. Mayor Garvey questioned if
Commissioner Berfield would vote against the ordinance if this agreement is approved.
Commissioner Berfield said that was correct.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern that the Commission is being asked to
take the word of the four board members which they have not kept in the past. He said
the DDB and City Commission agreed on an ordinance outlining what the DOB would do
and they broke their word. He questioned why they should be believed now.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned If Commissioner Barfield's recommendation
was to vote "no" on Item #24a and accept this proposal with the idea of giving it a chance
mincc03c.95
25
03/16/95
,. . . ~ '. ~ . . . . . .
, ' ~. ..
~~:~.~: . .' ~ '
_c__
to work. Commissioner Berfield said if the DDB dOBS not work with the City Commission
and future problems arise, she would look to the Commission to address this issue again.
The Mayor said she has been working with the DDB for years. She said there has been a
great deal of commitment exhibited in the past few years and change that has been good
for downtown Clearwater. Commissioner Fitzgerald requested the Mayor call the Question.
Commissioner Thomas said as a Commissioner-elect, he had requested the
Commission not to buy the Sun Bank building and the Commission rejected his request.
He suggested letting Commissioners-elect Johnson and Dallman address whether or not
they agree with Commissioner Berfield's proposal and state what their position would be if
the DDB breaks their word. Neither Commissioner-elect chose to address the issue.
,.
Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Deegan and Thomas.
tlNaysit: Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
Motion failed.
ITEM #25 - Soecial Items of widesoread Dublic interest
ITEM #26 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda
....--.. David Camobell commended Community Outreach Manager Carrie Huntley for
i,J responding to his request that the time be displayed during broadcast of Commission
meetings. He noted the importance of the running clock when searching through video
tapes of meetings. The Mayor noted broadcasting the meetings was a new venture for the
City. Mr. Campbell thanked Commissioner Deegan for his efforts.
John Doran reported the Sunsets at Pier 60's 60-day trial period began March 1,
1995. He requested including this issue in the April 6, 1995 agenda. He thanked the
Commissioners for attending Saturday's Sunsets at Pier 60 celebration.
Tom Sehlhorst said he once asked for 100 new businesses in the lnfill Commercial
zone but was advised that was too ambitious. He said the Myrtle/ Ft. Harrison area is in
transition and 70% of the people live below the poverty level, unemployment is 19%, and
property values decrease by 3% per year. Only two new businesses have opened there.
All the infrastructure has been completed. He referred to a recent study that indicates the
top need is district parking. He noted the Enterprise Zone was approved in the last
election. Mayor Garvey said the Enterprise Zone still requires State approval.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #27-328) - Approved as submitted less items #27 and #32a.
ITEM #27 - See oaqe 27.
"-
mincc03c.95
26
03/16/95
. . .' . " ..,. . . .' ,..
:~,":" I. ".'
ITEM #28 - Receiot/Referral - Annexation, land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low &
RS-6 Zoning for property located at 511 Dora Dr., Rolling Heights, lot 19 (Haglund, A95-
02, LUP95-02)(CP)
ITEM #29. Receiot/Referral - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Industrial Limited
& IL Zoning and request to approve sewer connection for property located at 2020
Calumet St., Clearwater Industrial Park, parts of Lot 9 (Kent, A95-03, LUP95-03)(CP)
ITEM #30 - Receiot/Referral - Annexation, land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low &
RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1513 Laurel Dr., Nob Hill Sub., Lot 3 (Lugo, A95-04,
LUP95-04HCP)
ITEM #31 - Receipt/Referral - LOCA clarifying conditional use approval standards (LDCA95-
06Hep)
ITEM #32 - Receiot/Referral - LDCA re Adult Day Care (LDCA95-07)(CP)
ITEM #32a - See oaoe 29.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted, less
Items # 27 and 32a, and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #27 - Preliminarv Site Plan for Monin, Inc. located at 2100 Range Rd.; authorize ORC
I ~."..\ to approve final plan subject to conditions; and accept Open Space fee in lieu of land
',_I dedication (Citizen's Bank of Clearwater}(CP)
The applicant proposes to construct a one story, 32,200 square foot manufacturing
facility with associated business offices. The company manufactures, warehouses and
distributes nonalcoholic, flavored liqueurs. The site plan indicates a 25,325 square foot
one story future expansion. The site plan shows the required associated parking,
storm water management, and landscaping. Staff recommends vacating existing
unimproved right.of-way abutting the property to the west, as it serves no functional
purpose.
The property, on Range Road, is approximately 1,000 feet west of Belcher Road
and is currently vacant. The property has a Future Land Use Plan Classification of
Industrial Light and is located within the Limited Industrial (lL) zoning district.
The Parks and Recreation Director recommends the applicant pay a four percent
open space fee in lieu of land dedication, as the property does not abut an existing City
park, and the amount of land would be too small to create a new park.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern that staff is proposing to do away with a
street right.of-way. Mr. Shuford said staff would have to bring forward a vacation request
to vacate that fight-of.way. Commissioner Thomas noted the endorsement of that action
is part of the agenda packet. He said he could not accept this site plan because staff has
already endorsed the action. Commissioner Thomas indicated he did not endorse doing
mincc03c.95
27
03/16/95
,< . ~ '
< ,
----..
away with the right-of-way for a street the City may wish to construct in the future. Mr.
Shuford did not think that was being approved tonight and suggested the item could be
brought back for final approval along with 8 vacation request to be decided at that time.
Mr. Baker said staff does not review right-of-way questions until there is a request for a
right-of-way vacation.
Commissioner Thomas said by approving this item, the Commission is tacitly
approving the preliminary site plan that includes a right-of-way vacation. Mr. Shuford
recommended approving this item so the Development Review Committee (ORe) could
review the plan and provide recommendations and reserve the Commission's right to
approve the final site plan. He said staff could bring forward the vacation request at the
same time. Commissioner Thomas said he would support this item if the vacation request
was removed from this issue. He said he had a problem with approving a site plan that
includes City property.
Mayor Garvey questioned the long range plans for extending Sunshine Drive south
of the railroad tracks. City Engineer Rich Baier requested the item be continued so. he
could further review the vacation request.
Houshang Ghovae, with Northside Engineering and representative for the applicant,
said the site plan is preliminary and subject to all applicable codes. He said no rights-of-
way need to be vacated and the applicant wishes to stay within its boundaries.
"
, .
~
Commissioner Thomas said the document in front of him shows 50% of the right-
of-way going to this development. He said if it. is approved, the Commission is telling staff
they have approved this giveaway. Mayor Garvey suggested allowing Mr. Baier to review
the issue. The City Manager said if there is no right-of-way, the documentation will be
processed in the normal course of action. If right-of-way is in,volved, the plan will return to
the Commission. Mr. Shuford said jf the Commission continues this item, staff will provide
them with supplementary information and suggest alternatives. He said the Commission
could receive the plan with a condition that the final site plan must return to the
Commission for final approval.
Mayor Garvey suggested the Commission receive the Preliminary Site Plan with the
understanding that right-of-way will not be given up. Mr. Ghovae said they would like to
have the right-of-way but will not press the issue. Mr. Baker indicated there may be a
good reason to vacate the right-of-way.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue Item 27. The motion was duly seconded.
Mr. Ghovae said it was imperative to get this approval tonight. Commissioner
Thomas questioned if the applicant is willing to accept the Commission's decision that no
right-of-way will be granted tonight. Mr. Ghovae agreed.
Commissioner Berfield withdrew her motion. The seconder agreed.
Commissioner Thomas moved to receive the Preliminary Site Plan and to accept an
Open Space fee in lieu of land dedication and to authorize the Development Review
mincc03c.95
28
03/16/95
,>" >..
J '1
V
Committee to approve a final site plan subject to the preliminary comments: 1} Signs and
fencing/walls are subject to separate review and permitting processes; 2) 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; 3) The minimum turning radius for
designated drives and fire lanes shall be 42 feet; 4) A fire hydrant assembly shall be
installed not more than 300 feet from each structure; 5) If structure requires or has
installed an automatic fire sprinkler system, a fire department connection shall be installed
a minimum of 1 5 feet from the structure, adjacent to a paved drive and within 30 feet of a
fire hydrant assembly; 6) Prior to certification, the Dumpster Requiremunt Form must be
completed and returned to the City Sanitation Department; 7) Prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, the dumpster/compactor must be visually screened, and gates
must be provided with a minimum 12-foot clear opening to the front for access by
Sanitation trucks; 8) Prior to certification, a copy of the SWFWMD permit application is to
be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review; 9) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a
copy of the approved SWFWMD permit is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review;
10) Prior to certification, the final site plan must be signed and sealed by a Professional
Engineer registered in the State of Florida; 11) A Pinellas 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; 12} Backflow prevention devices must be installed by the
City with applicable fees being paid by the owner; 13) Sidewalks are required adjacent to
all street rights-of-way; 14) Handicap spaces must be adjusted to meet government
standards; 15) Parking stalls and/or driveways to be adjusted to the approval of the Traffic
Engineer; 1 6) Dimensions to be shown on the plan to denote measurements for aisles,
parking stalls, entrances, etc.; 17) Prior to certification, all protected trees shall be shown
by size, species, and location; 18) Prior to certification, all required perimeter landscape
buffers shall be dimensioned; 19) Prior to certification, the total paved vehicular use area
and total interior landscape area calculations shall be expressed in square feet and as a
percentage of the overall site in the site plan data block; 20} Prior to certification, all
required parking lot interior landscape areas shall be depicted by shading or cross-hatching;
21) Prior to certification, a landscape plan shall be submitted to Environmental
Management; 22) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a clearing and grubbing permit
and a tree removal permit (or a no tree verification form) are required; 23) Prior to
certification, a copy of the SWFWMD permit application and calculations shall be provided
to Environmental Management; 24) Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the
approved SWFWMD permit shall be submitted to Environmental Management; and 25)
Prior to certification, the site plan must reflect the use of raised curbs or protective timbers
where interior landscaped areas abut pavement and that approval of this site plan does not
include any approval of vacating right-of-way. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
ITEM #32a - Pasco County Territorial Settlement with Peooles Gas System (GAS)
On August 10, 1993, the City Commission approved a seven-year Strategic Plan for
Clearwater Gas System tCGS). Strategy 1/3 addresses CGS's expansion into western
Pasco County. To secure franchise and interlocal agreements, CGS has negotiated with
Port Richey, New Port Richey and Pasco County. A bond issue to fund the Pasco
mincc03c.95
29
03/16/95
1.J .I.::'..
expansion was developed and submitted to the Circuit Court for validation. Staff is
awaiting the Circuit Court's ruling on the January 31, 1995 Bond Validation Hearing.
Peoples Gas System (PgS), an investor owned utility, also desires to expand into
western Pasco County and has competed with CGS's expansion efforts. For the past year,
PgS has fought CGS at Port Richey, New Port Richey, Pasco County, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Circuit Court, and they tiled a territorial dispute with the
Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC). Territorial settlement meetings were held in
Tallahassee with FPSC staff, CGS, and PgS on August 24, 1994, December 20, 1994, and
February 10, 1995. The FPSC staff consistently encouraged CGS and PgS to settle the
dispute without going to a full hearing and legal dispute process before the FPSC. As an
outcome of the February 10, 1995 meeting, a Territorial Settlement Agreement was
reached.
CGS's original Strategic Plan called for expansion along US 19 north to SR 52, east
to a proposed Florida Gas Transmission (FGT) Gate Station, and south along Little Roadl
East Lake Road to the existing Pine lias System at East Lake Road and the Pinellas/Pasco
County line. This 50 square mile area provided a 6.9 year payback on gas main
investment.
The proposed Territorial Settlement Agreement will provide for CGS's Pasco
expansion as follows: North from the PinellaslPasco County line at the Gulf of Mexico to a
section line approximately 1/2 mile north of Ridge Road, east to Little Road, north to SR
52. east to the FGT Gate Station and the Serenova Development's eastern boundary and
.~-.....~, south to the Pinellas/Pasco County line. This 117 square mile area would provide a 7.0
.__ year payback on gas main investment. eGS will concede to PgS the area from 1/2 mile
north of Ridge Road north to SR 52 and from the Gulf of Mexico to Little Road, an 11
square mile area. The Settlement Agreement adds 78 square miles to the surviving 39
square mile area within CGS's original Strategic Plan, for a total Pasco County service area
of approximately 117 square miles. The Pasco County expansion area adds to CGS's
existing 135 square mile service area in northern Pinellas County and increases CGS's
service area to 252 square miles. The expansion will provide long term growth capabilities
and access to FGT's Phase III pipeline.
In addition to commercial accounts along the expansion's main arteries, the new
service area contains developing residential areas in western Pasco County including the
Trinity and Serenova subdivisions. Each development is scheduled to be self contained
with more than 6,000 homes, supporting commercial properties, and entertainment,
educational and medical facilities.
Upon approval of this Territorial Agreement by the City Commission and PgS Board
of Directors, the FPSC staff will formally present the agreement to the FPSC on March 23,
1995 for final authorization.
Chuck Warrington, Gas System Managing Director, requested the Commission
approve a territorial agreement between CGS and PgS so both gas systems can jointly
present the agreement to the FPSC for approval. He said the agreement will avoid a
lengthy legal battle before the FPSC regarding this issue. ?gS has agreed to withdraw their
~
mincc03c.95
30
03/16/95
, ,'. . .. ~
. 4, . .r .' . , " ,
. . ...
~.^ ~.
............
objections to Clearwater's bond validation hearings two days after this agreement is filed
with the FPSC. He said the agreement doubles CGS's service area and provides room for
growth.
Mr. Warrington said at the outset, CGS had a strategic plan to serve Pasco County.
PgS also had a strategic plan. eGS wanted to serve to north of SR 52. He said a small
section contained in the 'Serenova Development that juts north of SR 52 had not been
resolved. PgS objected because granting CGS property north at SR 52 had not been
discussed before FPSC staff. Mr. Warrington explained the revised description, distributed
as an amendment to the agreement, removes a 20.acre nodule. He said the FPSC hearing
is scheduled for March 23, 1995 and if this agreement is not settled by March 20, 1995. a
pre.hearing conference is scheduled.
Mr. Warrington reported another issue has arisen regarding the Serenova
Development. He said staff has not had an opportunity to meet with the general manager
but is confident CGS can demonstrate the benefits of their service. He stated Serenova
revenues were never included in CGS's cost benefit analysis.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern that CGS traded a territory with $0.5-
million in annual revenue for the Serenova territory which currently produces no revenue.
Mr. Warrington said the agreement represented a package deal. Commissioner Thomas
said he had heard at Monday's meeting that CGS traded a territory with $0.5-million in
annual revenue for the Serenova territory. He said he spoke with the people at Serenova
who indicated they do not want to do business with CGS. Serenova stated if they are not
I'd,) permitted to do business with PgS, they have a right to be their own gas utility. He said it
,,~,"/ was not good for CGS to give up a territory with a $O.5-million annual potential. Mr.
Warrington said if PgS had not been granted that territorYI there would not have been a .
settlement. He said the alternative is to go to full legal battle on this issue. He said FPSC
staff took a position that it was better for two companies to install gas mains in the
county. The City pushed further north than first suggested by FPSC staff to access the
gate station and include needed growth territory east of Little Road. He said the general
manager of Serenova has the right to speak at the FPSC meeting. Staff will try to meet
with him before the FPSC meeting. Mr. Warrington reported staff had spoken with
Serenova's assistant general manager before the development ran into a stumbling block,
approximately 18 months ago, when they had problems obtaining bond coverage.
Mayor Garvey questioned if Serenova can have their own gas utility. Mr.
Warrington said they probably can because they are a Community Development District
with rights similar to municipality rights.
Commissioner Thomas said the City committed to a $25-miJIion bond 18 months
ago basad on eGS's strategic plan. He expressed concern that this agreement is based on
the exclusion of property counted on for pay back of the bond issue. He noted CGS has
given up a $0.5-million cash flow and requested assurances that the bond issue will not be
in jeopardy if Serenova does not sign on with CGS. Mr. Warrington reiterated that
Serenova revenues were naver included in eGS's cost benefit analysis. He said no one
knew jf Serenova would ever be built. Commissioner Thomas said the analysis included
the $0.5~mmion territory CGS gave up. Mr. Warrington indicated CGS gained $100,000
mincc03c.95
31
03/16/95
I. '.. ' , . , '.'.. " .' I' .... .
.,' ~., ~ ' :
"'..............
along Ridge Road. He said revenues were reduced by $400,000 but main line construction
costs were reduced by $600,000. He said it is still a seven-year payback project. He
stated $1 O-million of the $25-million bond is the Pasco portion of the project.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the City Manager is convinced with Mr.
Warrington's numbers. The City Manager said she is convinced the numbers produced by
the finance department and Mr. Warrington's team indicate this project will pay for itself
within the indicated period.
Commissioner Barfield noted the $600,000 reduction in construction costs were
one time expenses while the $400,000 toss in revenue was annual and questioned if the
figures still stand up with that type of a loss. Mr. Warrington indicated they do and that
the $400,000 figure does not include expenses. Commissioner Barfield questioned the
profit on $400,000 revenue. Mr. Warrington estimated it at $150,000.
Commissioner Barfield questioned if Gerald Figurski would argue eGS's side before
the FPSC. Mr. Warrington indicated Bill Peebles is the City's FPSC attorney.
Commissioner Berfield questioned why FPSC is demanding that CGS give up more than
PgS. Richard Firebaugh, Division Manager of PgS, said they are negotiating. He said if the
FPSC draws the dividing line, neither PgS nor CGS will have any say in the matter. He
said both PgS and CGS have given up a lot. He said they have worked hard on this issue
and have been trying to settle it since November.
l-~
Commissioner Serfield noted Mr. Figurski is the City's representative in Pasco
County and questioned if he thought this would ba a fair arrangement. Mr. Figurski noted
CGS's territory extends north to Port Richey's northern boundary. He said the City gave
up the undeveloped territory north of Port Richey to the Pasco County line. He thought the
extension of CGS's territory to SR 52 and over to Serenova is fair. He has spoken with
Mr. Peebles in Tallahassee who indicated Serenova is a "plum." He said the lost revenues
addressed by the Commission is revenue the City never had. The territory has always
been in the hands of FPSC. He said the area, minus Serenova, is sufficient to meet the
bond requirements. He noted this agreement will settle the territorial dispute between eGS
and PgS and put the validation hearing to rest. He noted Serenova's designation as a
Community Development District allows them to have their own gas utility.
Mr. Warrington said it is important that PgS withdraw their objections and the many
issues they raised from the bond validation hearing process. He said a positive ruling from
the judge is still necessary to sell the bonds. He pointed out that east Pasco County is
rural and will not develop for a long time.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the agreement between Clearwater Gas
System and Peoples Gas Systemt Inc.t as amended. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
The Commission recessed from 10:45 to 11 :00 p.m.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
mincc03c.95
32
03/1 6/95
"-
ITEM #33 ~ Final Site Plan for Bayslde Nursing PavUton located at western portion of
existing Bayview Gardens Continuing Care Retirement Community; approve subject to DRC
& P&Z conditions (The Morton Plant Hospital Association)(CP)
On January 19, 1995, the City Commission received and referred this item subject
to the condition that the Site Plan return to the Commission for final approval.
On June 16, 1994, the Commission received and referred a similar project at this
location. The applicant modified the initial site plan by relocating the proposed two story,
120 bed nursing home facility and sales center away from the 1 OO-year flood plain and
placing it at the westernmost portion of the existing Bayview Gardens property. The
applicant proposes to expand the existing Bayview Gardens Continuing Care Retirement
Community by constructing a 49,670 square foot, two story, 120 bed nursing facility with
associated required parking and storm water retention. All property owned by the applicant
is shown on the site plan.
On February 14, 1995, the Planning & Zoning Board granted a conditional use to
permit locating the nursing home facility in a residential zoning district. The nursing facility
will be licensed by the State as a nursing home. The existing Bayview Gardens Continuing
Care Retirement Community is a state licensed Adult Congregate Care Living Facility with
94 assisted living beds in the Inseal Tower and 320 beds in the Garden Units. Five of the
existing Garden Units, with a total of 24 beds, will be razed to accommodate the new
nursing facility. A new drive is proposed to access Sky Harbor Drive to the west.
,
" "....1
The proposed expansion will increase the total parking spaces within Bayview
Gardens from 356 to 392 parking spaces, including disabled spaces. The proposed 392
parking spaces exceed the 302 required based on one parking space per two bed formula,
plus one space per two employees.
The Parks & Recreation Director determined that no fee or land dedication is
required, as the proposed development is exempt from the Open Space Land Dedication
requirement.
The applicant has agreed to remove existing shoreline stabilization materials prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the nursing home, or if time does not allow, the
applicant has agreed to post a performance bond to ensure shoreline restoration in an
amount determined by the City's Engineering Office.
Mr. Shuford said most of the controversial issues have been resolved.
Emil Marquardt, representative for the applicant, stated the applicant has addressed
the City's concerns. He said the Planning & Zoning Board unanimously approved this
project.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the Final Site Plan for Bayside Nursing
Pavilion subject to Development Review Committee Preliminary Comments: 1) Signs and
fencing/walls are subject to separate review and permitting processes; 2) The requisite
building permits must be procured within one (1) year from the date of certification of the
mincc03c.95
33
03/16/95
(,- '--. . <.
..--......
."_"~
\
;
"...........
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; 3) The dates and conditions for approval
by the Planning and Zoning Board for conditional use approval and the Development Code
Adjustment Board for variance approval shall be provided on the preliminary plat/site plan
prior to certification; 4) Prior to certification, a copy of the SWFWMD permit application is
to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review; 5) Prior to the issuance of a building
permit, a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan
Review; 6) Prior to certification, the final site plan must be signed and sealed by a
Professional Engineer registered in the State of Florida; 7) A Pinellas County Public Health
Unit Permit, Ingress/Egress and a 1 0 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; 8) 8ackflow prevention devices must be installed by the
City with applicable fees being paid by the owner; 9) Prior to issuance of a building permit,
all required easements are to be submitted to the City of Clearwater; 10) The plans are to
show keep right signs on both sides of the islands; 11) The plans are to show stop signs
and top bars; 12) Prior to certification, all required perimeter landscape buffers shall be
dimensioned; 13) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a clearing and grubbing permit
and a tree removal permit (or a no tree verification form) are required; 14) Prior to
certification, a copy of the SWFWMD permit application and calculations shall be provided
to Environmental Management; 15) Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the
approved SWFWMD permit shall be submitted to Environmental Management; 1 6) Prior to
certification, the site plan must reflect the use of raised curbs or protective timbers where
interior landscaped areas abut pavement; 17) The rip-rap/seawall shall be shown on the
site plan; and 1,8) The applicant shall remove the concrete seawall and rubble prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the nursing home, or if permitting delays occur,
the applicant shall post a bond in an amount deemed sufficient by the City Engineer to
provide for the removal of this matter; and Planning & Zoning Board conditions of approval:
1} The applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license within 1 2.months of this
public hearing; 2} the facility shall be for the care of the elderly people only, with the
maximum number of residents being 120, unless further limited by the board requirements;
3) the applicant shall obtain the necessary building permit within six months of this public
hearing; 4) prior to the issuance of a building permit, a clearing and grubbing permit and a
tree removal permit (or a no tree verification form) shall be required: 5) a copy of approved
SWFWMD permit shall be submitted to Environmental Management prior to the issuance of
a building permit; 6) the applicant shall show all protected trees by size, species, and
location on the final site plan prior to certification; 7) prior to certification, the final site
plan shall delineate the entire contiguous property under the hospital ownership including
the upland and submerged lands; and 8) the applicant shall remove the concrete seawall
and rubble prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the nursing home, or if
permitting delays occur, the applicant shall post a bond in an amount deemed sufficient by
the City Engineer to provide for the removal of this material. The motion was duly
seconded.
Allen Stowell, owner of the adjacent property, said he was happy with the
relocation of the nursing home and supports the application with the listed conditions.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
mincc03c.95
34
03/1 6/95
. , ' , .' I . . ,.
. . ..... ~. . -' f
ITEM #34 - Final Site Plan for Morton Plant Central UttHty Plant located on S. Ft. Harrison
Ave., between Grand Central Ave. & Pinellas St.; approve subject to conditions (Morton
Plant Health Systems. Inc.)(CP)
The applicant proposes to construct a Central Utility Plant facility to serve as the
central location for mechanical and engineering facilities for Morton Plant Hospital Campus
buildings. The facility will be located on S Ft. Harrison Ave. between Grand Central Ave.
and Pinellas Street and is part of the Morton Plant Hospital Master Plan, adopted January
5, 1995, on second reading. The proposed facility will replace the existing Central Utility
Plant south of the Barnard Building.
The proposed facility has been revised from the first version presented the
Commission. On the utility plant building's east side, the cooling towers were relocated to
ground level to reduce noise. This change requires reducing the building setback from 5
ft. Harrison Ave. to 24 feet. The maximum structure height has been reduced to 30 feet.
The facility will run on electricity supplied by Florida Power Corporation. Diesel
units will serve as back up generators. Hospital representatives have expressed interest in
llsing natural gas as an energy source if cost benefit analysis results are favorable. City
gas officials are negotiating with the hospital on this issue.
The applicant has submitted additional information on noise generation, addressing
specific Commission concerns. The noise report indicates noise levels affecting nearby
residential areas to be less than 45 decibels, an insignificant level. Staff visited Orlando
".'\ Regional Medical Center's utility plant, similar in size and equipment to the one proposed
,--",J for Morton Plant Hospital. Staff observations indicate the noise level and vibration
transmission can be adequately attenuated with appropriate acoustic design. Hospital
consultants have stated the Morton Plant Central Utility Plant design incorporates more
sound attenuating devices than the Orlando facility.
Mr. Shuford said the utility plant's design has changed substantially since it was
first presented to the Commission. The building height and setback have been reduced.
The cooling towers were removed from the building's top and relocated to the building's
rear behind a high wall that will shift the noise to flow east. He said the noise report
indicates the noise level will be below 45 dBA, an insignificant level for this type of facility.
Mr. Shuford indicated two staff members visited the Orlando facility. He presented
pictures of that power plant which is closer to a residential area and shielded with
vegetation. He said noise levels in Orlando are acceptable and felt the plant designed for
Morton Plant Hospital will be more acceptable.
Commissioner Berfield stated her only concern is the noise. Mr. Shuford said they
have addressed that. Commissioner Berfield questioned what 45 dBA sounds like. Mr.
Shuford said the hospital may provide an example. Commissioner Berfield questioned the
maximum level of sound permitted by the City's noise ordinance. Mr. Shuford indicated 55
dBA is permitted.
Commissioner Thomas noted the materials he was provided only includes one
elevation of the building when four are usually presented. Emil Marquardt, representative
mincc03c.95
35
03/16/95
---
for the applicant. stated all sides of the buitding will be 30~feet high. Fred Frederick,
project architect, did not have additional elevations. Commissioner Thomas questioned if
the other three sides are totally different. Mr. Frederick said the other elevations will not
have glass block or windows. The wall in front of the cooling towers will be a flat,
monolithic wall. He said the elevation presented with glass block and windows will face S
Ft. Harrison Avenue. Commissioner Thomas noted the elevation presented is the one with
an attractive facade. He stated motorists will view the north and south elevations for
longer periods than the building's front and Questioned if those elevations win be attractive.
Mr. Frederick said he will be working to emulate the front elevation on the side ones for a
cohesive looking building. Mr. Marquardt said the applicant understand's the City's
interest in a good appearance along S Ft. Harrison. He said they did not want the plant to
detract from the hospital's buildings across the street. A great deal of time was spent
dealing with the noise issue and deciding to lower the towers.
(Ji..,\
"'!':!'Ii
Commissioner Thomas referred to his concerns regarding sound frequency and
cycles per second. He expressed concern that staff depends on an applicant's research.
He studied audiology a long time ago and stated the reported range tested by audiologists
differs from what he had been taught. He questioned why the curve stops at 8,000 cycles
per second. Bill Beckman, prime consultant for the project, stated they hired David Fagen
to do an acoustical analysis and modeling of the building's different components. He said
they tried hard to address Commissioner Thomas' concerns. They asked their equipment
manufacturers for information regarding those ranges and how their equipment is tested
but the manufacturers were unable to provide any actual information in those 20,000 Hz
areas. He said they tried to minimize the impact of the noise by purchasing chillers in the
1 ,OOO-ton range that do not produce high rpms. The emergency generators and fans
chosen for the cooling towers also produce low rpms. The low frequency noise will be
masked inside the building. He stated dBA levels will drop at night. He stated the
generators are the biggest noise producers and must be tested by running four generators
for one hour.
Commissioner Thomas said this was not addressing his question. He expressed
concern that the report contradicts something he knows to be true and questioned the
report's validity. He said it was not uncommon for a tweeter to go 201000 to 24,000 cps
routinely in hi-fidelity systems in the 19 50s and 1 9605. He expressed concern about the
safety of the sound frequency belt that will be produced. Mr. Beckman said workers inside
the plant will be required to wear hearing protection. The levels that will permeate the
masking of the walls should not be significant.
Commissioner Thomas said, based on his education and background, the report
contains gaps. Mr. Seckman said they tried to obtain the information Commissioner
Thomas had requested but were unable.
Commissioner Serfjeld questioned where the centrifugal engines will be used. Mr.
Backman said the chillers have centrifugal engines. Commissioner Berfield questioned "how
the centrifugal engines would be powered. Mr. Beckman said the chillers are electric, the
generators are diesel, and the boilers are natural gas and diesel. He indicated there has
been discussion about adding a gas driven chiller to replace an electrical driven one.
mincc03c.95
36
03/1 6/95
I'"';:.~P :.
."-
........~~\
,
.~,
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the final site plan for the Morton Plant
Central Utility Plant subject to the following conditions: 1) Signs and fencing/walls are
subject to separate review and permitting processes; 2) 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; 3) A Unity of Title shall be recorded prior to certification of the
site plan; 4) The minimum turning radius for designated drives and fire lanes shall be 42
feet; 5} A fire hydrant assembly shall be installed not more than 300 feet from each
structure; 6) If structure requires or has installed an automatic fire sprinkler system, a fire
department connection shall be installed a minimum of 1 5 feet from the structure, adjacent
to a paved drive and within 30 feet of a fire hydrant assembly: 7) Prior to certification, the
Dumpster Requirement Form must be completed and returned to the City Sanitation
Department; 8) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the dumpster/compactor
must be visually screened, and gates must be provided with a minimum 12-foot clear
opening to the front for access by Sanitation trucks; 9) Prior to certification, a copy of the
SWFWMD permit application is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review; 10) Prior to
the issuance of a building permit, a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit is to be
provided to Engineering Site Plan Review; 11) Prior to certification. the final site plan must
be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Florida; 1 2)
Backflow prevention devices must be installed by the City with applicable fees being paid
by the owner; 13} Sidewalks are required adjacent to al/ street rights-of-way; 14) Handicap
spaces must be adjusted to meet government standards; 15) Parking stalls and/or
driveways to be adjusted to the approval of the Traffic Engineer; 16) Dimensions to be
shown on the plan to denote measurements for aisles, parking stalls, entrances, etc.; 1 7)
Prior to certification. a landscape plan shalt be submitted to Environmental Management;
18) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a clearing and grubbing permit and a tree
removal permit (or a no tree verification form) are required; 19) Prior to certification, a copy
of the SWFWMD permit application and calculations shall be provided to Environmental
Management; 20) Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the approved sWFWMD
permit shall be submitted to Environmental Management; 21) Prior to certification, the site
plan must reflect the use of raised curbs or protective timbers where interior landscaped
areas abut pavement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #35 - Preliminarv Site Plan for the Trade Center located between Cleveland St.,
Garden Ave. & Park St., authorize DRC to review, and return final plan to Commission for
approval subject to conditions (TsafatinosHCP)
Staff has requested this item be continued for two months in order for the City
Commission to act on the proposed downtown plan and to determine if this project is in
keeping with same.
Commissioner Thomas indicated his wish to speak against continuing this item.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to continue the preliminary site plan for the Trade
Center. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern that a plan was presented to build a 38-
story, 547,000 square foot building downtown and the Commission does not want to
mincc03c.95
37
03/1 6/95
. ,L ~ ". . , . _ > . ~ < .
~V'"
--"
accept if for discussion. Mr. Shuford said the applicant indicated he wished to continue
this item and the applicant and architect agreed to a two-month delay.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern that this item was continued because the
building's size does not fit in with the consultant's research on the redevelopment of
downtown. He noted the City Commission has not yet approved the consultant's report or
direction. Mr. Shuford recommended the Commission have the opportunity to hear from
the consultant. He said this is a scala issue for downtown.
Commissioner Thomas thought the Commission's acceptance of a preliminary site
plan for receipt and referral did not indicate approval of the project; just permission for
staff to review the project.
Mayor Garvey pointed out that staff has recommended this item be continued and
the applicant agreed.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
ITEM #36 - Res. #95-27 - extending the deadline for the Occupational License Equity
Study Commission report on the occupational license tax structure to 06/15/95 (CP)
.._~
On June 2, 1994, the City Commission adopted Resolution #94-11, establishing the
Occupational License Equity Study Commission to study the City's occupational license tax
classification system and rate structure~ On December 1, 1994, the City Commission
adopted Resolution #94-108, extending the deadline from January 1, 1995 to March 16,
1995 for the Study Commission to present the report on the oc'cupationallicense tax
structure.
1
I
--..--'
The Equity Study Commission concentrated their efforts in two areas: 1) to
determine and correct inequities in the current fee structure, with associated increases and
decreases in fees, and 2) to streamline and reorganize the fee structure. While
recommending increases in some cases, the group wants to emphasize that increasing all
fees is not their intent.
An example of a proposed change involves licensing merchants. The current fee for
a mercantile business is based on the dollar value of inventory, yet mercantile
establishments that appear equal in size and the value of merchandise pay grossly different
fees. This inconsistency may be due to the time of year inventories are taken. The Equity
Study Commission proposes to base a fee for merchants on the square feet of floor area as
a simpler way of determining and verifying the fee calculation. This proposed method
should be more equitable.
The Equity Study Commission anticipates finalizing their study and forwarding a
recommendation for proposed changes in the occupational license ordinance and fee
schedule within the next three months. All related back-up materials, charts, tables and
examples will be provided to the City Commission at that time. According to State
Statutes, the new ordinance must be adopted by October 1, 1995, and will be
implemented the following fiscal year.
mincc03c.95
38
03/16/95
. "j . - .. . '. " .... :-, .
, '. .
,,<n,";' '.','
j..' >
,--..
The Mayor congratulated the committee members on their continued diligence and
hard work on this project.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #95-27 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Berfiald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #95-27 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.
"Nays't: None.
ITEM #37 - Other Pendina Matters
a) Selection of energy system for Municipal Services Building & Police Department
Mr. Baker said the project team has examined the question if the air-conditioning
system at the Municipal Services Complex should be powered by gas. He noted CGS
wants the City to use gas and Florida Power Corporation (FPC) wants the City to use
electricity. He said the project team wants to do what is best and concludes that a gas air-
conditioning system would be best. He said this system would require an arrangement
that CGS will describe.
,:)
Chuck Warrington, Managing Director of CGS, reviewed the two issues that need to
be examined: 1) a natural gas air-conditioning system versus an electric one and 2) a
central plant versus roof mounted units., He stated the project team had backed off their
original recommendation for gas due to cost considerations.
Mr. Warrington reviewed the benefits of a central plant facility: gas system
marketing; future growth; ease of maintenance; equipment life; reliability; sound
attenuation; and operational control. The plant would be a beta site and contain two, 400-
ton class units to serve the two buildings. The installation would demonstrate the benefits
of natural gas air conditioning, as part of CGS's marketing plan. He said the central plant
technology aives the best solution for potential growth and lowers the cost of maintaining
the equipment at ground level instead of needing cranes to remove rooftop units. The life
of the recommended equipment is 23 years. He said a central plant's reliability is better
because both units can serve the whole load. Should one unit require maintenance, the
other can carrY,the load as the air-conditioning units' full capacity is not required during
most of the year. Sound attenuation is also better with a central plant environment as
emergency generators can be located in the central plant rather than on the Police
Department building's property. The central plant allows unit operating speeds to be varied
to match the buildings' requirements.
Mr. Warrington said a central plant facility is more expensive to build but energy
savings are increased. The increased cost of a central plant containing water-cooled,
natural gas chillers and emergency generators over air-cooled electric rooftop chillers with
generators on.site is projected to be $815,000. A central plant would have an annual
estimated energy savings of $57,223. He said the 20-year energy ,savings of $1,144,460
"
mincc03c.95
39
03/16/95
~ ' . .
. ' " .,." "' " " "', < , ", . '." 'I. "
would pay for the central plant's increased cost. Mr. Warrington proposed capital funding
for the project could include: 1) $475,000 CGS Capital loan from the Gas Marketing Plan,
part of the original bond issue, @ 6.5% for 20 years ($3,592.42/month); 2) $45,000 CGS
energy conservation incentive contribution; 3) $10,000 Florida Gas Transmission (FGT)
contribution; 4) $140,000 additional funding from the project's contingency fund; and 5)
$145,000 additional funding for the central plant. He said the payback would have been
only 1 0 years if a central plant facility had been included in the original plan. Mayor
Garvey questioned if good quality natural gas air conditioners are available in the market.
Mr. Warrington said the technology is well developed in the commercial sector. Residential
u.,its are still being developed.
"_...t"
David Bonk, Manager of Customer Service and Marketing for FPC in Pinel/as and
Pasco counties, expressed concerns regarding the recommendation for additional funding
to build a central energy plant with natural gas air conditioners. He said FPC outlined their
concerns in a letter delivered to the City on February 23, 1995. He said FPC analyzed
information received from the City and still has many comments and questions. He
distributed a copy of their letter to the City outlining FPC's concerns (Attached - Exhibit A).
Mr. Bonk said there was no economic reason to use a central plant. He said the simple
pay back analysis presented by Mr. Warrington is misleading. The annual energy savings
is not $57,223, but $38,881 f which is the net of energy and maintenance savings,
additional maintenance costs on the gas equipment, plus water costs for the central plant
cooling tower. He said the cumulative 20-year payback of this proposal is $777,000, less
than the $815,000 up-front capital outlay. At a 6.5% cost of money, the outlay will cost
an additional $428,000. Mr. .Bonk said the central energy plant has a negative payback of
$386,000. He said the present choice of rooftop air~cooled chillers is the most cost-
effective option. He questioned if the City wants to spend $815,000 to have a central
energy plant with a negative payback of $386,000 over the useful life of the equipment.
Mr. Bonk, referred to the proposed capital funding advances. He felt this was a
subsidy from one City fund to another. He said if the City chooses central plant
technology, he would like to compare the gas and electric powered units. He said there is
a price premium for gas units after rebates and reduced emergency generation costs. He
said they compared electric versus gas with no rebates over the project's life cycle and
found the electric units are a better deal. He said the gas units do not pay for themselves.
Mr. Bonk, posed a list of questions of concern to FPC: 1) Why is a central energy
plant necessary; 2) Is the Commission comfortable with the justification presented tonight
on the need for a central energy plant for these office buildings; 3) Is the Commission
willing to spend the extra money and increase the overall project cost; 4) Is this in line with
the wishes of citizens to control spending on City projects; 5) If this is to be a marketing
platform for CGS, are the projected sales returns worth the investment; 6) What are the
projected returns; 7) How many projects can CGS hope to sell based on this installation; 8)
Does the Commission support the use of substantial subsidies both in upfront capital costs
and reduced rates to facilitate gas sales expansion; 9) Is this a long term profitable
business practice for the City; 10) Is the Commission satisfied staff has fully used FPC's
expertise in exploring energy options; and 11) Is the Commission willing to consider a third
party study that evaluates the best overall energy solution for this complex. He said FPC
was willing to fund such a study. Mr. Bonk said other concerns include questions
mincc03c.95
40
03/16/95
,L", ,~ I I' > ' . , , '. " .' ,I :. '. ' " > ' .'
. .'
~~ " "
regarding additional land requirements for the central energy plant, maintenance of the
central plant, the overall square foot cost and how it compares with comparable private
office projects. Mr. Bonk said the project's economics support the original proposal of
rooftop chillers and on-site emergency generation.
Mayor Garvey questioned why a central energy plant is necessary. Mr. Baker said
this has not been a contest between Clearwater Gas and FPC. He noted the project team
is made up of third party, impartial consultants who work for the project, not CGS or FPC.
He said FPC staff have been involved with the project for months.
Dean Rowe, of Rowe Architects, said he was the leader of the team composed of
architects, engineers, and general contractors who have studied this project since
inception. He stated the initial design included a gas-engine driven central energy plant.
The project team's initial inclination was to include a central energy plant as the project
includes two building with potential future growth. He recommended not installing
equipment on the rooftop because of the potential for leaks caused by workers maintaining
the equipment. He expressed concern about locating a unit that generates noise above
someone's head. He noted many multiple building complexes have central energy plants.
Although they cost more up front, they save over time. He said the project team could not
afford to include a central energy plant within the proposed budget. He recommended a
central plant as best for the project.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if project team member, Alan Bomstein of
Creative Contractors, was involved with Morton Plant Hospital's power plant. Mr.
Bomstein said he was familiar with the project but his involvement was peripheral.
,,_,/ Commissioner Thomas noted Morton Plant plans to use electric powered chillers and
indicated they may install a natural gas powered chiller. He questioned what drove that
decision. Mr. Bomstein said he did not have that information and was not part of that
study. Mayor Garvey questioned the contract team's recommendation. Mr. Baker
indicated the contract team strongly supports utilizing gas powered chillers in a central
energy plant.
Commissioner Thomas noted Mr. Bomstein has been a builder and contractor for a
long time. He questioned if Mr. Bomstein were building the project for himself, with his
money and payback, would he construct a central energy plant or install rooftop chillers.
Mr. Bomstein said that was difficult to answer and he would need to first complete an
economic analysis. He said he would look for a good payback period. He said he supports
the team's recommendation.
Commissioner Berfield Questioned if a 20-year payback is something most business
people would go for. Mr. Bomstein felt it was a stretch. He said the total picture must be
considered. With a central plant, the City would gain redundancy, which is very important.
Mayor Garvey pointed out the Police Department is a seven day a weak, 24 hour a day
operation and needs backup. '
Commissioner Serfield questioned if a study has compared gas and electric chillers
in a central energy plant. Mr. Warrington said a full study was completed comparing these
two energy sources. He said the payback for choosing natural gas is strong if a central
mincc03c.95
41
03/16/95
energy plant facility is chosen. He said Morton Plant Hospital told eGS they were too late
when CGS approached them to discuss natural gas air conditioning in their planned central
energy plant. He said discussions have resumed within the past month. He stated Morton
Plant is looking at a three-year payback on the natural gas unit under consideration.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the maintenance curves on the motors in the two
types of air-conditioning units. Tom Bartley, Project Team member and certified energy
manager, said the analysis includes all maintenance costs necessary to maintain the gas
engines versus the electric-driven chillers. He said gas engine chillers have been
manufactured for more than 20 years and they would be maintained by the same crew that
maintains the emergency generators. He said the engines are rebuilt as they are
maintained at a cost of $0.011 per ton hour, which was factored into the study.
Maintenance on gas engines in a central plant costs $16,000 more a year than electric
chillers. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned how many units are being proposed. Mr.
Sartley said between two and four. Mr. Baker noted while a gas engine requires more
maintenance, it is also more energy efficient and costs less to run. He said gas units are
$57,223 more efficient each year.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the rebates of $10,000 to $21,000 referred to
by FPC are annual or one time offers. He indicated he spoke with a leading area HV AC
person who indicated the City had removed gas driven chillers in the 1970s because of
exorbitant maintenance costs. Mr. Baker did not have information regarding those
removals. He agreed that gas maintenance costs are higher but noted the high energy cost
savings realized with gas units. Mayor Garvey noted technology has progressed since the
'-~'\ 1970s and available products differ greatly. She recommended considering the project
-../ team's recommendation.
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern regarding the added cost. He noted the
City will repay CGS's loan of $475,000 @ 6.5% interest for 20 years and will not receive
any actual energy savings costs until the Joan is paid. Mr. Baker said the savings from the
energy costs are being applied to the loan to front the capital improvement. The City will
, enjoy the benefits of a central plant for 20 years that they would not have otherwise
enjoyed. Mayor Garvey questioned if the Commission agrees that a central plant is
necessary. Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated the decision regarding a central energy plant
differs from the decision regarding the energy source. Mr. Baker said if the Commission
decides to construct a central energy plant, natural gas wins overwhelmingly as an energy
source. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted the rates were based on the City's cost of gas @
$0.35 a thermo Mr. Warrington said that wes a special rate. The City pays $0.30 a
thermo Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned the feasibility of using the project as a model
when City energy costs arB lower. Mr. Warrington said each proposal must be individually
analyzed regarding break-even costs. He agreed old gas air-conditioning units required high
maintenance but said the technology has advanced dramatically.
Mr. Bonk said FPC's rebate is a one time offer and is not ongoing. He appreciated
the Project Team's desire to look at the best deal for the City. He said a lot can be done
when $0 .5-million is thrown at a project. He stated the central energy plant is a cost
premium item and the payback is not $57,000 per year, but $38,000 and the cost of
money is not considered. He said Morton Plant Hospital is considering a gas unit because
mincc03c.95
42
03/16/95
, , . ~. , '. ,'.. - " . ....... ~., '. . ~ -' .,. ,
',;"'.
manufacturers are cutting the chillers' costs because of the upfront capital cost premium
plus the reduced cost of natural gas. He stated natural gas is not cost effective without
substantial subsidies. He questioned if the Commission was willing to spend the extra
money for a central energy plant.
Commissioner Thomas referred to Mr. Baker's claim that gas would beat out electric
power if a central energy plant is built. Mr. Bonk said gas would win only with subsidies.
He noted gas air-conditioning units cost an additional $69.000 each.
Commissioner Barfield referred to the statement that the reliability is better with gas
in the central energy plant and questioned if the reliability of electric energy would be as
good. Mr. Warrington said the central energy plant provides the reliability. Commissioner
Barfield questioned if the operational controls of the central energy plant could be varied if
electric energy is used. Mr. Warrington said that was true. Commissioner Bertield
questioned if the Upositives" were because of the central energy plant and not the type of
energy used. Mr. Warrington said that was true but noted, beyond that, savings can be
attributed to natural gas' lower costs. The Mayor noted a percentage of profits from CGS
returns to the General Fund. Mr. Baker said a demonstration project would be of great
value to CGS.
Janice Case, Vice President of the Suncoast Florida Region for FPC. agreed the
more gas CGS sells, the better it is for the City. She felt the project has always leaned
toward gas air conditioning and FPC has not been part of the project. She did not think a
third party, neutral evaluation would choose to install a central energy plant. FPC has felt
u""'-'>) this was a Udone deal" from the beginning. She said the analysis is flawed because it
.J assumes the City will choose to build a central energy plant. She referred to staff's
estimated differential cost savings of $57,223 annually and noted that is only the
difference in the energy savings and does not include maintenance. The net savings is
$38,881. She stated the analysis lacks the net present value compared to the initial
$815,000 capital outlay. She said it results in a negative payback and is not a good deal.
She suggested it would be better for the City to sell their gas to people who pay a profit on
it. She said Clearwater taxpayers shoulder CGS's rebate offer. FPC welcomes a third
party, unbiased analysis. She stated central energy plants make sense for some projects
but are rarely used for office complexes.
The Mayor said the choice of natural gas was not a ugiven" from the beginning and
the staff team had to be convinced of its practicality. She expressed concern with FPC's
claim that taxpayers are paying for rebates offered by CGS while FPC does not. She noted
FPC is a monopoly. She said the long term benefits to the taxpayers of Clearwater must
be considered.
Tom Sehlhorst recommended putting the $815,000 upfront costs into the bank for
20 years and suggested. by that time, solar systems may be available.
Mr. Baker said if the City decides to use electric energy, they will be paying FPC
$ 5 7 .000 more per year and will not be enjoying the central plant, redundancy of the
machines or better maintenance. He said that decision would be in FPC's best interest.
He recommended the best choice would be a central energy plant using natural gas air.
mincc03c.95
43
03/16/95
. I ", " . L, " . ...... '.'~ .' .
f://.'" \' .
-,
conditioning units. The Mayor expressed concern that the buildings' costs are increasing
but felt it was important to make the right decision.
Commissioner Fitzgerald did not feel the Commission should add $815,000 to the
buildings' cost. He said the budget parameters were established upfront. He expressed
concern it would take 20 years to payback that large, upfront expenditure.
Commissioner Deegan said he did not agree with the proposal to spend an
additional $815,000 upfront. He agreed rebates offered by CGS are taxpayer subsidies.
He said a 20-year payback is not a decent business decision. He recommended holding
the project team to the budget the Commission gave them.
Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the additional expenditure requested and to
go back to the original plan with rooftop electric chillers. The motion was duly seconded.
Upon the vote being taken. Commissioners Berfield, Fitzgerald and Deegan voted NAye";
Commissioner Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue the meeting past midnight. The motion
was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Fitzgerald,
Deegan and Thomas voted "Aye"; Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
ITEM #38 - Resolutions
....-.L......\
. \...) a) Res. #95-26 - Assessing property owners' costs of mowing or clearing owners' lots
The City Attorney presented Resolution #95-26 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Resolution #95-26 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.
"Nays": None.
b) Res. #95-25 - Unsafe Building Abatement Costs Lien - 310 Pennsylvania Ave.. Plaza
Park Sub., Blk. C, Lot 1 & part of Lot 2 (Kenneth & Betsy Roush)
The City Attorney presented Resolution #95-25 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution 1/95-25 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.
"Nays": None.
,
mincc03c.95
44
03/16/95
, " , I. '. . , < . . , . " . > . ~. :. ,
~,~ ~..
ITEM #39 - Other City Attornev Items
The City Attorney referred to her proposed resolution regarding the Tourist
Development Tax and one by Commissioner Thomas. Mayor Garvey said she would not
vote for Commissioner Thomas' version because it is negative and does not reflect a
positive attitude as the City prepares to meet with the County. She suggested the first
proposal more adequately reflects the type of attitude necessary to deal with other
governmental agencies, particularly when the City is seeking financial support.
Commissioner Thomas felt the original resolution is ilmushy mouthed" and does not
stand up for a City which has contributed $28-million to the tourist development fund.
Commissioner Thomas read sections of his resolution to prove its language is not
antagonistic but states a position. The Mayor suggested if Commissioner Thomas'
language was removed, the resolution says the same thing but is not antagonistic.
Commissioner Fitzgerald shared Mayor Garvey's view. He expressed concern with
the categorical statement included in Commissioner Thomas' version. .. ...Tourist
Development tax dollars which have not been spent to the benefit of the City of Clearwater
businesses... /I implies that none of the money sent by the City was spent on anything that
benefited the City. He felt the program has benefitted the City, although not to the extent
the City would like. He felt section 1 of Commissioner Thomas' version was accusatory
and did not foster cooperation.
~--~,./'
Commissioner Berfield referred to the fourth paragraph and agreed it states a fact
that the City has col/ected more than $28-million in tourist development taxes. She agreed
some of that was spent on the City and recommended modifying the language to read that
the majority of the funds were not spent on the City. Commissioner Berfield noted in
Section 1, the resolution is asking, not demanding, the Convention and Visitors Bureau
spend proportional funds on Clearwater tourism.
Commissioner Deegan said he had reminded the City Attorney that the Commission
decided several weeks ago that it wanted a resolution. He indicated he was pleased with
the original version of the resolution but also had no problem with Commissioner Thomas'
version. He agreed with Commissioner Serfield's recommended modifications. He liked
the additions because they seem to reflect citizen frustration.
The City Attorney noted one additional change requested by Commissioner Thomas
had not been included in his revision. Commissioner Thomas said he recommended this
resolution also be sent to the Pinellas Delegation of State Legislators besides the County
Commission and Convention and Visitors Bureau. He said he had no problem with adding
the word "majority" to the fourth Whereas in the second tine where it says" . . . tax
dollars, the majority of which have not been spent for the benefit of the City of Clearwater
businesses." The City Attorney indicated the change in Section 1 is a typo correcting
~'spent" to "spend" and"... we expect the bureau. ..." Commissioner Thomas said to
add the Pinellas Delegation of State Legislators to Section 2.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #95.33 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #95-33 and authorize the
mincc03c.95
45
03/16/95
. .. ~ . . r I ~'''",..' . . '. "
~.:-;.,
..: 1.
appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call,
the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Deegan and Thomas.
"Nays": Fitzgerald and Garvey.
Motion carried.
ITEM #40 - City Mansaer Verbal Reoorts
The City Manager recommended canceling the March 20, 1995 Strategic Planning
Session and reschedule a time to complete the statement of operation and the mission
statement. Consensus was to do so.
ITEM #41 - Commission Discussion Items - None.
ITEM #42 - Other Commission Action
Commissioner Berfield questioned who would respond to a letter regarding
sidewalks on Highland Avenue. The City Manager indicated her office would respond.
.::)
C9mmissioner Berfield reviewed the 1995 Legislative Bulletin and requested the
Commission address several items. She referred to the suggestion regarding school sites is
for cities and counties to have no say on where schools are located within their
jurisdictions. She said it is also proposed that cities and counties carry the cost burden for
on and off site impacts, roads, water, sewer, stormwater and environmental. She
expressed concerns with this suggestion and noted the Florida League of Cities is
requesting members to urge their legislators to oppose this bill. Commissioner Berfield
suggested the City write the bill's sponsors and express objections.
Mayor Garvey questioned if Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice would keep on top of
these concerns. Ms. Rice reported she had talked with the City's lobbyist, Jim Massie.
She said she has an analysis of most local bills and will develop a position paper for the
Commission.
Commissioner Berfield referred to the proposal to fund school crossing guard
through a surcharge on moving violations. Ms. Rice noted the City currently pays guards
through a surcharge on parking tickets. Commissioner Berfield stated the Commission
should decide if they support this proposal.
Commissioner Berfield referred to the proposal regarding local regulation for firearms
and ammunition to give local governments the right to regulate the purchase, sale, and
transfer of these items on government owned property. Ms. Rice said that issue is
addressed in the City's Legislative package.
Commissioner Berfield noted the preference for veterans is being addressed but
voiced no opinion. She did not think proposed regulations regarding back up support for
1-......,1
mincc03c.95
46
03/16/95
.. " .n ' ',' .' . . I . .
, , ~. ,
i~~ :'.. . '.,
Police Officers affects Clearwater. She said water reuse is also addressed. Mayor Garvey
noted the Commission will need to meet and develop a legislative program. Ms. Rice said
staff will start responding to these issues.
Commissioner Thomas requested consideration of Res. #95-35 to change Rule 5 of
the Commission Rules to convert Monday Commission meetings to work sessions. He said
it would be difficult for the two new Commissioners to "get into the swing of things" with
the way the meetings are currently structured. Mayor Garvey recommended allowing the
new Commissioners the opportunity to make the change for which they campaigned.
Commissioner Thomas said the change would make the new Commissioners' first meeting
a work session instead of a formal Commission meeting. Mayor Garvey urged the
Commission to permit the new Commissioners to bring this forward.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #95-35 and read it by. title only.
Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #95-35 and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Garvey noted this issue was brought forth by the Commissioners-elect as
candidates. She expressed concern this action usurps the issue from them. Commissioner
Fitzgerald questioned if this action will apply to the April 3, 1995 meeting if it is passed.
The City Manager indicated it would. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted the newly elected
Commissioners would then be expected to attend the April 3. 1995 work session but will
not officially be Commissioners at that point.
--
Upon roll call, the vote was:
'~J
t'Ayes": Fitzgerald. Berfield, Deegan and Thomas.
otNays": Garvey.
Motion carried.
Mayor Garvey indicated she opposed the way this matter was handled.
Commissioner Fitzgerald agreed.
Commissioner Deegan reported this is his last meeting. He referred to a
memorandum he wrote regarding the Bayview Historic Area Designation. He said a
historical and architectural inventory done a decade ago of the area around Bayview was
never formalized by the Historical Society or Pinellas County. He said people from the
Sayview area have requested this issue be addressed and updated so the proper
designation can be established.
Commissioner Deeoan referred to a memorandum he wrote to John Doglione, Chair
of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). He said Scenic Corridors can .be declared
by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation who can also remove the designation
at will. He expressed concern regarding the designation of McMullen-Booth Road as a
Scenic Corridor and noted the designation has not been formalized.
mincc03c.95
47
03/16/95
~P;~SX:;,.~;,.:J'i ".:' ,\,:;:,::,'; ";,:<:',',:i:.',
.. ;' '.I~ ": :.
, , ,
. .:: l :. ~, ~
,. '. . ; . .' ~. ~.
..:',-
. .. <.<
c . .'.'
i}
, ':'.~
~...\
i
.... ~J'
Commissioner Deeoan referred to a letter from the Chair of the House Committee on
Transportation to Representative Moroni in response to a letter from Commissioner Deegan
to Representative Moroni regarding the proposed additional gas tax to fund PST A.
Commissioner Deegan said the letter was positive and seemed to indicate the Committee
on Transportation may take action to help the PSTA in that regard.
.... .. ~
, '-,
, \
Mavor Garvev referred to a letter from John Doran requesting the second beach
tourism survey be done in July rather than May. Commissioner Deegan noted people on
the beach had recommended many different months. The City Manager stated the survey
was scheduled for May to 'earn what brings visitors here during the s'ow season.
Consensus was to do the survey in May.
ITEM #43 ~ Adiournment
The meeting adjourned at 1 :20 a.m., March 17, 1995.
ATTEST:
~ Z M$'.D. ~.
City Clerk "
--
~:>
"
'''-., ......
mincc03c.95
48
03/16/95
'. ,
. ..
. ..It..
.....ct.. F -d
I...:...... IOfl a
....... Power
~. ... .:
......~.. COR P 0 RAT ION
......
r;; '>( A
.ftJ c~3JIG(q5
COPIES TO'
COMMISSION
FEB 24 1995
February 23, 1995
PRESS
CLERK I ATTORNEY
mo~ Gv -\- C.Ol--lL,
Mr. William Baker
Assistant City Manager
City of Clearwater
112 South Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 34616
Dear Mr. Baker:
.,,,,,,,,,,
I~
Recent correspondence from Rowe Architects, Inc. to the Cit)' dated February 15, 1995
outlined a reconunendation to provide a Central Energy Plant for the City Services Center
Project utilizing gas engine-driven, water-cooled chillers. As also outlined in this
correspondence, the project would be receiving a $475,000 "capital loan .. (grant) from
Clearwater Gas to partially offset the increased capital costs for this equipment. This leaves a
project differential cost of $265,000 which has to be funded either from the project's
contingency fund or a budget increase from the Ciry Commission.
A major premise behind the $475,000 expendirure is [0 use the installation as a demonstration
project with the hope that future chiller sales will generate additional gas revenues [0 provide
an adequate rerum on the invesnnem. This strategy may put the City's invesnnem 3[ risk. A
gas chiller is a tough sale in the Tampa Bay marke[ for the following reasons:
· Lack of Equivalent Subsidies for Private Projects. An engineering report on the project
prepared by Bosek, Gibson and Associates clearly shows that without a substantial subsidy,
the return on invesunem for the project would be lengthy and well beyond generally
accepted nonTIS.
· High Maintenance Costs. As evidenced by the Bosek~Gibson report, a gas chiller is a
high maintenance item relative to available electric alternatives.
"-"
· Low Electric Utility Rates. A main driver for gas chiller sales around the coumry I
particularly in the Northeast, has been high electric utility rates. However, Florida
Power's low demand rate ($3.80 per kW), lack of a ratchet clause and a favorable time~of-
use fate usually contribute to a poor rerum on a gas chiller inves~em.
CUSTOMER SERVICE & MAR.K.ETING: 2166 Palmetto Street. P.O. no~. 1699 · Cleuw;uer. FlQrid. 3461' · ~gl3} 562.5601
A Florida Progrm Company
tl,....... "c-'< , ..
T,T..
February 23. , 995
Page 2
.
Ex . A +0 ~311~h5
Lack or Local Trade Allies. All of the major equipment distributors in the area (Tranc,
York, Carrier. McQuay) routinely recommend high efficiency electric chillers in this
market. The promoters of gas equipment will be competing against a highly trained and
competent sales force from these distributors. Combined with their often longwstJ.nding
relationship with the custOmer. they pose a formidable obst.lc1e to the acceptance of gas
chillers.
-....
Tampa Bay Trane, a major local HV AC equipment distributor, indicated in recent
correspondence to Jim Lewin of Clearwater Gas that "desiccant systems provide a broader
opportUnity for Clearwater Gas System than engine-driven chillers." The question was
also asked "bow many gas driven chillers can you hope to sell in the next five years as a
result of lhe installation you are installing vs. how many desiccant systems arc you likely
to sell if, on the other hand, you installed such a system on your project?" This certainly
does not point to a strong market with significant sales potential for gas chitlers.
Several questions about the economic feasibility of this demonsuation project corne to mind:
1. Would a private building owner invest in this type of system with a pro forma showing a
negative net present value over the twenty year life of the equipment?
2. Could a private building owner expect a sizable "grant" fr.om ClearwiHer Gas to make his
project feasible?
t"""~"""
l. )
. -----
3. Would future private projects be eligible for a gas rate of $.35 per therm which is less than
50 % of the current retail rate charged by Clearwater Gas?
4. The bigger question - is it a prudent business practice for the citizens of Clearwater to
subsidize this project when a proven, reliable electric technology is readily available which
does not require a major subsidy to be .economically justified?
As your electric energy supplier, Florida Power recommends the following for the City
Services Center Project:
1. The originally specified rooftop, electric air.cooled chillers are the most cost-effective
option based on your institutional building needs and represent no cost increase over the
Guaranteed Maximum Price for the project. The current Central Energy Plant proposal
carries a price premium of $740,000, not including $75,000 for under-street electrical lines
for emergency generation.
" )
2. If the City desires to pursue a Central Energy Plant utilizing higher efficiency equipment,
we recommend you consider water-cooled electric rotary screw chillers. There is a price
premium for these units relalive to the rooftop unils, however, their higher efficiency,
combined with lower ongoing maintenance costs relative to the gas units, would present a
more cost-cornpctitive alternative over the useful life of the equipment.
CUSTOMER SERVICE & MARKETING: 2166 PalmcllD SlIce I > P.o. BOl. l699. Clu.l'Walcr. Florida ~1'l > (8\3} 562.500\
A Florida I'rogrtJS Company
, _ . .,C. ',' ,
:,~~' ",
. ~, "
'!I1JI.,l,I.'I'"I) 4' ''',0 ,. ,~, .
.,....... ~".... ..' ..... "
; " ,r'" ~"~ " ,. ,. I .
, p": ,'u i '
, ,">,t
. J', .
. ,,"I /"
, ,c
, , ,~.,; ...~ :~'::i
February 23. 1995
c Page 3
fx.A
+0 cc.3/1~h5
. .""~,,,
If a goal of the City is to promote the product offered by Clearwater Gas, then either option.
used in tandem wiLh :1 desiccant (gas) dehumidification system, would be an overall package
the City would be proud to showcase and would seem to represent a more prudent investment.
",-'
{ '.
We have based our comments and reconunendations on the most current numbers made
available to us. If additional analysis has been completed or if the figures quoted have
changed, we would appreciate being apprised of this in the event they cause material changes
in the project costs, returns, or net present values on which we have based our comments and
recommendations .
I hope this information proves helpful to you in finalizing your reconunendation for equipment
selection at the City Services Center. Additionally, we would appreciate the opportUnity to
appear before the City Commission at their February 27, 1995 meeting to make a brief
presentation on these'poims and answer any questions. In the interim, ifl can answer any
questions or provide additional c1ari fication on any of the poims ourl ined in lhis letter> please
call me directly at 562-5600.
Sincerely
o
David H. Bonk
Manager, Customer Service & Marketing
Suncoast Florida Region
DHB/kjrn
cc: Mayor and City Commissioners
City Manager
u
CUSTOMER SERVICE &: MARKETING; 1166 P~meno Scree! . P.O. Bo~ 1699. Clearwater. Florida JoM17. (813) 562.5601
, A Florida ProgrtSl Company