The URL can be used to link to this page

08/02/2012City Council Agenda Location: Council Chambers - City Hall Date: 8/2/2012- 6:00 PM Welcome. We are glad to have you join us. If you wish to speak, please wait to be recognized, then state your name and address. Persons speaking before the City Council shall be limited to three (3) minutes unless otherwise noted under Public Hearings. For other than Citizens to be heard regarding items not on the Agenda, a spokesperson for a group may speak for three (3) minutes plus an additional minute for each person in the audience that waives their right to speak, up to a maximum of ten (10) minutes. Prior to the item being presented, please obtain the needed form to designate a spokesperson from the City Clerk (right-hand side of dais). Up to thirty minutes of public comment will be allowed for an agenda item. No person shall speak more than once on the same subject unless granted permission by the City Council. The City of Clearwater strongly supports and fully complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Please advise us at least 48 hours prior to the meeting if you require special accommodations at 727-562-4090. Assisted Listening Devices are available. Kindly refrain from using beepers, cellular telephones and other distracting devices during the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Invocation 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Presentations 4.1 Diversity Poster Contest Winners Presentation � Attachments 4.2 Airpark Advisory Board Presentation � Attachments 4.3 Public Art & Design Board Annual Report � Attachments 5. Approval of Minutes 5.1 Approve the minutes of the July 19, 2012 City Council Meeting as submitted in written summation by the City Clerk. � Attachments 6. Citizens to be Heard re Items Not on the Agenda Public Hearings - Not before 6:00 PM 7. Administrative Public Hearings - Presentation of issues by City staff - Statement of case by applicant or representative (5 min.) - Council questions - Comments in support or opposition (3 min. per speaker or 10 min maximum as spokesperson for others that have waived their time) - Council questions - Final rebuttal by applicant or representative (5 min.) - Council disposition 7.1 Approve the proposed substantial amendments to the City of Clearwater's FY 2010-2011 Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3(NSP 3) Action Plan to modify the categories of funding and identify proposed proj ects. � Attachments 7.2 Approve amendments to the Community Development Code repealing and replacing Article 3, Division 18 Signs in its entirety and amendments to Article 8, Section 8-102, Definitions relating to signage, and pass Ordinance 8343-12 on first reading. C� Attachments 8. Second Readings - Public Hearing 8.1 Adopt Ordinance 8335-12 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose post office address is 1907 Calumet Street into the corporate limits of the city and redefining the boundary lines of the city to include said addition. � Attachments 8.2 Adopt Ordinance 8336-12 on second reading, amending the future land use plan element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city to designate the land use for certain real property whose post office address is 1907 Calumet Street, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Industrial General (IG) and Industrial Limited (IL). � Attachments 8.3 Adopt Ordinance 8337-12 on second reading, amending the Zoning Atlas of the city by zoning certain real property whose post office address is 1907 Calumet Street, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT). �= Attachments 8.4 Adopt Ordinance 8345-12 on second reading, relating to soliciting the occupants of motor vehicles, renumbering Section 28.041 to Section 21.19, Code of Ordinances, to include street-solicitation violations among those violations that are punishable by a fine of up to $500.00, imprisonment for not more than 60 days, or both. 6�' Attachments 8.5 Adopt Ordinance 8347-12 as amended on second reading, prohibiting sitting or lying on the publicly owned right-of-ways, sidewalks, piers, docks, boardwalks, and entryways to publicly owned buildings in the downtown, gateway, and beach tourist areas. � Attachments 8.6 Adopt Ordinance 8348-12 on second reading, creating Section 21.21, Code of Ordinances, prohibiting lodging out-of—doors. � Attachments 8.7 Adopt Ordinance 8350-12 on second reading, vacating a portion of a 2-foot Drainage and Utility Easement lying on a parcel of land lying in Section 2, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, Pinellas County, Florida, and being a portion of Lot 9, Brentwood Estates, as recorded in Plat Book 59, Page 28 of the Public Records of Pinellas County. � Attachments City Manager Reports 9. Consent Agenda 9.1 Approve a contract (purchase order) with Extensys, Inc., Palm Harbor, Florida, in the amount of $247,478.77 for the acquisition of network storage, network backup and archiving management application and a diso-to-disc backup and recovery appliance, in accordance with Sec. 2.564(1)(d), Code of Ordinances — Florida State Contract; authorize lease purchase under the City's Master Lease Purchase Agreement and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) 6�' Attachments 9.2 Accept a Drainage and Utility Easement granted to the City from Cay 1475, LLC located southwest of the corner of Sunset Point Road and North Highland Avenue contingent upon Council adoption of Ordinance 8350-12. (consent) � Attachments 9.3 Approve a Work Order to Engineer of Record Jones Edmunds and Associates, Inc. for Engineering Services for the Northeast Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) Internal Recycle Pump Station Upgrade (12-0017-UT) in the amount of $118,800.00, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) � Attachments 9.4 Request for authority to institute a civil action on behalf of the City against Suncoast Development of Pinellas County, Inc., to recover $1,658.99 for damages to City property. (consent) � Attachments 10. Other Items on City Manager Reports 10.1 Approve funding from the City General Fund Reserves in the amount of $188,291 to undertake fencing and related improvements at the Main Library to define pedestrian patterns and create a public arts area. � Attachments 10.2 Award a Contract (purchase order) to Waterfront Engineering Inc., of Tampa, FL., in an amount not to exceed $400,000 to fund City owned seawall upgrades and/or replacement, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. � Attachments Miscellaneous Reports and Items 11. City Manager Verbal Reports 11.1 City Manager Verbal Reports � Attachments 12. Other Council Action 12.1 Other Council Action � Attachments 13. Closing Comments by Mayor 14. Adjourn City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Diversity Poster Contest Winners Presentation SUMMARY: Review Approval: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Cover Memo ��11�:�) City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Airpark Advisory Board Presentation SUMMARY: Review Approval: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Cover Memo ��11�:�� Clearwater Airpark Joint Participation Agreements JPA DESCRIPTION EXP JPA DOT �CITY F/CITY TOTAL S CIP NUMBER DATE DATE FUNDS FUNDS SPLIT AVAIL # 7�266�� MASTERPLAN, OS/OS/02 5/5/97 $50,000 $50,000(G) 50/50 $100,000 94713 4029i91�401 #k�l ALP, SURVEY 3/15/00 $30,176 $14,500(G) 55/45 $144,676 4029791�401 #2 INTEGRATION 8/8/00 $29,788 -0- 63/37 $174,464 �las�d STORMWATER 10/8/O1 $100,000 77/23 $274,464 4029911�401 DECLARED DIS 07/O1/03 7/27/00 $20,745 $5,186(G) 80/20 $25,931 94713 4030061�401 T/CORP HANGARS 12/30/03 6/21/00 $300,000 $300,000 (L) 50/50 $600,000 94713 4030061�401 #1 SPLIT ADJUST. 10/8/O1 $250,000 65/35 $850,000 403006�1940�1#2 FINAL STORM 10/29/02 $268,800 (-95,300) 80/20 $1,023,500 40300619401#3 FLJEL TANKS 12/30/04 1/6/03 $300,000 $60,000 80/20 $1,383,500 40300619401#4 SECURITY FENCE 6/19/03 $35,000 $20K �lc�s�d CORP HANGAR INC $100,000 $36,000 80/20 $1,518,500 100% CORP/FLTEL T INC $144,000 80/20 $1,698,500 4029�6�1940�1�1css�d OVERRLJNS BERMS 02/OS/04 4/5/O1 $175,000 $139,000 56/44 $594,000 94772 8/29/O1 $280,000 R 77/23 40299319401�1css�d SEC IlVIPROVEMENTS 03/04/04 3/21/02 $70,000 0 100/0 $70,000 94818 41�12419401C1css�d RUNWAYREPAIRS 6/30/15 6/30/10 $100,000 $25,000 R 80/20 $125,000 94863 41243119401 NEW FBO BUILD 2/16/07 8/11/06 $202,800 $50,700(L) 80/20 $253,500 94838 �c�dl MOD FOR SEWER 6/30/09 7/27/07 $200,000 $50,000 80/20 $503,500 94846 rncsd2 �ias�d AND GRND WATER 6/30/12 7/8/08 $99,598 $75,402 57/43 $678,500 94846 41434219401 MLTLTIPLANE HGRS 6/30/11 2/19/08 $405,431 $101,357 80/20 $506,788 94854 l�Icsd 1 -0- (L) Ii�csd 2 6/30/12 10/13/09 -0- l�csd ; �icss�d 6/30/16 $100,000 $25,000 R $631,788 4206�i19401�icss�d MULTIPLANE HGRS 6/30/16 $60,000 $15,000(R) 80/20 $75,000 94854 ��7i4��4E�i SEC.IMPROVEMENT 6/30/13 2/17/09 $166,799 0 100/0 $166,799 94858 ��£�� R/W Ext & Overlay and 6/30/17 $1,500,000 $375,000(R/G) 80/20 $1,875,000 94871 � Air ort Im rovements *� TOTALS $4,953,137 $1,261,845 79.7/20.3 $6,214,982 C:�Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp�NVDC\708A97DA-8E9C-4329-995B- E7034AC1AA57�PDFConvert.17182.1.Clearwater_Airpark_Joint Participation_Agreement Status.doc 7/3 0/2012 � v � � * Funds source G= General Funds Budget Item, L= Loan, R= Retained earnings Items in BOLD are open Items in red are 7PA's that have been completed Items in green are open and ongoing Highlights include the percentage split that was changed in 2002. Prior to that the spilt was 50/50. We were able to change that to 80/20 (FDOT/City) because we do not accept FAA funding. FAA funding acceptance kicks in a number of additional regulations, i.e. 24 hr operation and 250' centerline setback, just to name a few. We have received over $235K in security improvement funding at 100% Since around 2000 the Airpark has seen over $62M in funding. The next major item is the runway/taxiway improvement/extension and assuming there will some funding remaining a priority listing of several items will be considered. These include an Automated Weather Operating System (AWOS), an aircraft tug for moving planes, an auxillary power unit for assisting planes on start up, a portable fuel tank for Jet A and a possible expansion of the building ._� (D � � N C:�Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp�NVDC\708A97DA-8E9C-4329-995B- E7034AC1AA57�PDFConvert.17182.1.Clearwater_Airpark_Joint Participation_Agreement Status.doc 7/3 0/2012 D v � � � m � � � � � � � v � � N City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Public Art & Design Board Annual Report SUMMARY: Review Approval: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Cover Memo ��11�:�� City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:8/2/2012 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes of the July 19, 2012 City Council Meeting as submitted in written summation by the City Clerk. SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo ��11�:�� Present Also Present Unapproved CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER 1 �� Mayor George N. Cretekos, Vice Mayor Paul Gibson, Co Doreen Hock-DiPolito, Councilmember Bill Jonson, and ( Jay E. Polglaze. William B. Horne II - City Manager, Jill S. Silv�: Manager, Rod Irwin - Assistant City Manager; Attorney, Rosemarie Call - City Clerk, and Nic� Records and Legislative Services Coordinator. To provide continuity for research, items are necessarily discussed in that order. _ . � . - The meeting was called to Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 Imember �cilmember itification Award was presented to the Rumba Island Bar and If to Bay Boulevard. The Neighbc�rhood of the Quarter for Summer 2012 was presented to the Brigadoon of Clearwater Homeowners Association. Home of the Quarter awards were presented to Lisa Lanza, 2043 San Marino Way South and Justine Bradford, 608 N. Jefferson Avenue. Counci12012-07-19 1 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 4.3 Florida Water Professionals Week Proclamation, Auqust 13 — 27, 2012 - Dave Porter-Wastewater Environmental Technoloqies Manaqer 4.4 Florida Police Chief's Rockv Pomerance Award for Operation Graduate — Clearwater Police Chief Hollowav Police Chief Holloway presented Diana Lenox, Director of Dropout Prevention with Pinellas County Schools; Stan Vittetoe, Ph.D., Provost, Vice President forWorkfor� and Continuing Education with St. Petersburg College; Adrienne CQnwell, Chiefi Probation Officer with the Department of Juvenile Justice and Parks and Recreat�c� Director Kevin Dunbar and thanked them for their efforts and cc�mmitment tQ the program. 5. Approval of Minutes 5.1 Approve the minutes of the June 20, 2012 City Co�ancil M written summation bv the City Clerk. Councilmember Bill Jonson moved to approv� fhe minutes of th Council Meeting as submitted in written surnnnation by the Cifiy ! duly seconded and carried unanimously. � Public Hearings - Administrative P i(�6►�i�i[�� il with petition .,� earings Ii�•71CF�'.�, .F1i�� ng the mitted in une 20, rk. The of the Crest [IiI �T-�'. �:i�l:1�11��1it•: Fi1[i �'t•7'ii�i T dated Annual Action Plan and authorize the appropriate same. The U.S.' Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires communities that receive entitlement Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funding to prepare a comprehensive 5-year consolidated planning document that evaluates Counci12012-07-19 2 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 the needs of the community and sets forth strategies to address those needs. The Fiscal Year 2011-2016 Consolidated Annual Action Plan is mainly a continuation of the City's prior Consolidated Plan, which was completed in 2011. The Plan includes an executive summary, community profile, strategic plan, annual action plan, citizen participation plan and an analysis of fair housing and certifications. The community profile and the strategic plan are the two major components of the document. The community profile identifies the demographics and th� strategic plan identifies the needs and how they are going to be addressed. In addition, the City is required to create and implement an annual � identifying the sources and uses of federal money for housing, com economic development. This annual plan, referred to as a CQnsoli�l Action Plan, provides HUD with the City's housing, communifiy and development budget and proposed expenditures based on �khe en#ii and estimated program income that the City will receive in the upcc year to meet the goals established in the Five-Year Plan. In Fiscal Year 2012-2013, the City is estimated:ta'� amount of $719,995 through the CDBG and $301,; total Fiscal Year 2012-2013 allocation budget is $1 ment fun+ ing fiscal federal funds in the �ugh the HQME. The i� (excludina �HIP funding of $60,000). Funds provided thrc�ugh the HOME Rrc�gram are Iimited t4 housing-related activities and aclministcati4n. Fund� provided through the C�BG Program may be used for housing, community an� economic d�:u�lopment, public services and facilities, acquisition, relocation; d�molition and admini�tration. Ad�itit�nal funding for� fihe �Fiscal Year 2012-��?13 budget will c�me �from estimated pr+�gram income funds and un-programmed �r�or year CQB�G, HOME, SHIP and Pinellas �oun�y Housing Trust funds (loan re�ayments; Jc�an payoffs, recaptured funds, etc). Q#he� funds may in�lude those from th� Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3(N�P3) and leverage;from private sector investments. The City partners �n objectives the City I obtain these partne (NOFA) in the local profits of the resou� resources. It also ir ye�r the applica�ior �eral non-profit agencies to implement the goals and tablished in fihe Consolidated Planning Document. To City annually publishes a Notice of Funding Availability �aper and on its website. This notice informs the non- �es the City will make available and the eligible uses of these a�rms them of the application period for requesting funds. This � were due in April and the City received a total of 19 ing requests. A Technical Review Committee (TRC), comprised of professionals in the social service and grants community and two members of the City's Neighborhood and Affordable Housing Advisory Board (NAHAB), reviewed the applications, scored them and set forth a strategy to maximize the number of applicants that will receive a portion of allocated funds. Applicants were given an opportunity to Counci12012-07-19 3 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 present at the monthly NAHAB meeting regarding their programs. City staff also reviewed each application to ensure it met HUD's baseline requirements. The NAHAB met on May 8, 2012 to approve the recommended allocations contained in the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Consolidated Annual Action Plan. Economic Development and Housing Director Geri Campos Lopez provided a PowerPoint presentation. Councilmember Jay Polglaze moved to approve the City of CI 2012-2013 Consolidated Annual Action Plan, to carry forward set forth in the Fiscal Year 2011-2016 Five-Year Consolidatec HUD, and authorize the City to enter into agreements with org the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Consolidated Annual Action Plan � appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly s� unanimously. 7_2 Hiqhland Avenue subiect to certain first readinq (VAC2012-03). Cay 1475, LLC (Applicant) area proposed for vacation FLS2012-02003 has :been p�nd tQ be constructed ti��tl �greed �o grant the City a ; the `Citv's reauirements far' The substitut� utility corridor: Progress Energy, request. The Engineering request. City uti staff recommenc ent the iewed by city s, the Easement ' stitute Drainag� relocation of a ►e 20-feet wide �I ��r�s r�sca�� Y e�r � �oals and o�jectives i, as req�a�red b�r� . �tions con#ain�d �n' .�thc�rize the �ed and carried ►rain� � �rtd Utilitv oad ar�d c��th inance �350-12 on the easement ;rea). Planning Case Number nd calls for a dr�r stormwater tion Area: The Applicant has I Utility Easement and to satisfy sting sanitary line and gas line. wi11 arovide for a continuous n, Bright Hc�use and Knology have no objection to the nt conducted an interdepartmental review of the rs, potentially affected by the vacation, concur with the Vice M�y�r Paul GibsQn moved to approve request from Cay 1475, LLC to vacate the 20-foot �r�inac�e and Utility Easement located southwest of the corner of Sunset Point Road and North Highland Avenue subject to certain conditions. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Counci12012-07-19 4 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 Ordinance 8350-12 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Bill Jonson moved to pass Ordinance 8350-12 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Mayor George N. Cretekos, Vice Mayor Paul Gibson, Councilmember Doreen Hock-DiPolito, Councilmember Bill Jonson, and Councilmember Jay E. Polglaze. "Nays": None. 7.3 Approve the Annexation, Initial Land Use Plan De Research and Technoloqv (IRT) District for 1907 Calu aortion of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12 and the Soi and 8337-12 on first readina. (ANX2012 This voluntary annexation petition involues a 1.07� parcel of land that is currently vacant. I# is located Avenue, lying north of the Seaboard Coastline Ra requesting this annexation.�r� Qrder to j�ain #his par� the applicant located to the west of the subject prc within an enclave and is cQntiguous to existina Cit west. It is proposed that #he j de�sic�n�tiQns of Industrial Ge category Qf Intlustrial, Res�:a The Planning and L��:velopm' annexation is consistent with Section 4-604,E a� fio�l�aws roperty be as: �eral (IG) and ch and Techn nsistin �i y consi�t�n�� Qt one side of N. H�rcules �pplicant is :el with other parcels owned by �perty. The p�r+�p��ty is located y boundarae;� tQ fi.he� north and Future L,�r�d Use Plan ial Lirnit�ci (IL) and a zoning rtment determined that the proposed isions of Community Development Code The property is currently vacant but would receive water service from the City of Clearwater. The clos�st sanitary sewer line is located north of the property in the adjacent North Hercules Avenue right-of-way, but is not readily available to the property. The appli�anf is aware of the additional costs to extend City sewer s�rvice to this prQperty. Collection of solid waste will be provided by the City of �Iearwater. Th� property is located within Police District II and service will be admin�stered through the district headquarters located at 645 Pierce Street. Fire and �mergency medical services will be provided to this property by Station 48 located at 1700 N. Belcher Road. The City has adequate capacity to serve this property with sanitary sewer, water, solid waste, police, fire and EMS service. The proposed annexation will not have an adverse effect on public facilities and their levels of service; and Counci12012-07-19 5 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 The proposed annexation is consistent with and promotes the following objective of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan: Objective A.6.4: Due to the built-out character of the City of Clearwater, compact urban development within the urban service area shall be promoted through application of the Clearwater Community Development Code. Objective A.7.2 Diversify and expand the City's tax base of a variety of land uses located within the Clearwater P1 Area. The proposed IG and IL Future Land Use Plan categories are consi; current Countywide Plan designation of this property. This desi�nati+ permits non-residential uses at a maximum intensities of .75 FAR in FAR in IL. The proposed zoning district to be assigned tc� the prop� Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District. The property is c vacant property and exceeds the District's minimum dimensional cec The proposed annexation is therefore consisfi�nt uvith fik�e Countywid the City's Comprehensive Plan and Cornmunity Developrnent Code; �n pnmariiy IG and .65 rty is the urrently uirements. a Pl�n and The property proposed for annexation is contiguous tc� existinc� City boundaries to the nor�h and west; therefore� the ann�:xation is coin�istent vuith �fl�rida Statu�es Chapter 171.044. Councilmember poreen Hocl�-i�iF�olito moved to approve the Ann�xation, Initial Land Use�F�I�rt peSigr�ation of Ind��#ri�l �eneral (IG) ancl� Inclustrial:Limited (IL) and Initial Zc�ning Atlas Qesignation of Industrial, Research and Te�l�nolQgy (IRT) District for 1907 �alumet Street (cQr�sisting of a pc�rkion of the Northwest; 9%4 of Section 12 and the Southwest 1/4 of Se��Qn 1, Township 29 South, Range 15 East). The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. inance 8335-12 was red to pass Ordinanc � roll call, the vote w ��": Mayor G�� Doreen Hc Ja� E: F'ca1� "Nays": I�Qne. ed and re�d by title only. Councilmember Jay Polglaze 12 on firsfi reading. The motion was duly seconded and J. Cretekos, Vice Mayor Paul Gibson, Councilmember iPolito, Councilmember Bill Jonson, and Councilmember Counci12012-07-19 6 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 Ordinance 8336-12 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember poreen Hock-DiPolito moved to pass Ordinance 8336-12 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Mayor George N. Cretekos, Vice Mayor Paul Gibson, Councilmember Doreen Hock-DiPolito, Councilmember Bill Jonson, and Councilmember Ordinance 8337-12 was presented and read by title only. ` moved to pass Ordinance 8337-12 on first reading. The m upon roll call, the vote was: Mayor George N. Cretekos, Vice Mayor Paul Gibson, Doreen Hock-DiPolito, Councilmemb�r BiII Jc�nson, a corner of East Shore Drive and Papaya of East Shore Drive. The majority of the site is currently r of the area developed with three single-story buildings ccommodation units. The proposal i� f�r an overnight accommodation use of a total of 134 rooms (106 rQOms/acre Qn°to#al site, including the allocation of 71 units from the Hotel Density Reser�re� �nd 6,500 square feet (0.11 FAR on total site) of amenities accessory to the hotel at a height of 85.5 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof of elevator tower). On June 19, 2012, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved with 29 conditions of approval a Flexible Development application for the construction of a 134-unit hotel with accessory restaurant (FLD2012-03008).The proposal is in compliance with the standards for development agreements, is consistent with the Counci12012-07-19 7 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 Comprehensive Plan and furthers the vision of beach redevelopment set forth in Beach by Design. The proposed Development Agreement will be in effect for a period not to exceed ten (10) years, meets the criteria for the allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design and includes the following main provisions: Provides for the allocation of 71 units from the Hotel Density Rese Requires the developer to obtain building permits and ce accordance with Community Development Code (CDC) : the return of any hotel unit obtained from the Hotel Densi constructed; For units allocated from the Hotel Density R conversion of any hotel unit to a residential use and requ covenant restricting use of such hotel units to overnight � and Requires a legally enforceable mandatory evacuat� hotel will be closed as soon as practicable after a°t Clearwater Beach is posted by the NatiQnal Hurric� The Community Development Board �reuiewed this application at its public hearing c�n Jur�'I�, 2012a��;; recommended approval of the �application. u ( Keserve t�l�t I5 ►�c�t serve, prc�hibits the , es #I�� r�cording ofi � ' ,cQmmodation usage! ure covenar�t that the e watch th�t ar�cludes ��er. pm�nt Agreemen# inimously In respons� tQ questions, Plann�;r Matt Jackson sa�d there are approximately 1,000 units remainina in the hotel densitu reserve. The �r+�iect does not include back-out parking. Gulfe�ast Consulting representative Robe�k Pergc�lizzi �aid the trip generation for this project would b�; 1,190 da��y trips, of which 86 wQUld occur in the mid-day peak hour and 72 would occur during 4:QQ p�m. and 6:00 p.m. Planning and Development Director Michael Delk s�id the develQpment order does not require the hotel to be a flag. East Shore Drive was resurfaced recently, from the roundabout to Papaya Street. The section from Papaya Street to Bayrnont Street would be resurfaced as part of a scheduled stormwater praje�t,;scheduled to begin in October. Engineering Director Mike Quillen said the storrnw�ter project and hotel construction can occur concurrently; staff prefers resurfacing the rc�ad after the hotel construction. nager �roiec" One ind ff will be contacting the businesses impacted by the roject is expected to be completed within six months. .... . In response to a question, Mr. Delk said the hotel density reserve does not require a flag hotel. Beach by Design established a resort density pool that required hotels to be a flag. Counci12012-07-19 I[�'ii�:�! Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 Councilmember poreen Hock-DiPolito moved to approve a Development Agreement between Louis Developments LLC (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater, providing for the allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded. Mayor George N. Cretekos and Councilmembers Doreen Hock-DiPolito and Jay Polglaze voted "Aye"; Vice Mayor Paul Gibson and Councilmember Bill Jonson voted "Nay". Motion carried. Resolution 12-07 was presented and read by title only. Counci DiPolito moved to adopt Resolution 12-07. The motion was du Concerns were expressed regarding the project's height and traffic safety concerns. Upon roll call, the vote was: Counci12012-07-19 9 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1i "Ayes": Mayor George N. Cretekos, Councilmember poreen Hock-DiPolito, Councilmember Bill Jonson, and Councilmember Jay E. Polglaze. "Nays": Vice Mayor Paul Gibson. Motion carried. 8.2 Adopt Ordinance 8331-12 on second readinq, amendi Develoament Code to arovide for outdoor cafes within circumstances. Ordinance 8331-12 was presented and read by title only. Counc Hock-DiPolito moved to adopt Ordinance 8331-12 on second an� motion was duly seconded. One individual spoke in opposition. Upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Mayor George N. Cretekos, Vi�e Mayor Paul Gibs� Doreen Hock-DiPo�ifiQ, C�auncilm�mber Bill Jonson; Jay E. Polglaze. ��Navs°: None. . ��• ! • . • •, . •. - - r. . �r � .. . uncilmen ;ouncilm 12 e�r� ��ond readinq, arn�r�d`inq and restatinq the , Artic�� i/:9 Division 3., of the Citv of Clearwater Cod� revised Er��loyees Pension Plan; callinq for a atina to th� c��r�sion alan and arovidina a referendum �?rdinance 8333-12 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Jay Polglaze rnQ�re+d to adopt Ordinance 8�33-12 on second and final reading. The motion was duly secQrad�d and upon roll c�ll,"the vote was� "Ayes": Mayor George N. Cretekos, Vice Mayor Paul Gibson, Councilmember C1Qreen Hock-DiPolito, Councilmember Bill Jonson, and Councilmember `_ J�y E. Polglaze. "Nays": None. Counci12012-07-19 10 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 8.4 Adopt Ordinance 8339-12 on second readinq, rescindinq Ordinance 7650-06 which vacated, with conditions, the five-foot utilitv easement Ivinq alonq the south propertv line of Lot 1 and the west 22.71 feet of Lot 2, Sunnvdale Subdivision, and vacated the ten-foot allev Ivinq adiacent to the north propertv lines of Lots 2,6,7, and the west fifteen feet of Lot 8, Sunset Point Replat because conditions were not met. Ordinance 8339-12 was presented and read by title only. Vice Mayor P moved to adopt Ordinance 8339-12 on second and final reading. The n seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Mayor George N. Cretekos, Vice Mayor Paul Gib; Doreen Hock-DiPolito, Councilmember Bill Jonso Jay E. Polglaze. "Nays": None. 8.5 Adopt Ordinance 8340-12 on second thereof; limitinq bathinq to recreation purpose; eliminatinq references to ba use of service animals on reference to Clearw�ter E Ordinance 8340-12' moved to adopt Ord seconded and upon res [iiL� "Ayes": Mayor Georg� N. Cret Doreen Ho�k-L?iPolito, Jay E, Polgla�e. �� "Na�s".. None, :. C•:I � �eacr�es � ive Golf Co Commissioi > of the Cod _�� - . � �; �� , .- : . ��; • •a- i ,� � � ,.�i� • �� n / �� a .. �� .� • �..��;��, .- . ��,� • � • • � . i� � �; r . . �� , �'� • . 1�;�!'", :.';� .� .�� read by title only. Councilmember Bill Jonson >econd and final reading. The motion was duly ce Mayor Paul Gibson, Councilmember Imember Bill Jonson, and Councilmember ��ar�� va�r �- � � vi � ac�.vi �u i caun �u, a� i ici �un �u �i �c v{�ci a�n �.y uuuuc� �i l'ear endinq September 30, 2012 to reflect increases and in revenues and exaenditures for the General Fund. Saecial Proaram Fund, Marine Fund, Airpark Fund, Parkinq Fund, Administrative Services Fund, General Services Fund, and Central Insurance Fund. Counci12012-07-19 11 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1; Ordinance 8341-12 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember poreen Hock-DiPolito moved to adopt Ordinance 8341-12 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Mayor George N. Cretekos, Vice Mayor Paul Gibson, Councilmember Doreen Hock-DiPolito, Councilmember Bill Jonson, and Councilmember Jay E. Polglaze. "Nays": None. � �- � L V � � �CVv Improvement Budqet for the Fiscal vear endinq Septemb�r 3Q:, net increase of $2,709,176. Ordinance 8342-12 was presented and read by title only. CouncilmE moved to adopt Ordinance 8342-12 on second and final reading. Th seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: _ "Ayes": Mayor George N. Cretekos, Vi�� Mayor Pau Doreen Hock-DiPolito, Councilrnember Bill J Jay E. Polglaze. :� � �, � � � : �, �; ; - ; . . „� • • �; � � ��• •ru-r f�' ^;. --r inance 8344-12 was red to adopt Ordinan anded and upon roll � "Nays" C�7� Jay Polglaz� on was duly , Councilrr �nd Counc .._�'1Ti�. ��• •�n-� _ r ited and read�'`by title only. Vice Mayor Paul Gibson �4-12 on second and final reading. The motion was duly e vote was: Mayor George N. Cretekos, Vice Mayor Paul Gibson, Councilmember Doreen Ht�ck-DiPolito, Councilmember Bill Jonson, and Councilmember Ja� E. F'o1qlaze. e. City Manager Reports Counci12012-07-19 12 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1; 9. Consent Aqenda - Approved as submitted. 9.1 Declare seventeen (17) Medtronic Lifepak 12 Cardiac Monitors/Defibrillators surplus to the needs of the City, authorize donation to the Pinellas County Emerqency Medical Services (EMS) Authority, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) 9.2 Authorize the increase of Blanket Purchase Order BR507677[� to Clffiice D�ot awarded by the City Manaqer, from $100.000 to $220.00�?, for the periQd November 1. 2011 throuqh October 31. 2012, in accordance with Sec. 2.�64 (1)(d) Code of Ordinances - Other Governmental Bid, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) 9.3 Approve funding not to exceed $822,490 to properly close a landfill site known' as the Phillip Jones Park: renovate the site to be used for youth s�Qrts, primaril as a football stadium from unrestricted Solid Waste funds and es#ablish a new Capital Improvement Pro 93631). (consent) 9.4 Approve acceptance of C (DOJ/BJA) Edward ByrnE $60.658: additional .75 F 9.7 �riate officials to ect entitled Philli publication reqarding its E authorize the aaaroariate � Aqreement betw� (FBI) and the Cit Police Departme McMullen Booth ent uiu� alent e. '(consE New York 1Q27�, and #he �qraphs in th� �ieuel�pmer P 315- Assistart+ he amour authorize of Clearwater Police in Immiprant Communities proiect, and :o execute same. (consent) eement, whi�h:replaces the existinq Licensinq Tampa Division of the Federal Bureau of Investiqation arwater (City), concerninq the use of the Clearwater ct III Traininq Facility (Premises), located at 2851 North ;learwater. Florida. and authorize the aaaroariate �ral of the Interlocal Aqreement between the t of Clearwater and � -�- - r- - ��— authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent 9.8 Ratify and Confirm Chanqe Order 2 for the Marshall Street Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) Rapid Sand Filter Rehabilitation proiect (09-0045-UT) to add a Counci12012-07-19 13 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1� 113-day time extension to the contract for additional unforeseen work. (consent) 9.9 Award a contract to Wharton-Smith. Inc. of Sanford. Florida, to rehabilitate clarifiers 1-4 at the Marshall Street Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) in the amount of $1.789.887.00, which is the lowest responsible bid received in accordance with plans and specifications: approve a work order to Enpineer of Record, Kinq Enqineerinq Associates, Inc. in the amount of $175,994.00 to provide Enqineerinq Services durinq construction and field ok�servatic�n for a total . � same. �consen $2,378,307.80, for the Marshall Street Salsnes Filter P which is the lowest responsive bid received in accorda Inc. in the amount of $164.675.00 to prc Inspection (CEI) services and authorize same. (consent) 9.11 Award a contract to SL Williams Cons�l amount of $1,542,238.53 for constructit Concentrate and Backwask� Pipeline,�Pi responsible bid received in accordance proiect; and authorize fih�;appropriate o 9.12 Ar�arove`Enaineer of Rec+ord.(EORI cor �rs•� 9.13 Ratify and Con1 Clearwater and . , to � ide Co ect e. tconse ;,e �with pl�ns and ord, McKim and Creed;' �n, Enqineerinq and officials to°�x�cute 1 nc�ton, Florida, in #he : C?smosis Plant`1- T, which is the lowest �d specifica�ions for thi: � same. �consent) uenty-seven firms listed iarium for the lease of a portion of the third floor occupan�y; approve First Amendment to the Lease between City of Clearwater and Clearwater Marine Aquarium, dated September 12. 2011, to a ropriate officials to execute same. (consent 9.15 Reappoint Joseph DeCicco as the Aqency or Government representative and Arthonia Godwin as the Business owner or representative of the Brownfields Advisory Board with terms to expire May 31. 2016. (consent) Counci12012-07-19 14 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1; Councilmember poreen Hock-DiPolito moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. � [�a � : . Other Items on City Manager Reports Adopt a tentative millaqe rate of 5.1550 mills for fiscal public hearinq dates on the budqet for September 4, 2 2012, to be held no earlier than 6:00 p.m. � In accordance with the Truth in Millage (TRIM) process, the �+ty adopt a tentative millage rate and set public hearing dates priori adopting a budget. This information must be provided to the Pii Property Appraiser and Tax Collector by August 4, 2012. This C millage rate and public hearing dates will b� �n��u�ed Qn the TRI to taxpayers in August. This tentative r�te �annot be increased cil must' lizing an County mailed st- class mailing notification to each taxpayer at the exp�nse of the City of Clearwater, not less than 10 days and not more than � 5 days before the first public hearing. The City Man��er's r�:commend�;d millage rate is 5.1550 mills. The rate is 1.60°/o less than th� rolled` back rate of 5.2387 rnill�. The rolled-back rate is the millage rate that will provide the Gaty with the same prc�perty tax reu�rtu� as was levied in the prior year. If the proposed rnill�ge rate of 5.1550 mills is adc�p#ed, the Cifiy's ordinance adoptinc� the millage rate will reflect a 1.60% decrea�e from the ralled back rate of 5_2387 mills. The proposed i the 2012 comp 5.1550 mills - Pro 5.2387 mills - Rol 7.7674 mills - Ma: 8.5441 mills - Ma: rate as well as other TRIM millage rates will be noted on millage rate , ;k millage rate majority vote rate two-thirds vote rate son provided a PowerPoint presentation. Councilmember Bill Jonson moved to adopt a tentative millage rate of 5.1550 mills for fiscal year 2�12/13 and set public hearing dates on the budget for September 4, 2012 and September 20, 2012, to be held no earlier than 6:00 p.m. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Counci12012-07-19 15 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1i 10.2 Provide direction reqardinq the report of the Marine Advisorv Board relatinq to Citv support of a proposed amendment to the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Manaqement Council's Reef Fish Manaqement Plan allowinq for sector roup formed bv and representina chartered/for hire fishina fleet. The Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (GI� federal Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (t', Act), is responsible for developing fishery managemeni resources from where state waters end, out to the 200- Mexico. Fisheries Management Plans, particularly the f Plan, are based on separate catch quotas for the recre� commercial sector. The commercial sector includes fisF restaurants, seafood stores and the like. The recreatior individuals fishing for their own enjoyment ancl sp�cific� and head boats such as those that operate +�ut c�f fihe°G re �v��gnuson-�t�uen�on plans to manage fishery nile limit c�f'�khe Gulf Qf : e�fi Fish Management �ic�nal s�ctor and the �ries fo supp�Y al sector ir�cludes private�` Ily includes ck�arter boats earwater Be�ch Marina. The GMFMC is currently considering an amendment tQ #h� its Reef Fish` Management Plan (amendment 39) fhat would develc�p a prc�gram for sector separation, which would al��w�ci�arterfi�hing boat� and heac� bo�ts to be allocated a separate annu�l catch quota from th�:; recreational �ector. This sector separation would nat allow the charter boats and head boats to "take" more fish, anly manage the number tMey catch over the entire year and not lose customers during +cic�se�l months. �h�rter and head baiats will be obliged to log and report their catch to the Gulf of tVlexico Fisheries Managernen# �ouncil to provide more data on the h�;alth of the varicaus fish species, therefore`better managing fish stocks and potentially increasing the fishing season so that captains can manage their businesses more effectivel�. : At the present timE by the GMFMC as from stakeholders need. The goal of : alternatives associ �ctions and altern# �, proposed amendment is at the "Scoping" stage, defined :riod when the "Council gathers suggestions and ideas others about how to solve a fishery problem or address a �ing is to identify issues, potential impacts, and reasonable I with the issues at hand so that reasonable management s can be developed." The 1Vlarine Advisory Board convened a special meeting during the first week of Ju�y and'staff is requesting direction from the City Council on actions to take with regard to this issue based on the Marine Advisory Board's recommendation. After a 90-minute discussion, the Marine Advisory Board voted in favor of supporting the request of the Clearwater Marine Association for sector separation. Counci12012-07-19 16 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 Six individuals spoke in support and one individual spoke in opposition. In response to questions, Marine and Aviation Director Bill Morris said the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (Council) sets the annual quota for the catch period; specifying the number of fish, per species, allowed to be caught during the year. The objective of sector separation is to balance when the grouper is �augt��t. Mr. Morris said the Council has been encouraged to develop rules for all fishing secfors (i;e., commercial, charter and recreational). Vice Mayor Paul Gibson moved to direct staff to draft a letter 1 supporting sector separation. The motion was duly seconded The Council recessed from 8:14 p.m. to 8:25 p.m. 10.3 1► .FTiiC.7if1[� • � - � • � 1:�►[y�lilC•3i1n111 � � - i -�iiR�: . o � ii�f��7 The City of Tampa was � connected with the RNC Security Event due #o #h� ant�er�n� challenge c�f�en; Law enf�rcement agenci sub-recipi�nts';of the fed+ �1it"[•�iiL�'i Florida Governor I RNC to activate fit Chapter 23, Part I agencies jurisdicti ect c�ed a fed�ral grant t� t��:lp with ��;curity costs ` ; RNC has been designated a Na#i�nal Special ;nt's significanc� �k4 the United S#ates and the g the safety an�l security of al1 �vent participants. roviding persannei for the RNC are considered to be �rant and eligib1e fiQr�r�imbursement for personnel th #he terms of the Agreement and the grant. Scott wi1) execute an executive order in advance of the �rida Mutu�l Aid Plan pursuant to Florida State Statues °eby conferrin� upon participating law enforcement �r its officers for all activities related to the RNC. Florida Statutes Ch�pt�r 23 further provides authority for law enforcement agencies to enter in�#Q written mutual aid agreements, including operational �ssistance agreernents pursuant to Florida Statute 23.1225(1)(b), for assistance in the management of an emergency as defined in Florida Statute 252.34. Clearwater Police Chief Anthony Holloway said staff has been informed that all unfunded reimbursement requests will be reviewed after the Republican National Convention. Counci12012-07-19 17 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1� Councilmember Bill Jonson moved approve the Mutual Aid Agreement with the City of Tampa for the Republican National Convention (RNC), which will be effective during the week commencing on August 26, 2012 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 10.4 Move Section 28.041, Clearwater Code of Ordinances, to Ch Code to make solicitations on aubliclv owned streets. aarkir�� 12 on first readina. The orderly flow of motorized traffic is a major concern particularly because an obstruction or delay in traffic at artery results in delays and backups far down the road� � .�. ga Roadway solicitations can adversely affect the orderly flow of traffic. Additionally unlike the oral advocacy of ideas, or even the distribution of free lit�rature, successful solicitations from drivers distracfs them frorn their primary duty to watch the traffic and potential hazards in the road, obserue all traffic contr4l signals or warnings, and prepare to rnQVe through the inter�ection, parkir�g garage, or parking lot because the indiuidual is required #o �r�spond to the � solicitor by, for example, searching for currency, passing it alang to the solicitor, securing any change returned; replacing a wallet:+�r closing a purse, and then returning proper attention tQ the full responsib�lifiies of opera��ng a motor vehicle. and the tra�� violation is p Because Clearw� repeatedly soliciti officers need a gr Ordinances, to CI street solicitation; imprisonment an� arrest those �nq� 28.Q41; Clearwater Code Qf Qrdinan�es, prohibits a person occupants of motor vehicle� b�ing caperated on public streets ; of publicly cawned parking garages and parking lots. A �ble only by a fine and is, therefore, nonarrestable. olice officers frequently observe the same individuals �ker having been issued a civil citation for unlawful soliciting, r deterrent. By moving Section 28.041, Clearwater Code of {r 21 of the Code, the City Council will include unlawful �ng those violations punishable by up to 60 days � provide Clearwater police officers with the discretion to in unlawful street solicitations. An additiona1 change to the existing ordinance is to limit street solicitations to the types ofi solicitations that have the greatest potential for injuries: that is, solicitations from the occupants of motor vehicles being operated in the travel lane of publicly owned streets while the motor vehicle is stopped at a traffic control signal or at an intersection. Counci12012-07-19 18 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1! There are numerous and diverse methods of soliciting available in the City of Clearwater that provide ample alternatives for street solicitations, including soliciting pedestrians on the sidewalk, canvassing door-to-door, telephoning or emailing individuals, or direct mailing. Moreover, the ordinance would still enable a person to solicit up to ten cumulative days within one calendar year so long as the solicitor complies with the conditions set forth in the ordinance. Councilmember poreen Hock-DiPolito moved to move Section Code of Ordinances, to Chapter 21 of the Code to make solicits streets, parking garages, and parking lots punishable by impris The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ordinance 8345-12 was presented and read by title only. moved to pass Ordinance 8345-12 on first reading. The upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": "N ays": '10.5 i Mayor George N. Cretekos, Doreen Hock-DiPoli�o, Goui Jay E. Polglaze. e. .. . .0 . :-. The improvement Beach has been � fihe City by attract �:r�rx� �'i� rP ber '.8.041, Clearwater :icans on publicly �uuned nmenta fine, or both, ,ilmernber Jay Polglaze' was duly;seconded and �n, Councilmernber . ancl Councilmember town area, Gatewav Corridor and as Ordinance 8347-12 on first readi downtown, the East Gateway District, and Clearwater priority in the City's plan to expand the economic base of w investment and patrons to the area. The downtown is prQjected to attract additional tourists and visitors as redevelopment continues. The East Gateway District is one of the designated redevelopment areas of the Ci�ky and i� �t a transformative point to change the trajectory of the economy and imprQUe the quality of life for current and future residents and businesses. Clearwater Beach has an economic impact of over $1 billion and is projected to increase its impact as redevelopment on the beach continues to occur. The City of Clearwater also spends annually around $602,000 on special events, with $453,000 allocated to downtown events (including funding from the Downtown Counci12012-07-19 19 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2i Development Board), $5,000 allocated to the East Gateway District, and $144,000 allocated to Beach events. The right-of-way, including the sidewalk, located between the edge of the pavement of a roadway and the adjacent property line of privately and publicly owned properties located in the Clearwater Downtown Core Redevelopment Zone, the Gateway Corridor, the Clearwater Beach Core Tourist Zone, as well as the publicly owned piers, docks, and boardwalks, including public-access boardwalks, and the entryways to and exitways from publicly owned buildings located within those areas, ar�; created and maintained for the primary purposes of enabling th� public to saf�:ly and efficiently move about from place to place, thus facilitating deliveries of goQds and services and providing the public with convenient access to goods and services. Moreover, those areas are prone to congestion and shc�uld be k�p� available to serve their primary purposes. Evidence from Qther �ities such a� ; Phoenix, Arizona in Seeley v. State of Arizona, 655 P. 2d 803, 807 (Ariz. Ct. App: 1982), and Seattle, Washington, in Roulette v. City of Seattle, �7 F. 3d 300, 3��` (9th Cir. 1996) and City of Seattle v. McConahy, 937 P. 2d 1133; 1138-39 (9th Cir. 1997), shows that sitting or lying upon the public right-of-ways threatens public safety and interferes with the primary purpQS� c�fi enabling the p�blic to safely and efficiently move about from place to place, thus deterring members of the public from frequenting a business district and und�;rmining the essential economic viability of those areas - all Qf which can I�ac! fic� a�piral of deteric�ration and blight. The ordinance will make ifi unlawful between 7:fl0` a.m. ft:7'i individuals to sit or lie d�wn upon the right-of way, including the sidewalk, located betw��n #he edge of the pavement of a roadway and the `adjacent property line of privat�ly and publicly own�:d properties loca#�;d in th� Glearwater powntown Core Redevelopm�n� Zone, the ��teway Corridor, th+e Cl�:arwater Beach Core Tourist Zone, as well as �khe publicly ouwned piers, docks,' and boardwalks, including public-access `bc�ardwalks, and the entryways to and exitways from publicly owned buildings I+�cated within th��e.areas. However, the ordinance would not apply to those: • Sitting or lying • Sitting or lying + Utilizing an oka was intended, in a park or public beach as defined in Section 22.21; due to a medical emergency; pplied by the City or other public agency in the manner it as sitting on a chair or bench; down in or on a wheelchair, a baby carriage, or any other icle in order to move about; Participating in or viewing any activity, such as a parade, festival, perFormance, rally, demonstration, meeting, or other event, pursuant to any permit or license issued by the City; • Sitting down while patronizing a sidewalk cafes; or Counci12012-07-19 20 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 • Sitting or lying down when it is an integral part of a protest accompanied by incidents of speech such as signs or literature explaining the protest. Additionally, no person will be charged for the first violation unless the person continues to engage in conduct prohibited by the ordinance after having been: Notified by a law enforcement officer that the conduct violates the o provided an opportunity to relocate to an area where sitting or lying be lawful. Assistant City Attorney Rob Surette said page 11 of the propos amended as follows,"... (7) It shall be a violation of this section of this section to commit a second or subsequent violation subsection (1) of this section as the first violation." In response to a question, Mr. Surette said offi individuals with social services, such as Safe 1- and Homeless Emergency Project, in lieu of'ar One individual spoke in support individual expressed a concern t Vice Mayor P�aul �ibson mo��;d Ordin�nc�s, prQk�ibiting sitting car �rea, Gateway CQrri�l�r and Cle� seconded and carried an�nimou Ordinance 8347-12 w� moved to pass Ordina u,pon roll call, the vote Mayor Geo Doreen Ho� Jay E. Pol� "N , Relig ree individuals spoke in oK ing homelessn�ss in other reate Section g down on ce ��er Beach To inance; and awn would aanance was �y person who h� i# trt� subsection (f same, area listed to conne�� these munity Senri�es, Ri#ion. One , Clearwater Code of �ublic �reas in the Downtown �istcict: The motion was duly nted and re�d by title only. Councilmember Bill Jonson 7-12 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and '". Cretekos, Vice Mayor Paul Gibson, Councilmember 'olito, Councilmember Bill Jonson, and Councilmember 10.6 Create Section 21.21, Clearwater Code of Ordinances, relatinq to lodqinq out-of- doors and pass Ordinance 8348-12 on first readinq. Counci12012-07-19 21 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2; Individuals who are lodging out-of-doors on publicly owned property for the purpose of establishing a temporary or permanent place of lodging or residence adversely affects aesthetics, sanitation, public health, and safety. Moreover, the unauthorized use of publicly owned property for lodging out-of-doors when the property in question is neither intended nor designed as a camp site, campground, or site for temporary human habitation tends to impair, obstruct, and otherwise detract from the use of the property for its intended purpose. The ordinance will make it unlawful for a person to use the City for the purpose of lodging out-of-doors except approved by the City's Parks and Recreation DepartmE However, if a Clearwater police officer encounters a persc of-doors because the person has no permanent or tempc�r officers are required during the first two encounters with �r make every effort to afford the person an opportunity to re �y;ownec� proper�y, in those areas that are private shelter before citing the person for a vic��atic�n of the ordin� Regardless, if public or private shelter spa� is ur�auail�ble within County at the moment an officer encoun#ers a person Ic�dging out person will not be cited under the ordin�nce. Moreover, officers are a person who is relocated will be stored by the pol, utes from Safe H' r those who seek Staff was directed to �ita: F1'i•T•7a :ilmember poreen Gu ay �uirea t� �:nsure �helter will be tra partment for up . �d expressed`a � �v Boulevard arE �ea a days. of residen erson to � aublic or the e person or �at`early morning bus able, which are needed rces regarding transportation services from DiPolito moved to create Section 21.21, Clearwater Code c�f �lydinances, relating to IQdging out-of-doors. The motion was duly seconded and carri�d unanimously. Ordinance 8348-1� was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Jay Polglaze moved to'pass C:�rdinance 8348-12 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and .. . "Ayes": was: Mayor George N. Cretekos, Vice Mayor Paul Gibson, Councilmember Doreen Hock-DiPolito, Councilmember Bill Jonson, and Councilmember Jay E. Polglaze. Counci12012-07-19 22 Item # 4 "Nays": None. Miscellaneous Reports and Items City Manager Verbal Reports RNC Banners Mayor George N. Cretekos requested consideration to authc proceed with discussions regarding the Republican National request with the Host Committee representatives. Councilmember poreen Hock-DiPolito moved to a with discussions regarding the Republican Nation� with the Host Committee representatives. The mc unanimously. Mayor George N. Cretekos the City Attorney for receivi Mayor City of Clearwater Attachment number 1 \nPage 2: Counci12012-07-19 23 Item # 4 City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Approve the proposed substantial amendments to the City of Clearwater's FY 2010-2011 Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP 3) Action Plan to modify the categories of funding and identify proposed projects. SUMMARY: The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development previously awarded the City of Clearwater $1,385,801 in funding through the NSP 3 Program. The NSP 3 Program is designed to stabilize neighborhoods that have been and continue to be damaged by the economic effects of properties that have been foreclosed or abandoned. The NSP 3 Program established five allowable housing strategies for funding. They include using the funds for housing-related financing mechanism, acquisition and rehabilitation, land banking, demolition, and redevelopment. On March 10, 2012, HUD approved the City's NSP 3 Action Plan to use its funding in the following manner: • Financing mechanisms for the purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed homes and properties -$350,000 — 6 units • Acquisition and rehabilitation of foreclosed and abandoned properties -$397,221 — 4 units • Redevelopment of demolished or vacant properties for housing -$500,000 — 10 units • Administration - $138,580 At the time of HUD's approval of the NSP 3 plan, specific projects were not yet identified. After further review and consultation, the City proposes to amend the existing Action Plan to make the following modifications: NSP 3 Activities to be deleted: Establish financing mechanisms for the purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed upon homes and residential properties. o Provide financial assistance to eligible homebuyers of up to 120% AMI, to purchase foreclosed properties in the NSP3 Target Areas. Estimated amount -$ 350,000 Acquire and rehabilitate homes and residential properties that have been abandoned or foreclosed upon, in order to sell, rent, or redevelop such homes and properties. o Provide financial assistance to acquire, rehabilitate and resell foreclosed upon properties in the NSP3 Target Areas. Estimated amount - $ 397,220 Total amount from deleted activities is $747,220. NSP 3 Activities to be increased: Redevelop demolished or vacant properties and use for housing. o Provide financial assistance to Boley Centers, Inc. to refinance property acquisition costs and develop 14 units of rental housing for individuals with income at or below 50% of AMI located in the targeted NSP areas. Estimated amount - $346,451 Cover Memo Redevelop demolished or vacant properties and use for housing. If2CT1 # 5 0 o Provide financial assistance to SP Country Club Townhomes, LLC to build 6 townhomes for families at or below 120 /o of AMI located in the targeted NSP areas. Estimated amount -$475,770 • Redevelop demolished or vacant properties and use for housing. o Provide financial assistance to Pinellas County Habitat for Humanity, Inc. to build 6 new single family homes for families at or below 80% of AMI located in the targeted NSP areas. Estimated amount -$425,000 Total amount of increased activities is $1,247,221. The focus of these proposed activities is to continue construction financing for projects already underway to ensure their success and timely completion. The benefit for moving funding to construction financing is that once the loans are repaid, the City can use those funds as program income for down payment assistance for these and other properties. Type: Other Current Year Budget?: None Budget Adjustment Comments: Current Year Cost: Not to Exceed: For Fiscal Year: to Review Approval: Budget Adjustment: Annual Operating Cost: Total Cost: None Cover Memo ��11�:�� Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 GI TY O F GL EA T�WATE T�, FLOT�1 DA AN(ENDED N Er H o r�Hoo � � sT� r�r�ATroN � � t�o r:ANf � FY zo� � -zo�4 AGTION ��AN ��:�� Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 NSP3 Grantee Information NSP3 Program Administrator Contact Information Name (Last, First) Michael Holmes Email Address Michael.Holmes@myclearwater.com Phone Number 727-562-4032 Mailing Address City of Clearwater 112 South Osceola Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 K...,�� ;. ,�� ,.� �� II��Y'1ISSI�� The map generated at the HUD NSP3 Mapping Tool for Preparing Action Plan website is included as an attachment. ��t� ��t�r��s �s�d t� �t�rrr�i�� r��s �f �r��t�st I��d Describe the data sources used to determine the areas of greatest need. Response: The City of Clearwater used three different data sources to determine areas with the greatest need. First the City used data from its HUD approved neighborhood revitalization strategy areas. Secondly, the City used information from a City initiated housing market analysis. The last and primary data sources were those established through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3(NSP 3) Mapping Tool to determine the areas of greatest need, as identified by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). �t�r�i��ti�� f �r��s �f �r��t�st I��d Describe how the areas of greatest need were established. Response: The City first examined areas in our neighborhood revitalization areas. The purpose was to continue to stabilize the area where the city has already invested financial resources. The City then viewed the resources outlined in Appendix A: Data Sources of the NSP Design Guidebook. From this information, the City was able to use the NSP 3 Mapping Tool to determine neighborhoods with the greatest need by mapping a wide range of areas. The Mapping Tool provided the score ranges for areas with the greatest need. The City chose the areas with the highest targeted scores of 19 and 20 and areas where the amount of NSP 3 allocation can address the needs to stabilize the neighborhoods. Additionally, the City targeted areas where there has been prior investment through the National Stabilization Program 2 (NSP 2). The City has determined that projects in the following areas may qualify to receive assistance: Stevens Creek/North Greenwood Area I[�'ii�:�7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 The Stevens Creek/North Greenwood Area was selected to continue the city's efforts to stabilize the community. The City's initial investment in the area was in February 2008 when the Clearwater Housing Authority received permission from HUD to sell its deteriorated Homer Villa Public Housing Complex. Through the efforts of the City and Pinellas County, we were able to assist Habitat for Humanity of Pinellas County in obtaining ownership of the 9.8 acre parcel of land. The City contributed $725,000 toward the acquisition and demolition. Pinellas County provided $1.425 million dollars for land acquisition, engineering and site construction. As the property lay vacant, the City again partnered with Pinellas County to identify a financing strategy to build 51 new single-family homes on the vacant property. This redevelopment project will have an estimated $8.415 million dollar project cost. The project will provide housing opportunities for fifty-one Habitat for Humanity families with income between 30% and 80% of area median income. Funding through the NSP 2 Program provided a construction loan in the amount of $2.340 million dollars to build 18 new housing units. The East Gateway Area The East Gateway Area was selected to continue the efforts made when the City established it as a HUD Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area. Through the efforts identified in the five year strategy, the area will continue to be developed as a low to medium density residential neighborhood supported with housing, neighborhood commercial and professional offices. To help redevelop this community, the City has established and funded a Fa�ade and Building Improvement Program to provide incentives to businesses for public-private investment. The City committed $80,000 as redevelopment stimulus through the Community Development Block Grant — Recovery Program. An additional $142,000 was provided through the Recovery Program in this area for side walk improvements. In housing development, the City hopes to turn a$700,000 Community Development Block Grant Program loan into a$7 million dollar investment in affordable housing for this area. The planned development, Country Club Homes, includes 31 new affordable townhomes. NSP 2 funding in the amount of $1.5 million dollars will be used as construction financing to begin building of the community project. The homes include three bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms and two car garages. Recently, the City purchased a dilapidated hotel that was an eye sore in the community and a place of many Police calls for service. The City purchased the property for $1.675 million dollars with funding through the Community Redevelopment Agency. The 2.2 acre property was demolished and land banked for future redevelopment. South Greenwood Area The City is continuing their efforts to rehabilitate homes and develop infill housing in the South Greenwood Area. In FY 2009-2010 the City provided funding for two infill housing loans, two down payment assistance loans, and one rehabilitation loan. In 2004, utilizing $2.9 million dollars in general funds, the City built an aquatic/recreation complex, a skateboard park, a fishing pier on Lake Belleview and new baseball fields. In 2008, utilizing $200,000 raised from grants and corporate sponsors, the City partnered with an international organization, Let Them ee Kids, to design and construct a playground at the Ross Norton Recreation Complex. In 2010, utilizing $1.8 million in general funds, the City completed the Lake Belleview Stormwater Improvement project that included major improvements to Lakeview Road. In 2010, renovations were completed at the Ross Norton Baseball Fields to include bullpens, sod, irrigation and the reworking of the pitching mounds. In 2010, plans were being developed to install traffic calming devices throughout South Greenwood per the request of the neighborhood to improve I[�'ii�:�7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 safety for pedestrians. The City of Clearwater is in the process of partnering with Pinellas County Community Development Department for the acquisition of Norton Apartments utilizing funding through the NSP 2 Program. This $1.8 million dollar investment in a foreclosure acquisition helped to save 48 Housing Choice Vouchers from expiring and will provide rental opportunities for 48 low to moderate income families. �,,�� y: �,, . �� . Term Definition Blighted Structure Blighted structures are a structure(s) that exhibit objectively determinable sign of deterioration sufficient to constitute a threat to human health, safety, and public welfare. Affordable Rents HOME program standards can be used as a safe harbor, but if an alternative standard is applied it must be equal to or exceed the HOME standard. ffordable rents are defined by the HUD Fair market rents published annually y HUD for the Tampa, St. Petersburg SMSA. The FY 2010 Fair Market Rates re as follows: 0 Bedroom $714 1 Bedroom $793 2 Bedroom $959 3 Bedroom $1,215 4 Bedroom $1,467 Term Definition Long-Term Affordability Continued affordability that at a minimum is at least as strict as the HOME program standards at 24 CFR 92.252(a), (c), (e), and (f), and 92.254. HOME program standards can be used as a safe harbor, but if an alternative standard is applied it must be equal to or exceed the HOME standard. Housing Rehabilitation he rehabilitation and new construction standards that will apply for NSP- Standards assisted projects must be included in the Action Plan. Specifically, HUD requires that: �� All gut rehabilitation or new construction (i.e., general replacement of the interior of a building that may or may not include changes to structural elements such as flooring systems, columns or load bearing interior or exterior walls) of residential buildings up to three stories must be designed to meet the standard for Energy Star Qualified New Homes. r All gut rehabilitation or new construction of mid -or high-rise I[�'ii�:�7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 multifamily housing must be designed to meet American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1-2004, Appendix G plus 20 percent (which is the Energy Star standard for multifamily buildings piloted by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy). � Other rehabilitation must meet these standards to the extent applicable to the rehabilitation work undertaken, e.g., replace older obsolete products and appliances (such as windows, doors, lighting, hot water heaters, furnaces, boilers, air conditioning units, refrigerators, clothes washers and dishwashers) with Energy Star-46 labeled products. �� Water efficient toilets, showers, and faucets, such as those with the WaterSense label, must be installed. r Where relevant, the housing should be improved to mitigate the impact of disasters (e.g., earthquake, hurricane, flooding, fires). HUD also encourages the adoption of energy efficient and environmentally-friendly green elements as part of NSP3 program design. Attachment C to the NSP3 Notice describes in more detail how energy efficient and environmentally-friendly green elements can be incorporated and additional tools on incorporating green rehabilitation standards can be found on the NSP Resource Exchange at www.hud.�ov/nspta. � r�� : � � � � : ,. �� I��rr�� S�t��sid� �rr��t��t Enter the low-income set-aside percentage in the first field. The field for total funds set aside will populate based on the percentage entered in the first field and the total NSP3 grant. Identify the estimated amount of funds appropriated or otherwise made available under the NSP3 to be used to provide housing for individuals or families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of area median income. Response: Total low-income set-aside percentage (must be no less than 25 percent): 25.00% Total funds set aside for low-income individuals =$346,451 ��ti�� 1�� i�r��t Provide a summary that describes the manner in which the low-income targeting goals will be met. Response: 0 I[�'ii�:�7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 .,�+� F.,. �.,.J�.,�.J� ��I� �.,.J F�.�.�I�.,� ..,�+H � ., 6,.,1.,.., [noi .,F �..,� .�..,.J��., � To meet the 25% low income target requirement, the City will provide funding in the amount of $346,451 to Boley Centers, Inc. to build Sunset Point Apartments. The proposed project is a one eight- unit and one six-unit building with a two story design which includes a total of fourteen units all of which are one bedroom units for people who have mental illness and are very-low income. The project site is located at 1401 and 1443 Sunset Point Road, Clearwater. The proposed fourteen unit development will be financed largely with a Section 811 capital advance grant from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The HUD 811 grant will pay for a large portion of the construction costs of the development. Additionally, the HUD 811 comes with a Project Rental Assistance Contract which provides a project based rental subsidy. Boley, Inc.'s proposal was for the cost of the land at $175,000 and closing costs estimated at about $5,000. Boley, Inc. estimated that the HUD 811 award would be for $1,787,263. Boley, Inc. would provide an additional $10,000 as the initial capital advance. The total project cost is estimated at $1,975,687. �.�l�� . r�- � :�.,� �:: �rr��liti�� r ��rsi�� f � 1 ��its Does the grantee intend to demolish or convert any low- and moderate-income dwelling units (i.e., <_ 80% of area median income)? No If yes, fill in the table below. Question Number of Units The number of low- and moderate-income dwelling units—i.e., <_ 80% of area median income—reasonably expected to be demolished or converted as a direct result of NSP-assisted activities. 0 The number of NSP affordable housing units made available to low-, moderate-, and middle-income households—i.e., <_ 120% of area median income—reasonably expected to be produced by activity and income level as provided for in DRGR, by each NSP activity providing such housing (including a proposed time schedule for commencement and completion). �4 12 The number of dwelling units reasonably expected to be made available for households whose income does not exceed 50 percent of area median income. � 14 � � �itiz�� P�rt��i��t�� P1�� Briefly describe how the grantee followed its citizen participation plan regarding this proposed substantial amendment or abbreviated plan. Response: I[�'ii�:�7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 � . . . . ■ . . � . .. . The City of Clearwater will place an advertisement in the local newspaper 15 days before the public meetings concerning its NSP 3 Action Plan. The Plan will be available for viewing at the City of Clearwater's Housing Division, City Clerk's office and online at the housing division website. The City will hold two public meetings (hearings) to obtain citizen comments. One meeting was held on July 10, 2012 with the Neighborhood and Affordable Housing Advisory Board and another on July 19, 2012 before the Clearwater City Council. ��rr��r� �f P�bli� ��ts ��i��d. The summary of public comments received is included as an attachment. i # ; y �; ;, 4. Enter each activity name and fill in the corresponding information. If you have fewer than seven activities, please delete any extra activity fields. (For example, if you have three activities, you should delete the tables labeled "Activity Number 4," "Activity Number 5," "Activity Number 6," and "Activity Number 7." If you are unsure how to delete a table, see the instructions above. The field labeled "Total Budget for Activity° will populate based on the figures entered in the fields above it. Consult the NSP3 Pro�ram Desi�n Guidebook for guidance on completing the "Performance Measures" component of the activity tables below. I[�'ii�:�7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 ��c-��e�se�+ee�t�i ��e�T�e�� + F F, ,� � � �„ �rOl"R!T'IQTCI"R, .,+� ., ..6,��6, +.,.,.,+6,.,. ...�+6, +6,�+ . .,.J � .,.J.,. +6,., F�.�+ � mvr�� . � �I.J 6,., -,FF.,..J-,6,1., +., +6,., ., ..�6,-,�.,. � T6,., /'�+.. .�. �II .,F+6,., . �6,1., �I.,��.,., �.,�+� � '�+.,.J R�fi� TJ T7:TTT7�l� �.LTT�7��.7:T�:l1 f��9 ST-7.�l�:ZTT�� Tb.r, /'�+., rv.�.. ..�.. � �.. +r. Cno% r.F+b.r, �Jr...... ..�..rv.r,..+ rr,r.� ��rr,�J 6... +b.r, .,.-+�,��,00 f.,.- +b,o ., .-�b,��o .,., hob,�lf .,f +b,o ., .-�b,��o.- � T6,., /'�+.. .�.�.. � ��., +6,., F� �.,.J� +., F�.,�.,�., .�.� �I+� F�.�.�I.. 6,.,� ��.,., .,..,�.,�+� � C��.,.J� .�.�.. �I�., 6,., .,..,..�.J.,.J F.,. ��+�..�+...J.,I�...,... �.,�+� � T6,., � .,+ ., .�.J.,.J . .�II .,.,+ 6,., ., +6,�., +6,., � .,.J . �I� �., .,F +6,., 6,.. .,�+ � T6,., /'�+... .�II � ., +6,., . .,+� .,F+6,., unnnr D..,.,.�.�. F.,. �FF.,..J � 6,' I'+.. �c� T6,., I.,��+�.,., F.,. +6,., ., .,�+� . .�II 6,., �., +6,., � �.J.,.,+�F�.,.J �., +6,�� .,I�., F.,. +6,., ni� t� "� (Other funding source) $ (Otherfunding source) $ . ... -- - - - - - - -- -- --- - - - -- - - - .. .. r.�r�� _ . . „ _ '- �[iai1�:�•7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 ��11�:�� Attachment number 1 \nPage 1i ��11�:�� Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 ��11�:�� Attachment number 1 \nPage 1; ��11�:�� Attachment number 1 \nPage 1; ��11�:�� Attachment number 1 \nPage 1� ��11�:�� City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Approve amendments to the Community Development Code repealing and replacing Article 3, Division 18 Signs in its entirety and amendments to Article 8, Section 8-102, De�nitions relating to signage, and pass Ordinance 8343-12 on �rst reading. SUMMARY: In 2009, the Clearwater Regional and Beach Chambers created a forum to discuss issues and ordinances that affect the two Chamber groups. The first undertaking of the Clearwater Government Affairs Committee Task Force was to review the City's sign ordinance. The Task Force, in concert with representatives of the sign industry, submitted proposed revisions to the Clearwater sign code in the summer of 2010 and after working with the Planning and Development Department developed a list of proposed amendments, which were presented to City Council for discussion on April 18, 2011. When the Mayor's Business Task Force was established in April 201 l, Council requested that signage be a topic of their discussion as well. Through that process, the Chamber and the Business Task Force came to agreement on recommendations for Council's consideration and on December 14, 2011 presented the final list to City Council. Direction was provided at that meeting to prepare an ordinance that would address the issues of agreement. Ordinance 8343-12 implements recommendations made by the Business Task Force, the City's outside legal counsel and the Planning and Development Department. Below is a summary of the substantive amendments included in the ordinance. . Established two new minimum standard options for determining allowable attached and freestanding signs in the non-residential districts. New standards increase size of signs allowed; . Added provision permitting an attached sign along each frontage adjacent to a right-of-way (corner lot/through lot) and a freestanding sign on each frontage of a through lot; . Allowed an additional attached sign on rear fa�ades in certain circumstances; . Created new section allowing a graphic elements on awnings in addition to permitted attached sign; . Added new section permitting sidewalks signs for retail and restaurant uses throughout the city; . Increased amount of allowable window signage; . Increased size of grand opening signs; . Increased timeframe for determining when a nonconforming sign has been abandoned from 30 days to 180 days; . Created new section exempting certain signs from regulation such as traffic signs, regulatory signs, etc.; . Prohibited billboards and electronic changeable message signs with limited exceptions; . Added free expression sign as a permitted temporary sign; . Revised provision for measuring sign height adjacent to elevated roadways. Added similar provision for measuring sign height when adjacent to a barrier wall along U.S. 19; and . Revised, deleted and added numerous definitions related to signs. The Community Development Board (CDB) reviewed proposed Ordinance 8343-12 at its July 17, 2012 meeting and unanimously recommended approval with the following three comments: co�er Memo Sandwich board signs should be allowed throughout the City as proposed in the ordinance (n�� # 6 recommended by staff along the traditional urban corridors); Council should take note of the Business Task Force's concerns about the definition of artwork; and Possibly reconsider revising Section 3-1801, 3-1802 and 3-1803 with regard to the Business Task Force constitutional concerns. Review Approval: Cover Memo ��11�:�� Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 ORDINANCE NO. 8343-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA RELATING TO SIGNS; MAHING FINDINGS; AMENDING SECTION 102 (DEFINITIONS) OF ARTICLE 8(DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION) OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; REPEALING DIVISION 18 (SIGNS) OF ARTICLE 3(DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; ADOPTING A NEW DIVISION 18 (SIGNS) OF ARTICLE 3 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING SECTION 1801 (GENERAL PRINCIPLES); PROVIDING SECTION 1802 (PURPOSE); PROVIDING SECTION 1803 (EXEMPT SIGNS); PROVIDING SECTION 1804 (PROHIBITED SIGNS); PROVIDING SECTION 1805 (GENERAL STANDARDS); PROVIDING SECTION 1806 (SIGNS PERMITTED WITHOUT A PERMIT); PROVIDING SECTION 1807 (PERMITTED SIGNS REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW); PROVIDING SECTION 1808 (COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PROGRAM); PROVIDING SECTION 1809 (SEVERABILITY); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Initial General Preambles WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to update and revise its Community Development Code relative to signs; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to delete sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, divisions, subdivisions, clauses, sentences, phrases, words, and provisions of the existing ordinance which are obsolete or superfluous, and/or which have not been enforced, and/or which are not enforceable, and/or which would be severable by a court of competent jurisdiction; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to ensure that the Community Development Code as it relates to signs is in compliance with all constitutional and other legal requirements; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the purpose and intent provisions of its signage regulations should be even more detailed than they are now so as to further describe the beneficial aesthetic and other effects of the City's sign regulations, and to reaffirm that the sign regulations are concerned with the secondary effects of speech and are not designed to censor speech or regulate the viewpoint of the speaker; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that its sign regulations have undergone judicial review in three reported final decisions during the past three decades, including Don's Porta Signs, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, 829 F.2d 1051 (l lth Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 981 (1988), Dimmitt v. City of Cleanvater, 782 F. Supp. 586 (M.DFIa. 1991), affirmed and modified, 985 F.2d 1565 (l lth Cir. 1993), and Granite State Outdoor Advertising, I[�'ii�:�� Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, Fla. (Granite-Cleanvater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312 (M.DFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other gr�ounds, 351 F.3d 1112 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), and has also been the subject of a non-final preliminary decision in The Complete Angler, L.L.C. v. City of Cleanvater, Fla., 607 F.Supp.2d 1326 (MDFIa. 2009), which was settled before a final decision was reached; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the issue of content neutrality in the First Amendment context has been addressed in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 719-20 (2000); that the content neutrality of the City's own sign regulations was extensively addressed in the published decision of the district court in Granite State-Cleanvater, and that the issue of content-neutrality has been addressed by other decisions, including Solantic v. Neptune Beach, 410 F.3d 1250 (l lth Cir. 2005), CovenantMedia of S.C., LLC v. City of N. Charleston, 493 F.3d 421, 432 (4th Cir. 2007), and in H.D.V.-Greektown, LLC v. City of Detroit, 568 F.3d 609, 621-622 (6th Cir. 2009); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the issue of content neutrality of the sign regulations of another nearby municipality was recently addressed by a state appellate panel in Shanklin v. State, 2009 WL 6667913 (F1a.Cir.Ct. App. Div.); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater recognizes that under current jurisprudence its sign regulations may be under-inclusive in their reach to serve the City's interests in aesthetics and traffic safety, while at the same time balancing the interests protected by the First Amendment [see, e.g., Members of City Council v. Tcrxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984); Cordes, Sign Regulation After Ladue: Examining the Evolving Limits of First Amendment Protection, 74 Neb.L.Rev. 36 (1995)], and the City of Clearwater may from time to time modify the sign regulations herein so as to provide additional limitations to further serve the City's interests in aesthetics and/or traffic safety; WHEREAS, the limitations on the height, size, number, and setback of signs, adopted herein, is based upon the sign types and sign functions; WHEREAS, sign types described herein are related in other ways to the functions they serve and the properties to which they relate (e.g., subdivision entrance signs are allowed at subdivision entrances, real estate signs are directly related to the property on which they are posted or, in the case of directional signs, are limited to a certain distance from the property to which they relate [see Bond, Making Sense of Billboard Law: Justifying Prohibitions and Exemptions, 88 Mich.L.Rev. 2482 (1980)]); WHEREAS, limitations on various types of signs by the function they serve are also related to the zoning districts for the properties on which they are located; WHEREAS, various signs that serve and function as signage for particular land uses, such as drive-thru restaurants or for businesses within a tourist district, are allowed some additional features or have different criteria in recognition of the differing or special functions served by those land uses, but not based upon any intent to favor any particular viewpoint or control the subject matter of public discourse; JaY�i6�sass_i _2_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations adopted hereby still allow adequate alternative means of communications; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations adopted hereby allow and leave open adequate alternative means of communications, such as newspaper advertising, internet advertising and communications, advertising in shoppers and pamphlets, advertising in telephone books, advertising on cable television, advertising on UHF and/or VHF television, advertising on AM and/or FM radio, advertising on satellite radio, advertising on internet radio, advertising via direct mail, and other avenues of communication available in the City of Clearwater [see State v. J& JPainting, 167 N.J. Super. 384, 400 A.2d 1204, 1205 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979); Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 477 (1989); Green v. City ofRaleigh, 523 F.3d 293, 305-306 (4th Cir. 2007); Naser.Iewelers v. City of Concord, 513 F.3d 27 (lst Cir. 2008); Sullivan v. City ofAugusta, 511 F.3d 16, 43-44 (lst Cir. 2007); La Tour v. City of Fayetteville, 442 F.3d 1094, 1097 (8 th Cir. 2006); Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 587 F.3d 866, 980-981 (9th Cir. 2009)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the amendments to Article 3, Division 18, and to Article 8, as set forth herein, are consistent with all applicable policies of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that these amendments are not in conflict with the public interest; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that theses amendments will not result in incompatible land uses; Definitions General WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that Section 102 (Definitions) of Article 8(Definitions and Rules of Construction) should be updated, modified and expanded to complement revisions to Division 18 (Signs) of Article 3(Development Standards) of the City of Clearwater's Community Development Code; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in Scadron v. City of Des Plaines, 734 F. Supp. 1437, 1442 (N.D.IlI. 1990) (per Rovner, J.), aff'd, 989 F.2d 502 (Table), 1993 WL 64838 at *2 (7th Cir. 1993) (adopting analysis of district court), the Seventh Circuit noted that five justices (Brennan, Blackmun, Burger, Stevens and Rehnquist) in Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U. S. 490 (1981), believed that the limited exceptions to an ordinance's general prohibition of off-premises advertising were too insubstantial to constitute discrimination on the basis of content; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, Fla. (Granite-Cleanvater), 213 F. Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other JaY�i6�s2ss_i _3_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 gr�ounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), held that Article 3 in general was not content-based, notwithstanding de minimis exceptions such as holiday decorations [§ 3-1805.D.], garage/yard sale signs [§ 3-1805.H.], and marina slip numbers [§ 3-1805.T.]; Art work WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "art work" should be updated (a) to more specifically identify what is artwork, while still providing that artwork does not include a representation specifically conveying the name of a business or a commercial message, and (b) to identify objects that are not intended to be covered within the scope of land development regulations pertaining to signage in the context of Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes; Holidav and seasonal decorations WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition for "sign, holiday decoration" should be deleted and replaced with a definition for "decorations, holiday and seasonal" to identify objects that are not intended to be covered within the scope of land development regulations pertaining to signage in the context of Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, Fla. (Granite-Cleanvater), 213 F. Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other gr�ounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), had noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, notwithstanding de minimis exceptions such as holiday decorations [§ 3-1805.D.]; Graphic element WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there should be a definition for "element, graphic" in connection with a sign, especially in conjunction with provisions pertaining to awnings or lighting; Si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign" should be clarified that it includes a sign visible from a public street or public sidewalk, as well as a public right-of-way; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that objects and devices such as artwork, holiday or seasonal decorations, cemetery markers, machinery or equipment signs (inclusive of vending machine signs), and memorial signs or tablets are not within the scope of what is intended to be regulated through "land development" regulations that pertain to signage under Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes; JaY�i6�sass_i _4_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign" should be modified to provide that it does not include objects and devices, such as artwork, holiday or seasonal decorations, cemetery markers, machinery or equipment signs (inclusive of vending machine signs), and memorial signs or tablets, inasmuch as the foregoing are not signage intended to regulated by the land development regulations described in Section 163.3202 of Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes; Acknowled�ment sign WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, adopt a park" should be expanded and clarified to "sign, adopt a park or acknowledgement" that functions to recognize a sponsoring agency that has installed and maintained landscaping at the site on city rights-of-way or city-owned property where the landscaping is located or recognizing grant providers for other amenities; Cabinet si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a definition of "sign, cabinet" should be added to identify this sign type in connection with its reference in the regulations; Construction sign WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, construction" should be revised to identify the function served by this temporary sign type that distinguishes the same from other temporary signs; Discontinued si�n (in lieu of abandoned si�n) WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the current definition for "sign, abandoned" should be changed to "sign, discontinued," to eliminate any issue that would require a determination of the intent of the sign owner or sign operator, and to better define what constitutes a sign that would be considered a prohibited sign because the sign (a) displays advertising for a product or service which is no longer available or displays advertising for a business which is no longer licensed (b) is blank, or (c) advertises a business that is no longer doing business or maintaining a presence on the premises where the sign is displayed, but provided that the foregoing circumstances for (a), (b) or (c) have continued for a period of at least one hundred eighty days; Election si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, election" should be added to identify a temporary sign erected or displayed for the purpose of expressing support or opposition to a candidate or stating a position regarding an issue upon which the voters of the City may vote; Exempt si�n JaY�i6�sass_i _5_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition for "sign, exempt" is obsolete, and that the definition should be removed and combined with the addition of Section 1803 (Exempt Signs) to Division 3(Signs) in Article 3(Development Standards); Free expression si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, free expression" should be added to identify a sign that functions to communicate information or views on matters of public policy or public concern, or containing any other noncommercial message that is otherwise lawful; Gara�e-vard sale si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, garage-yard sale" should be added to identify a lawful temporary sign that functions to communicate information pertaining to the sale of personal property at or upon any residentially- zoned property located in the City; Gasoline price signs WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition for "sign, gasoline price display" should be revised to re-emphasize that the same is an on-site sign that functions exclusively to display the prices of gasoline for sale, and continues to be a content- neutral sign category consistent with the prior precedent of Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703, 719- 20 (2000); Identification sign WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition for "sign, identification" should be revised to clarify that it is serves to indicate no more than the name, address, company logo and occupation or function of an establishment or premises on which the sign is located; Machinerv or equipment si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Model Land Development Code for Cities and Counties, prepared in 1989 for the Florida Department of Community Affairs by the LJF College of Law's Center for Governmental Responsibility, et al., recommended an exemption for signs incorporated into machinery and equipment by a manufacturer or distributor, which identify or advertise only the product or service dispensed by the machine or equipment, such as signs customarily affixed to vending machines, newspaper racks, telephone booths, and gasoline pumps; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a definition should be added for "sign, machinery or equipment" to identify objects that are not intended to be covered within the scope of land development regulations pertaining to signage in the context of Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, and that such obj ects include signs which are integral and incidental JaY�i6�sass_i _6_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 to machinery or equipment, and that are incorporated into machinery or equipment by a manufacturer or distributor to identify or advertise the product or service dispensed by the machine or equipment, such as signs customarily affixed or incorporated into vending machines, telephone booths, gasoline pumps, newspaper racks, express mail drop-off boxes, and the like; Racewav si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, raceway" should be added to identify this sign type in connection with its reference in the regulations; Safetv si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in addition to the definition of "sign, warning," a definition for "sign, safety" should be added to identify a sign that functions to provide a warning or caution of a dangerous condition or situation that might not be readily apparent or that poses a threat of serious injury (e.g., gas line, high voltage, condemned building etc.); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, Fla. (Granite-Cleanvater), 213 F. Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other gr�ounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), noted that signs are speech and can only be categorized or differentiated by what they say; that this makes it impossible to overlook a sign's content or message in formulating regulations and making exceptions for those signs that are narrowly tailored to a significant governmental interest of safety (i.e., warning signs) [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1333]; Sidewalk si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, sidewalk," sometimes referred to as a sandwich board sign, should be added to identify this unique sign type in connection with the parameters for its use in the land development regulations; Snipe si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, Fla. (Granite-Cleanvater), 213 F. Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other gr�ounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), struck and severed the words "other objects" in the definition of Section 8-102 in order to remove a conflict between Section 3-1806.B.3 (allowing attached signs) and Section 3-1803.T (prohibiting snipe signs that would include attached signs to objects other than those listed) [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1335]; JaY�i6�s2ss_i _�_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the text of the definitions in Section 8-102 [Section 102 of Article 8] should be revised to reflect the removal of the words "other obj ects" and to restate the definition of "Sign, snipe" in the Community Development Code; Statutorv si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a definition for "statutory sign" should be added to identify a sign that is lawfully required by any statute or regulation of the State of Florida or the United States, and to identify such sign types as ones that are exempt from regulation under the City's land development regulations; Temporarv vard si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, temporary yard" is obsolete with the addition of a definition for "sign, garage-yard sale" and the regulation of the latter in the land development regulations; Traffic control device si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a definition for "traffic control device sign" should be added to identify the sign types that are exempt from regulation under the City's land development regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a traffic control device sign, exempt from regulation under the City's land development regulations for signage, is any sign located within the right-of-way that functions as a traffic control device and that is described and identified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as the National Standard, and that according to the MUTCD traffic control device signs include those signs that are classified and defined by their function as regulatory signs (that give notice of traffic laws or regulations), warning signs (that give notice of a situation that might not readily be apparent), and guide signs (that show route designations, directions, distances, services, points of interest, and other geographical, recreational, or cultural information); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the classification of traffic control device signs is a logical classification for purposes of establishing an exemption based upon their unique purpose and function, and that such classification is not impermissibly content- based under the controlling precedent of Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 719-20 (2000); Vehicle si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to substitute a new definition for vehicle sign that is similar to one suggested in Article VIII (Signs) of the Model Land Development Code for Cities and Counties, prepared in 1989 for the Florida Department of Community Affairs by the LJF College of Law's Center for Governmental Responsibility and by a professional planner with Henigar and Ray Engineering Associates, Inc., JaY�i6�sass_i _g_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 and that is nearly identical to Section 7.05.00(x) of the Land Development Regulations of the Town of Orange Park, which were upheld against a constitutional challenge in Perkins v. Town of Orange Park, 2006 WL 5988235 (Fla. Cir. Ct.); Vendin� si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition for "sign, vending" should be deleted and replaced with "sign, machinery and equipment" to clarify the objects excluded from the definition of "sign" and not intended to be regulated through "land development" regulations under Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes; General Principles Mission WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the city is a resort community on the west coast of the state with more than five miles of beaches on the Gulf of Mexico and that this city has an economic base which relies heavily on tourism; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in order to preserve the city as a desirable community in which to live, vacation and do business, a pleasing visually- attractive urban environment is of foremost importance; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the regulation of signs within the city is a highly contributive means by which to achieve this desired end, and that the sign regulations in the attached Division 18 are prepared with the intent of enhancing the urban environment and promoting the continued well-being of the city; Florida Constitution WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that Article II, Section 7, of the Florida Constitution, as adopted in 1968, provides that it shall be the policy of the state to conserve and protect its scenic beauty; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the regulation of signage for purposes of aesthetics directly serves the policy articulated in Article II, Section 7, of the Florida Constitution, by conserving and protecting its scenic beauty; Aesthetics WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the regulation of signage for purposes of aesthetics has long been recognized as advancing the public welfare; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that as far back as 1954 the United States Supreme Court recognized that "the concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive," that the values it represents are "spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary," and that it is within the power of the legislature "to determine that the community JaY�i6�sass_i _g_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1i should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well balanced as well as carefully patrolled" [Justice Douglas in Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26, 33 (1954)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that aesthetics is a valid basis for zoning and that the regulation of the size of signs and the prohibition of certain types of signs can be based upon aesthetic grounds alone as promoting the general welfare [see Merritt v. Peters, 65 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1953); Dade Town v. Gould, 99 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1957); E.B. Elliott Advertising Co. v. Metropolitan Dade Town, 425 F.2d 1141 (Sth Cir. 1970), cert. dismissed, 400 U.S. 878 (1970)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the enhancement of the visual environment is critical to a community's image and its continued presence as a tourist destination; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign control principles set forth herein create a sense of character and ambiance that distinguishes the city as one with a commitment to maintaining and improving an attractive environment;. WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the attractiveness of the City has been substantially enhanced as a result of more restrictive sign regulations (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 27, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the enhancement of the visual environment is critical to a community's image and its continued presence as a tourist destination (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 26, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the positive effect of sign regulations on the City's visual character has been demonstrated in photographic comparison of a City streetscape in 1988 and 2002, underscoring the importance of regulating both the size and number of signs to reduce visual clutter (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at pages 24 and 27, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the beauty of Clearwater's natural and built environment has provided the foundation for the economic base of the City's development, and that the City's sign regulations not only help create an attractive residential community for its residents, but also bolster Clearwater's image as an international tourist destination (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the goals, objectives and policies from planning documents developed over the years, including but not limited to the Clearwater powntown Development Plan, the Guidelines for the Urban Center District, Beach by Design, and The Downtown Peripheral Plan, have all demonstrated a strong, long-term commitment to maintaining and improving the City's attractive and visual environment (see JaY�i6�s2ss_i _ip_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 13, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, from a planning perspective, one of the most important community goals is to define and protect aesthetic resources and community character (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 14, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, from a planning perspective, sign regulations are especially important to counties with a tourist-based economy, and that sign control can create a sense of character and ambiance that distinguishes one community from another (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 14, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that preserving and reinforcing the uniqueness of a tourist community like Clearwater attracts tourists and, more importantly, establishes a permanent residential and commercial base to ensure the future viability of the community (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 15, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of Clearwater has regulated signs based upon function and not content (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 15, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City has continued the attention to aesthetic considerations and many of the considerations mentioned above through the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan, requiring design guidelines for the entire downtown plan area; Purposes WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the purpose of the regulation of signs as set forth in the attached Division 18 is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare through a comprehensive system of reasonable, consistent and nondiscriminatory sign standards and requirements; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to enable the identification of places of residence and business; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to allow for the communication of information necessary for the conduct of commerce; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to lessen hazardous situations, confusion and visual clutter caused by JaY�i6�s2ss_i _11_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1; proliferation, improper placement, illumination, animation and excessive height, area and bulk of signs which compete for the attention of pedestrian and vehicular traffic; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to enhance the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to protect the public from the dangers of unsafe signs; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to permit signs that are compatible with their surroundings and aid orientation, and to preclude placement of signs in a manner that conceals or obstructs adjacent land uses or signs; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to encourage signs that are appropriate to the zoning district in which they are located and consistent with the category of use to which they pertain; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to curtail the size and number of signs and sign messages to the minimum reasonably necessary to identify a residential or business location and the nature of any such business; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to establish sign size in relationship to the scale of the lot and building on which the sign is to be placed or to which it pertains; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to preclude signs from conflicting with the principal permitted use of the site or adj oining sites; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to regulate signs in a manner so as to not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to require signs to be constructed, installed and maintained in a safe and satisfactory manner; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to preserve and enhance the natural and scenic characteristics of this waterfront resort community; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 have been the subject of extensive study by urban planners, culminating in a study entitled Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, (Two Volumes) prepared JaY�i6�s2ss_i _12_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1; for the City of Clearwater, Florida by Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc., Urban Planners, dated April 10, 2002, which addressed planning for the community vision, the rationale for regulating signs, prohibited signs such as bench signs and changeable signs, the general effectiveness of the City's sign regulations in protecting the visual character of the City of Clearwater, and photographs documenting the enhancement and preservation of the City's character over a span of 14 years along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision found that most provisions of Article 3 of the Community Development Code, alleged to be content-based, were not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1327]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that § 3-1802 of Clearwater's Code identified substantial and carefully enumerated government interests, and that the City's time, place and manner regulations (with appropriate parts severed) were reasonable and narrowly tailored to advance those interests [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1340]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the regulation of signage was originally mandated by Florida's Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act in 1985 (see Chapter 85-55, §14, Laws of Florida), and this requirement continues to apply to the City of Clearwater through Section 163.3202(2)(f), Florida Statutes; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the 1980's model provisions for the regulation of signage by cities and counties in Florida were initially developed within Article VIII (Signs) of the Model Land Development Code for Cities and Counties, prepared in 1989 for the Florida Department of Community Affairs by the LTF College of Law's Center for Governmental Responsibility and by a professional planner with Henigar and Ray Engineering Associates, Inc.; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of Clearwater has adopted a land development code, known as the Community Development Code, in order to implement its comprehensive plan, and to comply with the minimum requirements in the State of Florida's Growth Management Act, at Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes, including the regulation of signage and future land use; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Community Development Code is required to regulate signage; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Community Development Code and its signage regulations were and are intended to maintain and improve the quality of life for all citizens of the City; Exempt Si�ns - BV Si�n TVpe JaY�i6�s2ss_i _13_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1� WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that land development regulations for signage are not intended to reach certain signs, including (1) a sign, other than a window sign, located entirely inside the premises of a building or enclosed space, (2) a sign on a car other than a prohibited vehicle sign or signs, (3) a statutory sign, (4) a traffic control device sign, and (5) any sign not visible from a public street, sidewalk or right-of-way or from a navigable waterway or body of water; except a sign for a commercial use that is visible from an abutting residential use; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a new Section should be added to Division 18 so as to identify such exempt signs; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the exemption for a sign (other than a window sign) located entirely inside the premises of a building is not based upon the content of the message of any such sign, and is based upon practical consideration of not overreaching in the regulation of signage, absent a substantial reason to extend sign regulations to reach the visibility of signage located inside a building other than a window sign that is oriented to be viewed by pedestrian or vehicular traffic outside the building; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the exemption for a sign on a car, other than a prohibited vehicle sign or signs, is not based upon the content of the message of any such sign, and further finds and determines that the prohibition of vehicle sign or signs is based upon time, place and manner considerations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the exemption for a sign that is required by any lawful statute or regulation of the State of Florida or the United States (known as a statutory sign) is not a sign categorized by any impermissible content-based distinction; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code for local governments at Section 10.01.00.D recommended an exemption for legal notices and official instruments, which exemption would be consistent with an exemption for "statutory signs" as proposed hereby; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a"traffic control device sign" is a sign located within the right-of-way that functions as a traffic control device and that is described and identified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as the National Standard; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that traffic control device signs are those signs that are classified and defined by their function as regulatory signs (that give notice of traffic laws or regulations), warning signs (that give notice of a situation that might not readily be apparent), and guide signs (that show route designations, directions, distances, services, points of interest, and other geographical, recreational, or cultural information); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a traffic control device sign should be exempt from the City of Clearwater's land use regulations as set forth in Division JaY�i6�s2ss_i _14_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1; 18, and further finds that such exemption is not based upon an impermissible content-based distinction; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that any sign that is not visible from a public street, sidewalk or right-of-way, or from a navigable waterway or body of water, should be exempt from the City's sign regulations within Division 18, except for a sign for a commercial use that is visible from an abutting residential use; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code for local governments at Section 10.01.00.A recommended an exemption for signs that are not designed or located so as to be visible from any street or adj oining property; Prohibited Si�ns Prohibited Si�ns bv Si�n Tvpe WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in meeting the purposes and goals established in these preambles, it is appropriate to prohibit and/or to continue to prohibit certain sign types, with limited exceptions that are based upon function or use in contrast to the content of the message displayed; Prohibited Si�ns - In General WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that consistent with the foregoing preamble, it is appropriate to prohibit and/or to continue to generally prohibit the following sign types, except as otherwise provided in the Community Development Code: balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers and pennants; bench signs; billboards; electronic changeable message signs; menu signs that change more rapidly than once every three hours; pavement markings; portable signs; roof or above-roof signs; sidewalk signs; signs attached to or painted on piers or seawalls; signs in or upon any body of water; signs located on publicly-owned land or easements or inside street rights-of-way; signs that emit sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles, or gaseous matter; signs that have unshielded illuminating devices or which reflect lighting onto public rights-of-way thereby creating a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard; signs that move, revolve, twirl, rotate, flash, scintillate, blink, flutter, or appear to display motion in any way whatsoever, including animated signs, multi-prism signs, floodlights and beacon lights; signs that obstruct, conceal, hide, or otherwise obscure from view any traffic control device sign or official traffic signal; signs that present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard, including signs which obstruct visibility; signs attached to or placed on any tree or other vegetation; signs carried, waved, or otherwise displayed on public rights-of-way or visible from public-rights-of way that are intended to draw attention for a commercial purpose; snipe signs; three-dimensional obj ects that are used as signs; vehicle signs and portable trailer signs; and any permanent sign that is not specifically described or enumerated as permitted within the specific zoning district classifications in the City's Community Development Code; Balloons, Cold Air Inflatables, Streamers, Pennants - Prohibited JaY�i6�s2ss_i _is_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1i WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit balloons, streamers, pennants, and other wind-activated sign types, at Section 10.02.02.H., specifically prohibiting "Signs, commonly referred to as wind signs, consisting of one or more banners, flags, pennants, ribbons, spinners, streamers or captive balloons, or other objects or material fastened in such a manner as to move upon being subjected to pressure by wind," as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and otherwise; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that cold air inflatable signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that the prohibition of the same was supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on cold air inflatables, banners and pennants (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(5), prohibiting "pennants, streamers, cold air inflatables, and banners, except for special occasions for a limited time and frequency as permitted in sections 16-712(1)h. and 16-713"), and a similar prohibition on inflatable devices that are tethered and do not touch the ground (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(6)), were determined to be content- neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg's Code that stated at § 16- 667(b)(2) that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. RockAgainstRacism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers and pennants, with limited exceptions for their use on public property under the limited circumstances set forth in the current Code at Section 3- 1805.V. [to be amended and renumbered to Section 3-1806.R.], because such wind-activated devices utilized as signs to draw attention from passing motorists are generally distracting in nature, serve to degrade community aesthetics, and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision addressed current Section 3-1803.B.'s prohibition on "[b]alloons, cold air inflatable, streamers, and pennants, except where allowed as governmental and public purpose signs for special events of limited time and frequency, as approved by the city manager or the city commission," and the court struck Section 3-1803.B. upon determining that the distinction between "governmental and public purpose signs" and "non-governmental and non- public purpose signs" for such special events lacked the necessary reasonable fit as it relates to furthering the governmental interests in aesthetics and traffic safety, especially insofar as the JaY�i6�s2ss_i _16_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 prohibition's exception did not state that it was only limited to "public property" [see Uranite- Cleanvater at 1335]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to address the concerns expressed by the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision and to adopt a modified version of the former Section 3-1803.B. [to be renumbered as Section 3-1804.A.] and expressly limiting the exception to the limited circumstances when balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers and pennants are located on public property subj ect to criteria set forth in the Code, and to similarly modify the provisions of the current Section 3-1805.V. [to be renumbered Section 3-1806.R.] by clarifying that the exception for balloons, cold air inflatable, streamers, and pennants is limited to when their use is on "public property" [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1335; see also Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 1131 (2009) (the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause does not extend to government speech)], and by setting forth in these preambles the rationale for the adoption of the prohibition and limited exceptions, as clarified; Bench Si�ns - Prohibited (Other than Identification of Transit Companv or Route Schedule) WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit bench signs because the same visually degrade the community character and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed prohibition on bench signs, at 10.02. T. ("Signs placed upon benches, bus shelters or waste receptacles, except as may be authorized in writing [pursuant to a state statute])"; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that bench signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that this prohibition supports the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on bus shelter signs and bench signs (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(2), prohibiting "bus shelter signs and bench signs except when approved by a local government, pursuant to F.S. § 337.407(2)(a)" but not prohibiting "the identification of the transit company or its route schedule") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U. S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. RockAgainstRacism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); JaY�i6�s2ss_i _17_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1� WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Uranite- Cleanvater at 1334], and this would be inclusive of the prohibition on bench signs, other than the signage necessarily associated with the identification of the transit company and the route schedule, which functions to identify the benches and the related transit routes; Billboards - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that billboards detract from the natural and manmade beauty of the City; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater agrees with the American Society of Landscape Architects' determination that billboards tend to deface nearby scenery, whether natural or built, rural or urban; WHEREAS, states such as Vermont, Alaska, Maine, and Hawaii have prohibited the construction of billboards in their states and are now billboard-free in an effort to promote aesthetics and scenic beauty; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the prohibition of the construction of billboards and certain other sign types, as well as the establishment and continuation of height, size and other standards for on-premise signs, is consistent with the policy set forth in the Florida Constitution that it shall be the policy of the state to conserve and protect its scenic beauty; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater agrees with the courts that have recognized that outdoor advertising signs tend to interrupt what would otherwise be the natural landscape as seen from the highway, whether the view is untouched or ravished by man, and that it would be unreasonable and illogical to conclude that an area is too unattractive to justify aesthetic improvement [see E. B. Elliott Adv. Co. v. Metropolitan Dade Town, 425 F.2d 1141 (Sth Cir. 1970), cert. dismissed, 400 U. S. 878 (1970); .Iohn Donnelly & Sons, Inc. v. Outdoor Advertising Bd., 339 N.E.2d 709, 720 (Mass. 1975)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds that local governments may separately classify off-site and on-site advertising signs in taking steps to minimize visual pollution [see City of Lake Wales v. Lamar Advertising Association of Lakeland Florida, 414 So.2d 1030, 1032 (Fla. 1982)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds that billboards attract the attention of drivers passing by the billboards, thereby adversely affecting traffic safety and constituting a public nuisance and a noxious use of the land on which the billboards are erected; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater recognizes that billboards are a form of advertisement designed to be seen without the exercise of choice or volition on the part of the observer, unlike other forms of advertising that are ordinarily seen as a matter of choice on the JaY�i6�s2ss_i _ig_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1! part of the observer [see Packer v. Utah, 285 U.S. 105 (1932); and General OutdoorAdvertising Co. v. Department ofPublic Works, 289 Mass. 149, 193 N.E. 799 (1935)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater acknowledges that the United States Supreme Court and many federal courts have accepted legislative judgments and determinations that the prohibition of billboards promotes traffic safety and the aesthetics of the surrounding area. [see Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 509-510 (1981); National Advertising Co. v. City & Town of Denver, 912 F.2d 505, 409 (lOth Cir. 1990), and Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City ofLenexa, 67 F. Supp. 1231, 1239 (D. Kan. 1999)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater recognizes that on-site business signs are considered to be part of the business itself, as distinguished from off-site outdoor advertising signs, and finds and determines that it is well-recognized that the unique nature of outdoor advertising and the nuisances fostered by billboard signs justify the separate classification of such structures for the purposes of governmental regulation and restrictions [see E. B. Elliott Adv. Co. v. Metropolitan Dade Town, 425 F.2d 1141, 1153 (Sth Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 878, 91 S.C. 12, 27 L. Ed. 2d 35 (1970), quoting United Advertising Corp. v. Borough of Raritan, 93 A.2d 362, 365 (1952)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a prohibition on the erection of off-site outdoor advertising signs will reduce the number of driver distractions and the number of aesthetic eyesores along the roadways and highways of the Town [see, e.g., E. B. Elliott Adv. Co. v. Metropolitan Dade Town, 425 F.2d 1141, 1154 (Sth Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 878 (1970)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that billboard signs are public nuisances given their adverse impact on both traffic safety and aesthetics; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that billboards are a traffic hazard and impair the beauty of the surrounding area, and the prohibition of the construction of billboards will reduce these harms [see Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Lenexa, 67 F. Supp.2d 1231, 1239 (D. Kan. 1999)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the presence of billboards along the federal interstate and the federal-aid primary highway systems has prevented public property in other jurisdictions from being used for beautification purposes due to view zones established by state administrative rule; WHEREAS, Scenic America, Inc. recommends improvements in the scenic character of a community's landscape and appearance by prohibiting the construction of billboards, and by setting height, size and other standards for on-premise signs [see Scenic America's Seven Principles for Scenic Conservation, Principle #5]; WHEREAS, more than two hundred Florida communities have adopted ordinances prohibiting the construction of billboards in their communities in order to achieve aesthetic, beautification, traffic safety, and/or other related goals; JaY�i6�s2ss_i _19_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2i WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in order to preserve, protect and promote the safety and general welfare of the residents of the City, it is necessary to regulate off-site advertising signs, commonly known as billboard signs or billboards, so as to prohibit the construction of billboards in all zoning districts, and to provide that the foregoing provisions shall be severable; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the prohibition of billboards as set forth herein will improve the beauty of the City, foster overall improvement to the aesthetic and visual appearance of the City, preserve and open up areas for beautification on public property adjoining the public roadways, increase the visibility, readability and/or effectiveness of on-site signs by reducing and/or diminishing the visual clutter of off-site signs, enhance the City as an attractive place to live and/or work, reduce blighting influences, and improve traffic safety by reducing driver distractions; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater wishes to assure that new billboards are effectively prohibited as a sign-type within the City; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater hereby finds and determines that anything beside the road which tends to distract the driver of a motor vehicle directly affects traffic safety, and that signs, which divert the attention of the driver and occupants of motor vehicles from the highway to obj ects away from it, may reasonably be found to increase the danger of accidents, and agrees with the courts that have reached the same determination [see In re Opinion of the Justices, 103 N.H. 268, 169 A.2d 762 (1961); Newman Signs, Inc. v. Hjelle, 268 N.W.2d 741 (N.D.1978)]; Discontinued Si�ns - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit discontinued signs and/or sign structures because the same visually degrade the community character and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that under state law, which may be more permissive than local law, a nonconforming sign is deemed "discontinued" when it is not operated and maintained for a period of twelve months, and the following conditions under Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code, shall be considered failure to operate and maintain the sign so as to render it a discontinued sign: (1) signs displaying only an "available for lease" or similar message; (2) signs displaying advertising for a product or service which is no longer available; or (3) signs which are blank or do not identify a particular product, service, or facility; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as abandoned signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334]; Electronic chan�eable Messa�e Si�ns - Prohibited JaY�i6�sass_i _20_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 fExcept 3-1806(B)(5), Menu Si�ns and Le�al Nonconformin� Messa�e Si�ns (�eneral messa�es si�ns that chan�e no more frequentiv than everv six hours and existin� time/temperature si�ns that do not chan�e more than once per minute)1 WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit electronic changeable message signs, with limited exceptions for menus display signs, legally nonconforming message signs consisting of (a) general message signs that change no more frequently than once every six hours, and (b) time/temperature signs that change no more frequently than once every minute, because such devices are distracting in nature and serve to degrade community aesthetics and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed prohibition on signs with lights or illumination that flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker or vary in intensity or color except for time-temperature-date signs, at 10.02.02F. ("Signs with lights or illumination that flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, or vary in intensity or color except for time- temperature-date signs)"; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that changeable message signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that such prohibition supports the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed limited exception from the general prohibition on changing signs for time and temperature signs, but only as permanent accessory signs on commercial parcels and subject to other criteria, at 10.04.04 of the Model Code; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision addressed Section 3-1804F., General Standards, wherein the City specifically regulated the placement, size and location of time and temperature signs [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1336]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision rejected the contention that Section 3-1804F. was an impermissible content-based exception rendering the ordinance unconstitutional, and the court observed that this sign category (time and temperature signs) and its regulations were also a good example of how the ordinance was content-neutral [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1336]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision concluded that the category was content-neutral inasmuch as the provision was not an attempt to censor speech or enforce regulations based on viewpoint; and the court determined that inasmuch as a time and temperature sign has no viewpoint and merely JaY�i6�s2ss_i _21_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2; relates factual information, the provision was not an attempt to censor speech or limit the free expression of ideas-especially in light of the City of Clearwater's specific prohibition in Section 3-1804.H. on placing any limitation on a sign based on the content of the message [see Uranite- Cleanvater at 1336]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that City of St. Petersburg's sign code contained provisions that allowed for "time and temperature signs" not to exceed 20 square feet within certain land uses [see St. Petersburg's Code at §§ 16-709(1)a.5., 16-709(1)b.3., 16-710(1)a.5., 16-710(1)b.3., 16-712(1)e., and 16-712(2)c.] and that these six provisions were among more than fifty different provisions that were challenged by Granite State in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, * 12, n.23 (M.DFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U. S. 1086 (2004) [see also Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., Case No. 8:01-cv02250-JSM (M.DFIa.), Doc. 1, Exh. A and Doc. 54, p. 11, n. 6]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that the foregoing provisions pertaining to "time and temperature signs" did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at * 12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review, confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the fact that the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Section 16-667(b)(2)) was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration under the governing precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that changeable message signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that such prohibition supports the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the future there is no longer a need for time and temperature signs due to the expansion of electronic devices and instruments that display time and temperature, and that it would serve the stated interests of the Clearwater Development Code to prohibit proliferation of distracting and incongruous changing message signs by eliminating the exception for time and temperature signs, while grandfathering existing time and temperature signs for their continued operation; Menu Si�ns on which Messa�e Chan�es More Often than Everv 3 Hours - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit signs that change messages more frequently than every three hours because the same visually JaY�i6�sass_i _22_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2: degrade the community aesthetics and character and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18, with an exception for signs that function as menu display signs so as to allow for changing messages for different menus during the course of the day; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a changeable electronic message sign provides more visual stimuli than a traditional sign and that it has been judicially noticed that such changeable electronic message signs will logically will be more distracting and more hazardous (see Naser Jewelers, Inc. v. City of Concord, 513 F.3d 27 (lst Cir. 2008)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it has been judicially noticed that the alternative of allowing electronic message centers but imposing certain conditions on them, such as limiting the number of times per day a message can change, would have steeper monitoring costs and other complications and that such considerations support a municipality's outright prohibition on electronic changing message signs (see Naser .Iewelers, Inc. v. City of Concord, 513 F.3d 27 (lst Cir. 2008)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as menu signs on which the message changes more rapidly than once every three hours), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334]; Pavement Markin�s - Prohibited (Except for Street Addresses) WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit pavement markings, with an exception for street addresses, because the same visually degrade the community character and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed prohibition on signs painted on the pavement, except for house numbers and traffic control signs (see Model Code at 10.02.02.5, stating "Signs that are painted, pasted, or printed on any curbstone, flagstone, pavement, or any portion of any sidewalk or street, except house numbers and traffic control signs"); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit pavement markings that are not traffic control device signs (which are exempt from regulation under the City's land development regulations) and except for street addresses (which are not content-based and are necessary for commerce and function for health and safety concerns) because such markings are distracting in nature and serve to degrade community aesthetics and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18 of Article 3 of the Clearwater Code; JaY�i6�s2ss_i _23_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2� WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, and that categories for prohibited signs, such as pavement markings with certain exceptions [former Section 3-1803F.], were not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334, n.36 and 1345- 1347]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's similar prohibition on pavement markings (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(4) prohibiting "pavement markings, except official traffic control markings or where otherwise authorized") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, * 12, n. 23 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that the foregoing provision prohibiting "pavement markings," with limited exceptions, did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at * 12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review in Granite State v. St. Petersburg, confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the fact that the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Section 16-667(b)(2)) was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration under the governing precedent of Ward v. RockAgainstRacism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); Portable Si�ns - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to continue to prohibit portable signs as unnecessary visual clutter and that such sign type is inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the City's land development regulations expressed in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign type known as a portable sign may be legally prohibited (see Harnish v. Manatee County, 783 F.2d 1535, 1540 (l lth Cir. 1986); Lindsay v. San Antonio, 821 F.2d 1103, 11 ll(Sth Cir. 1987)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the prohibition of portable signs reasonably advances the governmental goal of protecting the aesthetic environment of the City [see Harnish v. Manatee Town, 783 F.2d 1535 (l lth Cir. 1986) and Don's Porta Signs, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, 298 F.2d 1051 (l lth Cir. 1987), cert. denied 485 U.S. 98 (1988)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that prohibited portable signs [see prohibition in Model Code, § 10.02.02.Y., and see JaY�i6�sass_i _24_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2: definition of "portable signs" at Model Code, § 10.00.04 ("Any sign which is manifestly designed to be transported by trailer or on its own wheels, including such signs even though the wheels may be removed and the remaining chassis or support structure converted to an A or T frame sign and attached temporarily to the ground")], and that cited the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Harnish v. Manatee County, 783 F.2d 1535 (llth Cir. 1986), as support for such a prohibition; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that portable signs were also among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that the prohibition of this sign type was found by that study to support the stated purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on portable signs (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16- 671(6), prohibiting "portable signs, including ...") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U. S. 1086 (2004); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that prohibitions, similar to the one on "portable signs," did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at * 12, n. 23), and noted that a municipality may choose to prohibit all portable signs in furtherance of its aesthetic concerns (id. at * 10, citing Messer v. City ofDouglasville, Ga., 975 F.2d 1505, 1510 (1992)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review in Granite State v. St. Petersburg, confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as portable signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334]; Roof and Above Roof Si�ns - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit roof and above roof signs because such signs are distracting in nature, serve to degrade community character, and aesthetics and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18; JaY�i6�sass_i _25_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2i WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit roof signs at Section 10.04.00, which allowed for permanent accessory signs but did not allow a permanent accessory sign to be a roof sign (which is defined at Section 10.00.04 as "A sign placed above the roof line of a building or on or against a roof slope of less than forty-five (45) degrees"); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that roof and above roof signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that the prohibition of such sign types supported the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on roof signs (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16- 671(7), prohibiting "roof signs, except integral roof signs in nonresidential districts") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd inpart, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that a prohibition on signs, similar to the one on roof signs, did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at * 12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review, confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16- 667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as roof signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334]; Sidewalk Si�ns - Prohibited (Except as otherwise provided) WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that sidewalk signs, sometimes known as sandwich board signs (except as then allowed in the Downtown District), were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; JaY�i6�sass_i _26_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to generally prohibit sidewalk signs because such signs add to sign clutter and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18, except in limited instances, such as where sidewalk signs in commercial districts may serve a temporary function of providing information when the construction of public improvements is ongoing or in other limited circumstances where such signs provide important information to the public, and that this prohibition is consistent with the prohibition upheld by the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision reviewed former Section 3-1803.L., which at that time prohibited sandwich board signs except to the extent permitted in the Downtown District, and upheld that restriction after striking unrelated provisions from former Section 3-1803.L. [see Uranite- Cleanvater at 1339]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on sandwich board signs (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(8), prohibiting "sandwich board signs") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U. S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Wardv. RockAgainstRacism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); Si�ns Attached to or Painted on Piers. Seawalls - Prohibited (Other than Official Re�ulatorv or Warnin� Si�ns) WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs attached to or painted on piers and seawalls, other than official regulatory or warning signs, detract from the aesthetic environment and that such signs conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business, and preserving and enhancing the natural and scenic characteristics of the City of Clearwater as a waterfront community; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs attached to or painted on piers or seawalls (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(9), prohibiting "signs attached to or painted on piers or seawalls, unless otherwise authorized, such as official regulatory or warning signs approved by the City Manager") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.DFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve JaY�i6�s2ss_i _27_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2� aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 u.s. �s1, �91 �i9s9); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs painted on piers and seawalls were among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that such prohibition supported the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as signs attached to or painted on piers and seawalls, other than official regulatory or warning signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Uranite- Cleanvater at 1334]; Si�ns in or upon Anv River, Bav Lake, or Other Bodv of Water - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs in or upon any river, bay, lake, or other body of water, detract from the aesthetic environment and that such signs conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business, and preserving and enhancing the natural and scenic characteristics of the City of Clearwater as a waterfront community; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs in or upon any river, bay, lake, or other body of water (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(10), prohibiting "signs in or upon any river, bay, lake, or other body of water, unless otherwise authorized by the City Manager, such as official regulatory or warning signs") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.DFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U. S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Wardv. RockAgainstRacism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs on or upon a river, bay, lake or water were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different JaY�i6�sass_i _28_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2! types of signs (such as signs in or upon any river, bay, lake, or other body of water), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334]; Si�ns on Publiclv-Owned Land or Easements or Street Ri�hts-of-Wav, (except (a) as allowed in Section 3-1806.5., (b) si�ns on transit shelters erected pursuant to Section 3-2203 and permitted pursuant to Section 3-1807.B.5., (c) sidewalk si�ns to the extent permitted in Section 3-1806.U. or Section 1807.B.4., (d) as allowed in Section 3-1807.A., and (e) as allowed in Section 3-1806.V. and 3-1806.W.) WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs on publicly-owned land or easements or street rights-of-way [except (a) as allowed in the renumbered Section 3- 1806.5, (b) signs on transit shelters erected pursuant to Section 3-2203 and permitted pursuant to the renumbered Section 3-1807.B.5, (c) sidewalk signs to the extent permitted in Section 3- 1806.U., or the renumbered Section 1807.B.4., (d) as allowed in the renumbered Section 3- 1807.A., and (e) as allowed in the renumbered Section 3-1806.V. and renumbered Section 3- 1806.W.] detract from the aesthetic environment and that such signs conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code for local governments at Section 10.01.00.A., recommended an exemption for signs necessary to promote health, safety and welfare, and other regulatory, statutory, traffic control or directional signs erected on public property with permission as appropriate from the State of Florida, the United States, of city or county governments, and that exemptions for statutory signs and traffic control device signs from regulation under Division 18 are incorporated into the new Section 3-1803.C. and Section 3- 1803.D., and are not within the scope of the prohibited signs listed in the new Section 3-1804.M; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision reviewed and upheld former Section 3-1803.L, after striking thirteen words as set forth below, which at that time prohibited certain signs, including "[s]igns located on publicly owned land or easements or inside street rights-of-way, except signs required or erected by permission of the city manager or city commission, signs or transit shelters erected pursuant to section 3-2203, and sandwich board signs to the extent permitted in the downtown district," and which further provided that "[p]rohibited signs shall include but shall not be limited to handbills, posters, advertisements, or notices that are attached in any way upon lampposts, telephone poles, utility poles, bridges, and sidewalks" [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1339] [see also Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 1131 (2009)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision struck the following language that then appeared in Section 3- 1803.L, "signs required or erected by permission of the city manager or city commission," due to a determination that the same allowed officials to exercise undue discretion, and upheld the remaining provisions of Section 3-1803.L. [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1339]; JaY�i6�sass_i _29_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3i WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that subsequent amendments were made to the Clearwater Development Code to limit any undue discretion of the city manager and city commission and to provide criteria to address the concerns raised by the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs on easements or right-of-way were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs that are erected upon or proj ect over public rights-of-way (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(11), prohibiting "signs that are erected upon or project over public rights-of-way or present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard" and which "includes signs which obstruct visibility") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U. S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon (1) the government's interest in regulating speech and (2) the statement in the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Wardv. RockAgainstRacism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); Si�ns that Emit Sound, Vapor, Smoke, Odor, Particles, or Gaseous Matter - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs that emit sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles, or gaseous matter conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit signs that emit sound, odor, or visible matter such as vapor, smoke, particles, or gaseous matter, at Model Code 10.02.02.J., prohibiting "Signs that emit audible sound, odor, or visible matter such as smoke or steam," as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit signs that incorporate emit any sound that is intended to attract attention, at Model Code 10.02.I., prohibiting "Signs that incorporate proj ected, emit any sound that is intended to attract attention, or involve the use of animals," as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety; JaY�i6�s2ss_i _30_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs that emit sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles, or gaseous matter (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(12), prohibiting "signs that emit sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles, or gaseous matter") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U. S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. RockAgainstRacism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs emitting sound, vapor, smoke, and/or odor were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that the prohibition of such sign types supported the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (which included signs that emit sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles, or gaseous matter), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334]; Si�ns That Have Unshielded Illuminatin� Devices - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, signs that have unshielded illuminating devices or which reflect lighting onto public rights-of-way thereby creating a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard should continue to be prohibited in Section 3-1804.0.; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit "[s]igns that are of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or impair the vision of any motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian using or entering a public way, or that of a hazard or a nuisance to occupants of any property because of glare or other characteristics" at Model Code 10.02.02.P., as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs that have unshielded, illuminating devices (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(13), prohibiting "signs that have unshielded, illuminating devices") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.DFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § JaY�i6�s2ss_i _31_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3; 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs with unshielded illuminated devices were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that the prohibition of such sign types supported the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs Section 479.11(5), Florida Statutes, prohibits the erection, use, operation, or maintenance of certain specified signs, including any sign which displays intermittent lights not embodied in the sign, or any rotating or flashing light within 100 feet of the outside boundary of the right-of-way of any highway on the State Highway System, interstate highway system, or federal-aid primary highway system or which is illuminated in such a manner so as to cause glare or to impair the vision of motorists or otherwise distract motorists so as to interfere with the motorists' ability to safely operate their vehicles; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as signs that have unshielded illuminating devices or which reflect lighting onto public rights-of-way thereby creating a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334]; Si�ns that Move, Revolve, Twirl, Rotate, Flash, Scintillate, Blink, Flutter or Appear to Displav Motion, including Animated Signs, Multi-Prism Signs, Tri-Vision Signs, Floodli�hts and Beacons Li�hts (Except When Required bv the FAA or Other Governmental A�encvl Unless Otherwise Expresslv Allowed - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a prohibition on signs that move, revolve, twirl, rotate, flash, scintillate, blink, flutter or appear to display motion, including animated signs, multi-prism signs, floodlights and beacon lights (except when required by the Federal Aviation Agency or other governmental agency), unless otherwise expressly allowed, is consistent with the purposes of Division 18, including the lessening of hazardous situations, protecting the public from the dangers of unsafe signs, regulation of signs in a manner so as to not interfere with, obstruct vision of, or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a prohibition on the aforesaid signs is consistent with the purpose of the land development regulations to enhance the attractiveness of the community and to preserve and enhance the natural and scenic characteristics of a waterfront and resort community; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit "[s]igns with visible moving, revolving or rotating parts or visible JaY�i6�s2ss_i _32_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3; mechanical movement of any description or other apparent visible movement achieved by electrical, electronic, or mechanical means, except for traditional barber poles," at Model Code 10.02.02.D., as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit "[s]igns with the optical illusion of movement by means of a design that presents a pattern capable of giving the illusion of motion or changing of copy," at Model Code 10.02.02.E., as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit "[s]igns with lights or illumination that flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, or vary in intensity or color except for time-temperature-date signs," at Model Code 10.02.02F., as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit "[s]earchlights used to advertise or promote a business or to attract customers to a property" at Model Code 10.02.02.R., as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs that move, revolve, twirl, rotate, flash, including animated signs, multi-prism signs, and beacon lights (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16- 671(14), prohibiting "signs that move, revolve, twirl, rotate, flash, including animated signs, multi-prism signs, and beacon lights except when required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other governmental agency") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U. S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Wardv. RockAgainstRacism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs that move, revolve, rotate, and/or flash were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; JaY�i6�s2ss_i _33_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3� WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a prohibition on signs utilizing beacon lights should not apply, and that beacon lights utilized as a sign should be exempted from prohibition if and when the same is required by the Federal Aviation Agency or other governmental agency for a public purpose; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as signs that move, revolve, twirl, rotate, flash, including animated signs, multi-prism signs, tri-visions signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334]; Si�ns that Obscure a Traffic Control Device Si�n or Official Traffic Si�nal - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, signs that obstruct, conceal, hide, or otherwise obscure from view any traffic control device sign or official traffic signal should be prohibited; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs that obstruct, conceal, hide, or otherwise obscure from view any official traffic sign (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(15), prohibiting "signs that obstruct, conceal, hide, or otherwise obscure from view any official traffic or government sign, signal, or device") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.DFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U. S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Wardv. RockAgainstRacism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs obstructing traffic or other governmental signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as signs that obstruct, conceal, hide or otherwise obscure from view any official traffic or government sign, signal or device), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334]; Si�ns That Present Potential Hazards - Prohibited JaY�i6�s2ss_i _34_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a prohibition on signs that present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard, including signs which obstruct visibility, are consistent with the purposes of Division 18, including the lessening of hazardous situations, protecting the public from the dangers of unsafe signs, regulation of signs in a manner so as to not interfere with, obstruct vision of, or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code for local governments, at Model Code 10.02.02.M., prohibited "Signs that obstruct the vision of pedestrians, cyclists, or motorists traveling on or entering public streets," and at Model Code 10.02.02.P., prohibited "Signs that are of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or impair the vision of any motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian using or entering a public way, or that of a hazard or a nuisance to occupants of any property because of glare or other characteristics"; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained similar prohibitions on signs that present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard, which included signs which obstruct visibility (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(11), prohibiting "signs that ... present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard. This includes signs which obstruct visibility") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U. S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs that present potential traffic or pedestrian hazards were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as signs that present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard, including signs which obstruct visibility), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Uranite- Cleanvater at 1334]; Si�ns Attached to Tree or Ve�etation - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs attached to or placed on any tree or other vegetation add to visual pollution and clutter, and should be prohibited to further the purposes of the City's land development regulations and Division 18 of Article 3 of the City's Code; JaY�i6�s2ss_i _35_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3i WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs attached to a tree or vegetation were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, at Section 479.11(9) (2010), prohibits any sign erected, used, operated, or maintained that is nailed, fastened, or affixed to any tree and which is adjacent to the right-of-way of any portion of the interstate highway system or the federal-aid primary highway system; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, and that categories for prohibited signs, such as signs attached to vegetation [former Section 3-1803.R, now renumbered to Section 3-1804.5] were not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334, n.36 and 1345-1347]; Human Si�ns - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs intended to draw attention for a commercial purpose and that are carried, waved or otherwise displayed by persons either on public rights-of-way or in a manner visible from public rights-of-way (which does not include or limit the display of placards, banners, flags or other signage by persons participating in demonstrations, political rallies and similar events) conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business, and regulating signs in a manner so that they do not interfere with, obstruct the vision of, or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the renumbered Section 3- 1803.T expressly prohibits signs that are intended to draw attention for a commercial purpose and that are carried, waved or otherwise displayed by persons either on public rights-of-way or in a manner visible from public rights-of-way, and that the foregoing provision is not intended to limit the display of placards, banners, flags or other signage by persons participating in demonstrations, political rallies and similar events; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in meeting the purposes and goals established in these preambles, it is appropriate to prohibit and/or to continue to prohibit the display of what has become known as "human signs"; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision addressed the restriction in former Section 3-1803.5 [renumbered as Section 3-1803.T] which prohibited signs that are "carried, waved or otherwise displayed" in public rights-of-way or "in a manner visible from public rights-of-way" and "directed toward such displays intended to draw attention for a commercial purpose, and is not intended to limit the display of placards, banners, flags or other signage by persons demonstrating in demonstrations, political rallies or similar events" [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1340-1341]; JaY�i6�s2ss_i _36_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision found that the restriction in former Section 3-1803.5 [renumbered as Section 3-1803.T] was content or viewpoint-neutral and justified by Clearwater's stated interests in safety and aesthetics, and that the additional guidance provided in the provision assures that government officials are not given unbridled discretion [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1340-1341]; Snipe Si�ns - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that off-premises signs that are tacked, nailed, posted, pasted, glued, or otherwise attached to trees, poles, stakes, or fences, and which are not otherwise expressly allowed as a permitted sign, also known as "snipe signs," add to visual pollution and clutter, and should be prohibited to further the purposes of the City's land development regulations and Division 18 of Article 3 of the City's Code; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision upheld the prohibitions on snipe signs after severing the words "other objects" in the definition of Section 8-101 in order to remove a conflict between Section 3-1806.B.3 (allowing attached signs) and Section 3-1803.T (prohibiting snipe signs that would include attached signs to objects other than those listed) [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1335]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that snipe signs were among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that supported the purposes set forth in Division 18 of Article 3 of the City's Code; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, at Section 479.11(9) (2010), prohibits any sign erected, used, operated, or maintained that is nailed, fastened, or affixed to any tree and which is adjacent to the right-of-way of any portion of the interstate highway system or the federal-aid primary highway system, in the interests of aesthetics and traffic safety; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on snipe signs (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16- 671(16), prohibiting "snipe signs") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.DFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that the foregoing provision prohibiting "snipe signs" did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at * 12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon, where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg's Code at § 16- JaY�i6�s2ss_i _37_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3� 667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989); Three Dimensional Obiects Used As Si�ns - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that three dimensional objects used as signs conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business, WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that three-dimensional objects used as signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on three-dimensional obj ects that are used as signs (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(18), prohibiting "three-dimensional objects that are used as signs") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.DFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (which included three-dimensional objects that are used as signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334]; Vehicle And Portable Trailer Si�ns - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that vehicle signs and portable trailer signs detract from the aesthetic environment and that such signs conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business, and preserving and enhancing the natural and scenic characteristics of the City of Clearwater as a waterfront community; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that vehicle signs and portable trailer signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; JaY�i6�s2ss_i _38_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3! WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code for local governments, at Model Code 10.02.02.W., prohibited vehicle signs with a total sign area on any vehicle in excess of ten (10) square feet, when the vehicle: (1) is parked for more than sixty consecutive minutes within one hundred (100) feet of any street right of way, (2) is visible from the street right of way that the vehicle is within one hundred (100) feet of, and (3) is not regularly used in the conduct of the business advertised on the vehicle; and further providing that a vehicle used primarily for advertising, or for the purpose of providing transportation for owners or employees of the occupancy advertised by the vehicle, shall not be considered a vehicle used in the conduct of business; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that nearly identical prohibitions on vehicle signs have upheld against a constitutional challenges (see Perkins v. Town of Orange Park, 2006 WL 5988235 (Fla. Cir. Ct.); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code for local governments at Model Code 10.02.02.Y, prohibited "portable signs as defined by this Code," and therein at 10.00.04 defined "portable sign" as "any sign which is manifestly designed to be transported by trailer or on its own wheels, including such signs even though the wheels may be removed and the remaining chassis or support structure converted to an A or T frame sign and attached temporarily to the ground" and that a similar prohibition was upheld in Harnish v. Manatee County, 783 F.2d 1535, 1540 (l lth Cir. 1986); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained similar prohibitions on portable signs and vehicle signs (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(6) and (19)), were determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.DFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U. S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Wardv. RockAgainstRacism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as portable signs and vehicle signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334]; Si�ns Not Specificallv Permitted - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that any permanent sign that is not specifically described or enumerated as permitted within the specific district classifications in the Community Development Code should continue to be prohibited in the renumbered Section 3-1804.X, with clarification that the foregoing prohibition pertains to permanent sign types; JaY�i6�s2ss_i _39_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4i WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs not specifically described or enumerated as permitted within the specific land use classifications in the article 16 of the St. Petersburg Code (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(20), prohibiting "any sign that is not specifically described or enumerated as permitted within the specific land use classifications in this article") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.DFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (which included any sign that is not specifically described or enumerated as permitted within the specific district classifications in the Development Code), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334]; General Standards WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in carrying out and implementing the purposes of the land development regulations governing signage it is appropriate to establish general standards including the following: the establishment of a minimum setback for signs of five feet from the property line; the allowance of neon signs and lighting and providing the circumstances whereby neon lighting is counted toward the allowable area of permissible signage; the establishment of certain conditions whereby illuminated signs may be operated; the allowance of banners and flags and providing the circumstances whereby the same are counted toward the allowable area of permissible signage; the allowance of signs that function to display changing gasoline prices (gasoline price display signs) except where specifically prohibited, and also providing certain height limitations and the circumstances whereby the same are counted toward the allowable area of permissible freestanding signage; the allowance of signage on awnings subject to certain limitations such as size; a provision that makes it clear that other codes may be applicable, namely building and electrical codes; a provision that specifies that signs shall not have limitations based upon the content of the message contained on the signs; and a provision codifying that noncommercial speech may be substituted for commercial speech; Setbacks WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the interest of both aesthetics and traffic safety, no sign shall be located within five feet of a property line of a parcel proposed for development; Neon Si�ns And Li�htin� JaY�i6�sass_i _40_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the interest of aesthetics and traffic safety it is appropriate to address circumstances when neon lighting should not be regarded as signage for purpose of land development regulations that regulate signage, and to provide for circumstances when neon lighting used as freestanding designs or murals or as attached murals or designs unrelated to the architectural features of the building should be counted toward the allowable area of the property's or occupancy's freestanding or attached signage, as applicable; Illuminated Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the interest of aesthetics and traffic safety it is appropriate to provide that the light from any illuminated sign shall be shaded, shielded, or directed away from adj oining street rights-of-way and properties; that no sign shall have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or other illumination devices which have a changing light intensity, brightness, color, or direction or as otherwise prohibited in the new Section 3-1804; that no colored lights shall be used at any location or in any manner so as to be confused with or construed as traffio-control devices; that neither the direct nor the reflected light from primary light sources shall create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares; and that the light which illuminates a sign shall be shaded, shielded, or directed so that no structure, including sign supports or awnings, are illuminated by such lighting; Banners And Fla�s WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the interest of aesthetics and traffic safety it is appropriate to provide that a banner or flag may be used as a permitted freestanding or attached sign and, if so used, the area of the banner or flag shall be included in, and limited by, the computation of allowable area for freestanding or attached signs on the property, unless otherwise provided in Division 18, such as in the new Section 3-18056.G; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, and that there were legally required or justifiable exceptions such as construction signs [former Section 3- 1805F.] and for sale signs [former Section 3-1805.0.], and that the exceptions for flags [former Section 3-1805.G.], was also not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334, n.36 and 1345- 1347]; Gasoline Price Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, gasoline price display signs shall be allowed in all non-residential districts except where specifically prohibited; gasoline price display signs shall be placed in the vicinity of the pump islands and shall not extend above any pump island canopy or they shall be attached to the primary freestanding sign for the property; if attached to the freestanding sign, the area of the gasoline price display sign shall be counted toward the allowable area for the freestanding sign; and a gasoline price display sign may be changed manually or electronically in recognition of intermittent changes in fuel prices which may occur more often than once per day; JaY�i6�s2ss_i _41_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, Fla. (Granite-Cleanvater), 213 F. Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other gr�ounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), addressed Article 3, Division 18's General Standards, wherein the City specifically regulated the placement, size and location of gasoline price signs [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1336], rejected the contention that former Section 3-1804.E [now renumbered to Section 3-1805.E] was an impermissible content-based exception rendering the ordinance unconstitutional, and observed that this sign category (gasoline price signs) and its regulations were a good example of how the ordinance was content-neutral [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1336]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the federal district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision concluded that the category for "gasoline price signs" was content-neutral inasmuch as the provision was not an attempt to censor speech or enforce regulations based on viewpoint inasmuch as a gasoline price sign has no viewpoint and merely relates factual information; hence, the provision is not an attempt to censor speech or limit the free expression of ideas-especially in light of the City of Clearwater's specific prohibition in then Section 3-1804.H on placing any limitation on a sign based on the content of the message [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1336]; Awnin�s WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the interest of both aesthetics and traffic safety it is appropriate to regulate signage, inclusive of graphic elements, that appear on awnings; Buildin� and Electrical Code Compliance WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to specify that in addition to land development regulations identified in Division 18, signs shall comply with all applicable building and electrical code requirements; Messa�e Content WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision cited former Section 3-1804.H. (providing "no sign shall be subject to any limitation based on the content of the message") in determining that the challenger could not make a facial challenge to Article 4 of the Code; and the district court stated that the City's ordinance was content-neutral under Thomas v. Chicago Park, 534 U. S. 316 (2002) [see Uranite- Cleanvater at 1325, n.20]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with prior code provisions contained within former Section 3-1804.H. [renumbered to Section 3-1805.H.], notwithstanding any other provision of the Community Development Code, no sign shall be subj ect to any limitation based on the content of the message contained on such sign; Substitution of Noncommercial Speech for Noncommercial Speech JaY�i6�sass_i _42_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City has allowed noncommercial speech to appear wherever commercial speech appears; and the City desires to continue that practice through the specific inclusion of a substitution clause that expressly allows non-commercial messages to be substituted for commercial messages; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that by confirming in its ordinance that noncommercial messages are allowed wherever commercial messages are permitted, the City will continue to overcome any constitutional obj ection that its ordinance impermissibly favors commercial speech noncommercial speech [see Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City ofLenexa, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1236-1237 (D. Kan. 1999)]; Si�ns Permitted Without a Permit WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there are many signs and sign types that may be allowable and permitted without development review pursuant to Article 4 of the Community Development Code; Address Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, there should be allowed without permitting one address sign of no more than two square feet of total sign face area for each parcel of land used for residential purposes and no more than one square foot for each number contained in the property address for each parcel of land used for non-residential purposes, with the square footage for the address sign being allowed in addition to the total square signage footage allowed in the renumbered and modified Section 3-1807; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code contained a provision that exempted "address numbers" from permitting and other regulatory requirements (see St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-670(a)(1)) and that this provision was among more than 50 different provisions that were challenged by Granite State in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, * 12, n.23 (M.DFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that the foregoing provision exempting "street addresses" did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at * 12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review, confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the fact that the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Section 16-667(b)(2)) was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration under the governing precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989); JaY�i6�s2ss_i _43_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4� Temporarv Free Expression Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that under current jurisprudence [see, e.g., LinmarkAssociates v. Town of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977)], on-site real estate signs, such as "for sale" signs, should be allowed given the important role and unique function that real estate signs, such as "for sale" signs, perform on the premises where they are located; and also that under current jurisprudence [see, e.g., Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U. S. 43 (1994)], signs that allow property owners, especially residential homeowners, to freely express a particular point of view on their own property should be reasonably accommodated and may be uniquely valuable, which may be accommodated by the allowance of a free expression sign; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, Fla. (Granite-Cleanvater), 213 F. Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other gr�ounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), addressed the constitutionality of provisions governing non-election yard signs in residential areas, which provisions contained both a six-foot size limitation and a durational limitation of ninety days during a one year period [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1336-1338]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite-Cleanvater agreed with the reasoning of Brayton v. City of New Brighton, 519 N.W.2d 243 (Minn.1994) (upholding an ordinance that allowed one non-commercial sign all year long and additional non-commercial signs during the election season), and found that the provisions were constitutional if the ninety-day durational limitation was struck and severed, thereby allowing one temporary yard sign (in residential areas) all year long [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1336-1338], which may function as a free expression sign; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to expressly provide for the display of one temporary free-expression sign on each parcel within the City without any durational limitation, and that the allowance of a free expression sign on each parcel be in addition to the right to display temporary election signs prior to an election to maximize the opportunity for political speech, subject to reasonable time, place and manner provisions that address height, size, number, location, setback, and other factors that control the spread of visual blight and sign clutter, and that such right to display a temporary free expression sign be in addition to the right to utilize a message substitution clause to display a noncommercial message in lieu of a commercial message on a lawful sign; Temporarv Election Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that under current jurisprudence, election signs are generally accorded a higher level of protection under the First Amendment than any other classification or type of speech; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that durational limitations on election signs, sometimes referred to as political signs, are frequently problematic when the limitations affect the posting of election signs prior to the election concerning the candidate or JaY�i6�sass_i _44_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4; ballot issue to which they pertain, but durational limits requiring the removal of election signs following such election are generally permissible [see, e.g., Election Signs and Time Limits, Evolving Voices in Land Use Law, 3 Wash. U.J.L. & Pol'y 379 (2000)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that free expression signs are sufficient to allow for political speech unrelated to particular candidates or ballot issues; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, as set forth above, it intends to expressly provide that property owners may display at least one temporary sign for free expression at all times (free expression signs), and that in addition thereto it intends to expressly provide that property owners may maintain additional temporary signs displaying their support or opposition to political candidates and ballot issues before the election to which they pertain (election signs); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the provisions for temporary real estate signs, free expression signs, election signs, and certain other sign types are not intended to diminish or lessen the City's interests in aesthetics or traffic safety, but the same are adopted in recognition of the useful functions and practical needs served by such signage in the City's commerce and/or in the political freedom that must be accorded its citizens to freely express their points of view and political desires; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater recognizes that under current jurisprudence its sign regulations may be under-inclusive in their reach to serve the City's interests in aesthetics and traffic safety, while at the same time balancing the interests protected by the First Amendment [see, e.g., Members of City Council v. Tcrxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984); Cordes, Sign Regulation After Ladue: Examining the Evolving Limits of First Amendment Protection, 74 Neb.L.Rev. 36 (1995); Longview Outdoor Advertising Co., L.L.C. v. City of Winter Garden, Florida, 426 F.Supp.2d 1269, 1272 (MDFIa. 2006)]; and the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City may from time to time modify the sign regulations herein so as to provide additional limitations to further serve the City's interests in aesthetics and/or traffic safety; Holidav Decorations WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that "holiday decorations," as defined in the accompanying amendments, should not be included within the definition of the term "sign" for purposes of the land development regulations under Article 3, Division 18, of the Community Development Code, and that the definition of "sign," as defined in the accompanying amendments, has been revised to accomplish the exclusion of such decorations from the definition of "sign"; WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to delete the provisions of the current Section 3-1805.D. that allows holiday decorations as signs falling under a land development regulation; Temporarv Grand Openin� and Special Event Si�ns JaY�i6�sass_i _45_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4i WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, Fla. (Granite-Cleanvater), 213 F. Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other gr�ounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), determined that the provisions incorporated into the former Section 3-1805.C.2 allowing temporary special event and/or public purpose signs of a temporary nature had lacked sufficient criteria to guide an official's decision as to the type of sign, size, design and length of display, and the provision was severed in its entirety as providing an official with too much discretion to withstand constitutional scrutiny [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1338-1339]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City amended former Section 3-1805.C.2., previously struck by the district court from the Community Development Code, to eliminate the undue discretion and to add content-neutral objective criteria [see Ordinance No. 6997-02, Section 2, adopted on July 18, 2002]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that given the unique function served by temporary grand opening signs and temporary special event or public purpose signs, it is appropriate to continue to allow such temporary signs without a permit; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that one temporary grand opening sign shall be permitted for thirty (30) days after the issuance of an occupational license for any new business, new owner of an existing business, or business name change, and that such sign shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in total sign face area or such sign may be a temporary covering, such as a toaster cover, sign boot, or sign sock, which covers an existing lawful and permitted sign, whether an attached sign or a freestanding sign; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in order to provide flexibility for the holding of a special event or for the display of information for a public purpose it is necessary to allow for temporary special event or public purpose signs that meet certain objective content-neutral criteria, as initially developed and adopted in July 2002 by way of Ordinance No. 6997-02, Section 2; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that temporary special event or public purpose signs shall be allowed subject to approval by the community development coordinator provided the temporary signs meet the following criteria: (a) the signs are temporary signs for a limited time and frequency, (b) the signs are for a special event or a public purpose of a temporary nature, (c) the signs do not exceed the maximum height and size requirements for freestanding signs under the Community Development Code, (d) the display of temporary signs for a special event shall not begin any earlier than two calendar days before the event and shall be removed within one business day after the event, and (e) the signs will meet the following purposes of Article 3, Division 18, to wit: (1) the signs will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [Section 3-1802F.], (2) the signs will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites [Section 3-1802.J.], (3) the signs will not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [Section 3-1802.K.], and (4) the signs will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3-1802.L.]; JaY�i6�sass_i _46_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the general standards in renumbered Section 3-1805, the approval or disapproval of temporary special event or public purpose signs shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on such signs, that the community development coordinator shall render a decision within ten (10) days after an application is made for such signs, and that such decision shall be deemed an administrative interpretation and any person adversely affected has the right to appeal the decision to the community development board pursuant to Section 4-501(A); Valet Parkin� Station Si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that given the prevalence of valet parking within areas frequented by visiting tourists and given the unique function served by on-premise signage that indicates the location of a valet station, it is appropriate to allow for a single sign indicating a valet parking station, provided such sign meets reasonable criteria that is based upon the purposes of Division 18 and further provided that such sign is visible only during the hours that the valet is operating; Temporarp Construction Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is necessary and appropriate to allow one temporary construction sign located on a parcel proposed for development during the period that a building permit is in force, provided that such sign does not exceed a reasonable size restriction based upon the nature of the land use as residential or non- residential; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is necessary and appropriate to establish reasonable criteria for the dimensions of such signs based upon the zoning districts and/or land use; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the balance achieved for the modest display of temporary construction signs as limited by land use classification and placement strikes the appropriate balance that meets the principles of the City's land use regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is not necessary to require a permit for temporary construction signs as allowed under Division 18 of Article 3 of the City's Community Development Code; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, Fla. (Granite-Cleanvater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other gr�ounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), rej ected the assertion that the allowance of a temporary construction sign as provided in former Section 3-1805F.1 ran afoul of equal protection considerations inasmuch as that provision was among the City's time, place and manner regulations that were both reasonable and narrowly tailored to advance the substantial and carefully enumerated government interests set forth in JaY�i6�s2ss_i _47_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4� Section 3-1802 of the Community Development Code, and the district court further noted that private residences are given ample alternatives to express their viewpoint by a window sign, a temporary yard sign, or a flag [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1340]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, and that there were legally required or justifiable exceptions such as construction signs [former Section 3- 1805.F] [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334, n.36 and 1345-1347]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code contained a similar provision that exempted "construction/contractor signs" not to exceed a certain size while the work was in progress or during the period of time that a building permit was valid from permitting and other regulatory requirements (see St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-670(a)(5)) and that this provision was among the provisions that were challenged by Granite State in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, *15-16 (M.DFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004) [see also Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., Case No. 8:01-cv02250-JSM (M.DFIa.), Doc. 1, Exh. A and Doc. 54, p. 11, n. 6]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that provisions such as the one that exempted "construction/contractor signs" did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at * 12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review, confirmed that the St. Petersburg ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the fact that the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Section 16-667(b)(2)) was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration under the governing precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 u.s. �s1, �91 �i9s9); Fla�s WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in a prior version of the land development regulations, in effect in 1991, there was an impermissible distinction drawn within the text of those regulations as to flags of a governmental unit or body, such as the American Flag or the flag of the State of Florida, and non-governmental flags, such as hypothetical examples of a Greenpeace logo or a union affiliation, and that this content-based distinction between flags was struck down in Dimmitt v. City of Cleanvater, 782 F. Supp. 586 (M.DFIa. 1991), affirmed and modified, 985 F.2d 1565 (l lth Cir. 1993); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in 1992 the City of Clearwater adopted amendments designed to eliminate impermissible content distinctions JaY�i6�sass_i _48_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4! between government flags and non-government flags (see Ordinance No. 5257-92 adopted September 17, 1992); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there is no intent to distinguish between flag messages, and the content neutrality of flag regulations established by ordinance in September 1992 is continued within the accompanying sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that for flags displayed on a flag pole not exceeding thirty-five feet in height or on an attached bracket it is appropriate to allow one flag per detached dwelling unit, three flags per parcel of land used for multifamily residential purposes, and three flags per parcel of land used for non-residential purposes, and this allowance strikes the appropriate balance between allowing flags on the one hand, and controlling clutter on the other hand, and that this balance meets the principles of the City's land use regulations, and that if so used the area of the flag shall not be included in, and limited by, the computation of allowable area for freestanding or attached signs on the property; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, Fla. (Granite-Cleanvater), 213 F. Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other gr�ounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, and that the exceptions for flags [§ 3-1805.G], was not content-based [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334, n.36 and 1345-1347]; Gara�e-Yard Sale Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that just as there should be reasonable accommodation for temporary on-premise real estate signs to facilitate the purchase, sale or rental of real property , there should also be reasonable accommodation for the temporary display of signage for a garage or yard sale of personal property that is limited to the day of the sale, that is limited in size to no more than a total of four square feet of sign face area per sign, and that is limited to no more than one such sign on the property where the sale is conducted and no more than two such signs on other privately owned parcels of land; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there should be no restraint on the content of such temporary signage for the sale of personal property, and that the provisions are designed to be content-neutral; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, Fla. (Granite-Cleanvater), 213 F. Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other gr�ounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, notwithstanding de minimis exceptions such as the provision for garage/yard sale signs [§ 3-1805.H] [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334, n.36 and 1345-1346]; JaY�i6�sass_i _49_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5i WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code contained a provision that exempted "garage or yard sale signs" not exceeding four square feet from permitting and other regulatory requirements (see St. Petersburg's Code at § 16- 670(a)(18)) and that this provision was among more than 50 different provisions that were challenged by Granite State in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, *12, n.23 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004) [see also Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg Fla., Case No. 8:01-cv02250-JSM (M.DFIa.), Doc. 1, Exh. A and Doc. 54, p. 11, n. 6]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State v. St. Petersburg determined that the provision exempting "garage or yard sale signs" did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at * 12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review, confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the fact that the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Section 16-667(b)(2)) was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration under the governing precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989); Machinerv-Equipment Signs WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that "machinery and equipment signs," as defined in the accompanying amendments, should not be included within the definition of the term "sign" for purposes of the land development regulations under Article 3, Division 18, of the Community Development Code, and that the definition of "sign," as defined in the accompanying amendments, has been revised to accomplish the exclusion of such objects from the definition of "sign"; WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to delete the provisions of the current Section 3-1805.I. that allow signs which are integral and incidental to equipment, or machinery and cover not more than 20 percent of the exterior surface of such equipment, facilities or machinery; Attached Menu Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that menu signs serve a unique function in connection with land used for restaurants within the City, and that given the unique function served by such menu signage it is important to allow for the same in addition to any other permanent freestanding or attached signage allowed on a non-residential parcel; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is therefore appropriate to continue to allow for attached menu signs with reasonable criteria as to their dimensions based upon their function; JaY�i6�sass_i _Sp_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 Onsite Directional and Traffic Control Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is necessary and appropriate to allow onsite directional and traffic control signs subject to reasonable dimensional criteria in recognition of their function; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the provisions set forth in Section 3-1806.J. for onsite directional and traffic control signs are consistent with the general principles and purposes set forth in Division 18; Parkin� Space Number Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is necessary and appropriate to continue to allow signs identifying parking space numbers provided that such signs are painted on the paved surface of each space or do not exceed one-half square foot of sign face area per sign; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the provisions set forth in Section 3-1806.K. for signs identifying parking space numbers are consistent with the general principles and purposes set forth in Division 18; Marina Slip and Directional Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is necessary and appropriate to allow signs identifying marina slip numbers provided that such signs are painted on the dock in front of each slip or do not exceed one square feet of sign face area per sign; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, notwithstanding de minimis exceptions such as marina slip numbers [former Section 3-1805.T.] [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334, n.36 and 1345-1346]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the provisions set forth in Section 3-1806.L for marina slip and directional signs are consistent with the general principles and purposes set forth in Division 18, and are based upon and oriented to the function served by such signs in connection with marinas; Temporarv Yard Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to delete the provisions of the current Section 3-1805N. that pertained to temporary yard signs and to separate those provisions into separate sections pertaining to temporary free expression signs and temporary election signs, as Section 3-1806.B. and Section 3-1806.C., given the different functions that each such sign type serves, and to codify current practice; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision addressed the constitutionality of provisions governing yard signs JaY�i6�s2ss_i _51_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5; for a political candidate or issue, which provisions contained both size limitations and durational limitations [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1336-1338]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision found that based on the totality of the case law and commentary on this issue the sixty (60) day time limit on such signs before an election was unconstitutional and that the seven (7) day limit on removing the sign after the election was constitutional and a reasonable limitation justified by Clearwater's purpose of controlling aesthetics, and severed the sixty day time period [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1336-1338]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the guidance of the district court is incorporated into the codified revisions that appear in the new Section 3-1806.C., governing temporary election signs; Temporarv Real Estate Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, it is necessary and appropriate to allow one temporary real estate sign per parcel of land indicating that a parcel of land or a building located on the parcel of land or part thereof is for sale, for lease or otherwise available for conveyance, provided that such sign does not exceed a reasonable dimensional or other restrictions based upon the designation and/or use of the land, such as family dwellings, duplexes and townhouse units, multi-family purposes other than town house units, or non-residential purposes; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the balance achieved for the modest display of real estate signs as limited by land use and placement strikes the appropriate balance that meets the general principles and purposes of the City's land use regulations as set forth in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the dimensional criteria set forth in the new Section 3-1806.M. for temporary real estate signs are appropriate based upon their function and based upon the general principles and purposes set forth in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that allowing exemptions or exceptions for certain signage based upon the function served by the signage (e.g., warning signs, directional signs, real estate signs, and other sign types described herein), is preferred to requiring permits for all such signs or alternatively, banning all such signs; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that under current jurisprudence [see, e.g., LinmarkAssociates v. Town of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977)], on-site real estate signs, such as "for sale" signs, should be allowed given the important role and unique function that real estate signs, such as "for sale" signs, perform on the premises where they are located; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, and that "for JaY�i6�sass_i _52_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5; sale signs" were among the legally required or justifiable exceptions [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1334, n.36 and 1345-1347]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision rejected the argument that an exception of "for sale signs" was impermissibly content-based, describing that argument as an "almost-conclusory mandate" or "conclusory theory" [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1327-1334]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that signs are speech and can only be categorized or differentiated by what they say; that this makes it impossible to overlook a sign's content or message in formulating regulations and making exceptions for distinctions required by law (i.e., for sale signs), and that there is no other way to make an exemption or classify a"for sale" sign as a"for sale" sign without reading the words "For Sale" on the sign [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1333]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision noted that in looking at the general principles of the First Amendment, as guided by Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Tc�payers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984), the real issue is whether the distinctions or exceptions to a regulation are a disguised effort to control the free expression of ideas or to censor speech; and further noted that common sense and rationality would dictate that the only method of distinguishing signs for purposes of enforcing even content-neutral regulations, such as number, size or height restrictions, is by their message [see Granite-Cleanvater]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code contained a provision that exempted "real estate signs" (sometimes known as for sale signs) from permitting and other regulatory requirements (see St. Petersburg's Code at § 16- 670(a)(12)) and that this provision was among more than 50 different provisions that were challenged by Granite State in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, *12, n.23 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004) [see also Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg Fla., Case No. 8:01-cv02250-JSM (M.DFIa.), Doc. 1, Exh. A and Doc. 54, p. 11, n. 6]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that the foregoing provision exempting "real estate signs" did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at * 12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review, confirmed that the similar ordinance at issue in St. Petersburg was content-neutral based in large part upon the fact that the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Section 16-667(b)(2)) was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration under the governing precedent of Ward v. RockAgainstRacism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); JaY�i6�s2ss_i _53_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5� Stadium Si�ns Not Visible Outside Stadium WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the interest of aesthetics and traffic safety it is not necessary to regulate through the issuance of sign permits for those signs within a stadium provided the same are not oriented toward and readable from outside of a stadium; Window Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, window signs should have a size limitation that limits such signs or combination of such signs to twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area of the window where the sign or signs are located and face a right-of-way, with the twenty-five percent limitation allowed for the window sign(s) that face each right-of-way where there is a corner lot or through lot; provided further that in no case shall the cumulative area of all window signs located inside an enclosed area for purposes of advertising exceed fifty square feet, if oriented toward and visible from an adjoining roadway or navigable waterway or body of water; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision struck the former prohibition in former Section 3-1803.U. (prohibiting temporary window signs in residential areas) due to its conflict with former Section 3-1805.Q. (allowing window signs of up to eight square feet in area, not to exceed 25% of the window area, without making a residential/non-residential distinction within former Section 3- 1805.Q.) [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1335], but upheld the restriction in former Section 3- 1805.Q that allowed window signs of up to eight square feet in area, but not to exceed twenty- five percent (25%) of the window area; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, it is appropriate to continue a similar size limitation in former Section 3-1805.Q for window signs as modified in a revised Section 3-1806.0.; Safetv and Warnin� Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the interest of aesthetics and traffic safety it is appropriate to continue to provide for the allowance of safety or warning signs subject to reasonable dimensional criteria; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code contained a provision that exempted "warning signs" not to exceed six square feet from permitting and other regulatory requirements (see St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-670(a)(15)) and that this provision was among more than 50 different provisions that were challenged by Granite State in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, * 12, n.23 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004) [see also Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., Case No. 8:01-cv02250-JSM (M.DFIa.), Doc. 1, Exh. A and Doc. 54, p. 11, n. 6]; JaY�i6�sass_i _54_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that the foregoing provision exempting "warning signs" did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at * 12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review, confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the fact that the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Section 16-667(b)(2)) was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration under the governing precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989); Substitution Clause WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the principles and purposes of Division 18 and constitutional considerations, it is appropriate to continue the substitution clause in the current Section 3-1805.5. in the renumbered Section 3- 1806.Q., specifying that "a change in a sign message or panel on a previously approved, lawful sign, e.g., any sign allowed under this ordinance may contain, in lieu of any other copy, any otherwise lawful noncommercial message that complies with all other requirements of this ordinance." And clarifying that the provision does not permit "design" changes from a sign previously approved under the Comprehensive Sign Program; Vessel Slip Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the provisions of the current Section 3-1805.T. will be obsolete upon the adoption of the new Section 3-1806.L.; Balloons, Cold Air Inflatables, Streamers, Pennants - As Governmental and Public Purpose Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, it is an appropriate balance to allow "balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers, and pennants" as governmental and public purpose signs if the city manager finds that this sign type meets the following criteria: (1) the sign type is for a special event, (2) the special event is for a limited time, (3) the special event is for a limited frequency, and (4) the sign type, if allowed for a limited time and frequency, will meet the following purposes of Division 3, to wit: (a) the signs will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs (Section 3-1802F.), (b) the signs will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites [Section 3- 1802.J.], (c) the signs will not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [Section 3-1802.K.], and (d) the signs will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3-1802.L.], provided that consistent with the general standards in the new Section 3-1805, the approval or disapproval shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on any such sign, and further provided that the city manager renders a decision within ten days after an application is made for utilizing this sign type at a special event; JaY�i6�sass_i _55_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5i Si�ns on Publiclv Owned Land, Easements, Inside Street Ri�hts-of-Wav WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, it is appropriate to allow a sign on publicly owned land or easements or inside street rights-of-way if the city manager finds that the sign meets certain criteria as set forth in the proposed Section 3-1806.5. and provided that consistent with the general standards in the proposed Section 3-1805 the approval or disapproval shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on such sign; Directional/Informational Si�ns Servin� a Public Purpose WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes set forth in Division 18, it is appropriate to allow a permanent sign on public easements or inside street rights-of-way provided the city manager finds that the sign meets the criteria set forth in the renumbered Section 3-1806.T.; Signs During Construction Proiects WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes set forth in Division 18, it is appropriate to continue to allow temporary sidewalk signs during construction subject to reasonable criteria based upon the function that such temporary signs serve for properties abutting public construction proj ects that are scheduled to last one hundred eighty days or longer; Citv ParWRecreational Facilitv Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes set forth in Division 18, it is appropriate to allow one attached sign per city park or city recreation facility for the purposes of identifying a program provider or information concerning programs at such park or recreation facility based upon dimensional criteria that takes into account the sign function and subject to a design established by the appropriate governmental agency for a sign on city-owned property; Adopt-a-Park and Acknowled�ement Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that consistent with the City's interest in aesthetics and traffic safety it is appropriate to make provision for adopt-a-park and acknowledgement signs within Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that provisions should be included within a new Section 3-1806.W. of the land development regulations to provide content-neutral criteria for adopt-a-park and acknowledgement signs on city rights-of-way and city-owned property, where the criteria is based upon the unique function served by such signage and sign types; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the provisions allowing for adopt-a-park and acknowledgement signs are limited to a unique class of signs located on city JaY�i6�sass_i _56_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 rights-of-way and city-owned property (see Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 1131 (2009) (the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause does not extend to government speech)); JaY�i6�s2ss_i _57_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5� Permitted Si�ns Requirin� Development Review WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there are permitted signs and sign types that should have development review as part of the City of Clearwater's land development regulations, and that development review of such sign types is continued in Division 18 of Article 3 of the City's Community Development Code as a renumbered Section 3- 1807; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision determined that the categories and regulations set forth in then Section 3-1806.A.1.-3. for freestanding subdivision development entry signs, freestanding multifamily entry signs, school and park monument identification signs, and transit shelter signs were not impermissible content-based provisions inasmuch as these provisions did not limit the expression of ideas or censor speech [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1338]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the criteria set forth in the renumbered Section 3-1807 (renumbered from Section 3-1806] for various sign types in different zoning districts and for different land uses and various are based upon the purposes set forth in Division 18 and are not content-based distinctions but are instead based upon the function and location of the signs described; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in connection with transit shelter signs the City settled litigation with Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., formerly known as Eller Media Company (previously known as Patrick Media) in that certain case captioned Patrick Media Group, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, Case No. 93-174-CI (21), in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, in a stipulated settlement whereby Eller Media Company agreed to remove numerous billboard structures throughout the City of Clearwater upon certain conditions precedent, including the City of Clearwater's adoption of an ordinance that would allow up advertising on up to 50 transit shelters that might be placed within the boundaries of the City of Clearwater pursuant to an interlocal agreement between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County dated January 14, 1992; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it agreed to allow signs on transit shelters as necessary to secure the removal of much larger billboard structures that were inconsistent with the City of Clearwater's land development regulations and the City's aesthetic goals, and such signs were permitted on transit shelters approved in accordance with Article 3, Division 22 of the Clearwater Development Code, and subject to restrictions that were identified in the provisions of the current Section 3-1806.B.3.a.-d. and that are carried forward in the renumbered Section 3-1807.B.S.a.-d. of the Clearwater Development Code; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater did not agree to or accept any further incursion of advertising on street furniture within its public rights-of-way other than as set forth in the interlocal agreement and secured the removal of more than twenty billboard structures as the end result of the stipulated settlement terms and the adoption of Ordinance No. 6306-98, the Transit Shelter Ordinance; JaY�i6�sass_i _Sg_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5! WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision addressed then Section 3-1806.B.5 which allowed certain signs by permit through the development review process, including "[c]hangeable copy signs provided located on public property serving a significant public purpose," and rej ected the argument that that the phrase "significant public purpose" gave officials impermissible discretion, and further found that this discretion was reasonable especially given that this section only applied to signs on public property [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1339]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that its determination of significant public purpose may extend to certain properties that host large entertainment venues, provided that criteria are established to prohibit impermissible discretion; Comprehensive Si�n Pro�ram WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of Clearwater has previously adopted a comprehensive sign program that was the subject of judicial scrutiny in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, Fla. (Granite-Cleanvater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on othergr�ounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Cleanvater decision addressed a challenge made in 2001 to the discretion afforded in the City's Comprehensive Sign Program, as the same was then set forth in Section 3-1807, and the court determined that the flexibility criteria were sufficiently objective and clear, including those references to "community character," "existing unattractive signage," and "improvement of appearance" [see Granite-Cleanvater at 1339]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City has made several changes to the Comprehensive Sign Program to refine that program based upon experience, including modifications as set forth in Ordinance No. 6928-02, §§ 88-91, Ordinance No. 6997- 02, §§ 5-7, Ordinance No. 7631-06, § 17, and Ordinance No. 7835-07, § 29, while maintaining objective and clear flexibility criteria; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, based upon further experience with the Comprehensive Sign Program and based upon the recommendations from its professional planning staff, several additional changes to the Comprehensive Sign Program would be appropriate; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the permitted signage under the Comprehensive Sign Program should continue to preclude and bar all prohibited sign types, including all prohibited signs identified in the renumbered Section 3-1804, as set forth in the attachment hereto, and other prohibited signs or sign types that would not be appropriate for the Comprehensive Sign Program; JaY�i6�sass_i _Sg_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6i Severabilitv WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Uranite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cleanvater, Fla. (Granite-Cleanvater), 213 F. Supp.2d 1312 (MDFIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other gr�ounds, 351 F.3d 1112 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 (2004), cited the severability provisions of both Section 1-107 of the Code and the Development Code, Ord. No. 6348-99, § 4(January 21, 1999), as a basis for severing isolated portions of Article 3 of the Community Development Code [see Uranite- Cleanvater at 1326, n.22]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Community Development Code's severability clause was adopted with the intent of upholding and sustaining as much of the City's regulations, including its sign regulations, as possible in the event that any portion thereof (including any section, sentence, clause or phrase) be held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that under Florida law, whenever a portion of a statute or ordinance is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the act will be permitted to stand provided (1) the unconstitutional provisions can be separated from the remaining valid provisions, (2) the legislative purpose expressed in the valid provisions can be accomplished independently of those which are void, (3) the good and the bad features are not so inseparable in substance that it can be said that the legislative body would have passed the one without the other, and (4) an act complete in itself remains after the valid provisions are stricken [see, e.g., Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1990)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there have been several judicial decisions where courts have not given full effect to severability clauses that applied to sign regulations and where the courts have expressed uncertainty over whether the legislative body intended that severability would apply to certain factual situations despite the presumption that would ordinarily flow from the presence of a severability clause; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the failure of some courts to uphold severability clauses has led to an increase in litigation seeking to strike down sign ordinances in their entirety so as to argue that the developers' applications to erect prohibited sign types, such as billboards, must be granted; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City has consistently adopted and enacted severability provisions in connection with its ordinance code provisions, and that the City of Clearwater wishes to ensure that severability provisions apply to its land development regulations, including its sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there be an ample record of its intention that the presence of a severability clause in connection with the City's sign regulations be applied to the maximum extent possible, even if less speech would result from a determination that any exceptions, limitations, variances or other provisions are invalid or unconstitutional for any reason whatsoever; JaY�i6�sass_i _60_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the prohibition on billboards, as contained herein, continue in effect regardless of the invalidity or unconstitutionality of any, or even all, other provisions of the City's sign regulations, other ordinance code provisions, or other laws, for any reason(s) whatsoever; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there be an ample record that it intends that the height and size limitations on free-standing and other signs continue in effect regardless of the invalidity or unconstitutionality of any, or even all other, provisions of the City's sign regulations, other ordinance code provisions, or other laws, for any reason(s) whatsoever; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there be an ample record that it intends that each prohibited sign-type identified in Section 3-1804 (Prohibited signs) continue in effect regardless of the invalidity or unconstitutionality of any, or even all, other provisions of the City's sign regulations, other ordinance code provisions, or other laws, for any reason(s) whatsoever; WHEREAS, even though there are other provisions that pertain to severability and that extend to Article 3, Division 18, of the Community Development Code, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to emphasize the importance of severability and the desires expressed herein above that severability be applied even if less speech results, and that a new Section 3-1809 (Severability) be added to Article 3, Division 18, as set forth in the new Division 18 attached hereto and made a part hereof; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is aware that there have been billboard developers who have mounted legal challenges to a sign ordinance, either in its entirety or as to some lesser portion, and argued that there existed a vested right to erect a billboard through the mere submission of one or more prior permit applications, so that in the event that the billboard developer is successful in obtaining a judicial decision that the entirety or some lesser portion of a sign ordinance or its permitting provisions are invalid or unconstitutional, the billboard developer might then seek to compel the local governmental unit to issue a permit to allow the billboard developer to erect a permanent billboard structure within the local government's jurisdiction; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it desires to make clear that billboards are not a compatible land use within the City and that there can be no good faith reliance by any prospective billboard developer under Florida vested rights law in connection with the prospective erection or construction of new or additional billboards within the jurisdictional limits of the City; WHEREAS, now therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: JaY�i6�s2ss_i _61_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6; Section 1. Article 8, Section 8-102, City of Clearwater Community Development Code, is hereby amended to read as follows, with deletions noted by strike-throughs and additions noted by double -underlining.: . e�rr.�: :*:� eeeserr.issseers�:. ��° Artwork means a two- or three-dimensional rebresentation of a creative idea that is exbressed in a form and manner so as to brovide aesthetic beautv. abbeal or eniovment rather than to sbecificallv convev the name of the business or a commercial messa�e about the broducts or services offered on the brobertv ubon which the artwork is displaved: however, artwork shall not include anv obiect, drawin�; bicture, svmboL aintin� (includin� the baintin� of batterns or desi�nsl_ or sculbture_ which bromotes a s eaker's economic interests_ brovides a commercial messa�e or otherwise identifies a roduct_ service or business sold or available on the brobertv where the same is disblaved. � � � Decorations. holidav and seasonal mean decorations that bertain to le�allv or otherwise reco�nized holidavs or to a season of the vear. � � � Element. �aphic. in connection with a si�n_ means anv non-text lo�o. svmbol mark illustration_ ima�e_ or other desi�n element_ used either alone or in combination with text_ to draw attention to a si�n surface_ fabric_ device or disblav. � � � Sign means any surface, fabric, device or display which bears lettered, pictorial or sculptured matter, including forms shaped to resemble any human, animal or product designed to convey information to the public and is visible from an abutting property, from a public street, sidewalk or right-of-way, or from a body of water. For the purpose of this development code, the term "sign" shall include all structural members. A sign shall be construed to form a single unit. In cases where matter is displayed in a random or unconnected manner without organized relationship of the components, each such component shall be considered a single sign. Except for banner, flags, temporary and portable signs, all signs shall be permanently affixed to, and/or incorporated into, the sign cabinet, or building wall or other base material. All signs shall be constructed of materials designed to be permanent, withstand weather conditions, and shall have permanent supports appropriate for its size. The term sign shall not include: artwork holidav or seasonal decorations_ cemeterv markers_ machinerv or eauibment signs_ memorial signs or tablets. JaY�i6�sass_i _62_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6; ifr"�f�/l�Sfi .I . �!l.T.f�:l�:�:l��: � Sign, adopt a park or acknowled�ment means a sign that functions to reco�nize �r�seg�es a sponsoring agency which has been given the opportunity to install and maintain landscaping in city rights-of-way or on a city-owned property at the site where the landscapin� is located. � � Sign area or surface area means the area, in square feet, enclosed by a rectangle, parallelogram, triangle, circle, semicircle, cross, other geometric figures, or other architectural design, the side of which make contact with the extreme points or edges of the sign, excluding the supporting structure which does not form part of the sign proper or of the display. Unless otherwise indicated, area means area per sign face. The si�un area of a double-faced sign_ as defined herein_ shall be based on the area of a single sign face. Illuminated portions of a sign structure shall be considered part of the sign area. Also, any portion of the surface area of a freestanding sign structure that exceeds 50 percent of the permitted area of the sign face shall be considered part of the sign area. The area of a sign for attached signs is based on the smallest geometric shape(s) around the graphics/text; area for sign cabinets used as attached signs shall be based on the entire sign cabinet. � � � Sign, billboard means a non-point-of-sale sign that exceeds twentv-four sauare feet and �c-k advertises a business, organization, event, person, place or thing or other commercial message. Sign. cabinet means a three-dimensional structure which includes a frame_ borders and si�n face within the frame on which the si�n letters and lo�os are blaced or etched. The si�n mav include internal li�htin�. � � Sign. construction means a temborarv on-bremise si�n that functions to identifv the on�oin� construction activitv durin� the time that a buildin� bermit is active and brior to combletion of the work for which the bermit was issued_ and that mav function to identifv the contractor and/or anv subcontractor en�a�ed to berform construction activitv on the site. JaY�i6�s2ss_i _63_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6� � � Si�n, discontinued means anv si�n and/or si�n structure (al displavin� advertisin� for a broduct or service which is no lon�er available or disblavin� advertisin� for a business which is no lon�er licensed, (bl which is blank or (cl which advertises a business that is no lon�er doin� business or maintainin� a bresence on the bremises where the si�n is displaved�brovided that such circumstances have continued for a period of one hundred eightv davs. � � Si�n, election means a temporarv si�n erected or displaved for the puraose of exbressin� subbort or obbosition to a candidate or statin� a bosition re�ardin� an issue u on which the voters of the Citv mav vote. . . • � � Sign. free expression means a si�n_ not in excess of three sauare feet in total si�n face area and whose tob is not more than six feet off the �round_ that functions to communicate information or views on matters of bublic bolicv or bublic concern_ or containin� anv other noncommercial messa�e that is otherwise lawful. � � Sign. garage-vard sale means anv temborarv si�n bertainin� to the sale of ersonal brobertv at or ubon anv residentiallv-zoned brobertv located in the Citv of Clearwater_ brovided that the on-site sale at a residentiallv-zoned barcel is lawful under the land use re�ulations and other abblicable laws of the Citv of Clearwater. Sign, gasoline price display means any on-site sign which functions exclusivelv to display� the prices of gasoline for sale. � � ��e�� .e�s��s�:ee�e�e�+z��Er: �rs�s�r Sign, identification address, company logo and which the si�n is located. � � means any sign which indicates no more than the name, occupation or function of an establishment or premises on JaY�i6�sass_i _64_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6; Si�n, machinerv or eauipment means a si�n which is inte�ral and incidental to machinerv or eauibment. and that is incorborated into machinerv or eauibment bv a manufacturer or distributor to identifv or advertise the broduct or service disbensed bv the machine or eauipment, such as a si�n customarilv affixed or incoraorated into a vendin� machine_ a telebhone booth_ a gasoline bumb_ a newsbaber rack_ an exbress mail drob-off box. or the like. Sign. racewav means a si�n combrised of channel or other cut-out fi�ures or letters mounted to an electrical enclosure, with the enclosure bein� smaller than the hei�ht of the attached letters. Sign. safetv means a si�n that functions to brovide a warnin� of a dan�erous condition or situation that mi�ht not be readilv abbarent or that boses a threat of serious iniurv (e.�._ �as line_ hi�h volta�e_ condemned buildin�_ etc.l. �:�s��r� . r.�s:r_ees!�r�� . . . � ,�_ �rs. � � :��■ �� ,,,�...:,.ti ti,,,,..,� Si�n, sidewalk (sometimes referred to as a sandwich board si�nl means anv freestandin� sin�le or double faced si�n which is desi�ned to be placed upon, but not affixed to, the �round, or sidewalks or pavement, and that is portable and readilv moved from blace to blace. JaY�i6�sass_i _65_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6i sign. sidewalk Sign, snipe means an off-premises sign which is tacked, nailed, posted, pasted, glued, or otherwise attached to trees, poles, stakes, or fences, . Sign. statutorv means a si�n reauired bv anv statute or re�ulation of the State of Florida or the United States. � � �rs�: e�s��sr.�: E��Ee�tes�: �r_�� - _ :.! - � � Sign. traf�c control device means anv si�n located within the ri�ht-of-wav that functions as a traffic control device and that is described and identified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCDI and abbroved bv the Federal Hi�hwav Administrator as the National Standard. Traffic control device sign includes those si�ns that are classified and defined bv their function as re�ulatorv si�ns (that �ive notice of traffic laws or re�ulationsl_ warnin� si�ns (that �ive notice of a situation that mi�ht not readilv be abbarentl_ and �uide si�ns (that show route desi�nations_ directions_ distances services_ boints of interest_ and other �eo�rabhical_ recreational_ or cultural informationl. � � Sign. vehicle means one or more si�ns which have a total si�n area on anv vehicle in excess of ten (101 sauare feet_ when the vehicle is not "re�ularlv used in the conduct of the business or activitv" advertised on the vehicle_ and (al is visible from a street ri�ht-of- wav within one hundred (1001 feet of the vehicle_ and (bl is barked for more than five (51 consecutive hours within one hundred (1001 feet of anv street ri�ht of wav_ for the urooses of this definition_ a vehicle shall not be considered "re�ularlv used in the JaY�i6�sass_i _66_ Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 conduct of the business or activitv" if the vehicle is used primarilv (il for advertisin� or iil for the burbose of advertisin�. or (iiil for the buraose of brovidin� transbortation for owners or emblovees of the business or activitv advertised on the vehicle. � � � Sign, window means �a any sign placed inside or upon a window facing the outside and which is intended to be seen from the exterior through a window or other openin�_ and (bl anv si�n or combination of si�ns that exceed fiftv sauare feet in si�n area and that is located inside an enclosed area and oriented toward and visible from an adioining roadwav or navigable waterwav or bodv of water for burooses of advertising. Window signs may be permanent or temporary with different requirements for each type of window sign. Section 2. Article 3, Division 18, Signs, City of Clearwater Community Development Code, Sections 3-1801 through 3-1807, is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety by Revised Article 3, Division 18, Sections 3-1801 through 3-1809, City of Clearwater Community Development Code, to read as set forth in the new Division 18 attached hereto as "Exhibit 1," which is hereby adopted as part of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code. Section 3. All references to Article 3, Division 18, of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code contained elsewhere in said Code or in other Ordinances or Resolutions of the City shall be deemed to refer to Revised Article 3, Division 18 as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. JaY�i6�s2ss_i _67_ Item # 6 PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Approved as to form: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney George N. Cretekos Mayor Attest: Rosemarie Call City Clerk Attachment number 1 \nPage 6� JaY�i6�sass_i _68_ Item # 6 EXHIBIT 1 To Ordinance No. 8343-12 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 ��:�� Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 DIVISION 18. - SIGNS Section 3-1801. - General principles. Section 3-1802. - Purpose. Section 3-1803. - Exempt signs. Section 3-1804. - Prohibited signs. Section 3-1805. - General standards. Section 3-1806. - Signs permitted without a permit. Section 3-1807. - Permitted signs requiring development review. Section 3-1808. - Comprehensive sign program. Section 3-1809. - Severability. Section 3-1801. - General principles. The regulation of signs as provided herein is based upon their function, and is not based upon the content of the message contained on any such sign. The Florida Constitution provides that it is the policy of the state to conserve and protect its scenic beauty, and the regulation of signage for purposes of aesthetics directly serves that policy. The city is a resort community on the west coast of the state with more than five miles of beaches on the Gulf of Mexico. This city has an economic base which relies heavily on tourism. In order to preserve the city as a desirable community in which to live, vacation and do business, a pleasing, visually attractive urban environment is of foremost importance. The regulation of signs within the city is a highly contributive means by which to achieve this desired end. These sign regulations are prepared with the intent of enhancing the urban environment and promoting the continued well-being of the city. The enhancement of the visual environment is critical to a community's image and its continued presence as a tourist destination, and the sign control principles set forth herein create a sense of character and ambiance that distinguishes the city as one with a commitment to maintaining and improving an attractive environment. Section 3-1802. - Purpose. It is the purpose of this division to promote the public health, safety and general welfare through a comprehensive system of reasonable, consistent and nondiscriminatory sign standards and requirements. These sign regulations are intended to: A. Enable the identification of places of residence and business. B. Allow for the communication of information necessary for the conduct of commerce. C. Lessen hazardous situations, confusion and visual clutter caused by proliferation, improper placement, illumination, animation and excessive height, area and bulk of signs which compete for the attention of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. JaY�i66is�s_ia -2- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 D. Enhance the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business. E. Protect the public from the dangers of unsafe signs. F. Permit signs that are compatible with their surroundings and aid orientation, and preclude placement of signs in a manner that conceals or obstructs adjacent land uses or signs. G. Encourage signs that are appropriate to the zoning district in which they are located and consistent with the category of use to which they pertain. H. Curtail the size and number of signs and sign messages to the minimum reasonably necessary to identify a residential or business location and the nature of any such business. I. Establish sign size in relationship to the scale of the lot and building on which the sign is to be placed or to which it pertains. J. Preclude signs from conflicting with the principal permitted use of the site or adj oining sites. K. Regulate signs in a manner so as to not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians. L. Require signs to be constructed, installed and maintained in a safe and satisfactory manner. M Preserve and enhance the natural and scenic characteristics of this waterfront resort community. N. Implement the City's comprehensive plan and comply with the minimum requirements established by state law that requires the regulation of signage. Section 3-1803. - Exempt signs. The following signs are exempt from regulation under this Division 18: A. A sign, other than a window sign, located entirely inside the premises of a building or enclosed space. B. A sign on a car, other than a prohibited vehicle sign or signs. C. A statutory sign. D. A traffic control device sign. E. Any sign not visible from a public street, sidewalk or right-of-way or from a navigable waterway or body of water; except that the foregoing does not exempt a JaY�i66is�s_ia -3- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 sign for a commercial use that is visible from an abutting residential use. Section 3-1804. - Prohibited signs. The following types of signs are prohibited: A. Balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers, and pennants, except as allowed on public property in Section 3-1806.R. B. Bench signs, other than the identification of the transit company or its route schedule. C. Billboards. D. Discontinued signs. Discontinued signs and/or sign structures which are determined to be nonconforming with the provisions of this Division 18 shall be required to be removed by the property owner after receipt of notification, or refusal to accept delivery of notification by certified mail, that such removal is required. E. Electronic changeable message signs unless otherwise allowed herein (e.g., gasoline price signs), with the following exceptions: L Menu signs that change no more frequently than once every three hours and that are not otherwise prohibited. 2. Existing and legally nonconforming message signs: a. General messages which change no more frequently than once every six hours, including onsite gasoline price signs that meet the requirements of this Division 18; or b. Signs which only display time and/or temperature which change no more frequently than once every fifteen seconds. F. Menu signs on which the message changes more rapidly than once every three hours. G. Pavement markings, except street addresses. H. Portable signs. I. Roof and above roof signs. J. Sidewalk signs, except as provided herein. K. Signs attached to or painted on piers or seawalls, other than official regulatory or warning signs. JaY�i66is�s_ia -4- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 L. Signs in or upon any river, bay, lake, or other body of water. M Signs located on publicly-owned land or easements or inside street rights-of-way, except (a) as allowed in Section 3-1806.5., (b) signs on transit shelters erected pursuant to Section 3-2203 and permitted pursuant to Section 3-1807.B.5.), (c) sidewalk signs to the extent permitted in Section 3-1806.U. or Section 3- 1807.B.4.,(d) as allowed in Section 3-1807.A., and (e) as allowed in Section 3- 1806.V. and 3-1806.W. Prohibited signs shall include but shall not be limited to handbills, posters, advertisements, or notices that are attached in any way upon lampposts, telephone poles, utility poles, bridges, and sidewalks. N. Signs that emit sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles, or gaseous matter. O. Signs that have unshielded illuminating devices or which reflect lighting onto public rights-of-way thereby creating a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard. P. Signs that move, revolve, twirl, rotate, flash, scintillate, blink, flutter, or appear to display motion in any way whatsoever, including animated signs, multi-prism signs, tri-vision signs, floodlights and beacon lights (except when beacon lights are required by the Federal Aviation Agency or other governmental agency for a public purpose involving public safety), unless otherwise expressly allowed by another provision within this Division 18. Q. Signs that obstruct, conceal, hide, or otherwise obscure from view any traffic control device sign or official traffic signal. R. Signs that present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard, including signs which obstruct visibility. S. Signs attached to or placed on any tree or other vegetation. T. Signs carried, waved or otherwise displayed by persons either on public rights-of- way or in a manner visible from public rights-of-way. This provision is directed toward such displays intended to draw attention for a commercial purpose, and is not intended to limit the display of placards, banners, flags or other signage by persons participating in demonstrations, political rallies and similar events. U. Snipe signs. V. Three-dimensional obj ects that are used as signs. W. Vehicle signs, and portable trailer signs. X. Any permanent sign that is not specifically described or enumerated as permitted within the specific zoning district classifications in this Community Development Code. Section 3-1805. - General standards. JaY�i66is�s_ia -5- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 A. Setback. No sign shall be located within five feet of a property line of a parcel proposed for development. B. Neon signs and lighting. Neon signs and lighting shall be permitted as freestanding and attached signage as provided in this Division 18. When neon lighting is utilized to emphasize the architectural features of a building, such as when used to outline doorways, windows, facades, or architectural detailing, or when used to accentuate site landscaping, it shall not be regarded as signage. In addition, neon lighting used as freestanding designs or murals or as attached murals or designs unrelated to the architectural features of the building to which the lighting is attached shall be permitted, but shall be counted toward the allowable area of the property's or occupancy's freestanding or attached signage, as applicable. C. Illuminated signs. 1. The light from any illuminated sign shall be shaded, shielded, or directed away from adj oining street rights-of-way and properties. 2. No sign shall have blinking flashing, or fluttering lights or other illumination devices which have a changing light intensity, brightness, color, or direction or as otherwise prohibited by Section 3-1804. 3. No colored lights shall be used at any location or in any manner so as to be confused with or construed as traffio-control devices. 4. Neither the direct nor the reflected light from primary light sources shall create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares. 5. The light which illuminates a sign shall be shaded, shielded, or directed so that no structure, including sign supports or awnings, are illuminated by such lighting. D. Banners and fZags. A banner or flag may be used as a permitted freestanding or attached sign and, if so used, the area of the banner or flag shall be included in, and limited by, the computation of allowable area for freestanding or attached signs on the property. E. Gasoline price signs. Gasoline price display signs shall be allowed in all non- residential districts except where specifically prohibited. Gasoline price display signs shall be placed in the vicinity of the pump islands and shall not extend above any pump island canopy or they shall be attached to the primary freestanding sign for the property. If attached to the freestanding sign, the area of the gasoline price display sign shall be counted toward the allowable area for the freestanding sign. A gasoline price display sign may be changed manually or electronically. JaY�i66is�s_ia -6- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 F. Awnings. Awnings may be allowed a graphic element in addition to the permitted attached sign area provided such graphic does not exceed 25% of the awning surface area on which the graphic is placed or sixteen square feet, whichever is less. If a graphic element is placed on an awning valance, such graphic element shall be limited to 25% of the valance surface. If text and a graphic element are proposed on an awning, such text and graphic element shall be governed by the attached signs provisions set forth in Section 3-1807.B.3. This provision does not apply to back-lit awnings. G. Building and electrical code compliance. All signs shall comply with applicable building and electrical code requirements. H. No limitation based on message content. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Community Development Code, no sign shall be subj ect to any limitation based on the content of the message contained on such sign. I. Substitution of noncommercial speech for commercial speech. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Community Development Code to the contrary, any sign erected pursuant to the provisions of this Division 18 or this Community Development Code with a commercial message may, at the option of the owner, contain a noncommercial message. The noncommercial message may occupy the entire sign face or any portion thereof. The sign face may be changed from a commercial message to a noncommercial message, or from one noncommercial message to another, provided that the sign is not a prohibited sign or sign-type, provided that the manner or frequency of the change does not violate restrictions on electronic or illuminated signs, and provided that the size, height, setback and other dimensional criteria contained in this Division 18 and the Community Development Code have been satisfied. Section 3-1806. - Signs permitted without a permit. The following signs may be developed without development review pursuant to Article 4 of this Community Development Code: A. One address sign of no more than two square feet of total sign face area for each parcel of land used for residential purposes and no more than one square foot for each number contained in the property address for each parcel of land used for non-residential purposes. The square footage for the address sign shall be allowed in addition to the total square signage footage allowed in Section 3-1807. B. Free expression signs. For each parcel, one free expression sign may be displayed. A free expression sign may be displayed as an attached sign or as a freestanding sign. A free expression sign shall not exceed three square feet of total sign face area. If a free expression is displayed as a freestanding sign, the sign shall not exceed four feet in height if located on a parcel of land designated or used for single family dwellings, duplexes and townhouse units or six feet in height if located on any other parcel. The free expression sign is in addition to any sign JaY�i66is�s_ia -7- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 displaying a noncommercial message in lieu of a commercial or other noncommercial message pursuant to Section 3-1805.I. C. Temporary election signs. For each parcel, one election sign for each candidate and each issue may be displayed. An election sign may be displayed as an attached sign or as a freestanding sign. On parcels that are in residential use, the election sign shall not exceed three square feet of total sign face area; and, if the election sign is displayed as a freestanding sign on the parcel, the election sign shall not exceed four feet in height. On parcels that are in nonresidential use, the election sign shall not exceed eighteen square feet of total sign face area; and, if the election sign is displayed as a freestanding sign on the parcel, the election sign shall not exceed six feet in height. An election sign shall be removed within seven calendar days following the election to which it pertains. D. Temporary grand opening and special event signs. 1. One temporary grand opening sign shall be permitted for thirty days after the issuance of an occupational license for any new business, new owner of an existing business, or business name change. Such sign shall not exceed twenty-four square feet in total sign face area or such sign may be a temporary covering, such as a toaster cover, sign boot, or sign sock, which covers an existing permitted attached or freestanding sign. 2. Other temporary special event and/or public purpose signs of a temporary nature shall be approved by the community development coordinator if the signs meet the following criteria: (a) the signs are temporary signs for a limited time and frequency, (b) the signs are for a special event or a public purpose of a temporary nature, (c) the signs do not exceed the maximum height and size requirements for freestanding signs under this Community Development Code, (d) the display of temporary signs for a special event shall not begin any earlier than two calendar days before the event and shall be removed within one business day after the event, and (e) the signs, if temporary for a limited time and frequency, will meet the following purposes of Division 18, to wit: (1) the signs will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [Section 3-1802F.], (2) the signs will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adj oining sites [Section 3-1802.J.], (3) the signs will not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [Section 3-1802.K.], and (4) the signs will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3- 1802.L.]. Consistent with the general standards in Section 3-1805, the approval or disapproval shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on such signs. The community development coordinator shall render a decision within ten days after an application is made for such signs. Such a decision shall be deemed an administrative interpretation and any person adversely affected has the right to appeal the decision to the community development board pursuant to Section 4-SO1.A of this Community Development Code. JaY�i66is�s_ia -8- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 E. A single sign no more than four square feet in sign area and indicating a valet parking station and that is visible only during hours that the valet is operating. F. Temporary construction signs. One temporary construction sign located on a parcel proposed for development during the period a building permit is in force or one year, whichever is less, which sign shall not exceed: 1. Sixteen square feet of total sign face area for parcels of land used or proposed to be used for single family dwellings, duplexes and townhouse units; 2. Thirty-two square feet of total sign face area for parcels of land used or proposed to be used for multi-family purposes other than townhouse units or for non-residential purposes. If the temporary sign is displayed as a freestanding sign, the sign shall not exceed six feet in height. G. For flags displayed on a flag pole not exceeding thirty-five feet in height or an attached bracket: One flag per detached dwelling unit, three additional flags per parcel of land used for multifamily residential purposes, and three flags per parcel of land used for non-residential purposes. If so used, the area of the flag shall not be included in, and limited by, the computation of allowable area for freestanding or attached signs on the property. H. Temporary garage-yard sale signs. One temporary garage-yard sale sign of no more than three square feet of total sign face area located on the parcel of land where the garage or yard sale is to be conducted only on the date or dates on which the garage or yard sale is conducted. In addition, no more than two directional signs of no more than three square feet of total sign face area per sign face related to a garage or yard sale which are located on privately owned parcels of land other than the parcel of land where the garage or yard sale is to be conducted only on the date or dates on which the garage or yard sale is conducted. If the temporary sign is displayed as a freestanding sign, the sign shall not exceed four feet in height. I. Attached menu signs of no more than six square feet of total sign face area located at the entrance or service window of a restaurant. One freestanding drive- through sign no more than twenty-four square feet in total sign face area and six feet in height oriented toward the vehicles utilizing drive-through service for the purpose of placing an order or picking up an order at a service window. J. Onsite directional and traffic control signs of no more than four square feet of sign face area provided that business logos or other non-traffic control symbols do not exceed 25 percent of the sign face area. K. Signs identifying parking space numbers provided that such signs are painted on the paved surface of each space or do not exceed one-half square foot of sign face JaY�i66is�s_ia -9- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1i area per sign. L. Marina slip and directional signs. 1. Signs identifying marina slip numbers provided that such signs are painted on the dock in front of each slip or do not exceed one square feet of sign face area per sign. 2. Each individual charter/commercial vessel slip located at a commercial marina may have one sign placed in the vicinity of the slip that does not exceed six square feet in total sign face area identifying the business located at the slip and one additional sign of not more than eight square feet in total sign face area placed in the vicinity of the slip to identify the vessel rate/embarking schedules, or other information. 3. Unless otherwise approved by the community development coordinator, two directional signs, not to exceed six square feet in total sign face area and not to exceed six feet in height may be displayed at any marina for purposes of way finding. The community development coordinator may approve additional signs based on the following criteria: overall size of marina, number of pedestrian and vehicular access points, visibility of the site, intended and existing traffic circulation and consistency with Beach by Design, Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan or any other applicable special area plan. M Temporary real estate signs. One temporary real estate sign per parcel of land indicating that a parcel of land or a building located on the parcel of land or part thereof is for sale, for lease or otherwise available for conveyance, provided that such sign does not exceed: 1. Six square feet of total sign face area on parcels of land designated or used for single family dwellings, duplexes and townhouse units; 2. Thirty-two square feet of total sign face area on parcels of land designated or used for multi-family purposes other than townhouse units or for non- residential purposes. In the event that more than one dwelling unit or non-residential space on a single parcel of land is for sale, for lease or otherwise available, one attached sign per dwelling or space of no more than two square feet in total sign face area in addition to the permitted freestanding signage. In addition, one freestanding waterfront sign of no more than six square feet of total sign face area, not more than three square feet of sign area per sign face, for each waterfront parcel of land. If the temporary sign is displayed as a freestanding sign, the sign shall not exceed four feet in height if located on a parcel of land designated or used for single JaY�i66is�s_ia -10- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 family dwellings, duplexes and townhouse units or six feet in height if located on any other parcel. N. Signs located within a stadium which are not oriented toward and readable from outside of a stadium. O. Window signs may be located on any window area provided such sign or combination of signs do not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area of the window where the sign or signs are located and face a right-of-way, with the twenty-five percent limitation allowed for the window sign(s) that face each right- of-way where there is a corner lot or through lot. In no case shall the cumulative area of all window signs located inside an enclosed area for purposes of advertising exceed fifty square feet, if oriented toward and visible from an adjoining roadway or navigable waterway or body of water. P. Safety or warning signs which do not exceed six square feet of total sign face area per sign. Q. A change in a sign message or panel on a previously approved, lawful sign, e.g., any sign allowed under this ordinance may contain, in lieu of any other copy, any otherwise lawful noncommercial message that complies with all other requirements of this ordinance. This provision does not permit design changes for a sign previously approved under the Comprehensive Sign Program. R. The following sign type "balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers, and pennants" shall be allowed as governmental and public purpose signs if located on public property and if the city manager finds that the sign type meets the following criteria: (1) the sign type is for a special event, (2) the special event is for a limited time, (3) the special event is for a limited frequency, and (4) the sign type, if allowed for a limited time and frequency, will meet the following purposes of this Division 18, to wit: (a) the signs will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs (Section 3-1802F.), (b) the signs will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites [Section 3-1802.J.], (c) the signs will not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [Section 3-1802.K.], and (d) the signs will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3-1802(L)]. Consistent with the general standards in Section 3- 1805, the approval or disapproval shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on any such sign. The city manager shall render a decision within ten days after an application is made for utilizing this sign type at a special event. Such a decision shall be deemed an administrative interpretation and any person adversely affected has the right to appeal the decision to the community development board pursuant to Section 4-SO1.A of this Community Development Code. S. A sign on publicly owned land or easements or inside street rights-of-way shall be allowed if the city manager finds that the sign meets the following criteria: (1) the sign provides notice to the public of a public meeting or other public event, (2) the JaY�i66is�s_ia -11- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1; sign is temporary and for a limited time, and (3) the sign, if allowed for a limited time, will meet the following purposes of this Division 18, to wit: (a) the sign will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [Section 3-1802F.], (b) the sign will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adj oining sites [Section 3-1802.J.], (c) the sign will not interfere with or obstruct the vision of motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [Section 3-1802.K.], and (d) the sign will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3-1802.L.]. Consistent with the general standards in Section 3-1805, the approval or disapproval shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on such sign. The city manager shall render a decision within ten days after an application is made for utilizing such a temporary sign on public property. Such a decision shall be deemed an administrative interpretation and any person adversely affected has the right to appeal the decision to the community development board pursuant to Section 4-SO1.A of this Community Development Code. T. Directional/informational signs serving a public purpose. A permanent sign on public easements or inside street rights-of-way shall be allowed if the city manager finds that the sign meets the following criteria: 1. The sign provides directions and/or information regarding public facilities and/or places of interest; and 2. The sign will meet the purposes of Division 18 to wit: (a) the sign will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [Section 3-1802F.], (b) the sign will not conflict with adj oining sites, (c) the sign will not interfere with or obstruct the vision of motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians, (d) the sign will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3-1802.L.], (e) the sign is consistent with Beach by Design, Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan or any other applicable special area plan and submittal of a master sign plan and (� the sign is consistent with the general standards in Section 3-1805. The city manager or designee shall render a decision within fifteen days after an application is made for utilizing such a sign on public property. The decision is not subj ect to the provisions of Section 4-SO1.A of this Community Development Code. U. Signs during public construction projects. Temporary sidewalk signs are permitted for properties abutting public construction proj ects that are scheduled to last one hundred eighty days or longer, in accordance with the following criteria. 1. There shall be a maximum of two sidewalk signs permitted per parcel adj acent to the public construction proj ect, and parcels with multiple businesses shall coordinate copy on the signs permitted. 2. Sidewalk signs permitted under this section shall be allowed to be displayed for the duration of the public construction project starting with proj ect commencement and shall be removed within seven days after the JaY�i66is�s_ia -12- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1; final acceptance, by the city, of improvements. 3. The size of any sidewalk sign shall not exceed eight square feet in total sign face area, and shall not exceed four feet in height. 4. Sidewalk signs permitted under this section shall be constructed in a professional and workmanlike manner from treated wood or other durable material, and copy displayed shall not be spray painted onto the signs. 5. No sidewalk sign, permitted as part of this section shall be permanently erected, and shall only be displayed during hours of operation for the business being advertised. 6. No sidewalk sign shall be placed so as to block any public way, or within the visibility triangle of intersections or driveways. V. One ten square foot freestanding sign not more than five feet in height or one ten square foot attached sign per city park or city recreation facility for the purposes of identifying a program provider or information concerning programs at such park or recreation facility. The design of any such signs shall be approved by the parks and recreation department. W. Adopt-a-park and acknowledgement signs. 1. Adopt-a-park signs may be erected in city rights-of-way or on city-owned property. An adopt-a-park sign shall not exceed three square feet in total sign face area. If freestanding and adopt-a-park sign shall not exceed eighteen inches in height and shall be located in a landscaped setting. Adopt-a-park signs shall be selected from the approved city street signs catalogue maintained by the manager of traffic operations, provided the sign design conforms with one of the city prescribed designs maintained by the parks and recreation department. The community development coordinator may approve additional adopt-a-park signs based on the following criteria: overall size of site, number of entrances, frontage, access and visibility of the site, intended and existing traffic circulation. 2. Acknowledgment signs may be erected in city rights-of-way or on city- owned property as follows. Such signs may also be affixed or incorporated into a public amenity such as an ash tray or public bench that is located on public property and that is approved by the community development coordinator provided that it is no greater than one square foot in area, is rust-free, and is unobtrusive. Section 3-1807. - Permitted signs requiring development review. A. Residential. The following signs shall be permitted in all residential zoning districts: JaY�i66is�s_i2 -13- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1� 1. Freestanding single family subdivision and multi family development signs. a. Unless otherwise approved by the community development coordinator one permanent freestanding sign up to twenty-four square feet of total sign face area and up to six feet in height may be erected at no more than two entrances into a single-family subdivision or multi-family development. In lieu of one twenty- four square foot sign, two permanent single-faced signs not exceeding twelve square feet in total sign face area each may be located at an entrance provided that such signs are placed in a symmetrical manner and/or are located on opposite sides of the entrance to which they are oriented, will meet all sight visibility triangle requirements under the provisions of Section 3-904, be installed and maintained in safe and neat manner and will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adj oining sites. The community development coordinator may approve signs to be placed at additional entrances based on the following criteria: overall size of site, relationship between building setback and sign location, frontage, access and visibility of the site, intended and existing traffic circulation, hierarchy of signage, consistency with Beach by Design, Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan or any other applicable special area plan and submittal of a master sign plan for the subdivision or development. b. Such sign(s) shall be erected on privately-owned property. In the event there is insufficient land owned by a single-family subdivision association or multi-family development developed prior to March 8, 1999, however, the community development coordinator, parks and recreation department, and public works administration may approve the location of such sign in a city right-of-way or on city-owned property provided that such signs are in compliance with Section 3-1807.A.1.a. above and will not obstruct the vision of motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians, be installed and maintained in safe and neat manner, will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adj oining sites; and that a city right-of-way permit be obtained prior to the installation. c. All freestanding signs shall be installed in a landscaped area consisting of shrubs and/or ground cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the sign. d. A freestanding sign for any multi-family development shall include the address of the property on which the sign is to be located. 2. Subdivision name/logo on street signs. Street signs incorporating single- family subdivision names/logos may be located in city rights-of-way JaY�i66is�s_ia -14- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1; within the subdivision provided by such signs do not exceed three and one-half square feet in area and are selected from the approved city street signs catalogue maintained by the manager of traffic operations. The city and the neighborhood shall enter into an agreement that prescribes the installation and maintenance requirements of such signs. 3. Assisted living facilities, community residential homes with seven to fourteen residents, congr�egate care facilities, and nursing homes signs. a. One freestanding sign at the primary entrance of the property up to twenty-four square feet in total sign face area. b. The height of a freestanding sign shall not exceed six feet in height. c. A freestanding sign shall be installed in a landscaped area consisting of shrubs and/or ground cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the sign and shall include the address of the property on which the sign is to be located. B. Non-residential. All signs must be architecturally integrated into the design of the building and/or site using similar and coordinated design and style features, materials and colors. Attached signs shall be horizontally and vertically proportionately located on each facade with no protrusions above roof lines, over windows, trim, cornices, or other building features. Signs for new shopping centers with three or more tenants, including all out parcels, office parks or any master plan development shall be reviewed and approved through the Comprehensive Sign Program set forth in Section 3-1808. L Freestanding signs in the Commercial, Office, Institutional and Industrial Research and Technology Zoning Districts. The following shall govern permanent freestanding signs in the Commercial, Office, Institutional and Industrial, Research and Technology zoning districts. Certain uses in these districts may have additional sign restrictions set forth in the flexibility criteria contained in Article 2 and shall supersede these standards. a. One freestanding sign per parcel proposed for development with no more than two sign faces, unless located on a corner lot or through lot. b. Corner lots or through lots have the option of erecting one freestanding sign or two freestanding signs, one on each street frontage. The total maximum area of the sign faces of the one sign or of the two signs shall not exceed the total maximum allowable area allowed in Section 3-1807.B.1.d. or Section 3-1807.B.1.e. below plus an additional fifteen square feet, provided that the maximum area remains no more than sixty-four square feet in total sign face area on all sign faces. Sign area is JaY�i66is�s_ia -15- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1i measured from the road frontage which results in the greater square footage. c. All freestanding signs shall be setback at least five feet from the property lines of the parcel proposed for development. d. The total sign face area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed twenty-four square feet unless in compliance with Section 3-1807.B.1.e. below. e. The total sign face area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed three percent of the building facade facing the street or one square foot of signage for every three feet of linear lot frontage, whichever is less, but in no case more than thirty-six square feet. Such sign design shall be consistent with or complement the architecture of the building through the use of colors, materials, textures, design features, and architectural style as set forth below. i. The sign design shall include a distinctive design or architectural element used on the building such as an arch, capstone, pediment, distinctive roof form/material, column, pilaster, cornice; or a shape, form or motif that portrays the business. Such elements shall be used on the top and/or side of the sign face/panels. ii. Defining materials, textures and colors used on the building shall be included on the sign. iii. The sign base and/or supports shall be with a width that creates proportionality to the overall sign design. Signs mounted on a single pole without any covering at least thirty-six inches in width shall be prohibited. iv. The sign shall be consistent with or complementary to the overall design, colors, font style of the attached sign on the property. v. The sign may include no more than two lines of zip track for manual changeable messages provided the zip track and letter colors are coordinated with the color of the sign. vi. In the event the building lacks architectural details c�r distinguishing design features or materials, the sign shall be designed to improve the overall appearance of the site. To achieve this, the sign shall include a distinctive design feature and use colors and materials that present a high quality finish. JaY�i66is�s_ia -16- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 f. The total area of all sign faces on all freestanding signs shall not exceed seventy-two square feet per parcel proposed for development. g. The height of a freestanding sign shall not exceed one and one-half times the width of the sign structure or fourteen feet whichever is less unless allowed in Section 3-1807.B.1.h. below. h. All freestanding sign structures shall be installed in a landscaped area consisting of shrubs and/or ground cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the sign. i. Sites which front on an elevated roadway (including US 19 and McMullen Booth Road) having limited visibility are permitted one freestanding sign to a maximum of fourteen feet above the top of the barrier wall located on the elevated roadway as measured at its highest point adj acent to the sign location. Sites which front on US 19 or its frontage road that have a barrier wall located adjacent to the property either along the frontage road or within the center of the US 19 right-of- way are permitted one freestanding sign to a maximum of fourteen feet above the top of either barrier wall whichever is higher. 2. Monument signs in the Tourist and Downtown Districts. The following shall govern permanent monument signs in the Tourist District and Downtown District as follows: a. One monument sign not exceeding six feet in height per parcel for development in the Tourist District with no more than two sign faces, unless located on a corner or through lot. One monument sign with no more than two sign faces per parcel for development in the Downtown District provided the primary building on the parcel is setback at least twenty feet from the front property line, unless located on a corner or through lot. b. Corner lots or through lots have the option of erecting one monument sign or two monument signs, one on each street frontage. The total maximum area of the sign faces of the one sign or of the two signs shall not exceed the total maximum allowable area allowed in Section 3-1807.B.2.c. below plus an additional fifteen square feet. Sign area shall be measured from the road frontage which results in the greater square footage. c. The area of a monument sign face shall not exceed three percent (3%) of the building fa�ade facing the street or one square foot of signage for every three feet of linear lot frontage, whichever is less, but in no case less than twenty-four square feet and no more than thirty-six square feet. JaY�i66is�s_i2 -17- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1� d. The total area of all sign faces on all monument signs shall not exceed seventy-two square feet per parcel proposed for development. e. Sign design shall be consistent with or complement the architecture of the building through the use of colors, materials, textures, design features and architectural styles as set forth below and as may be required by the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan and Beach by Design. The sign design shall include a distinctive design or architectural element used on the building such as an arch, capstone, pediment, distinctive roof form/material, column pilaster, cornice; or a shape, form or motif that portrays the business. The design elements shall be used on the top and/or side of the sign face/panels. ii. Defining materials, textures and colors used on the building shall be included on the sign. iii. The sign base and/or supports shall be of a width that creates proportionality to the overall sign design. iv. The sign shall be consistent with or complementary to the overall design, colors, font style of the attached sign on the property. v. The sign may include no more than two lines of zip track for manual changeable messages provided it does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the sign face area and the zip track and letter colors are coordinated with the color of the sign. vi. In the event the building lacks architectural details or distinguishing design features or materials, the sign shall be designed to improve the overall appearance of the site. To achieve this, the sign shall include a distinctive design feature and use of colors and materials that present a high quality finish. £ All monument sign structures shall be installed in a landscaped area consisting of shrubs and/or ground cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the sign.- g. Properties located within the area governed by the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan shall only be permitted to erect a monument sign if the primary building is setback at least twenty feet or more from the front property line. Areas for manual JaY�i66is�s_ia -18- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1! changeable copy cannot occupy more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the sign face area. 3. Attached signs in non-residential districts. The following attached signs shall be permitted in all non-residential districts: a. One attached sign shall be permitted for each building structure. For any building structure with multiple business tenants on the ground floor, one attached sign may be permitted per business establishment with a principal exterior entrance. The area of an attached sign face shall not exceed: Twenty-four square feet in total sign face area; or ii. Three percent (3%) of the primary fa�ade area not to exceed thirty-six square feet in total sign face area. Such signs are limited to one of the following sign types: channel letters mounted directly to the building, flat cut out letters, contour cabinet, illuminated capsule, sign applied to awning provided awning is externally illuminated, letters on backer panels if designed as an integral part of the sign and any other sign type of a higher quality of design if approved by the community development coordinator. Square/rectangular cabinet signs, back-lit awnings, and signs on raceways are prohibited. b. In addition to the attached sign allowed in Section 3-1807.B.3.a above, corner lots or through lots may erect one attached sign on each building wall (or facade) abutting a street frontage. Any such attached sign shall not exceed the sign face area specified in Section 3-1807.B.3.a above. c. Where individual business establishments with exterior entrances are located in a single building multi-tenant buildings, or as part of a business/office complex or shopping center, attached signs shall be designed according to a common theme including similar style, color, materials or other characteristics to provide a sense of uniformity. Changes to individual tenant signage shall be reviewed for compliance with the established or projected theme of the development site. d. Proj ecting signs may be used as a type of attached sign in the Downtown (D) and Tourist (T) Districts, unless otherwise permitted by the community development coordinator. They shall be installed with a minimum eight-foot clearance from the bottom of the sign to grade or the sidewalk Proj ecting signs shall comply JaY�i66is�s_ia -19- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 2i with encroachment into setback and rights-of-way Section 3-908. The community development director coordinator may permit such signs for second story or businesses above the first story in the Downtown and Tourist Districts if they meet all other criteria for attached signage. e. Business establishments with rear facades with rear public entrances facing parking lots or rear public entrances facing Clearwater Harbor or Mandalay Channel with boating access may erect one additional attached sign not exceeding sixteen square feet in area above or adjacent to the rear entrance provided such sign is not a traditional cabinet sign or channel letters erected on a raceway. f. Gasoline pump island canopies may be permitted one attached sign on the canopy fascia facing a public right-of-way provided such sign does not exceed eight square feet in total sign face area. 4. Sidewalk signs. Primary permitted retail and restaurant uses may erect one double sided sidewalk sign forty-two inches in height and twenty-four inches in width in accordance with the following provisions, but only in connection with the primary permitted use. Retail, restaurant or other uses which are accessory to another use are not allowed to display sidewalk signs. a. Display of Sign. Sidewalk signs shall be displayed only during the hours the business is open and shall be moved indoors at the close of business. b. Location. Sidewalk signs shall be placed on the sidewalk in front of the business erecting the sign within its linear frontage. ii. The nearest point of the sidewalk sign shall be no more than two feet from the building wall. However, in the Cleveland Street Cafe District in the Downtown zoning district, the nearest point shall be five feet from the building wall. iii. A minimum pedestrian path of at least four feet shall be maintained at all times. iv. Sidewalk signs shall not impede ingress or egress to or from a business entrance, be located within a drive aisle, parking area or on any landscaped area, nor block any fire JaY�i66is�s_ia -20- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 hydrant access or visibility or be located within the visibility triangle of intersections or driveways. c. Design Criteria Sidewalk sign frames shall be constructed of durable wood, plastic or metal and present a finished appearance. Sidewalk signs known as wind signs may have a plastic frame and base with or without wheels. Frames shall support black or green chalkboards, black wet markers boards or professionally designed advertisements/posters of a durable material with a clear, non-glare protective covering. Frame and base colors shall be limited to a metallic silver/grey, black, white or be a stained wood. Flexibility with regard to this design criteria may be granted by the community development coordinator in order to achieve a creatively designed sign using a particular symbol or logo indicative of the type of business and services being advertised. ii. Plastic signs, white marker boards, letter track panels (for manually changeable copy), acrylic/plastic panels, hand painted and spray painted copy, tri-folded signs, bases with hinged feet that fold flat and other similar features and sign designs shall be prohibited. Swinger style sidewalk signs shall also be prohibited unless of a unique design as determined by the community development coordinator. iii. Sidewalk signs shall not be illuminated nor contain moving parts or have balloons, streamers, pennants or similar adornment attached to them. iv. Sidewalk signs shall not be attached to any structure, pole, obj ect, or sign. d. Permit Required Yearly. A permit for a sidewalk sign shall be obtained on a yearly basis. A permit application with a sketch, photo or drawing of the sidewalk sign and the required fee shall be submitted and approved prior to the placement of a sidewalk sign on public or private property. Sidewalk signs to be placed in a public right-of-way shall also submit evidence of general liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars in a form acceptable to the City, with the City named as additional insured. A permit shall only authorize the sign submitted along with the permit application. Any changes to the approved sign will require the business owner to obtain a new permit. JaY�i66is�s_ia -21- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 2; e. Removal by the City. The City shall have the authority to secure, remove or relocate any sidewalk sign located in the public right-of- way if necessary in the interest of public safety, in emergency situations, or if the sign is not in compliance with any provisions of this section. 5. Transit and shelter signs. Signs are permitted on transit shelters approved in accordance with Article 3 Division 22 of this Community Development Code, subject to the following restrictions: a. The advertising contained in the transit shelter shall be limited to the "downstream" end wall (furthest from approaching transit vehicles) for a two-sided or flared and secured panel. b. Lighting of advertising materials shall be limited to back-lighting. c. No advertising poster shall exceed twenty-four square feet in area, or be greater than six feet in height and four feet in width. d. The total number of transit shelters containing advertising shall not exceed fifty within the Clearwater planning area provided in the interlocal agreement between the city and county in effect as of January 14, 1992. 6. Certain changeable message and copy signs. a. Electronic changeable message signs shall be permitted for a facility or venue that has seating for more than two thousand people on property that exceeds thirty-five acres provided it meets the following criteria: (a) it is located on public property and (b) it serves a significant public purpose directly related to the facility or venue, and (c) the sign type will meet the following purposes of this Division 18, to wit: (1) the sign will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [Section 3-1802F.], (2) the sign will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adj oining sites [Section 3-1802.J.], (3) the sign will not interfere with or obstruct the vision of motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [Section 3-1802.K.], and (4) the sign will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3-1802.L.]. Consistent with the general standards in Section 3-1805, the approval or disapproval by the City shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on such sign. b. Any sign may include an area for manually changeable copy provided the sign meets all of the area and design requirements set forth in Division 18, including but not limited to any and all criteria that limits sign area by percentage or any requirement that requires any color coordination or other such design criteria. JaY�i66is�s_ia -22- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 2: 7. Nonconforming uses. Any nonconforming use, which would be entitled to a sign if it were conforming, shall be permitted to erect the maximum amount of allowable signage in the district in which the use is located. C. On premise signs in public parks and on school gr�ounds. In any public park or on any school grounds in any zoning district, the following signs are permitted. 1. One freestanding entry sign for each maj or entry into a school or a park of not more than twenty square feet in total sign face area. 2. The height of the sign shall not exceed six feet. 3. A freestanding sign shall be installed in a landscaped area consisting of shrubs and/or ground cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the sign and shall include the address of the property on which the sign is to be located. Section 3-1808. - Comprehensive sign program. A. General principles. 1. The intent of the comprehensive sign program is to provide private property owners and businesses with flexibility to develop innovative, creative and effective signage and to improve the aesthetics of the City of Clearwater. 2. The minimum sign standards established in this Division 18 ensure that signage will not have an adverse impact on the aesthetics, community character and quality of life of the City of Clearwater. The city recognizes, however, that in many circumstances, there are innovative and creative alternatives to minimum standard signage which are desirable and attractive and will enhance community character and individual property values. 3. The purpose of the comprehensive sign program is to provide an alternative to minimum standard signage subject to flexibility criteria which ensure that alternative signage will not have an adverse impact on the aesthetics, community character and quality of life of the City of Clearwater. B. Permitted signage. 1. Signage which is proposed as part of a Comprehensive Sign Program may deviate from the minimum sign standards in terms of number of signs per business or parcel of land, maximum area of a sign face per parcel of land and the total area of sign faces per business or parcel of land, subj ect to compliance with the flexibility criteria set out in Section 3-1808.C. A Comprehensive Sign Program shall be approved pursuant to the provisions JaY�i66is�s_ia -23- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 2� set out in Section 4-1008. Prohibited signs in Section 3-1804 are not eligible for a Comprehensive Sign Program. Electronic changeable message signs, back-lit awnings, cabinet signs, and raceway signs are not eligible to be utilized as signs as part of a Comprehensive Sign Program. 2. As part of a comprehensive sign program, the community development coordinator shall review all sign types (freestanding, attached, windows, interior site directional, etc.) for the business and/or the development parcel to achieve compliance in so far as possible with these current regulations. A master sign plan for shopping centers, including all out parcels, and office complexes shall include all types of signs for all tenants/uses within the development parcel. The community development coordinator may allow for flexibility in reviewing the master sign plan if it results in a substantially improved and comprehensive proposal. With a master sign plan, the community development coordinator may permit interior site directional signs at a size and location(s) related to the development proj ect, with up to a maximum height of six feet. C. Flexibility criteria. 1. Architectural theme. a. The signs proposed in a comprehensive sign program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development and shall be constructed of materials and colors which reflect an integrated architectural vocabulary for the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of all freestanding and attached signs proposed in a comprehensive sign program shall be demonstrably more attractive than signs otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum signs standards. All signs must be architecturally integrated into/with the design of the building and/or site using similar and coordinated design features, materials and colors, etc. 2. The height of all freestanding signs proposed through the comprehensive sign program shall relate to the design of the sign and shall not exceed fourteen feet in height, except in the D and T Districts, the height shall not exceed six feet in height except for signs associated with publicly-owned property and/or public projects which are architecturally and aesthetically integrated into a fence and/or wall. 3. Lighting. Any lighting that is internal to the sign letters or graphic elements (e.g., internally lit or back-lit, or that is indirect exterior lighting, e.g., goose neck lighting) proposed as a part of a comprehensive sign JaY�i66is�s_ia -24- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 2: program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off at midnight or when the business is closed, whichever is later. 4. Height, area, number and location of signs. The height, area, number and location of signs permitted through the Comprehensive Sign Program shall be determined by the Community Development Coordinator based on the following criteria: overall size of site, relationship between the building setback and sign location, frontage, access and visibility to the site, intended traffic circulation pattern, hierarchy of signage, scale and use of the project, consistency with Beach by Design, Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan or any other applicable special area plan and submittal of a master sign plan for the development parcel/project. Additionally, the maximum permitted sign area shall be based on the following formula when evaluated against the above criteria: a. Attached signs—The maximum area permitted for attached signage shall range from one percent up to a maximum of six percent of the building facade to which the sign is to be attached. In no event shall the size of an attached sign exceed one hundred fifty square feet. For regional malls, the maximum size of any attached sign that is otherwise allowed shall not exceed six percent of the building facade facing the street, but in no case more than three hundred square feet. b. Freestanding signs—The maximum permitted area of all freestanding signs on a site shall not exceed the range of sign area permitted by the street frontage or building facade calculation methods set forth in Section 1807.B. l.c.i. and ii. 5. Community character. The signage proposed in a comprehensive sign program shall not have an adverse impact on the community character of the City of Clearwater. 6. Property values. The signage proposed in a comprehensive sign program will not have an adverse impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 7. Elimination of unattractive signage. The signage proposed in a comprehensive sign program will result in the elimination of existing unattractive signage and nonconforming signage and will result in an improvement to the appearance of the parcel proposed for development in comparison to signs otherwise permitted under the minimum sign standards. 8. Special area or scenic corridor plan. The signage proposed in a comprehensive sign program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for JaY�i66is�s_ia -25- Item # 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 2i the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. Section 3-1809. - Severability. A. Generally; severability where less speech results. If any part, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, phrase, clause, term, or word of this Division 18 is declared or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration or holding shall not affect any other part, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, phrase, clause, term, or word of this Division 18 or in Article 8(definitions and rules of construction) of this Community Development Code, even if such severability would result in less speech, whether by subj ecting previously exempt signs to this Community Development Code's permitting requirements, or otherwise. B. Severability of provisions pertaining to billboards and other prohibited signs and sign-types. Without diminishing or limiting in any way the declaration of severability set forth above or elsewhere in this Division 18, or in the Community Development Code, or in any adopting ordinance, if any part, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, phrase, clause, term, or word of this division or any other law is declared or held to be unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration or holding shall not affect any other part, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, phrase, clause, term, or word of this Division 18 or Article 8 of this Community Development Code that pertains to prohibited signs, including specifically the prohibition on billboards and those signs and sign-types prohibited and not allowed under Section 3-1804 of this Article 3. JaY�i66is�s_ia -26- Item # 6 CDB Meeting Date Case Number: Ordinance No.: Agenda Item: REQUEST: Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 Julv 17, 2012 TA2012-04005 8343-12 F. 3. CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Amendments to the Community Development Code — Ordinance Number 8343-12 INITIATED BY: Planning and Development Department BACKGROUND: In 2009, the Clearwater Regional and Beach Chambers of Commerce established a Task Force of the Clearwater Government Affairs Committee to create a forum to discuss issues and ordinances that affect the two Chamber groups. The first undertaking of the Task Force was to review the City's sign ordinance. Their approach was to work with the City on a topic-by-topic basis and the first topic brought forward was sandwich board signs. On September 17, 2009 draft regulations allowing sandwich board signs were presented to City Council for its consideration. No action was taken as Council directed the Task Force to identify all desired amendments and present them at one time. On April 15, 2010, the City Attorney's Office presented Ordinance No. 8158-10 to City Council in response to an Order issued by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida addressing constitutional issues in two areas of the City's sign code as a result of The Complete An�ler, LLC, et al. v. The Citv of Clearwater, Florida, Case No. 8:09-cv-346-T- 27EAJ. Specifically, the Court found that, as applied, the distinction between "art work" and "sign" which turns on whether a painting or other work is displayed in connection with a commercial enterprise is an impermissible restriction on non-commercial speech. Additionally, the Court's discussion of the exemption from permitting for "holiday decorations", combined with the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Solantic, LLC v. Citv of Neptune Beach, 410 F.3d 1250 (ll�' Cir. 2005), indicate that the current exemption could be construed by the Court as an unconstitutional content-based provision. The City Attorney's office determined that certain amendments to the Community Development were appropriate in order to comply with the Court's Order and prevent further litigation regarding the issues. City Council continued Ordinance No. 8158-10 to a date uncertain so the City to get input on the ordinance. On May 3, 2010 Council authorized the City Attorney to hire Mr. William D. Brinton, RogersTowers, P.A. as outside counsel to review the sign code and make recommendations on any necessary amendments and to review proposed revisions by any stakeholder groups. Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 Item # 6 TA2012-04005 — Page 1 Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 The Chamber Task Force, in concert with representatives of the sign industry, submitted proposed revisions to the Clearwater sign code in the summer of 2010. The Planning and Development Department met multiple times with Chamber and industry representatives and developed a list of proposed amendments which were presented to City Council for discussion on April 18, 2011. At that meeting some general agreement and direction was provided. When the Mayor's Business Task Force was established in April 2011, Council requested that signage be a topic of their discussion as well. Through that process, the Chamber and the Business Task Force came to agreement on 17 recommendations for Council's consideration and on September 28, 2011 City Council directed staff and the Business Task Force Executive Committee to meet and discuss the recommendations and determine areas of agreement and disagreement. Staff and the Task Force Executive Committee met on October 20, 2011 to discuss the proposed recommendations and on December 14, 2011 presented the final list to City Council. Direction was provided at that meeting to prepare an ordinance that would address the issues of agreement and to get input from the City's outside legal counsel on several topics for consideration. ANALYSIS: Proposed Ordinance No. 8343-12 repeals and replaces Article 3, Division 18 Signs of the Clearwater Community Development Code in its entirety and includes amendments to Article 8, Section 8-102, Definitions relating to signage. Amendments implement recommendations of the Business Task Force/Chamber that City Council agreed to make, ones recommended by the City's outside legal counsel and City Attorney's Office to address the order of The Complete An er case and other constitutional issues, as well as some revisions recommended by the Planning and Development Department. The proposed revisions strike a balance between sign function, aesthetics, and pedestrian and vehicular safety and implement the general principles and purposes of the City's sign regulations. Accompanying the staff report is Ordinance No. 8343-12 and Exhibit 1 which is the proposed new Division 18, Attachment 1, a strike-through and underlined version of Division 18 illustrating the changes proposed to the existing sign code, and Attachment 2 which lists the Business Task Force recommendations, staff's responses and how and where those recommendations are addressed in the ordinance. Proposed Amendments Addressing the Business Task Force Recommendations Amendments addressing the recommendations of the Business Task Force primarily focus on providing additional permanent signage and greater sign area for businesses and are outlined below. • New Formulas for Attached and Freestandin� Si�n Area in Non-residential Zonin� District (see Sections 3-1807.8.1, B.2 and B. 3, pages 17-24 of Attachment 1) To provide greater sign area to the business community through the building permit process and to incentivize quality designed signs, two minimum standard options for attached signs are proposed to replace the current formulas that limit attached signage to a minimum of 20 square feet and to a maximum of 24 square feet. One proposed option would permit a 24 Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 I[�'ii�:�� TA2012-04005 — Page 2 Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 square foot sign as of right regardless of building/lot size and sign type/design. The other option would allow a sign area equal to three percent (3%) of the building fa�ade up to 36 square feet provided certain sign types of a higher quality of design are proposed such as channel letters mounted directly on the building, illuminated capsule signs, contour cabinet signs, etc. The proposed ordinance would also permit businesses located on corner or through lots to erect an attached sign on each fa�ade fronting a right-of-way in compliance with the above standards. Under the current code provisions, this additional sign would need to be reviewed and approved through the Comprehensive Sign Program. Examples of sign types allowed through the three percent (3%) minimum standard option follow. � rn Buirl�x � C a��Si� • a�co • m.� _a u C • i� Certain sign types would not be permitted though the three percent (3%) minimum standard option as they do not present a high quality/attractive appearance, including square/rectangular cabinet signs, raceway signs, and back-lit awnings. Below are examples of such signs. Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 Item # 6 TA2012-04005 — Page 3 R�vayS� Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 R�rC abi�tSi�s The same concept is also proposed for revising the formulas for freestanding signs in non- residential zoning districts, including the Downtown (D) and Tourist (T) Districts. The current formula allows one square foot per two linear feet of street frontage; one square foot per 100 square feet of building facade facing the street; or 64 square feet (or 40 square feet in D and T), whichever is less, with a minimum of 20 square feet. Proposed Ordinance No. 8343-12 creates two minimum standard options: the first allows one 24 square foot freestanding sign per parcel of any design/sign type and the other allows one freestanding sign up to three percent (3%) of the building fa�ade or one square foot of signage for every three feet of linear lot frontage, whichever is less but not exceeding 36 square feet. In order to be eligible for this greater sign area, the sign design has to be consistent with or complement the architecture of the building by incorporating a distinctive design or architectural element used on the building in the sign structure, along with defining materials, textures and color, etc. Corner/through lots have the option of erecting one freestanding sign or two signs based on the same formula plus an additional 15 square feet. In the Downtown (D) and Tourist (T) Districts, the proposed ordinance also increases the height of monument signs from four feet to six feet as of right. Under the provisions of the current code, businesses must file a Comprehensive Sign Program to erect a six foot monument sign. Below are examples of freestanding signs that would meet the design criteria established in Ordinance 8343-12. M a�n�neztS� F�S�x�Si� Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 I[�'ii�:�� TA2012-04005 — Page 4 M a�n.AneztS� Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 M a�n.AneztS� The proposed amendments provide businesses owners with greater attached and freestanding sign area as of right, greater sign height in the Downtown (D) and Tourist (T) Districts as of right, and provide business owners with choices based on their needs, desired sign types and budget. These amendments will likely reduce the smaller business owner's need to file a Comprehensive Sign Program application, which will save the owner both time and money, and still maintain the City's aesthetic goals. These amendments will also reduce the amount of staff time spent processing Comprehensive Sign Program applications. • Si�na�e Allowed in Addition to Primarv Attached and Freestandin� Si�n Signs on Rear Facades (see Section 3-1807.B.3.d, page 23 ofAttachment 1) In addition to the new minimum standard options outlined above, businesses that have rear facades facing parking lots with rear public entrances or facades with entrances fronting Clearwater Harbor or Mandalay Channel will be permitted to erect a 16 square foot sign in the vicinity of the entrance provided the sign is not erected on a raceway or is not a square/rectangular cabinet sign. Under the current ordinance, such additional signage could only be allowed through a Comprehensive Sign Program application. Graphic Elements (see Section 3-1805.F, page 7 ofAttachment 1) Proposed Ordinance No. 8343-12 also provides businesses an opportunity to incorporate a graphic element on an awning in addition to allowable attached signage provided the awning is not back-lit and the graphic does not exceed 25% of the awning area or 16 square feet, whichever is less. This provision is intended to allow businesses flexibility to provide an attractive and interesting element to their building. In the event the business wants to include both text and graphic element on the awning, it will be governed by the attached signs provision. Below is an example that illustrates the intent of this provision even though the graphic may exceed 25% of the surface area. Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 Item # 6 TA2012-04005 — Page 5 Attachment number 3 \nPage 6 Sidewalk Signs (see Section 3-1807. 4, pages 24 — 25 of Attachment 1) The proposed ordinance allows sidewalk signs for retail and restaurant uses (excluding accessory uses) throughout the city. Such signs can be 42 inches in height and 24 inches in width (eight square feet) provided they are located within two feet of the building wall, unless in the Cleveland Street Cafe District where a clear five foot path must be maintained adjacent to the buildings. Certain design and construction standards are required to be met. Signs must be constructed of durable wood/metal, have a frame that supports certain chalk marker boards or professionally designed posters protected by a clear covering. Certain signs are also prohibited such as plastic signs (unless a wind sign), white marker boards, signs with changeable copy areas, etc. Staff is recommending that a permit be obtained on a yearly basis to ensure that all signs meet the size and design criteria and that evidence of general liability insurance is maintained for those signs located on the public right-of-way. Below are some examples of the types of sidewalk signs that would be permitted and prohibited by the ordinance. � ��"�1 i �� _� �'� �� ;� �, f��"'s�s�r Acceptable Sidewalk Signs � �� tia�� . k ,� � �t;� � �°. � r,;��t � �� s � ��,�, � ��_�', �� t� �: , t�s� �� : t 44��' �, ,�� y�� Y�� "�y�G �r r�>. � Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 I[�'ii�:�� TA2012-04005 — Page 6 Prohibited Sidewalk Signs Attachment number 3 \nPage 7 The City has historically prohibited these types of signs due to the visual and physical clutter they create and the Planning and Development Department does not support their use throughout the city for those reasons. The Department is also concerned about the amount of staff time it will take to administer, monitor and enforce the ordinance and believes when enforcement actions take place, those who do not have a permit or have erected a sign that does not meet the design criteria will view the City as business unfriendly. It should be emphasized that this ordinance increases the amount of permanent signage a business can have, as well as the amount of window sign area, which can be a place for temporary messages like those typically displayed on sidewalks signs (see below). Furthermore, attached menu signs are allowed by Division 18 and this ordinance increases the allowable size from four square feet to six square feet. • Greater Flexibilitv for Window Si�ns and Grand Openin� Si�ns (see Sections 3-1806.0 and 3-1806.D.1, pages 8 and 12 ofAttachment 1) Ordinance No. 8343-12 includes revisions to the window sign provisions. Currently window signs are restricted to eight square feet on any window area provided the total area of all signs does not exceed 25% of the window area and no more than 24 square feet. This is complicated to administer, limiting for businesses and cumbersome to enforce. The proposed amendment would allow 25% of the total window area fronting a right-of-way to be used for signage provided the total area of all signs on the window does not exceed 50 square feet. Another substantive change proposed to the sign code increases the size of temporary grand opening signs from 12 square feet to 24 square feet in order to provide more visibility to new businesses. • Removal of Discontinued Si�ns (see Sections 3-1804.D and 8-102 — definition of sign, discontinued, page 4 of Attachment 1 and page2 62 - 63 of Ordinance) To be consistent with current practices, Ordinance No. 8343-12 increases the amount of time that must lapse before a nonconforming sign has to be removed. Currently the Code requires removal of such signs 30 days after a business closes or license expires. Staff has never Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 Item # 6 TA2012-04005 — Page 7 Attachment number 3 \nPage 8 enforced in that amount of time as it is not reasonable. The proposed ordinance deletes the definition and provision for abandoned signs and replaces it with discontinued signs and increases the amount of time a business must be closed to 180 days before requiring its sign to be removed. This is the same timeframe established in Community Development Code Section 6-103 for determining when a nonconforming use has been discounted and lost its right to be reestablished. • Non-substantive Amendments (see Sections 3-1804.P, 3-1806.A and I, pages S, 8, and 10 of Attachment 1) The Business Task Force identified several non-substantive revisions which have been included in Ordinance No. 8343-12 and address prohibited moving/revolving signs, the orientation of freestanding menu signs at drive-throughs, and the size of address signs for non-residential uses. • Topics Identified For Additional Input from the Citv's Outside Le�al Counsel (see Section 8- 102, page 66 of Ordinance) The Planning and Development and Legal Departments consulted with the City's outside legal counsel on several issues as directed including signs on umbrellas, human signs and vehicle signs. With regard to signs on umbrellas there are concerns about the impacts such amendment could have if a content-based constitutional challenge was made so staff is not recommending an allowance for such signs. Also no amendments are proposed to the human sign provisions at this time. There may be options outside of the land development regulations to better address the issue. Vehicle signs are currently prohibited by the Code, however, a new definition is proposed to replace the current one to better articulate what constitutes a vehicle sign to aid in enforcement efforts. The new definition specifies that the sign area on the vehicle must exceed 10 square feet. It also requires that the vehicle not be regularly used for business and be visible from a street right-of-way within 100 feet of the vehicle and be parked for more than five consecutive hours within 100 feet from the right-of- way. Amendments Proposed by Staff/Outside Legal Counsel To better position the city with regard to First Amendment issues and to address some desired changes by the Planning and Development Department, Ordinance No. 8343-12 contains quite a few amendments in addition to those recommended by the Business Task Force and are summarized below. • Section 3-1803 — Exempt Si�ns (page 3 ofAttachment 1) As recommended by the City's outside legal counsel, a new section is proposed to Division 18 which clarifies that certain types of signs are not regulated. These include traffic control signs, those not visible from a right-of-way or navigable body of water, signs on cars, as well as statutory signs. Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 Item # 6 TA2012-04005 — Page 8 Attachment number 3 \nPage 9 • Section 3-1804 — Prohibited Signs (pages 4— 6 ofAttachment 1) Two substantive revisions are proposed to the prohibited section of the Code. While Division 18 does not explicitly state billboards are prohibited, height, area and number limitations preclude the use of such signs. Staff is recommending it appropriate to further clarify the City's intent by adding billboards to the prohibited sign section of the Code. Because electronic changeable message signs are distracting and serve to degrade community aesthetics, they are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18. Current Code provisions could be clearer with regard to these signs; therefore electronic changeable messages are proposed to be prohibited except in limited circumstances. Proposed Ordinance No. 8343-12 clarifies they may be incorporated into menu signs provided the message doesn't change more frequently than once every three hours (to accommodate changes in menu items e.g., breakfast, lunch and dinner) and they may continue to be used on existing and legally nonconforming message signs which include messages which change no more frequently than once every six hours and on signs that only display time and temperature which changes once every 15 seconds. • Section 3-1805- General Standards (pages 6- 8 ofAttachment 1) To be consistent with the general prohibition on electronic changeable message signs, proposed Ordinance No. 8343-12 eliminates Section 3-1805.F which currently allows time and temperature signs. This deletion should not negatively impact the public as such signs are somewhat obsolete since the majority of cars and cell phones provide this information. Additionally a new section regarding the substitution of noncommercial speech for commercial speech was added by the City's outside legal counsel. The provision allows any sign that contains a commercial message to be changed by the owner to a noncommercial message provided the sign does not violate any sign regulations related to prohibited signs/sign types, and provided that the manner or frequency of the changes does not violate restrictions on electronic/illuminated signs and provided the sign being changed is in compliance with all applicable dimensional criteria. This provision further strengthens the City's intent of protecting noncommercial speech. • Section 3-1806 — Si�ns Permitted Without a Permit (pages 8— IS ofAttachment 1) Many revisions are proposed to Section 3-1806 and most have been recommended by the City's outside legal counsel to strengthen the constitutionality of the Code. Amendments are proposed to bring more consistency to the sizes allowed for various signs allowed without a permit and to establish maximum sign heights for many temporary signs where the Code currently does not provide one. In response to issues raised in The Complete Angler case, artwork/architectural detail and holiday decorations are being removed from the sign code as they are not signage. Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 Item # 6 TA2012-04005 — Page 9 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1i Current provisions regulating temporary yard sign for political candidates/issues and a temporary sign for no stated specific purpose are being replaced with free expression signs and temporary election signs. Both signs are proposed to be three square feet in area on residential properties and 18 square feet on nonresidential property. Current code provisions allow six square feet and 32 square feet respectively. The amendment revises those to better reflect what is typically used within the community. Both types of signs can be erected for any duration provided the temporary election sign is removed within seven days after the election to which the sign pertains. Every property in the City will be permitted one free expression sign and one election sign per candidate/issue no more than three square feet in area and four feet in height on properties occupied by single family dwellings, duplexes and townhouses units and six feet in height on all other property (see Section 3-1806.8, C and N.) Amendments are proposed to the temporary construction sign regulations that increase the amount of construction signage allowed for a multi-family use. A total of 32 square feet is proposed consistent which is the amount allowed for nonresidential uses. A similar change is proposed for temporary real estate signs. Multi-family properties are limited to a six square foot real estate sign and the proposal increases it to 32 square feet to be consistent with the nonresidential provisions. (see Sections 3-1806.F andll�. There has been confusion about how to interpret Section 3-1806.G which allows one or three flags on a property and Section 3-1805.D which states a flag can be used as a permitted freestanding or attached sign and if used has to be considered a sign for the purposes of allowable sign area. In attempt to eliminate any confusion, a sentence is being added to Section 3-1806.G that states the area of the flag in this instance (one — three flags) is not included when determining sign area. Staff has also included an increase in the size of drive-through menu signs set forth in Section 3-1806.I from 16 to 24 square feet as menu signs are typically larger than 16 square feet. Sign regulations for marinas have been consolidated into one subsection and a new provision has been added to allow a marina to erect directional signs. In particular this will assist the Clearwater Beach Marina in providing the public better information regarding the location of different activities/businesses located throughout the marina. The ordinance also proposes increases to the allowable size of signs at the individual charter/commercial vessel slips from four square feet to six square feet in size (see Section 3-1806.L). Lastly adopt-a-park signs currently addressed in Section 3-1807.A.4 are being moved to Section 3-1806.W and a new sign type is being added that allows the City to erect signs that recognize funding sources (e.g., grants for various public amenities/improvements). Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 Item # 6 TA2012-04005 — Page 10 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 • Section 3-1807 - Permitted Si n� s Requirin� Development Review (see pages 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 26, and 27 ofAttachment 1) In addition to the amendments supported by the Business Task Force, staff is recommending some amendments to bring internal consistency to the section, to address some specific requirements of the Cleanvater powntown Redevelopment Plan and to provide more flexibility along U. S 19. Currently Section 3-1807.A.3 provides for signs for schools and parks located in residential zoning districts. Since schools and parks are also allowed in nonresidential districts the existing section is being deleted and a new section is being established (Section 3-1807.C) to regulate such signs. Staff is also proposing to increase the allowable height from five feet to six feet to provide more design flexibility but still ensure a scale that is compatible in a residential setting. Additionally there are sign allowances for resident equivalent uses such as assisted living facilities, large residential group homes, nursing homes and congregate facilities as the Code currently does not provide for such signage. One 24 square foot sign six feet in height is proposed (see Section 3-1807.A.3). In response to concerns articulated about recent construction changes on U. S. 19 and decreased visibility as a result of those improvements, the Planning and Development Department is proposing to revise Section 3-1807.B.1.i. The current provision allows sign height to be measured at overpasses from the crown of the roadway. Staff is proposing to revise this section to allow freestanding sign height to be measured from the top of the barrier wall on the elevated roadway measured at its highest point adjacent to the sign location. The Florida Department of Transportation is also adding barrier walls along the frontage roads and in the centerline of U.S. 19 which will further impact business visibility. To mitigate the impacts of these walls, Staff is recommending a provision be added that allows sign height to be measured from the top of the wall adjacent to the property along the frontage road or within the center of the right-of-way, whichever is higher. In light of the fact the Cleanvater powntown Redevelopment Plan design guidelines have some specific requirements regarding signage, Staff believes it is appropriate to incorporate those standards into the Community Development Code to better inform the public of all requirements that may impact a sign proposal in the Downtown area. Section 3-1807.B.2.g has been added and specifies that only properties within the Downtown that have a building setback of 20 feet or more are allowed to erect a monument sign and that manual changeable copy area is restricted to 25% of any sign face area. Due to the unique needs and characteristic of large entertainment facilities, Section 3- 1807.B.6 is being amended to clarify that electronic changeable message signs may be erected by facilities located on publicly owned property that exceed 35 acres in area and have 2000 seats provided such sign complies with existing criteria for changeable copy signs erected on publicly owned property. Additionally, a new subsection is being added to clearly recognize that that all signs may include an area for manually changeable copy provided the sign meets all applicable area and design criteria. Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 Item # 6 TA2012-04005 — Page 11 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1; • Section 3-1808 — Comprehensive Si�n Pro r� am (see pages 27— 29 ofAttachment 1) Several substantive revisions are proposed to the Comprehensive Sign Program. Section 3- 1808.B.1 is revised to reflect that electronic changeable message signs, cabinet signs and signs on raceway are not allowed sign types through the Comprehensive Sign Program. The purpose of this amendment is to clearly articulate signs types which do not meet the "higher quality of design" standards required for program thereby providing better direction for those filing a Comprehensive Sign Program application. Section 3-1808.C.2 is also being amended to allow for the potential of signs integrated into fences or walls that exceed six feet in height on publicly owned property such as the library, City Hall, Coachman Park, etc. By definition, signs placed on wall/fences are considered to be freestanding signs and in the Downtown (D) and the Tourist (T) Districts such signs are limited to a maximum height of six feet. Fences are an appropriate means of defining a public space in an attractive and unique manner and providing for the possibility of signs integrated into such fences is an appropriate use of the Comprehensive Sign Program. Lastly Section 3-1807.C.4.a includes a new provision establishing a maximum sign area for attached signs approved through the Comprehensive Sign Program. The current formula allows signs up to 6% of a building fa�ade on which the sign is attached. When applied to structures with multiple stories the potential amount of signage is great; therefore Staff is proposing to establish a maximum of 150 square feet unless at a regional mall where 300 square feet would be appropriate. These amounts were arrived at through a review of existing approved CSPs for larger projects. • Section 3-1809 - Severabilitv (see pages 29 — 30 ofAttachment 1) To better assist in upholding and sustaining as much of the City's sign ordinance as possible, a new section entitled Severability is proposed. While there is a severability provision in Section 1-107 of the Community Development Code, outside legal counsel is recommending one be specifically added to Division 18 to ensure severability provisions apply to the maximum extent possible. • Section 8-102 — Definitions (see pa�es 62 - 67 of�Ordinance� Ordinance No. 8343-12 includes a number of additions and deletions to the definition section of the Community Development Code to fully implement revisions proposed to Article 3, Division 18 Signs. In order to address The Complete An�ler order, a revised definition of artwork is proposed and a definition for holiday decoration has been added. The definition of sign is also amended to specifically indicate a sign does not include artwork or holiday/seasonal decorations (see page 61 of Ordinance). Definitions are also proposed for graphic element and other types of signage such as cabinet sign, raceway sign, garage-yard sale sign, machinery or equipment sign, construction sign, safety sign, statutory signs, and traffic control device sign. Temporary sign is proposed to be deleted and replaced with election sign and free expression sign, which is defined as a sign that provides information on matters of public policy or concern or any other lawful Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 Item # 6 TA2012-04005 — Page 12 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1; noncommercial speech. A new expanded definition of construction sign is proposed to clarify the purpose of such signs. Abandoned sign is proposed to be eliminated and discontinued sign added which is a sign that advertises a product/service no longer available, a business no longer licensed, which is blank or advertises a business no longer doing business for a period of 180 days (implementing one of the Business Task Force recommendations). A definition of sidewalk sign is replacing the sandwich board sign definition and is broader in scope to reflect the increased design options for signs made to be placed upon sidewalks. CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS: Section 4-601, CDC, sets forth the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. All text amendments must comply with the following: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. A review of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan identified the following Goals, Objectives and Policies which will be furthered by the proposed Code amendments: Goal A.3 The City of Clearwater shall ensure that all development or redevelopment initiatives meet the safety, environmental, and aesthetic needs of the City through consistent implementation of the Community Development Code The general principles and purposes of Division 18 recognize that safety and community appearance are of paramount interest to the City of Cleanvater and all regulations contained in Ordinance No 8343-12 implement those purposes and principles. Appropriate sign regulations are critical in creating a safe and attractive environment. New formulas for attached and freestanding signs are reasonable and provide options that incentivize the use of quality and attractive signs. Due to safety and aesthetic concerns, the prohibited section of the code is being amended to clarify that certain signs, including billboards and electronic message signs and billboards do not meet the safety and aesthetics needs of the City. The Comprehensive Sign Progr�am, which is a design based progr�am, is being further strengthened by prohibiting the use of certain sign types that have been determined to not meet the higher quality of design standards. And the ordinance is providing for the use of gr�aphic elements on awnings in addition to allowable sign area due to the aesthetic benefits such gr�aphics can provide. Objective A.3.1 All signage within the City of Clearwater shall be consistent with the Clearwater sign code, as found within the Community Development Code, and all proposed signs shall be evaluated to determine their effectiveness in reducing visual clutter and in enhancing the safety and attractiveness of the streetscape. Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 I[�'ii�:�� TA2012-04005 — Page 13 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1� Proposed Ordinance No. 8343-12 includes amendments which balance business need to have effective signage with the City's need to have a safe and attractive environment. Allowable sign area is proposed to be increased in a reasonable manner to aid business identification. Two minimum standard options for determining allowable sign area are being established and one allows gr�eater sign area but requires attractive and quality designed signs that will have a positive impact on the visual environment thus furthering the City's goal of maintaining an attractive visual and business environment. Prohibiting billboards, signs that move, revolve, rotate, etc., and other distracting signs, including electronic changeable message signs, in conjunction with reasonable limits on sign area, height and location will gr�eatly aid in minimizing and preventing visual clutter, enhancing safety and maintaining an attractive community. Policy A.3.1.1 Commercial signs in Clearwater shall be restricted to discourage the proliferation of visual clutter, promote community aesthetics, provide for highway safety, and to allow the identification of business locations. Proposed Ordinance No. 8343-12 establishes reasonable sign area parameters and limits such area to one permanent attached sign and one freestanding sign, unless located on a corner or through lot. By limiting the number of such signs to one, the regulations gr�eatly discourage visual clutter. Having design based approvals like the new three percent minimum standard option and the Comprehensive Sign Progr�am, gr�eatly promotes community aesthetics and provides businesses with gr�eater sign area to better identify their business location. Policy A.3.1.2 Proliferation of billboards along maj or collector and arterial streets shall be prevented as is currently provided. While the current Division 18 precludes the use of billboards through its sign area, number, and height regulations, Ordinance No. 8343-12 directly implements this policy by adding billboards to the Prohibited Signs section of the sign ordinance (Section 3-1804). Policy A.3.1.3 Sign identification of City parks and buildings shall be used as a positive example of aesthetic and legible site identification. The proposed ordinance establishes new regulations for freestanding sign at parks in any zoning district whereas the current Code only provides for them in residential zoning districts. The ordinance also increases the allowable sign height to provide more design options which will enhance the appearance and legibility of such signs. Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 I[�'ii�:�� TA2012-04005 — Page 14 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1; 2. The proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed text amendments will further the purposes of the CDC in that it will be consistent with the following purposes set forth in Section 1-103. ■ It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedure for land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and property owners of the city (Section 1-103.A., CDC). ■ It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make beautification of the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law. (Section 1-103.D, CDC). ■ Protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts of the city through the establishment of reasonable standards which encourage the orderly and beneficial development of land within the city (Section 1-103.E.2, CDC). ■ Preserve the natural resources and aesthetic character of the community for both the resident and tourist population consistent with the city's economic underpinnings. (Section 1-103.E.5, CDC). ■ Coordinate the provisions of this Development code with corollary provisions related to parking fences and walls, signs, minimum habitable area and like supplementary requirements designed to establish an integrated and complete regulatory framework for the use of land and water within the city (Section 1-103.E.12, CDC). The amendments proposed in Ordinance No. 8343-12 will further the above referenced purposes by implementing the Comprehensive Plan policies related to signage, establishing a regulatory framework that limits the heights, size, number and setback of signs in a manner that promotes vehicular and pedestrian safety, reduces clutter which enhances community character and creates an attractive built environment which contributes to the economic stability of the City. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with and will further the goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code, except the provision for sidewalk signs. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 8343-12 which amends the Community Development Code with the exception of the sidewalk sign provisions. Alternatively, the Planning and Development Department recommends revising the ordinance to Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 I[�'ii�:�� TA2012-04005 — Page 15 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1i allow sidewalk signs only in traditional urban corridors where businesses do not have space to have freestanding signs and to limit the visual impact of such signs on the community. Prepared by Planning & Development Dept. Staff: Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning & Development Director Attachments: Ordinance No. 8343-12 Exhibit 1 to Ordinance No. 8343-12 Attachment 1— Strikethrough/Underlined Version of Division 18 Attachment 2— Business Task Force Recommendations and Staff Responses Memo To Council Attachment 3— Photographs of Certain Temporary Signs Community Development Board — July 17, 2012/Revised for City Council Aug. 2, 2012 I[�'ii�:�� TA2012-04005 — Page 16 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 �� 11�:�� Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 DIVISION 18. - SIGNS Section 3-1801. - General principles. Section 3-1802. - Purpose. Section 3-1803. - Exembt si�ns. Section 3-180�4. - Prohibited signs. Section 3-18045. - General standards. Section 3-180�6. - Signs permitted without a permit. Section 3-180g7. - Permitted signs requiring development review. Section 3-180�8. - Comprehensive sign program. Section 3-1809. - Severabilitv. Section 3-1801. - General principles. The re�ulation of si�ns as brovided herein is based ubon their function_ and is not based upon the content of the messa�e contained on anv such si�n. The Florida Constitution brovides that it is the bolicv of the state to conserve and brotect its scenic beautv. and the re�ulation of si�na�e for purposes of aesthetics directiv serves that policv. The city is a resort community on the west coast of the state with more than five miles of beaches on the Gulf of Mexico. This city has an economic base which relies heavily on tourism. In order to preserve the city as a desirable community in which to live, vacation and do business, a pleasing, visually attractive urban environment is of foremost importance. The regulation of signs within the city is a highly contributive means by which to achieve this desired end. These sign regulations are prepared with the intent of enhancing the urban environment and promoting the continued well-being of the city. The enhancement of the visual environment is critical to a communitv's ima�e and its continued bresence as a tourist destination_ and the si�n control brincibles set forth herein create a sense of character and ambiance that distin�uishes the citv as one with a commitment to maintainin� and imbrovin� an attractive environment. Section 3-1802. - Purpose. It is the purpose of this division to promote the public health, safety and general welfare through a comprehensive system of reasonable, consistent and nondiscriminatory sign standards and requirements. These sign regulations are intended to: A. Enable the identification of places of residence and business. B. Allow for the communication of information necessary for the conduct of commerce. C. Lessen hazardous situations, confusion and visual clutter caused by proliferation, improper placement, illumination, animation and excessive height, area and bulk of signs which compete for the attention of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. JaY�i6�sas6_i -2- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 3 D. Enhance the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business. E. Protect the public from the dangers of unsafe signs. F. Permit signs that are compatible with their surroundings and aid orientation, and preclude placement of signs in a manner that conceals or obstructs adjacent land uses or signs. G. Encourage signs that are appropriate to the zoning district in which they are located and consistent with the category of use to which they pertain. H. Curtail the size and number of signs and sign messages to the minimum reasonably necessary to identify a residential or business location and the nature of any such business. I. Establish sign size in relationship to the scale of the lot and building on which the sign is to be placed or to which it pertains. J. Preclude signs from conflicting with the principal permitted use of the site or adj oining sites. K. Regulate signs in a manner so as to not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians. L. Require signs to be constructed, installed and maintained in a safe and satisfactory manner. M. Preserve and enhance the natural and scenic characteristics of this waterfront resort community. N. Imblement the Citv's combrehensive blan and comblv with the minimum reauirements established bv state law that reauires the re�ulation of si�na�e. Section 3-1803. - Exembt si�ns. The followin� si�ns are exempt from re�ulation under this Division 18: A. A si�n. other than a window si�n. located entirelv inside the bremises of a building or enclosed sbace. B. A si�n on a car, other than a prohibited vehicle si�n or si�ns. C. A statutorv sign. D. A traffic control device si�n. E. Anv si�n not visible from a bublic street_ sidewalk or ri�ht-of-wav or from a navi�able waterwav or bodv of water: except that the fore�oin� does not exempt a JaY�i6�sas6_i -3- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 4 si�n for a commercial use that is visible from an abuttin� residential use. Section 3-1804�&3. - Prohibited signs. The following types of signs are prohibited: . , . . . .�.�: - ��es�ag� A.� Balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers, and pennants, except as allowed on bublic brobertv in �°�� 4� Section 3-1806.R. B.� Bench signs, other than the identification of the transit company or its route schedule. C. Billboards. D. Discontinued si�ns. Discontinued si�ns and/or si�n structures which are determined to be nonconformin� with the brovisions of this Division 18 shall be reauired to be removed bv the brobertv owner after receibt of notification. or refusal to accebt deliverv of notification bvi certified mail_ that such removal is reauired. E.� > > „,a �;.,,o „,a � • �,• ��,o rir2�?" c2�1�p2�ir�lii s%�-H�T6�??�ixrC�i�ii°c$;�ug�C�iicirg°c�- Lirvic . Electronic chan�eable messa�e si�ns unless otherwise allowed herein (e.�.. �asoline brice si�nsl. with the followin� excebtions: L Menu si�ns that chan�e no more freauentiv than once everv three hours and that are not otherwise brohibited. 2. Existin� and le�allv nonconformin� messa�e si�ns: a. General messages which change no more freauentiv than once everv six hours, includin� onsite �asoline brice si�ns that meet the reauirements of this Division 18: or b. Si�ns which onlv disblav time and/or temberature which chan�e no more freauentiv than once everv fifteen seconds. F.� Menu signs on which the message changes more rapidly than once every three hours. JaY�i6�sas6_i -4- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 5 G.� Pavement markings, except ^��' *r�� „*r�' m�r'��„�� „�' street addresses. H.� Portable signs. I.� Roof and above roof signs. J.� Sidewalk C�r�'T-��'�'��r�' signs, except as provided �„ co,.�;,,,, �, Qnc v herein. K.� Signs attached to or painted on piers or seawalls, other than official regulatory or warning signs. L.� Signs in or upon any river, bay, lake, or other body of water. M.� Signs located on publicly-owned land or easements or inside street rights-of-way, except (a) as allowed in Section 3-1806.5., (b) signs on transit shelters erected pursuant to Section 3-2203 and permitted pursuant to Section 3-1807.B.5.1, (c) sidewalk ��'�T��'�'��r�' signs to the extent permitted in *�°�n�e�nQt��e��Qt�e� �, 4nc ��» Section 3-1806.U. or Section 3-1807.B.4.,(d) as allowed in Section 3-1807.A., and (e) as allowed in co,.�;,,,, �, Qnc � Section 3-1806.V. and 3-1806.W. Prohibited signs shall include but shall not be limited to handbills, posters, advertisements, or notices that are attached in any way upon lampposts, telephone poles, utility poles, bridges, and sidewalks. N.� Signs that emit sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles, or gaseous matter. O.� Signs that have unshielded illuminating devices or which reflect lighting onto public rights-of-way thereby creating a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard. P.a Signs that move, revolve, twirl, rotate, flash, scintillate_ blink flutter_ or abbear to displav motion in anv wav whatsoever. including animated signs, multi-prism signs, tri-vision signs, floodlights and beacon lights �except when beacon li�uhts are required by the Federal Aviation Agency or other governmental agency for a bublic buroose involvin� bublic safetvl_ unless otherwise exbresslv allowed bv another brovision within this Division 18. (�.g Signs that obstruct, conceal, hide, or otherwise obscure from view any �� t�a��ge�e�e��g�, °��r�', �r �'°��° traffic control device si�n or official traffic si�nal. R.� Signs that present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard, including signs which obstruct visibility. S.� Signs attached to or placed on any tree or other vegetation. T.� Signs carried, waved or otherwise displayed by persons either on public rights-of- way or in a manner visible from public rights-of-way. This provision is directed toward such displays intended to draw attention for a commercial purpose, and is JaY�i6�sas6_i -5- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 6 not intended to limit the display of placards, banners, flags or other signage by persons participating in demonstrations, political rallies and similar events. U.� Snipe signs. V.i� Three-dimensional obj ects that are used as signs. o , c o ,,,a� W. Vehicle signs, and portable trailer signs. X. Any permanent sign that is not specifically described or enumerated as permitted within the specific zoning district classifications in this Communitv Development Code. Section 3-1805�94. - General standards. A. Setback. No sign shall be located within five feet of a property line of a parcel proposed for development. B. Neon signs and lighting. Neon signs and lighting shall be permitted as freestanding and attached signage as provided in this Division 18 �e�. When neon lighting is utilized to emphasize the architectural features of a building, such as when used to outline doorways, windows, facades, or architectural detailing or when used to accentuate site landscaping, it shall not be regarded as signage. In addition, neon lighting used as freestanding designs or murals or as attached murals or designs unrelated to the architectural features of the building to which the lighting is attached shall be permitted, but shall be counted toward the allowable area of the property's or occupancy's freestanding or attached signage, as applicable. C. Illuminated signs. 1. The light from any illuminated sign shall be shaded, shielded, or directed away from adj oining street rights-of-way and properties. 2. No sign shall have blinking flashing, or fluttering lights or other illumination devices which have a changing light intensity, brightness, color, or direction or as otherwise brohibited bv Section 3-1804. 3. No colored lights shall be used at any location or in any manner so as to be confused with or construed as traffio-control devices. 4. Neither the direct nor the reflected light from primary light sources shall create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares. JaY�i6�sas6_i -6- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 7 5. The light which illuminates a sign shall be shaded, shielded, or directed so that no structure, including sign supports or awnings, are illuminated by such lighting. D. Banners and fZags. A banner or flag may be used as a permitted freestanding or attached sign and, if so used, the area of the banner or flag shall be included in, and limited by, the computation of allowable area for freestanding or attached signs on the property. E. Gasoline price signs. Gasoline price display signs shall be allowed in all non- residential districts except where specifically prohibited. Gasoline price display signs shall be placed in the vicinity of the pump islands and shall not extend above any pump island canopy or they shall be attached to the primary freestanding sign for the property. If attached to the freestanding sign, the area of the gasoline price display sign shall be counted toward the allowable area for the freestanding sign. A�asoline brice disblav si�n mav be chan�ed manuallv or electronicallv. F. Awnin�s. Awnin�s mav be allowed a�raphic element in addition to the permitted attached sign area brovided such grabhic does not exceed 25% of the awning surface area on which the �rabhic is blaced or sixteen sauare feet. whichever is less. If a grabhic element is blaced on an awning valance_ such grabhic element shall be limited to 25% of the valance surface. If text and a�raphic element are robosed on an awnin�_ such text and �rabhic element shall be �overned bv the attached si�ns provisions set forth in Section 3-1807.B.3. This provision does not a blv to back-lit awnin�s. �r�!�rr_�s:r.�Ee�r .- -- - - -- -- - - --- -- ----- - -- -- -- --- �� G. Building and electrical code compliance. All signs shall comply with applicable building and electrical code requirements. H. No limitation based on message content. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Communitv Develobment Code, no sign shall be subject to any limitation based on the content of the message contained on such sign. I. Substitution of noncommercial speech for commercial speech. Notwithstandin� anvthin� contained in this Communitv Development Code to the contrarv. anv si�n erected bursuant to the brovisions of this Division 18 or this Communitv Development Code with a commercial messa�e mav. at the option of the owner. contain a noncommercial message. The noncommercial message mav occubv the entire si�n face or anv bortion thereof. The si�n face mav be chan�ed from a commercial message to a noncommercial message_ or from one noncommercial JaY�i6�sas6_i -7- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 8 messa�e to another_ brovided that the si�n is not a brohibited si�n or si�n-tvbe rovided that the manner or freauencv of the chan�e does not violate restrictions on electronic or illuminated si�ns, and provided that the size, hei�ht, setback and other dimensional criteria contained in this Division 18 and the Communitv Develobment Code have been satisfied. Section 3-1806��. - Signs permitted without a permit. The following signs may be developed without development review pursuant to Article 4 of this Communitv Develobment Code �'°��°'��m°�* ��'°: A. One address sign of no more than two square feet of total sign face area for each parcel of land used for residential purposes and no more than one sauare foot for each number contained in the brobertv address *'�r°° ��„�r° �°* ��*�*�' �;�� ° �ea for each parcel of land used for non-residential � purposes. The square footage for the address sign shall be allowed in addition to the total square signage footage allowed in ��+;�� , 4�ti Section 3-1807. . . B. Free exbression signs. For each barcel_ one free exbression sign mav be disblaved. A free exbression si�n mav be disblaved as an attached si�n or as a freestandin� si�n. A free exbression si�n shall not exceed three sauare feet of total si�n face area. If a free expression is displaved as a freestandin� si�n. the si�n shall not exceed four feet in hei�ht if located on a barcel of land desi�nated or used for sin�le familv dwellin�s. duplexes and townhouse units or six feet in hei�ht if located on anv other barcel. The free exbression si�n is in addition to anv si�n disblavin� a noncommercial messa�e in lieu of a commercial or other noncommercial messa�e bursuant to Section 3-1805.I. C. Temporarv election si�ns. For each parceL one election si�n for each candidate and each issue mav be disblaved. An election sign mav be disblaved as an attached si�n or as a freestandin� si�n. On parcels that are in residential use, the election si�n shall not exceed three sauare feet of total si�n face area: and_ if the election si�n is displaved as a freestandin� si�n on the parceL the election si�n shall not exceed four feet in hei�ht. On barcels that are in nonresidential use_ the election si�n shall not exceed ei�hteen sauare feet of total si�n face area: and, if the election si�n is disblaved as a freestandin� si�n on the barcel_ the election si�n shall not exceed six feet in hei�ht. An election si�n shall be removed within seven calendar davs followin� the election to which it bertains. D. �. Temporary �rand obenin� and sbecial event signs. 1. One temporary grand opening sign shall be permitted for thirtv �8 days after the issuance of an occupational license for any new business, new owner of an existing business, or business name change. Such sign shall not exceed twentv-four � square feet in total sign face area or such sign JaY�i6�sas6_i -8- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 9 may be a temporary covering such as a toaster cover, sign boot, or sign sock, which covers an existing permitted attached or freestanding sign. 2. Other temporary special event and/or public purpose signs of a temporary nature shall be approved by the community development coordinator if the signs meet the following criteria: (a) the signs are temporary signs for a limited time and frequency, (b) the signs are for a special event or a public purpose of a temporary nature, (c) the signs do not exceed the maximum height and size requirements for freestanding signs under this Communitv Develobment Code �e—sec�e, (d) the display of temporary signs for a special event shall not begin any earlier than two calendar days before the event and shall be removed within one business day after the event, and (e) the signs, if temporary for a limited time and frequency, will meet the following purposes of Division 18 ��, to wit: (1) the signs will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [�°�*;�� , 4�''«'` Section 3-1802F.], (2) the signs will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites [co,.�;,,,, �, Qn��r� Section 3-1802.J.], (3) the signs will not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [c°�+;�� , 4n''�Tl` Section 3-1802.K.], and (4) the signs will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [��— 1 Qzv�vi�i� Section 3-1802.L.]. Consistent with the general standards in ��+;�� , 4�^ Section 3-1805, the approval or disapproval shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on such signs. The community development coordinator shall render a decision within ten �9 days after an application is made for such signs. Such a decision shall be deemed an administrative interpretation and any person adversely affected has the right to appeal the decision to the community development board pursuant to Section 4-SO1.A of this Communitv Develobment Code. �r_�Er: e�s�: r:�str_�r.� E. . A sin�le si�n no more than four sauare feet in si�n area and indicatin� a valet parkin� station and that is visible onlv durin� hours that the valet is oberatin�. F. Temborarv construction si�ns. One temborarv construction sign located on a parcel proposed for development during the period a building permit is in force or one year, whichever is less, which sign shall not exceed: 1. Sixteen square feet of total sign face area for parcels of land used or proposed to be used for sin�le familv dwellin�s. dublexes and townhouse units ; 2. Thirtv-two �'T��°�� square feet of total sign face area for parcels of land used or proposed to be used for multi-family urooses other than JaY�i6�sas6_i -9- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1i townhouse units or for non-residential purposes. If the temporarv si�n is displaved as a freestandin� si�n. the si�n shall not exceed six feet in hei�ht. G. For fla�s disblaved on a fla� bole not exceedin� thirtv-five feet in hei�ht or an attached bracket: One flag per detached dwelling unit, three additional flags per parcel of land used for multifamily residential purposes, and three flags per parcel of land used for non-residential purposes. If so used. the area of the fla� shall not be included in. and limited bv. the combutation of allowable area for freestandin� or attached si�ns on the brobertv. H. Temborarv garage-vard sale signs. One temborarv garage-� "„� sale sign of no more than three sauare feet of total si�n face area ��r °��r° �°* �� *�*�' .�� r�� located on the parcel of land where the garage or yard sale is to be �, o-- ___ _ _ __- - -- conducted only on the date or dates on which the garage or yard sale is conducted. In addition, no more than two directional signs of no more than three sauare feet of total si�n face area ber si�n face ��r � °�°* ��*�*�' �„��° �° ° related to a garage or yard sale which are located on privately owned parcels of land other than the parcel of land where the garage or yard sale is to be conducted only on the date or dates on which the garage or yard sale is conducted. If the temporarv si�n is displaved as a freestandin� si�n. the si�n shall not exceed four feet in hei�uht. . , � �' ",.� I. � Attached menu signs of no more than six €e� square feet of total sign face area located at the entrance or service window of a restaurant. One freestanding drive- through sign no more than twentv-four � square feet in total si�n face area and six feet in height oriented toward the vehicles utilizin� drive-throu�h service for the buroose of blacing an order or bicking ub an order at a service window �ee-�e� „ ��,o ,- „��,o r .,i �.,,;i,a;,,,. J. � Onsite directional and traffic control signs of no more than four square feet of sign face area provided that business logos or other non-traffic control symbols do not exceed 25 percent of the sign face area. K. � Signs identifying parking space numbers provided that such signs are painted on the paved surface of each space or do not exceed one-half square foot of sign face area per sign. L. � Marina slib and directional si�ns. 1. Signs identifying marina slip numbers provided that such signs are painted on the dock in front of each slip or do not exceed one square feet of sign face area per sign. JaY�i6�sas6_i -10- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 2. Each individual charter/commercial vessel slib located at a commercial marina mav have one si�n blaced in the vicinitv of the slib that does not exceed six sauare feet in total si�n face area identifvin� the business located at the slip and one additional si�n of not more than ei�ht sauare feet in total si�n face area blaced in the vicinitv of the slib to identifv the vessel rate/embarkin� schedules, or other information. 3. Unless otherwise abbroved bv the communitv develobment coordinator. two directional si�ns; not to exceed six sauare feet in total si�n face area and not to exceed six feet in hei�ht mav be displaved at anv marina for buraoses of wav findin�. The communitv develobment coordinator mav a brove additional si�ns based on the followin� criteria: overall size of marina. number of bedestrian and vehicular access boints. visibilitv of the site, intended and existin� traffic circulation and consistencv with Beach bv Desi�n. Clearwater powntown Redevelobment Plan or anv other a blicable sbecial area blan. , .� . _. �.�s= . .. M. a Temborarv real estate si�ns. One temborarv �-_��?_�a real estate sign per parcel of land indicating that a parcel of land or a building located on the parcel of land or part thereof is for sale, for lease or otherwise available for conveyance, provided that such sign does not exceed: Six square feet of total sign face area on parcels of land designated or used for r°�;�'°r*;�' r„��°� sin�le familv dwellin�s. dublexes and townhouse units � 2. Thirty-two square feet of total sign face area on parcels of land designated or used for multi-family purposes other than townhouse units or for non- residential purposes. JaY�i6�sas6_i -11- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1; In the event that more than one dwelling unit or non-residential space on a single parcel of land is for sale, for lease or otherwise available, one attached sign per dwelling or space of no more than two square feet in total sign face area in addition to the permitted freestanding signage. In addition, one freestanding waterfront sign of no more than six €e� square feet of total sign face area�, not more than three sauare feet of si�n area ber si�n face. for each waterfront parcel of land. If the temporarv si�n is displaved as a freestandin� si�n. the si�n shall not exceed four feet in hei�ht if located on a parcel of land desi�nated or used for sin�le familv dwellin�s. dublexes and townhouse units or six feet in hei�ht if located on anv other barcel. N. g Signs located within a stadium which are not oriented toward and readable �e from outside of a stadium. O. � Window signs may be located on any window area provided such sign or combination of si�uns do �ees not exceed � twentv-five percent 25% of the total area of the window where the sign or si�ns are �s located and face a ri�ht-of-wav. with the twentv-five percent limitation allowed for the window si�n(sl that face each ri�ht-of-wav where there is a corner lot or throu�uh lot. In no case shall the cumulative area of all window signs e�ec�e� located inside an enclosed area for burooses of advertisin� exceed fiftv sauare feet, if oriented toward and visible from an adioining roadwav or navigable waterwav or bodv of water. P. � Safety or warning signs which do not exceed six €e� square feet of total sign face area per sign. �� A change in a sign message or panel on a previously approved, lawful sign, e.g., any sign allowed under this ordinance may contain, in lieu of any other copy, any otherwise lawful noncommercial message that complies with all other requirements of this ordinance. This brovision does not bermit desi�n chan�es for a si�n breviouslv abbroved under the Combrehensive Si�n Pro�ram. . R. � The following sign type "balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers, and pennants" shall be allowed as governmental and public purpose signs if located on bublic JaY�i6�sas6_i -12- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1; robertv and if the city manager finds that the sign type meets the following criteria: (1) the sign type is for a special event, (2) the special event is for a limited time, (3) the special event is for a limited frequency, and (4) the sign type, if allowed for a limited time and frequency, will meet the following purposes of this Division 18 ��, to wit: (a) the signs will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs (Section 3-1802.F�, (b) the signs will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites [co,.�;,,,, �, Qn��r� Section 3-1802.J.], (c) the signs will not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [ Section 3-1802.K.], and (d) the signs will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3- 1802(L)]. Consistent with the general standards in �eQt�e� '-��, Section 3- 1805, the approval or disapproval shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on any such sign. The city manager shall render a decision within ten �9 days after an application is made for utilizing this sign type at a special event. Such a decision shall be deemed an administrative interpretation and any person adversely affected has the right to appeal the decision to the community development board pursuant to Section 4-SO1.A of this Communitv Develobment Code. S. � A sign on publicly owned land or easements or inside street rights-of-way shall be allowed if the city manager finds that the sign meets the following criteria: (1) the sign provides notice to the public of a public meeting or other public event, (2) the sign is temporary and for a limited time, and (3) the sign, if allowed for a limited time, will meet the following purposes of this Division 18 ��, to wit: (a) the sign will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [�eQt�e�- � Section 3-1802F.], (b) the sign will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites [co,.�;,,,, �, Qn��r� Section 3-1802.J.], (c) the sign will not interfere with or obstruct the vision of motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [�e�t�e ''�Tl` Section 3-1802.K.], and (d) the sign will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [�__*_�� , 4�''�r,; Section 3-1802.L.]. Consistent with the general standards in �eQt�e� '-��, Section 3-1805, the approval or disapproval shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on such sign. The city manager shall render a decision within ten �9 days after an application is made for utilizing such a temporary sign on public property. Such a decision shall be deemed an administrative interpretation and any person adversely affected has the right to appeal the decision to the community development board pursuant to �°��- �� Section 4-SO1.A of this Communitv Develobment Code. T. � Directional/informational signs serving a public purpose. A permanent sign on public easements or inside street rights-of-way shall be allowed if the city manager finds that the sign meets the following criteria: {�}1. The sign provides directions and/or information regarding public facilities and/or places of interest; and {�2. The sign will meet the purposes of Division 18 �� to wit: (a) the JaY�i6�s2s6_i -13- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1� sign will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [°°��- 1 Q� Section 3-1802F.], (b) the sign will not conflict with adjoining sites, (c) the sign will not interfere with or obstruct the vision of motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians, (d) the sign will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [se�t�e� �, 4n''�r ` Section 3-1802.L.], (e) the sign is consistent with Beach by Design, Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan or any other applicable special area plan and submittal of a master sign plan and (� the sign is consistent with the general standards in ��+;�~ �, 4�^ Section 3-1805. The city manager or designee shall render a decision within fifteen � days after an application is made for utilizing such a sign on public property. The decision is not subject to the provisions of �ec�'e� ^�� Section 4-SO1.A of this Communitv Develobment Code. U. � Signs during public construction projects. Temporary sidewalk °^r�'T-��^'� '�^^r�' signs are permitted for properties abutting public construction projects that are scheduled to last one hundred ei�htv �9 days or longer, in accordance with the following criteria. {�}1. There shall be a maximum of two ��„�'T��'� '��r�' sidewalk signs permitted per parcel adj acent to the public construction proj ect, and parcels with multiple businesses shall coordinate copy on the signs permitted. {�2. ��r�'T-��'� '��r�' Sidewalk signs permitted under this section shall be allowed to be displayed for the duration of the public construction project starting with project commencement and shall be removed within seven days after the final acceptance, by the city, of improvements. {�}3. The size of any ��r�'T-��'� '��r�' sidewalk sign shall not exceed eight square feet in total si�n face area, and shall not exceed four feet in height. {4�4. ��r�'T-��'� '��r�' Sidewalk signs permitted under this section shall be constructed in a professional and workmanlike manner from treated wood or other durable material, and copy displayed shall not be spray painted onto the signs. {�}5. No °��'T��'�'��r�' sidewalk sign, permitted as part of this section shall be permanently erected, and shall only be displayed during hours of operation for the business being advertised. {�}6. No ��'�T��'�'��r�' sidewalk sign shall be placed so as to block any public way, or within the visibility triangle of intersections or driveways. y�. � One ten square foot freestanding sign not more than five feet in height or one ten square foot attached sign per city park or city recreation facility for the purposes of identifying a program provider or information concerning programs at such park or recreation facility. The design of any such signs shall be approved by the JaY�i6�sas6_i -14- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1; parks and recreation department. W. Adobt-a-bark and acknowled�ement si�ns. 1. Adopt-a-park si�ns mav be erected in citv ri�hts-of-wav or on citv-owned robertv. An adobt-a-bark si�n shall not exceed three sauare feet in total sign face area. If freestanding_ and adobt-a-bark sign shall not exceed ei�hteen inches in hei�ht and shall be located in a landscaped settin� Adopt-a-park si�ns shall be selected from the abbroved citv street si�ns catalo�ue maintained bv the mana�er of traffic operations;,brovided the si�n desi�n conforms with one of the citv brescribed desi�ns maintained bv the barks and recreation debartment�The communitv develobment coordinator mav abbrove additional adobt-a-bark si�ns based on the followin� criteria: overall size of site, number of entrances, fronta�e. access and visibilitv of the site, intended and existin� traffic circulation. � 2. Acknowled�ment si�ns mav be erected in citv ri�hts-of-wav or on citv- owned brobertv as follows. Such signs mav also be affixed or incoroorated into a bublic amenitv such as an ash trav or bublic bench that is located on ublic brobertv and that is abbroved bv the communitv develobment coordinator provided that it is no �reater than one sauare foot in area, is rust-free, and is unobtrusive. Section 3-1807�. - Permitted signs requiring development review. A. Residential. The following signs shall be permitted in all residential zoning districts: 1. Freestanding single family subdivision and multi family development signs. a. Unless otherwise approved by the community development coordinator one permanent freestanding sign up to twentv-four �4 square feet of total sign face area and up to six feet in height may be erected at no more than two entrances into a single-family subdivision or multi-family development. In lieu of one twentv- four �4 square foot sign, two permanent single-faced signs not exceeding twelve � square feet in total si�n face area each may be located at an entrance provided that such signs are placed in a symmetrical manner and/or are located on opposite sides of the entrance to which they are oriented, will meet all sight visibility triangle requirements under the provisions of Section 3-904, be installed and maintained in safe and neat manner and will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adj oining sites. The community development coordinator may approve signs to be placed at additional entrances based on the following criteria: overall size of site, relationship between building setback and sign JaY�i6�sas6_i -15- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1i location, frontage, access and visibility of the site, intended and existing traffic circulation, hierarchy of signage, consistency with Beach by Design, Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan or any other applicable special area plan and submittal of a master sign plan for the subdivision or development. b. Such sign(s) shall be erected on privately-owned property. In the event there is insufficient land owned by a single-family subdivision association or multi-family development developed prior to March 8, 1999, however, the community development coordinator, parks and recreation department, and public works administration may approve the location of such sign in a city right-of-way or on city-owned property provided that such signs are in compliance with ��+;�� , 4�ti n,� Section 3-1807.A.1.a. above and will not obstruct the vision of motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians, be installed and maintained in safe and neat manner, will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites; and that a city right-of-way permit be obtained prior to the installation. c. All freestanding signs shall be installed in a landscaped area e€�e� '°�� *'�� ,'' ��„�r° �°+ consistin� of shrubs and/or �round cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the si�n. d. A freestanding sign for any multi-family development shall include the address of the property on which the sign is to be located. 2. Subdivision name/logo on street signs. Street signs incorporating single- family subdivision names/logos may be located in city rights-of-way within the subdivision provided by such signs do not exceed three and one-half �-5 square feet in area and are selected from the approved city street signs catalogue maintained by the manager of traffic operations. The city and the neighborhood shall enter into an agreement that prescribes the installation and maintenance requirements of such signs. . �s. � . — — — — ,;.,.,,. _ - - - - �= � T� � � � • � �� o� �; � � ��acTr2� �-6�r2i3rsi�i�rii�rrzrv��XccccrrrvcTC°cr ics �1,.,,-, 17 ..uc'i�ic°�n.,l�..l„crua°c cnc�ittlYics ".rv�ic 3. Assisted livin� facilities, communitv residential homes with seven to ourteen residents. con�egate care facilities. and nursing homes signs. JaY�i6�sas6_i -16- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 a. Orie freeStaridlri� Sl�ri at the brlmarv eritrariCe Of the brObertV Ub t0 twentv-four sauare feet in total si�n face area. b. The hei�ht of a freestandin� si�n shall not exceed six feet in = he� c. A freestandin� si�n shall be installed in a landscabed area consistin� of shrubs and/or �round cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the si�un and shall include the address of the propertv on which the si�n is to be located. .�iess�s�ss�e� • . .r_we�ese�r:�rr�!�:�ss�:Ee�err�r:s. . B. Non-residential. All signs must be architecturally integrated into the design of the building and/or site using similar and coordinated design and style features, materials and colors��. Attached signs shall be horizontally and vertically proportionately located on each facade with no protrusions above roof lines, over windows, trim, cornices, or other building features. Si�ns for new shobbin� centers with three or more tenants, includin� all out parcels, office parks or anv master blan develobment shall be reviewed and abbroved throu�h the Combrehensive Si�n Pro�ram set forth in Section 3-1808. "'�^�*°r �;�r^�° r'^r� > > o�,o ri; .,�; . . . _-�; _..:__,..��n . . . JaY�i6�s2s6_i -17- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1� Cfi'/�'� � ��ii'/:• � Tl,o ., .,�., � oo��.,,,.�;,,.. � „�.,..o �l,.,ll ,,.,� o o.�• • • � � �?R'�.E�i:!!li�:Fl.T.�'L7S�: . � . ��7:�l�L'f �E�f f!.l��iwl:�SLl7:!lT��:S�S�Ef f . i .,�,,.,� lo�� 1,.,,, 17 � o � o� .,,,.� �l,.,ll ; ..1,,.�0 �l,o .,.�.�,-o�� .,� � .Fl.T.='i7:�lE�E -- -� -• •- - --- - - - -- -- - -- -- -- -- - .�� E::�:z:R,� • �� i 1. Freestanding signs in the Commercial. Of�ce. Institutional and Industrial Research and Technolo�v Zonin� Districts. The followin� shall �overn ermanent freestandin� si�ns in the Commercial_ Office_ Institutional and IndustriaL Research and Technolo�v zonin� districts. Certain uses in these districts mav have additional si�n restrictions set forth in the flexibilitv criteria contained in Article 2 and shall subersede these standards. a. One freestandin� si�n per parcel proposed for development with no more than two si�n faces_ unless located on a corner lot or throu�h lot. JaY�i6�sas6_i -18- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1! b. Corner lots or throu�h lots have the option of erectin� one freestandin� si�n or two freestandin� si�ns, one on each street fronta�e. The total maximum area of the si�n faces of the one si�n or of the two si�ns shall not exceed the total maximum allowable area allowed in Section 3-1807.B.1.d. or Section 3-1807.B.1.e. below blus an additional fifteen sauare feet. brovided that the maximum area remains no more than sixtv-four sauare feet in total si�n face area on all si�n faces. Si�n area is measured from the road fronta�e which results in the �reater sauare foo� c. All freestandin� si�ns shall be setback at least five feet from the robertv lines of the barcel brobosed for develobment. d. The total si�n face area of a freestandin� si�n shall not exceed twentv-four sauare feet unless in combliance with Section 3-1807.B.1.e. below. e. The total si�n face area of a freestandin� si�n shall not exceed three percent of the buildin� facade facin� the street or one sauare foot of si�na�e for everv three feet of linear lot fronta�e_ whichever is less_ but in no case more than thirtv-six sauare feet. Such si�n desi�n shall be consistent with or comblement the architecture of the buildin� throu�h the use of colors, materials, textures, desi�n features, and architectural stvle as set forth below. i. The si�n desi�n shall include a distinctive desi�n or architectural element used on the buildin� such as an arch. cabstone_ bediment_ distinctive roof form/material_ column_ ilaster. cornice: or a shabe. form or motif that bortravs the business. Such elements shall be used on the tob and/or side of the si�n face/banels. ii. Definin� materials, textures and colors used on the buildin� shall be included on the si�n. iii. The si�n base and/or subborts shall be with a width that creates proportionalitv to the overall si�n desi�n. Si�ns mounted on a sin�le bole without anv coverin� at least thirtv-six inches in width shall be brohibited. iv. The si�n shall be consistent with or complementarv to the overall desi�n_ colors_ font stvle of the attached si�n on the brobertv. JaY�i6�sas6_i -19- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 2i v. The si�n mav include no more than two lines of zib track for manual chan�eable messa�es provided the zip track and letter colors are coordinated with the color of the si�n. vi. In the event the buildin�u lacks architectural details csr distin�uishin� desi�n features or materials, the si�n shall be desi�ned to improve the overall abbearance of the site. To achieve this; the si�n shall include a distinctive desi�n feature and use colors and materials that present a hi�h aualitv finish. £ The total area of all si�n faces on all freestandin� si�ns shall not exceed seventv-two sauare feet ber barcel brobosed for develobment. �. The hei�ht of a freestandin� si�n shall not exceed one and one-half times the width of the si�n structure or fourteen feet whichever is less unless allowed in Section 3-1807.B.1.h. below. h. All freestandin� si�n structures shall be installed in a landscaped area consistin� of shrubs and/or �round cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the si�n. i. Sites which front on an elevated roadwav (includin� US 19 and McMullen Booth Roadl havin� limited visibilitv are bermitted one freestandin� si�n to a maximum of fourteen feet above the top of the barrier wall located on the elevated roadwav as measured at its hi�hest oint adi acent to the si�n location. Sites which front on US 19 or its fronta�e road that have a barrier wall located adiacent to the brobertv either alon� the fronta�e road or within the center of the US 19 ri�ht-of- wav are bermitted one freestandin� si�n to a maximum of fourteen feet above the top of either barrier wall whichever is hi�her. Monument signs in the Tourist and Downtown Districts. The followin� shall govern bermanent monument D�~~~��~�~+ "'��~��~~•�~+ signs �a�e �e� in the Tourist District and Downtown District as follows: One monument sign not exceedin� six feet in hei�ht per parcel �e�esec� for development in the Tourist District with no more than two sign faces, unless located on a corner or throu�h lot. One monument si�n with no more than two si�n faces ber barcel for develobment in the Downtown District brovided the brimarv buildin� on the parcel is setback at least twentv feet from the front robertv line_ unless located on a corner or throu�h lot. � i„ .,�o,a .,� ., , �.o ,�,;��o,a �.,,,, � ,.t, ��,-oo� 0 0 � o 0 � �.,,,, � �t,.,ii ,,,,� o o,a �t,o �„�.,i ri, .,ii,,.,,.,�.io ., Corner lots or throu�h lots have the obtion of erectin� one JaY�i6�sas6_i -20- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 ffiOriUffi0rit Slgri OI' tW0 ffiOriUffi0rit S1griS_ Ori0 Ori 0aC11 StI'00t fronta�e. The total maximum area of the si�n faces of the one si�n or of the two si�ns shall not exceed the total maximum allowable area allowed in Section 3-1807.B.2.c. below blus an additional fifteen sauare feet. Si�n area shall be measured from the road fronta�e which results in the �reater sauare foota�e. ��,.,�� .o �o��..,,.�, .,� �o.,�� ;..o � o� �,,.,, ��,o r ro,�., �;,,o� c. The area of a monument si�n face shall not exceed three percent 3%1 of the buildin� facade facin� the street or one sauare foot of si�na�e for everv three feet of linear lot fronta�e. whichever is less_ but in no case less than twentv-four sauare feet and no more than thirtv-six sauare feet. �d. The total area of all si�n faces on all monument si�ns shall not exceed seventv-two sauare feet ber barcel brobosed for develobment. T�,o ., „�., v,, „� �„�,.o ��,.,ii „„� o o,a. . ; ii � vn�q�ra�'e-�eat�3e��v-=n1�ii�cz� � „� l., ,; � ,a; „,. �., G&�e �Eiii�&�@2i�9��2-',--9f T.,�o„��, � o� o� ,�1,;..1,0�.0,-;� lo�� m. , ` . � .� o ol ., „4 i� ��i .T.f.T.l�PiR� �Eff��:E�!lP.�y7t'� Si�n desi�n shall be consistent with or complement the architecture of the buildin� throu�h the use of colors_ materials_ textures, desi�n features and architectural stvles as set forth below and as mav be reauired bv the Clearwater powntown Redevelobment Plan and Beach bv Desi�n. i. The si�n desi�n shall include a distinctive desi�n or architectural element used on the buildin� such as an arch, cabstone_ bediment_ distinctive roof form/material_ column ilaster. cornice: or a shabe. form or motif that bortravs the business. The desi�n elements shall be used on the tob and/or side of the si�n face/banels. JaY�i6�sas6_i -21- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 2; ii. Definin� materials_ textures and colors used on the buildin� shall be included on the si�n. iii. The si�n base and/or subborts shall be of a width that creates brobortionalitv to the overall si�n desi�n. iv. The si�n shall be consistent with or comblementarv to the overall desi�n. colors, font stvle of the attached si�n on the brobertv. v. The si�n mav include no more than two lines of zip track for manual chan�eable messa�es brovided it does not exceed twentv-five bercent (25%1 of the si�n face area and the zib track and letter colors are coordinated with the color of the si�n. vi. In the event the buildin� lacks architectural details or distin�uishin� desi�n features or materials, the si�n shall be desi�ned to imbrove the overall abbearance of the site. To achieve this, the si�n shall include a distinctive desi�n feature and use of colors and materials that bresent a hi�h aualitv finish. All monument sign structures shall be installed in a landscaped area consisting of shrubs and/or ground cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the si�n. �� *'�� *'�� ''' � u�. Proberties located within the area �overned bv the Clearwater Downtown Redevelobment Plan shall onlv be bermitted to erect a monument si�n if the brimarv buildin� is setback at least twentv feet or more from the front brobertv line. Areas for manual chan�eable cobv cannot occubv more than twentv-five bercent 25%1 of the si�n face area. Attached signs in non-residential districts. The following attached signs shall be permitted in all non-residential districts: One attached sign shall be bermitted for each � buildin� structure '�� +�'�'��'��+. For anv buildin� structure with multible business tenants on the �round floor, one attached si�n mav be ermitted ber business establishment with a brincibal exterior entrance. The area of an attached sign face shall not exceed: . .. JaY�i6�sas6_i -22- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 2: � � � �� i. Twentv-four sauare feet in total si�n face area: or ii. Three bercent (3%1 of the brimarv facade area not to exceed thirtv-six sauare feet in total si�n face area. Such si�ns are limited to one of the followin� si�n tvbes: channel letters mounted directiv to the buildin� flat cut out letters. contour cabinet, illuminated capsule, si�n abblied to awnin� brovided awnin� is externallv illuminated, letters on backer banels if desi�ned as an inte�ral bart of the si�n and anv other si�n tvbe of a hi�her aualitv of desi�n if a broved bv the communitv develobment coordinator. Sauare/rectan�ular cabinet si�ns, back-lit awnin�s. si�ns on racewavs are brohibited. b. In addition to the attached si�n allowed in Section 3-1807.B.3.a above, corner lots or throu�h lots mav erect one attached si�n on each buildin� wall (or facadel abuttin� a street fronta�e. Anv such attached si�n shall not exceed the si�n face area specified in Section 3-1807.B.3.a above. c. � Where individual business establishments with exterior entrances are located in a single building multi-tenant buildings, or as part of a business/office complex or shopping center, attached signs shall be designed according to a common theme including similar style, color, materials or other characteristics to provide a sense of uniformity. Changes to individual tenant signage shall be reviewed for compliance with the established or projected theme of the development site. d. � Proj ecting signs may be used as a type of attached sign in the Downtown (D) and Tourist (T) Districts, unless otherwise permitted by the community development coordinator. They shall be installed with a minimum eight-foot clearance from the bottom of the sign to grade or the sidewalk Proj ecting signs shall comply with encroachment into setback and rights-of-way Section 3-908. The communitv develobment director coordinator mav bermit such si�ns for second storv or businesses above the first storv in the Downtown and Tourist Districts if thev meet all other criteria for attached si�na�e. JaY�i6�sas6_i -23- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 2� e. �. Business establishments with rear facades with rear bublic entrances facin� barkin� lots or rear bublic entrances facin� Clearwater Harbor or Mandalav Channel with boatin� access mav erect one additional attached si�n not exceedin� sixteen sauare feet in area above or adiacent to the rear entrance provided such si�n is not a traditional cabinet si�n or channel letters erected on a racewav. £� Gasoline pump island canopies mav be permitted one attached si�n on the canobv fascia facin� a bublic ri�ht-of-wav brovided such si�n does not exceed ei�ht sauare feet in total si�n face area. Sidewalk signs. Primarv bermitted retail and restaurant uses mav erect one double sided sidewalk si�n fortv-two inches in hei�ht and twentv-four inches in width in accordance with the followin� brovisions, but onlv in connection with the brimarv bermitted use. Retail_ restaurant or other uses which are accessorv to another use are not allowed to disblav sidewalk si gns. a. Displav of Si�n. Sidewalk si�ns shall be displaved onlv durin� the hours the business is oben and shall be moved indoors at the close of business. b. Location. i. Sidewalk si�ns shall be placed on the sidewalk in front of the business erectin� the si�n within its linear fronta�e. ii. The nearest point of the sidewalk si�n shall be no more than two feet from the buildin� wall. However_ in the Cleveland Street Cafe District in the Downtown zonin� district_ the nearest boint shall be five feet from the buildin� wall. iii. A minimum bedestrian bath of at least four feet shall be maintained at all times. iv. Sidewalk si�ns shall not imbede in�ress or e�ress to or from a business entrance. be located within a drive aisle. arking area or on anv landscabed area_ nor block anv fire hvdrant access or visibilitv or be located within the visibilitv trian�le of intersections or drivewavs. c. Desi�un Criteria i. Sidewalk si�n frames shall be constructed of durable wood or metal and bresent a finished abbearance. Sidewalk si�ns JaY�i6�sas6_i -24- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 2: known as wind signs mav have a blastic frame and base with or without wheels. Frames shall subbort black or �reen chalkboards. black wet marker boards or rofessionallv desi�ned advertisements/bosters of a durable material with a clear_ non-�lare brotective coverin�. Frame and base colors shall be limited to a metallic silver/�rev. black white or be a stained wood. Flexibilitv with re�ard to this desi�n criteria mav be �ranted bv the communitv develobment coordinator in order to achieve a creativelv desi�ned si�n usin� a barticular svmbol or lo�o indicative of the tvbe of business and services being advertised. ii. Plastic si�ns, white marker boards, letter track panels (for manuallv chan�eable cobvL acrvlic/plastic panels, hand ainted and sbrav bainted cobv. tri-folded si�ns. bases with hin�ed feet that fold flat and other similar features and si�n desi�ns shall be prohibited. Swin�er stvle sidewalk si�ns shall also be brohibited unless of a uniaue desi�n as determined bv the communitv develobment coordinator. iii. Sidewalk si�ns shall not be illuminated nor contain movin� arts or have balloons. streamers. bennants or similar adornment attached to them. iv. Sidewalk si�ns shall not be attached to anv structure�.bole. obiect_ or si�n. d. Permit Reauired Yearlv. A permit for a sidewalk si�n shall be obtained on a vearlv basis. A bermit abblication with a sketch hoto or drawin� of the sidewalk si�n and the reauired fee shall be submitted and abbroved brior to the blacement of a sidewalk si�n on public or private propertv. Sidewalk si�ns to be placed in a bublic ri�ht-of-wav shall also submit evidence of �eneral liabilitv insurance in the amount of one million dollars in a form accebtable to the Citv_ with the Citv named as additional insured. A bermit shall onlv authorize the si�n submitted alon� with the bermit a blication. Anv chan�es to the abbroved si�n will reauire the business owner to obtain a new bermit. e. Removal bv the Citv. The Citv shall have the authoritv to secure remove or relocate anv sidewalk si�n located in the public ri�ht-of- wav if necessarv in the interest of bublic safetv_ in emer�encv situations, or if the si�n is not in compliance with anv brovisions of this section. 5. � Transit and shelter signs. Signs are permitted on transit shelters approved in accordance with Article 3 Division 22 of this Communitv Development JaY�i6�sas6_i -25- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 2i Code, subject to the following restrictions: The advertising contained in the transit shelter shall be limited to the "downstream" end wall (furthest from approaching transit vehicles) for a two-sided or flared and secured panel. b. Lighting of advertising materials shall be limited to back-lighting. No advertising poster shall exceed twentv-four �4 square feet in area, or be greater than six feet in height and four feet in width. d. The total number of transit shelters containing advertising shall not exceed fiftv �8 within the Clearwater planning area provided in the interlocal agreement between the city and county in effect as of January 14, 1992. 6. � Certain chan�eable messa�e and copv si�ns. a. Electronic chan�eable messa�e si�ns shall be permitted for a facilitv or venue that has seatin� for more than two thousand beoble on brobertv that exceeds thirtv-five acres provided it meets the following criteria: (a) it is located on public property and (b) it serves a significant public purpose directiv related to the facilitv or venue, and (c) the sign type will meet the following purposes of ��this Division 18, to wit: (1) the sign will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [ Section 3-1802.F], (2) the sign will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adj oining sites [ Section 3-1802.J], (3) the sign will not interfere with or obstruct the vision of motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [ Section 3-1802.K], and (4) the sign will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [�eQt�e�- ��Section 3-1802.L]. Consistent with the general standards in 3-18045, the approval or disapproval shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on such sign. b. Anv sign mav include an area for manuallv changeable cobv rovided the si�n meets all of the area and desi�n reauirements set forth in Division 18_ includin� but not limited to anv and all criteria that limits si�n area bv bercenta�e or anv reauirement that reauires anv color coordination or other such desi�n criteria. 7. � Nonconforming uses. Any nonconforming use, which would be entitled to a sign if it were conforming, shall be permitted to erect the maximum amount of allowable signage in the district in which the use is located. C. On-premise signs in public parks and on school �ounds. In anv bublic bark or JaY�i6�sas6_i -26- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 on anv school �rounds in anv zonin� district_ the followin� si�ns are bermitted. 1. One freestandin� entrv si�n for each mai or entrv into a school or a park of not more than twentv sauare feet in total si�n face area. 2. The hei�ht of the si�n shall not exceed six feet. 3. A freestandin� si�n shall be installed in a landscaped area consistin� of shrubs and/or �uround cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the si�n and shall include the address of the propertv on which the si�un is to be located. Section 3-1808�&'�. - Comprehensive sign program. A. General principles. 1. The intent of the comprehensive sign program is to provide private property owners and businesses with flexibility to develop innovative, creative and effective signage and to improve the aesthetics of the City of Clearwater. 2. The minimum sign standards established in this Division 18 �e� ensure that signage will not have an adverse impact on the aesthetics, community character and quality of life of the City of Clearwater. The city recognizes, however, that in many circumstances, there are innovative and creative alternatives to minimum standard signage which are desirable and attractive and will enhance community character and individual property values. 3. The purpose of the comprehensive sign program is to provide an alternative to minimum standard signage subject to flexibility criteria which ensure that alternative signage will not have an adverse impact on the aesthetics, community character and quality of life of the City of Clearwater. B. Permitted signage. 1. Signage which is proposed as part of a Comprehensive Sign Program may deviate from the minimum sign standards in terms of number of signs per business or parcel of land, maximum area of a sign face per parcel of land and the total area of sign faces per business or parcel of land, subj ect to compliance with the flexibility criteria set out in �'�� Section 3- 1808.C. A Comprehensive Sign Program shall be approved pursuant to the provisions set out in Section 4-1008. Prohibited signs in �3 Section 3- 1804 are not eligible for a Comprehensive Sign Program. Electronic changeable message signs_ back-lit awnings_ cabinet signs_ and racewav si�ns are not eli�ible to be utilized as si�ns as part of a Comprehensive JaY�i6�sas6_i -27- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 2� Slgri i�T'OgT'aril. 2. As part of a comprehensive sign program, the community development coordinator shall review all sign types (freestanding, attached, windows, interior site directional, etc.) for the business and/or the development parcel to achieve compliance in so far as possible with these current regulations. A master sign plan for shopping centers, including all out parcels, and office complexes shall include all types of signs for all tenants/uses within the development parcel. The community development coordinator may allow for flexibility in reviewing the master sign plan if it results in a substantially improved and comprehensive proposal. With a master sign plan, the community development coordinator may permit interior site directional signs at a size and location(s) related to the development proj ect, with up to a maximum height of six feet. C. Flexibility criteria. 1. Architectural theme. a. The signs proposed in a comprehensive sign program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development and shall be constructed of materials and colors which reflect an integrated architectural vocabulary for the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of all freestanding and attached signs proposed in a comprehensive sign program shall be demonstrably more attractive than signs otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum signs standards. All signs must be architecturally integrated into/with the design of the building and/or site using similar and coordinated design features, materials and colors, etc. 2. The height of all freestanding signs proposed through the comprehensive sign program shall relate to the design of the sign and shall not exceed fourteen �4 feet in height, except in the D and T Districts, the height shall not exceed six feet in height excebt for si�ns associated with bubliclv- owned brobertv and/or bublic broiects which are architecturallv and aestheticallv inte�rated into a fence and/or wall. 3. Lighting. Any lighting that is internal to the si�n letters or �rabhic elements (e.�.. internallv lit or back-lit, or that is indirect exterior li�htin�. e.g._ goose neck lightingl proposed as a part of a comprehensive sign program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off at midnight or when the business is closed, whichever is later. 4. Height, area, number and location of signs. The height, area, number and JaY�i6�sas6_i -28- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 2! location of signs permitted through the Comprehensive Sign Program shall be determined by the Community Development Coordinator based on the following criteria: overall size of site, relationship between the building setback and sign location, frontage, access and visibility to the site, intended traffic circulation pattern, hierarchy of signage, scale and use of the project, consistency with Beach by Design, Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan or any other applicable special area plan and submittal of a master sign plan for the development parcel/project. Additionally, the maximum permitted sign area shall be based on the following formula when evaluated against the above criteria: a.� Attached signs—The maximum area permitted for attached signage shall range from one percent up to a maximum of six percent of the building facade to which the sign is to be attached. In no event shall the size of an attached si�un exceed one hundred fiftv sauare feet. For re�ional malls_ the maximum size of anv attached si�n that is otherwise allowed shall not exceed six percent of the buildin� facade facin� the street_ but in no case more than three hundred sauare feet. b.� Freestanding signs—The maximum permitted area of all freestanding signs on a site shall not exceed the range of sign area permitted by the street frontage or building facade calculation methods set forth in �eQt�e�o��.'�.' .�. .��' Section 1807.B.l.c.i. and ii. 5. Community character. The signage proposed in a comprehensive sign program shall not have an adverse impact on the community character of the City of Clearwater. 6. Property values. The signage proposed in a comprehensive sign program will not have an adverse impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 7. Elimination of unattractive signage. The signage proposed in a comprehensive sign program will result in the elimination of existing unattractive signage and nonconformin� si�na�e and will result in an improvement to the appearance of the parcel proposed for development in comparison to signs otherwise permitted under the minimum sign standards. 8. Special area or scenic corridor plan. The signage proposed in a comprehensive sign program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. Section 3-1809. - Severabilitv. JaY�i6�sas6_i -29- Item # 6 Attachment number 4 \nPage 3i A. Generallv: severabilitv where less speech results. If anv bart_ section_ subsection ara�rabh. subbara�rabh. sentence. bhrase. clause. term. or word of this Division 18 is declared or held to be invalid or unconstitutional bv anv court of combetent iurisdiction. such declaration or holdin� shall not affect anv other bart. section. subsection_ baragrabh_ subbaragrabh_ sentence_ bhrase_ clause_ term_ or word of this Division 18 or in Article 8(definitions and rules of constructionl of this Communitv Develobment Code. even if such severabilitv would result in less sbeech. whether bv subi ectin� breviouslv exembt si�ns to this Communitv Development Code's permittin� reauirements, or otherwise. B. Severabilitv of pr'ovisions pertainin� to billboards and other prohibited si�ns and sign-tvpes. Without diminishin� or limitin� in anv wav the declaration of severabilitv set forth above or elsewhere in this Division 18. or in the Communitv Development Code, or in anv adoptin� ordinance, if anv bart, section, subsection. ara�rabh. subbara�rabh. sentence. bhrase. clause. term. or word of this division or anv other law is declared or held to be unconstitutional or invalid bv anv court of competent iurisdiction, such declaration or holdin� shall not affect anv other bart_ section_ subsection_ baragrabh_ subbaragrabh_ sentence_ bhrase_ clause_ term_ or word of this Division 18 or Article 8 of this Communitv Develobment Code that bertains to brohibited si�ns_ includin� sbecificallv the brohibition on billboards and those si�ns and si�n-tvbes brohibited and not allowed under Section 3-1804 of this Article 3. JaY�i6�sas6_i -30- Item # 6 Attachment 2- Clearwater Business Ta�k Fvrce Rec4mmendatians and City Staf'f Res�anses - Revised July 11, 24�12 t)pportunity #4 �C?riginal St�ff Comments Resdlution at Dec. 14, 2011 Cr�uncil Meeting ��'Pos� Sign Code Reuisi�ns in # ��; C?rdinanee Na. 8343-12 1 Allow businesses on corner lots and through lots to have an attached sign facing each Staff supports revision. Staff and Executive Committee are in Added provision to allow a frontage as of right instead of requiring a property/business owner to go through the agreement. sign on each frontage abutting comprehensive sign program. a street on a corner or through lot - Section 3-1807.B.3.b- page 23 of Attachment 1 2 So long as not exceeding total allowable signage square footage, allow businesses wit Staff supports if intention is same as #1 Staff and Executive Committee are in Same as above rear facades to have an attached sign facing each frontage as of right instead of above. agreement. requiring a property/business owner to go through the comprehensive sign program. 3 Allow businesses with rear facades facing parking lots with rear public entrances or Would like an opportunity to review the Staff agrees that businesses directly fronting on Added provision to allow rear facades facing rights-of-way or water to erect a 16 square foot sign provided such waterfront signage issue. the water and accessible by the boating public attached signs in the area signs are not erected on a raceway or is not a traditional sign cabinet design. should be allowed to have signage. However, above/adjacent to the rear staff would like to conduct further research entrance facing a parking lot into potential signage issues far those properties or Clearwater Harbor or that front on a beach or are otherwise Mandalay Channel- see inaccessible by boat. Section 3-1807.B.3.d - page 23 of Attachment 1 4 Review formulas for attached, freestanding and monument signs but utilize a different Some of the issues above are included in Staff and the Executive Committee are in Revised formulas incorporated formula than proposed: one attached sign, 24 square feet per business establishment this recommendation. Furthermore it agreement. into the ordinance based on with a principal exterior entrance; one freestanding sign 24 square feet; or for attached should be clarified that staff supports the the concepts presented to City siQns one sign up to 3% of the building facade but not exceeding 36 feet. Lots on additional 15 sq. ft. for freestanding signs Council. See Section 3- corner or through lots may erect a sign on each face facing a right-of-way based on the on corner lots. 1807.B.1 which regulates same formula; for freestandine siens one sign up to 3% of the building facade or 1 freestanding signs in the C, O, square foot of signage for every three feet of linear frontage, whichever is less. Sign I, and IRT Districts (pages 18- criteria is required. Corner ar through lots may erect a sign on each frontage facing a 20 of Attachment 1), Section 3 public right-of-way provided maximum area of the two signs shall not exceed the total 1807.B.2 which regulates maximum allowable area facing a right-of-way, plus an additional 15 square feet. The monument signs in the T and business could choose to erect a sign on the corner or on the primary frontage with the D Districts (pages 20 - 22 of increased area; for monument siens there is a proposal to revise this section based on Attachment 1); and Section 3- similar concepts established for attached and freestanding signs and allow up to six 1807.B.3 which regulates feet in height provided certain design criteria is met. attached signs in all non- residential districts (pages 22 - 24 of Attachment 1) � W s � v � � 5 Increase timeframe for determining a nonconforming sign has been abandoned from Chamber of Commerce and staff agreed to Staff and Executive Committee are in Renamed and revised 30 days to 180 days. 120 days but staff does not object to 180 agreement with 180 days. "Abandoned Signs" provision days. to "Discontinued Signs." Nonconforming signs located on sites which have not been used for 6 months must be removed- see Section 3- 1804.D - page 4 of Attachment 1 and Section 8- 102 definition of Sign, discontinued - pages 62 - 63 of the Ordinance 6 Allow greater flexibility for window signage but utilize a formula that may be easier t Current sign provisions allow window Staff and Executive Committee are in Revised to allow window administer. This would entail an increase from the existing 25% of the window pane signs up to 8 sq.ft. in area provided such agreement. signs up to 25% of the and provide an amount not to exceed on any faqade. signs do not exceed 25% of window area window area provided the and all window signs cannot exceed 24 sq. area of all window signs does ft. Staff is supportive of removing the 8 sq. not exceed 50 sq. ft. The ft. limitation to allow more flexibility with current code limits inidividual such signage. signs to 8 square feet and a cumulative area of 24 square feet - see Section 3-1806.0 - page 12 of Attachment 1 7 Allow graphics on awnings in addition to the allowable sign area but have some Would like to discuss with outside legal Staff and Executive Committee are in Created new provision that limitations on area and clarify what is actually permitted. For example, graphic/artistic counsel to determine best way to agreement. allows a graphic element in element would be permitted. The graphic element is limited to 25% of the awning. implement and not create issues with "art." addition to the permitted attached sign area provided the element does not exceed 25% of the awning surface area or 16 square feet, whichever is less. If a business opts to include text and a graphic element, such text and element shall be governed by the attached sign area provisions - see Section 3 1805.F - page 7 of Attachment 1 Clarify the City's position on the prohibition of human signage and vehicle signage far This issue was not addressed by Chamber Staff and Executive Committee are in A new definition of vehicle businesses. but staff has already requested that outside agreement. sign has been proposed to legal counsel review the issue. provide clear standards of what constitutes a vehicle sign - Section Section 8-102 - page 66 of Ordinance. . No 5 v v � m N 9 Add language further clarifying the prohibition of moving/revolving signage. Non-substantive amendment - staff does Staff and Executive Committee are in Added language to the not object. agreement. prohibited sign section further clarifying that signs that scintillate, blink, flutter or appear to display motion are prohibited - see Section 3- 1804.P - page 5 of Attachment 1 10 Add language regarding the orientation of freestanding drive-thru signs. Non-substantive amendment - staff does Staff and Executive Committee are in Added language that requires not object. agreement. freestanding menu signs to be oriented toward the vehicles using the drive-through. Additionally staff is proposing to increase the area for attached menu signs from 4 to 6 square feet and freestanding menu signs from 16 to 24 square feet - see Section 3- 1806.I - page 10 of Attachment 1 11 Increase the amount of square footage for an address from 3 sq. ft. to 8 sq. ft. Require City Council directed staff at wark session Staff and Executive Committee are in ageement Increased the amount of area all addresses to be displayed in Arabic numbers. where Chamber proposal was discussed to with 1 sq. ft. per address number. allowed for property addresses allow 1 sq. ft. per address number. 8 sq. for non-residential uses from 3 ft. is excessive. sq. ft. to 1 sq. ft. per each number in the address - see Section 3-1806.A - page 8 of Attachment 1 12 Consider allowing for permitted electronic changeable message boards, especially The Planning and Development Staff does not support and the Executive No change to be made based public purpose electronic message boards. Department does not support. Committee agreed not to pursue at this time. on Council discussion in December. 13 Increase the frequency of inessages displayed on pre-existing permitted message The Planning and Development Staff disagrees with the proposed approach and Outside Legal Counsel agrees boards to 15 seconds per message. Department recommends no change. believes input from the City's outside legal with staffs recommendation; counsel should be obtained. however, revisions have been proposed to clarify that electronic changeable message signs that change no more frequently than once every six hours are grandfathered - see Section 3-1804.E - page 4 of Attachment 1 5 v v � m w 14 Consider allowing the use of outdoor umbrellas at businesses with logos so long as the Need to discuss with outside legal counsel. Staff supports requesting input from the City's Due to potential risk in the logo is not that of the principle business. outside legal counsel on this issue. event of a content- based constitutional challenge, staff and the City's outside legal counsel recommend no revision be made to allow signs on umbrellas. 15 Allow sandwich board signs for all business owners as long as businesses comply wit Staff only supports sandwich board signs Staff and Executive Committee are not in Created provisions to allow the sandwich board sign ordinance. Revoke the permit for a period of five years in the along traditional urban corridors. agreement. retail and restaurant uses in event the business is found to violate the sandwich board sign ordinance three times. the City's nonresidential zoning districts to have sidewalk signs provided certain design criteria is met and a permit obtained on a yearly basis- see Section 3- 1807.B.4 - pages 24 - 25 of Attachment 1. Staff only supports such signs along the City's traditional urban corridors which are located in Downtown, certain areas of Clearwater Beach and North Greenwood. 16 Allow banner signs up to ten days priar to annual non-profit and City sponsored Approval is reserved for the City Manager. Executive Committee understands these may be No revision needed as events, holidays, festivals and picnics. allowed if approved by the City Manager. temporary signs are allowed for special events (see Section 3-1806.D.2 and Section 3- 1806.R , pages 8-9 & 12-13 of Attachment 1 17 Amend Section 3-1805(c)(1) of the Code to increase the allowable size to 24 square Staff supports the revision. Staff and Executive Committee are in Increased size of temporary feet. agreement. grand opening signs from 12 square feet to 24 square feet - See Section 3-1806.D.1 - page 8 of Attachment 1 � W � s � v � � � Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 � 0 ' } �� U TO: Clty COUriCll From: Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning and Development Director Date: July 19, 2011 RE: Permitted Size of Certain Temporary Signs - TA2012-04005/Ordinance No. 8343-12 Upon review of existing Community Development Code Section 3-1805, Signs Permitted without a Permit (proposed to be renumbered to 3-1806), the Planning and Development Department and the City's outside legal counsel believes clarification should be made as to the meaning of "total sign face area" as it is applied in this section. There is no definition for this term and the definition of sign area does not provide clear guidance. The current proposed Ordinance No. 8343-12 and the accompanying staff report do not fully address this issue, therefore, Staff is raising it in this memo and seeking City Council direction. Of concern is how "total sign face area" applies to the amount of signage allowed for various temporary signs such as construction signs, real estate signs and other temporary yard signs, including those for political candidates, and garage sales. Based on the amount of sign area cited in the Code, and in conjunction with a review of the typical signs currently erected in the field, staff believes "total sign face area" was meant to include all sign faces and in particular both sign faces of a double-sided sign. For example, the Code allows six (6) square feet of "total sign face area of each sign" for temporary yard signs for political candidates in residential areas and six (6) square feet in "total sign face area on parcels of land designated for residential purposes" for temporary real estate signs. Upon review of political candidates signs currently found in Clearwater, most are single sided and three (3) square feet in sign face area. More size variety was found for real estate signs primarily due to the number of smaller signs that can be attached to the main real estate sign. Staff found sizes ranging from 2.5 square feet to 5.8 square feet. Examples of both sign types are included in Attachment 2. Based on the fact signs for political candidates in residential areas seem to be three square feet and most real estate signs are four square feet, Staff is proposing to revise the code to allow four square feet in area. With regard to those signs in multi-family and commercial areas, there is much more variety in the sizes found in the field. Based on the limited number of signs staff measured, such signs range from 16 — 32 square feet in area (per sign face). The current code 1 Item # 6 Attachment number 6 \nPage 2 allows 32 square feet and based on Staff's beliefs about the intent, 16 square feet would be allowed. Staff is recommending the ordinance be clarified to allow signs xx square feet in area. Furthermore, we recommend clarifying that when determining area of a double sided sign, only one sign face is counted. For those signs erected in a"V" or split face arrangement, each sign face would be counted toward the maximum allowed. Staff is seeking your policy direction on this matter and will revise the ordinance accordingly. Attachment: Attachment 2 Z Item # 6 5 � v � � POI1t1C ��i`1 �� Candidate s �, ��. � � D v � s � m � � � � s m � 5 v v � m N � W � � ,, , , .i� ; ,+�, '., , � , < �;, � 1 � . . �; , �k, , ..- . � s � v � � W Commercial Area � W � s � v � � � ercial � W � s � v � � � � W � l� , � � ,� �; � � � ;�; � :� � � �, � "" � �. � � �' � �; � � s � v � � � � W.Z �'" � ,�. t� `' ,`� � '': �. �% � � ; � °�r '� �; �"' s � � � � ° � ,.. ; � �u r; ° r ; +� "" ?�r. � 5 v v � m � � W � � j�l ....... � �II�� i :. ,, � '�," , ! l .� .. � / �I .. � � ��k `M��`,'�, ��=„ .. ,,,, ��''; s � v � � � � W � eal Estate Si ns — Commercial Area g s � v � � � Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 WilIiam D. Brinton I30112i��c€placeBot�levarcl• S�itcl5� �� r�a�� 3zza� ' 9f}�.398. 3911 ��L�in A T T O R i� E Y 5 A T L A w 90�4 . 34G . 5537 94�. 39G . 4X�3 f�aY lX�3rinton c�,i?edaw.co€n �uanv.idaw.cont r,�ly 3a, �o�z City Council of Ciearwater, Floz•ida an.d Mayor George Cretekos Clearwatez• City Hall, 3rd Floor 112 S. Oseeola Ave. Clearwater, FL 3375fi Re: �ra�ased O�•dinance 8343-12 perfaining fo ArticIe 3 and Article 8 of tlxe City of Clearwater's Com�nuni#y Development Code Dea� Co�ncil Metnbers and Mayor Cretekos: We have wor�ed wiih the City Attorney's Offiee and the City Pianning and D�veloprnent Ofi'�ce in crafting for your consideration amend�nents to Article 3 and Azticle $ af the Community Deve�opment Code, inel�ding a new and restatec� Di�vision 18 (Signs) ta A.rticle S. Tk�e prapased oi•dinance has had substantial input fram legal and planning pxofessianals familiar with signage regulations and constitutional issues iYnpacting land use regulations £a� signs. We have atso dzawn fram our eYperience in defendin.g the City of Clearwater and othez• municipalities in Florida and aeross #he country in praviding input in this matter, as well as the ongoing legal challenges confronting local governments in pending Iitigation and appeals. It is important to note: • The City's sign reguIations have not been ��pdated in their entirety for many yeaxs. e There have been nn.any legal d�cisions over the past th�•ee decades that impact sign regulation�. • There is a need for local governnients to revisit the entir�ty of their sign reguiatio�s on a pe�•iodic basis, at least every tan years. • Modifications and replacements af sign regulations are useful ta zemave superfluous p�ovisians, codified actual practices, and strengthened their sign regulatio�s against constitutianal challenge. • Reviewing and �pdatir�g of municipal sign regulations is recommended by legai professionai across tk�e country wha deal with First Annez�dment issues on a regular basis.. IE�ii�:�: Attachment number 8 \nPage 2 City Council of Clea��vvate�•, Flarida and Mayoi• Geoz•ge Cretekos July 30, 20I2 Page 2 We ha�e assembled into tabbed notebooks the written material refe�•enc�d in the p��oposed Whereas clauses, as well as separately referenced and set forth below in this �etter. This material has also been pzovided in an elech•anic fo�7nat for your use and reference. In support of the proposed amendments and modificatians, the following poin:ts are accurate statements for purposes of findings and dete�7ninations. In addition, fi•om discussion� with your staff, it is rny understanding that the City is desirous of achie�ing the goals c�escribed herein, l. It is appropriate to update an.d re�vise the City af Clearwater's Coriu-nunity Developrnent Code relative to signs, and to d�lete sections, subsections, paragraphs, subpa�•agraphs, divisions, subdivisions, clauses, sentences, phrases, words, and pro�isians of the exisiing ardinance which are obsolete or superfluous, and/or which have not been enforced, andfor w�ich are not enforceabie, and/o�• which would be severable 6y a co��'t of competent jurisdiction. 2. It is appro��ia#e to ensure that the Community Developmen:t Cade as it reiates to signs is in co�plianee with all constitutional and other Iegal require�nents. The pu�pose and intent pro�isions of the Ciiy of Clearwater's signage regulatian:s shouId be even more detailed tha� the� a�•e now so as to fi.ai�ther desc�ibe the bene�'icial aesthetie and other effects of the City's sign regulations, and to r�aff��n that the sig�. i•egulations ai•e conce��ed with the secondary effects of speech and are not t��signed to censor speech or zegulaie the �iewpoint of the spea�Cer. 3. The City of Cleax•water's sign regulations have undergone judicial i•eview in thze� reported final decisions durin� tne past three decades, including Don's Po�•tu Signs, Inc. v. City of Cleaj��ijate�•, 829 �'.2d l.QSI (11th Cir. 1987), cet�t. denied, �85 U.S. 981 (1988), �irnrnitt v. City of Cleay�titjuter, 782 F. Supp. S86 (M,D.FIa. 1991), affirmed and rnodi�ed, 985 F.2d 1565 (11th Cir. 1993), and Granrte State �trYcloor• �idver•tisi�tg, Inc. v. City of Cleaf�ivater, Flcr. (Gj•�nite- Clear�t>c�ter), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312 (M.D.FIa, 2002}, aff'c� in pc�r•t a�ad r•ev'd in par�t on othe�° gt�oi�nds, 351 F.3d 1112 (l lth Cir. 2003), ce�tt. deniec�, 543 U.S. 813 �S (2004), and �as also been the subject a� a non-final preliminary decision in The Corrrplete Ar�gler•, L.L.C. v. Ciry of Clearsvater, Fla., 607 �'.S�pp,2d 132b (M.D.PIa. 2d09), whzch was settied bef�re a final decision was reached. 4. Th� issue af content neutrality in the First Arnendment context has been adt�ressed in Hill v. Colot{ado, 530 U.S. 703, 719-20 (2C100); that the conte�t neutrality o� the City's own sign z•egulations was eYtensively addzess�d in the published decision of the district court in Gr�anite Siate-Cleartivatet�, and that the issue of content-neuti�ality has been ac�dressed by ather e�ecisions, including Solantic v. �Veptarne Betrch, 410 F.3d 1250 (l lth Cir. 2005), Covenant ILledfa of S.G, LLC ��. City of rV. Chaj•leston, 493 F.3d �21, 432 (4�� Cir, 2007), and in H.D. V.- G��eekto�vn, LLC v. City of Detraoi�, 568 F.3d 609, 621-622 (6th Cir. 2009). IE�ii�:�: Attachment number 8 \nPage 3 City Council of Clearwater, Flarida and Mayo�• George Cretekas July 30, 2012 Page 3 S. The issue of content neut�•ality of the sign reg�lations of another nearby municipality was recently add��essed by a state appellate panel in Shanklrn v. State, 2009 WL 6b67913 (F1a,Cir.Ct. App. Div.}. 6. Unde�• cu�7•ent �urisprudence, the City of Ciearwater's sign regu�ations may 6e under-inclusive in their reach io se�-ve the City's interests in ae�thetics and ti•af%c safeiy, whi�e ai the same ti�ne balaneing the interests protected by the Fi�st Amendment [see, e.g., 11�Iernbers of City Council ��. TaxpayeYS for• Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 {198�); Cordes, Sign Ragi�laiion After Ladu�: EYamining the Evolving Limits of Fizst Amendment P�•otection, 7� Neb.L.Rev. 3b (1995)�, and the City of Clearwate� may from time ta time modiiy its sign regulations so as to provide additionai lirraitations to further serve the City's interests in aesti�eties ancUor t��affie safety. 7. The lirriitation� on the height, size, numb�r, and setback of signs, adapted in Ordinance 8343-12, are based upon the sign typas and sign fixnctions. 8. The sign types desc�ibed in Ordinance 8343-12 are related in other ways to #he functions tlxey ser�e and the p�operties to which they relate (e.g., subdivision entrance signs are allowed at subdivision entrances, real estate signs ai•e directly related #o the propei-ty on which they ara posted o�•, in the case of directional signs, are ii�nited to a cei�tain distance from th� propei�ty to which th:ey relate [see Bond, Making Sense of Billboarc�. Law: Justifying Prohibitions and E�emptions, 88 Mich.L.Re�. 2�82 (1980)]). 9. Lirnitations on various typ�s of signs by the fiinction they serve are also reiated to the zoning districts for the propei�ties on �vhich they a��e located. Vat�ious signs that serve and function as signage �or pai�ticular land uses, such as dri�e-iluu restaurants or for businesses within a tourist district, are allowed sarr�e additional features or have differen.t eriteria in recognition of the differir�g or speciai functions served by those Ianc� uses, 6ut not based upon ar�y inteni to favor any particuiar �iewpoint or control the subject matter of public discourse. 10. The sign regulations adopted in O�•dinance $3�3-12 still allo�v adequate alte��native means af communicatians, such as newspaper advei�tising, internet advei�ising and connmunications, advei`�ising in shoppers and pamphlets, adve��tising in telephone boa�s, �d�ertising on eable television, advei•tising on UHF andlor VHF television, adve�•tising on AM andlor FNI �•adio, ad�ertising on sa#eilite �•adio, adve�tising on i�ternet radio, advertising via direct �ail, and otker avenues of comtnunieation available in the City of Clear�n�atei [see State v. J& JPainting, 167 N.3. Super. 384, 400 A.2d 1204, �205 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979};13oc�rd of Ti•ustees of State Univej�sity of �Vetiv Yot•k v. �`o�c, 492 U,S. �b9, 477 (1989); Gj�een v. City of Raleigh, 523 �'.3d 293, 305-306 (��h Cir. 2007);1Vase� Je��elers v. Crty of Concoj•d, 513 F.3d 2? (1st Ci�•. 2008); Strlliv�rn v. City afA�rgarsta, 511 �.3d 16, 43-44 (lst Cir. 2007); La Toisr� v, City of Fayette��ille, 4�2 F.3d 109�, 1097 (Sth Ci�•. 2006); Reed v. To�vn of Gilbe3•t, 587 F.3d 866, 980- 981 {9th Ciz•. 2009)]. 11. The a�endments io Article 3, Division 18, and to .A1�ticle S, as set forth in Ordinance $3�3-12, a�•e consistent with al� applicable policies of the City's adopted IE�ii�:�: Attachment number 8 \nPage 4 City Council of Cl�ai�water, Florida and Mayor George Cretekos July 30, 20f 2 Page � Comp�•ehensive Plan. These atnend�ents are nai in confliat with the public interest, nor will they �'esuit in incompatibie land uses. 12. Seetion 102 (Definitions) of Ai•tie�e 8(Definitions and Rules of Construction) should be updated, modified and eYpanded to complerr�ent revisions to Division � S(Signs) of Article 3{DeveIapment Siandards} of the City of Clearwater's Community Developrz�ent Code. 13. In Scadro� v. Ciry of Des Plarnes, 734 F. Supp. 1�37, 1442 (N.D.III. 1990} (pe�• Ro�n�r, J.), aff'cl, 989 F.2d 502 (Table}, 1993 WL 64838 at *2 (7�h Cir. 1993) (adopting analysis of distriet court), the SeVe11tY� C11CU1$ noted that five justices (Brennan, Black�nun, Burger, Stevens anc� Rehnquist} in �Yfet1•orrredia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. �90 (1981), believed that the Iimitec� eYCeptions to an ordi�ance's general prohibition of off premises ac�vertising were too insubstantial to constitute ctiscrim�nation on the basis of conteni. 1�. The dist�•ict cou��t in G�°anite State Oartc�oor� Advertising, I�rc. v. City of Cleart�=atef, Fla. (Gr•anite-Clear�s�jcater), 213 F,Supp.2d 1312, 133�k, �. 6 and 13�5-13�6 (iVI.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd rr� �part and ��ev'd in pc�rt orr other grounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 111$-1119 (11th Cir. 2003), cer•t. denred, 543 U.S. 8� 3�8 (2004), held that Article 3 in general was not content-based, notwithstanding de minirriis eYCept�ons such as k�oliday decorations [§ 3-1 S�S.D.�, garagelya�•d sale sigr�s �§ 3-1 SOS.H.], and mas�ina slip numbers [� 3-1805.T.]. 15. The defnition of "at�twork" shauld be updated (a) to more speci�'ically identify what is a�•twork, wl�le stiil providir�g that artwork does nat incluc�.e a representation specifically conveying the narrze of a business or a co�e�•cial message, and (b) to identify abjacts that are not intended to be cav�red within �he scope of land development regulations pertaining to signage in the conteYt of Chapte� 163 afth� Fiorida Statt�tes. 16. The definition for "sign, holiday decoration" shauld be deleted and replaced with a d�finition iQZ "decorations, holiday and seasonal" to identify objects t�at are not intended to be caver�d within the scope of land development r�gulaiions pei�aining to signage in t�e context of Chapter 163 of the Flarida Statutes. 17. Theze shaulc� be a c�efiniiion for "ele�ent, graphic" in connection with a sign, especially in conjunction with p�ovisions pea�taining to awnings o� lighting. � 8. The definition of "sign" should be clarified so that it ineludes a sign visible �rom a p�blic street ai• public sidewalk, as well as a public right-of-way. 19. Objects and devices such as artwork, holic�ay or seasonal decorations, cemetery rna�kez•s, machinery or ec�uipment signs (inciusive of vending �nachine signs), and rnemorial signs oi• tablets are nat wi#hin �he scope of what is intended ta be ��egulate�i ttuough "land development" regulations that pertain to signage under Chapte�• 1b3 of the F�orida Statutes. Th��•efore, the deiinition af "�ign" should be modified ta p�'avide that it daes not include objects and devices, such as artwoz•�, holiday or seasonal decoxations, cemetery trtarkers, machinery o� equipment signs {inciusi�e of vending machine signs), and memariai signs or tahlets, inasmuc� IE�ii�:�: Attachment number 8 \nPage 5� City Council of Clearwater, �'lox�da and Mayor George Cretekos July 3 �, 2012 Page S . as t�e foregoing are not sigr�age inten.ded ta regulated �y the land deveiopment regulations desc�•ibed in Section 163.3202 of Chapter lb3 of the Florida Statutes. 20. The definition of "sign, adopt a park" should be expanded and clariiied to "sign, adopt a pa�k or ackr�owledgement" that functions to recognize a sponsoring agency that has installed and maintained landscaping ai the site an city rights-of-way or city-owned p�•opei�ty where the landscaping is located oz recognizing g�•ant providers for other arnenities. 21. A defnition of "sign, cabinet" shauld be addeci to identify this sign type in connection with its reference in the regulations. 22, The definition of "sign, construction" should he �•e�ised #o identzfy the function served l�y this tempo�•ary sign type that distin:guishes the same fi•orn other temporary signs. 23. The cur�ent definition for "sign, a�aandoned" should be changed to "sign, discontinued," ta eliminate any issue that would �•et�ui�•e a determinatior� of t�e intent of the sign owner o�• sign operator, and to bette�• define w�at constitutes a sign that would be considered a prahibited sign because the sign {a) displays advertising for a product or service which is na longer available or displays advertising fo�• a business which is no longer licensed, (b) is blank, or (c) ad�ertises a businass that is no longer daing business a�• maintaining a presenee on the premises where the sign is displayed, �ut p��avic�ed that the foregoing ciz•cumstances for (a), (b) or {c) �ave continued for a period of at Ieast one hundred eighty days. 2�. The definition of "sign, eiec#ion" should be added to identify a temporary sign erected ar c�isplayed far the pu�pose of e�cpressing support or flpposition to a eandidate or stating a posiiian ��ega�•ding an issue upon which the vote�s of the Ciiy may vote. 25. The de�'inition fax "sign, exempt" is absolete, and the definition should be rer�aved and combined with the addition of Section 1803 (Exempt Signs) ta Divisian 3(Signs} in Article 3 (Developmen� Standards). 26. The definition of "sign, free e�pression" should be ac�ded to identify a sign that fiinctions ta eommunicate info�Ynation or views on �atters af public policy or public concern, or containing any other nancomrr�ercial message that is otherwise lawf�l. 27. The definii�on of "sign, garage-ya��d sale" should be added to identify a lawful tem�porary sign that fi�nctions to commun�cate information pertaining to the sale of personal p�•operty at o�• upon any residentially-zoned property located in the City. 28. The defnition for "sign, gasoline price display" shauld be re�ised ta �e-emphasize that the same is an on-site sign that fi.�nctions exclusively ta �isplay th� p�'ices of gasoline fo� sale, and continues to be a content-ne�tral sign category consistent with #he priar precedent of Hrll v. Calorado, 530 U.S. 703, 719-20 (2000). IE�ii�:�: Attachment number 8 \nPage 6 City Council of Clearwater, Flo�ida and Mayo� George Cretekos July 30, 2012 Page 6 29, The definition fox "sign, identification" shauld be �evised to clari�y that it serv�s #a indicate na more than tke name, address, company logo and occupation or function af an establishment or premises on which the sign is located. 30. The Model Land Development Code for Cities and Caunties, prepa�•ed in 1989 for the Florida Depa�-tment of Community Affa��•s hy #he UF College af Law's Center for Governmental R�sponsibility, et al., �•ecommer�ded at� eYerr�ption for signs incai•po�ated into rr�ae�Zinery and equipment by a manufactur�r or dist�•ibuto�•, which identify or advei�tise only the p�•oduct ar service dispensed by the machine o�' equipment, such as signs eustoma�•iIy affixe�i to vending machines, ne�vspaper �'acks, telephone booths, and gasolin� pumps. Therefoxe, a definition should be add�d for "sign, machinezy or ec�uipment" to identify objects that are rzot intenc�ed to be ca�ei�eci within the scope of land deve�opment ��egulations pei�aining to signa�e in the conteYt of Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, and that such objects incluc�e signs which are integral a�d incidental ta machinery or equiprneni, and that are incorparated into machine�y or equipment by a rr�anufacture�• or distribu�ar to identi�y or advex•tis� the product or serviee dispensed by the machine or equip�nant, such as signs customarily affixed or incarpo�'ated into vending machines, telephone booths, gasoline purnps, newspaper racks, eYpress mail drop-off bo;�es, and the lik�. 31. The definition of "sign, raceway" s�ouid be added to identify this sign type in eonnection with. its reference in tke regulations. 32. In additian to the defmition of "sign, warning," a defnition foi• "sign, safety" should be added to identify a sign that functians to provide a warning or caution of a dangeraus candition or situation that might not be readily appa�•ent o�• that poses a#h�eat of se��ious injuzy (e.g., gas Iine, high voltage, condemned building, etc.). 33. The definition of "sign, sidewalk," so�netimes referi�ed to as a sandwich boaz•d sign, should be add�d to identify this unic��e sign type in connection with the parametexs for its use in ihe land development regulations. 34. The districi court in Grcrnite State Oartdoola �dvertising, Inc. �J. City of Clecrryvrrter, Flrr. (Gt�anite-Cleaj•titi�ater j, 213 F.Su�p.2c� 1312, 133�, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (M.D.�'la. 2002), cff'd in part and r•ev'c� rn pc�r•t on other� groirnc�s, 351 F.3d 1112, 111 S-1 I 19 (11th Cir. 2003}, ce�•t. cle�ried, 5�3 U.S. 813 48 (200�), noted that signs are speech a�d can only be eategorizec� o� diffe�•entiated by what they say; that t�is �nakes it i�npassible ta overlook a sign's eontent or message in fo��mulating regulations and making exceptions fo�• #hose signs that are nai�'owly tailored ta a significant gavez•nmental inte��est of sa�ety {i.e., warning sign.$) [see GY•anrte- Clerar•1��ate1� at 1333]. 35. The dist�ict cou�•t in G��anite State Otrtdoor� �dve1•tising, Inc. v. City of Clecn�tivater, Fl�r. (Granite-Clear�water), 213 F.�upp.2d 1312, 1334, n, 6 and 1345-1346 (M.D.Fla. 2Q02), crf,f'd in perrt and rev'd in par�t on other gt�oirnds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 {llt� Cir, 2003}, cert. denied, 5�3 U.S. 813 �8 {2004), struck and severed the words "other objects" in the de�'inition of Section 8-102 in order to remove a conflict betwe�n Sectian 3-1806,B.3 (ailowing IE�ii�:�: Attachment number 8 \nPage 7 City Council of Clearwate�•, Flo�•ida and �ayor George Cretekos July 30, 2012 Page 7 attached signs} and Section 3-i 803.T (prohibiiing snipe signs that wou�d include attached signs to obj�cts otherr than those listed) [see Gr'Ri2lf�-ClBll7�z��ater• at 1335]. Accorc�ingly, the te:�t of the definitions in Section 5-102 [Section 102 of Article 8] should be revised to reflect the re�noval of the words "othe�• objects" and to restate the definition of "Sign, snipe" in the Co�ununity Development Code. 36. A definition foz "statutory sign" shoulc� be added ia identify a sign that is Iawfully i•equired by any statute or regulation of the State of Flo�•ida or the United States, and to identify such �ign types as e�empt fro� regulation unde� th� City's land development reguia#ions. 37, The � definition for "sign, � egulations. efinition o� "sign, temporary yard" is obsolete with the ac�ditian of a garage-yard sale" and the z�egulation af the latter in the land development 38. A definitian for "traf£'ic cantrol de�ice sign" shauld be added to identify the sign: types that a�•e e��mpt fi•om regulation under the City's land development regulations. A traff c control device sign, exempt from regulation under the City's land developrnent i•egulations fo�• signage, is any sign locatec� within t�e riglxt-af way that functions as a t�'afiic control device and that is described an:d identified in the Manual or� Unifo�•m Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and approved by the Federal High�vay Adrninistrator as the Natioz�al Standard, and that acco�'ding to t�ie MUTCD traffic contzo� device signs include thase signs that are classif ed and de�'ined by their function as regt�latory signs (that give notice of traffic laws o�' ��egulatio�s), warning signs (that give n�tice of a situation that might not readily be apparent), ar�d guide signs (that show ro�te designations, L�IT2Ct10113, distances, serviees, points of intei•est, and ather geagraphical, recreational, or cult��al info��natian). Th� classification of traffic control device signs is a logical classi�'ication for puiposes of establishi�.g an exemptian based upon their unic�ue putpose and fi�nction, and such. classificatia� is not impe�mi�sibly content-based under th� contro�ling pzeeedent of Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 7D3, 719-24 (2000). 39. It is app�opriate to si�bstitute a new defnition far vehicle sign that is similar to ane suggested in A��ticle VIII (Signs) of' the \�odel Lancl Developrnent Cade fo�• Cities and Counties, prepa��ed in 1989 for the Florida D�pa��ment of Community Affairs by the UF College of Law's Center for Goverrun.ental Responsib�lity and by a professional planner with Henigar a�d Ray Engineering Associates, Inc., and that is nearly identical to Section 7.OS.Ofl(Y) of the Land Devel�p�net�t Regulations of the Town o£ O�•ange Park, whieh were �pheld against a canstit�tianal challenge irt Per�kins v. Town of O1�ange Paf•k, 2006 WL 5988235 {Fla. Cir. Ct.j. 40. The de�nition fo�• "sign, vending" should be d�ieted and replaced with "sign, machinery and equipment" to clarify the objects excluded from the definition of "sign" and not intend�d to be regulated thi•augh "land d�velopment" regulaii�ns �nder Chapter 163 of the Flo�•ida Statutes. 41, Th� City af Cl�arwater is a resart cornmunity on the west eoast of the state with more than five miles of beaches on the Gulf of Mexico and that this city has an economic base which. relies heavily on tourism. In order to preserve the city as a desirable community in which IE�ii�:�: Attachment number 8 \nPage 8 City Coun.cil of Cieaz•water, Flo��ida and Mayor Geo�•ge Cretekos July 30, 2012 Page 8 to li�e, vacation and do business, a pleasing, visually-attractive urban environrnent is of foremost importance. The �•egulation of signs within the ciiy is a highly contributive m�ans by which ta achieve this desired end, and the sign regulations in 4�•dinance 83�3-12 are pr�pareci with the intent of e�ancing the urban environment and pramo#ing #he continued well-being af the crty. �2. Article II, Sectiorz 7, of the Florida Constitution, as adapted in l 968, provzdes tha� it shall be the policy o£ the state to conserve and protect its seenic beauty. The regu�a�ian of signage for puxposes of aestketics directly ser�es tha policy a��iculated in Aa�ticle II, Section 7, of the Flarida Constitution, by conserving ancl protec#ing its scenic beauty. �3. The regulation of signage for purpases of aesthetics has long bee� iecognized as advancing the public welfa�•e. As far bac� as 195� �he United �tates Supreme Court recognized that "the concept of the public welfare is braad and inclusive," that the values it repxesents axe "spiritual as well as physical, aesihetic as well as �nonetary," and that it is within the power o� the legislatuze "to dete�mine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clear�, well balanced as well as ea�•efulty patralled" [Justice Douglas in Berrna�r v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 (195�)�. 44. A�sthetics is a valid basis for zoning, and that the regulation of the size of signs ar�d the prohihition af ceztain types of signs can be based upon aest�etic grounds alone as piorr�oting the general welfa�e [see �YIe3•ritt v. Peter•s, 65 So. 2d 8b1 (Fla. 1953); Dac�e To�vn v. Gozrld, 99 So. 2d 236 (Fla. I957}; E.B. Elliott�dvet�tising Co. v. �Yletropolitan Dade Toti��rr, �2S F.2d 1141 {Sth Cir, 197�), cert. disrftrssed, �00 U.S. $78 (1970)]. 45. The enhancement of th.e visual environment is critical to a comm.unity's image and its cantinued presence as a tourist d�stination (see Enhancing The Visacal Envi1•onment Thr�ough Sig» Reg�clations, Volun�e One, at page 26, Enge�hardt, Harnrr�er & Associat�s, Inc. (2�02))The attraetiveness of the City has been substantialiy enhanced as a result of more �•estrietive sign r�gulations (Id., at page 2'�}. F��her, the sign cont�•al principles set fo��ih in Ordin.ance 83�3-12 create a s�nse of character and ambiance that distinguishes the city as one with a commitment ta maintaining and impraving an attractive environment. �6. The positive effect of sign regulations on the City's �isual character has been demonstrated in photog�'aphic comparison of a City st�•eetscape in 1988 and 2002, underscoiing the impoi�ance of reg�lating both the size and nu�nber af signs to reduce visual clutter (see Enhanci�rg The Visual �nvironr�aent Throtrgh Sign Regarlations, Valume One, at pages 24 and 2i, Engelhardt, Hammei� & Associates, Inc. (2002)). 47. The beauty of Cleat•watet's natural and built environment has provided the foundation for the economic base of the Ci�y's development, at�d the City's sign zegulations not only help create an att�•active residential community for its �esidents, but aiso bolste� Clea�•water's image as an international tOUPiSt C185�lilat1011 (see �nhancrng The Visucrl Environn�ent Tht•ough 5ign RegadErtions, Volume One, ai page 3, Engelhardt, Harntner & Associates, Inc. (2002)). IE�ii�:�: Attachment number 8 \nPage 9 City Council of Clearwater, Florida and Mayor Geo��ge Cretekos July 30, 20I2 Page 9 �S, The goals, objectives and policies from planning documents developed over the years, inciuding but nat limitec� ta the Clearwater powntown Development Plan, the Guidelines for the Urban Center District, Beach by Design, and The Dawntown Peripheral Plan, have all demansti�ated a strong, long-term commitment to maintaining and impro�ing the City's attraciive and visual enviz�anment (see Er�hancing The Visa�cfl Envi�ontrzent Through Sig� Reg�rlations, Voiurr�e One, at pag� 13, Engelha�'dt, Harnmer & Associates, inc. (2002)). 49, From a planning perspectiv�, one ofr the �n.ost important community goals is to define and proteet aestheiic �•esou�'ces and cornmunity charactex (see Enhancrng The Visiaal Environjnent Throirgh Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 14, Engelhardt, Hamrr�er & Associates, .Inc. {2fl02}). Sign �•egulations are especially impo�•tant ta counties wit� a tou��ist- based econonay, and sign control can create a sense of chai•acte� and ambiance that distinguishes one community fi•om anather {see Ernc�rncing The Vis�cc�l �`rrviro�rrnent Throargh Sign �egulcriiar�s, Volume One, at page l�-, Engelhardt, Hatnmer & Assaciates, Tna {2002}). Preservin� a�d reinforcin� tke uniqueness of a touris� comn�unity like Clearwater attracts to�arists and, more importantly, establishes a pe��nanent residential and commercial base to ensure th� future viability af the community (see Enhunci�g The Visar�rl Envira�rr�aent Thf�oargh Sign Regc�lations, Volume One, at page I5, Engelh�•dt, Hammer & Associates, Inc, (2002)}, 50. The City of Clearwate�� has continued the attent�on to aest�etic considerations and many of the consic�erations mentioned above through the Ciea�water powntown Redevelopment Plan, x•equi�•ing design guidelines for the entire downtown plan area. 51. The Crty of Cl�a��water has regulated signs based upon funetion and not content {see Enhcancing The V7StFCII EYlvll�onrrtent Thro�rgh Srgn I�egxrlations, Volume One, at page 1 S, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002)). 52, The purpose of the regulation of sigus as set forth in the attached Di�ision 1 S is to prom.ote the public health, safety and ge�eral welfare through a comp��ehensive systerri of reasonable, consi�tent and nondiscriminato�y sign stancla��ds anc� requirements; 53. The sign regulations in Division 18 a�•e intended to enable tk�e ideniification of places of xesidence an� business; to allow �or the eamnnunication of infoi�natzon necessaxy for #he conduct of comrnexee; to lesse� hazardous situations, confusion an:e� visual clL�tter caused by p�olif�ration, i�npropei p�acement, illumination, animation and e�cessive height, area and bulk of signs which compete for the attention of pedes#zian and vehicular traffic; to enhance the attractiveness and economic well-being of the eity as a place to Iive, vacation and eonduct business; #a pro#ect the public fiom the dange�•s of unsafe signs; to permit signs that a��e cor�patible with thei�• surroundings and aid o�ientation, and to prech�de placem.ent of signs in a rnanner that conceals o� obstructs adjacent land uses o�• signs; to encourage signs ihat ar� appropriate to th� zaning dist��ict in which they are located and consistent with the category of use ta which #hey pei�ain; to curtail the size and number o� signs and �ign messages to ihe mininnum reasonably necessary to identify a residential o�• busin.ess locaiion and the nature of any si�ch busin�ss; to establish sign size in relationship ta the scale of the lot and building on which the sign �s to be placed or to whieh it pei�tains; to p��eclude signs fro�n conflicting with the. IE�ii�:�: Attachment number 8 \nPage 1l City Council of Clearwater, Flarida and Mayor George Ci•etekos �uly 30, 2012 Page 10 p�•ineipal permitted use of tkze site ar ad�oining sites; to regulate signs in a manner so as to not inter�ere with, obstruct vision o� or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians; io requi�•e signs to be constructed, installed and rnaintained in a safe and satisfaetory manner; and to p�•eserve ar�d enhance the natural an.d scenic cha�•acieristics of this wate�•fi•ont resort community, S�. The sign regulations in Di�ision 18 have been the subject of eYtensive study by urban planners, c�l�inati�g in a study entit�ed Enhancing the Visual Envit�on�nent Th�•otrgh Sign Reg-irlatior�s, {Two Volurnes} p�•epaxed for the City of Clearwater, Florida by Engelhai�dt, Ham�ner & Associates, Inc., Urban Planners, dated April 10, 2002, which acidz�essed planning far the community vision, the ratianale for regulating signs, pro�ibited signs such as bench signs anc� changeabl� signs, the general effecti�veness of th� City's sign �•egulaiions in protecting the visual characte�• af tY�e City of Clearwater, and p�otographs dacumenting the enhancem�nt and preservatian af the City's cha��acter a�er a span €�f 14 years along Gulf-to�Bay Boulevard. 55. The district court in the Gpanite-Clea��tivcrter decision fouz�d that �nost provisions of Articie 3 of the Community Developmeni Cod�, alleged to be cantent-based, were not eor�tent-based [see Granite-Cleartis�cc#er� at 132?]. The districi couz�t also noted that � 3-1802 of Clea��water's Code identified substantial and carefully enumerated go�er�ment inter�sts, and ihat the City's time, piace and manner reguiations (with appropriate parts severed) weze reasonable and nar�•owly tailored to advance thos� interests [.ree Gra�aite-Clea��tii�ater at 1340�, 56. The regutation af signage was originally mandated by Flozida's Local Gove��nent Comprehensive Planning and Larzd Developnr�ent Regulatian Act in 1985 (see Chapter $5-55, §1�, Laws of Florida}, and this rec�uireznent continues to apply to the City of Clearwater through Seciion 163.3202(2}(�, Fla�ida Statu�es. In the 1980's, model provisions fa� the reg�lation a� signage by eities and co�nties in Florida we�e initially developed within A�•ticle V�II (Signs) of the Model Land Development Code far Cities and Counties, p�epared in 1989 for the Flo�ida Department of Commi�nity Affairs by the UF College of Law's Centez• fo�• Gove�•nmental Responsibiiity and by a professional planne�• with Henigar and Ray Engineerin� Associates, Inc. 57. The City of Ciearwater has adopted a land developmen# cade, known as the Cam�nunity Development Code, in o�•der to implement i#s compr�hensive plan, and to comply with the �ninimum rec�uirements in the State of Florzda's Growth Management Act, at Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes, including the regulatiau of signage anti futur� Iand use. 58, The City of Clearwatez• Cotnmunity Developnnent Code and its signage regulatians were and are intended to maintain and in�p�•ave the quality of life for all citizens of the City, 59. The City of Clea�water's lanc� developm�nt �•egulations for signage are not intendec€ to reac�i cei�tain signs, ineluding (1) a sign, otke�• than a windaw sign, located enti�•ely inside the pretnises of a building or �nclosed spaee, (2} a sign on a�az other than. a prahibited vehicle sign or signs, (3) a statutory sign, {4) a tra��'ic con��•al device sign, and (5) any sign not visible fro� a public st�•eet, sidewal� or right-of-way ar fronn a navigable �vaterway or body of IE�ii�:�: Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 City Council of Clearwater, Floxida and Mayor George Cretekos J�ly 30, 2012 Page 11 water; eYCept a sign for a commercial use that is �isible from an abutting residential use. A new Seetion should �e adcied to Division 18 so as to id�ntify such exempt signs. 60. The eYe�nption for a sign (other than a windaw sign) lacated enti�•ely inside the premises of a builciing is not bas�d upon th.e content of the message of any sueh sign, and is based �apon practical consideration of not ovexreaehing in the i•egulation af signage, absent a s�bstantial r�ason to eYtend sign �•egulations to �•each the viszbility of signage located inside a building, other t�an a window si�n �hat is oriented to be viewed by p�destrian or v�hicular tzaffic outside the building. 61. The exemption for a sign on a car, other than a prohzbited vehicle sign or signs, is not based upon the content af the message of any such sign, and the prohibition o� �ehicle sign o�• signs is based upon time, place and manne�• consideraiions. 62. The eYemption far a sign tha# is �•equired t�y any lawfiil statute or regulation of th� State of Florida oz the Uniied States (knotivn as a stahitory sign) is not a sign catega�•ized by any impermissible conten#-based distinction. The Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code for local go�ernments a# S�ction �O.O1,00.D i�ecommended an exemption �or legal notiees and official instzuments, ivhick� e�emption would be cornsist�nt wiih an �xernption for "statutory signs" as proposed hereby, 63. A"traffic control de�ice sign" is a sign located within the z•ight-of-�vay that �unctions as a trafiic control device and that is desezibed and identified in the Manual an Un�form Traffic Contzol Devices (MUTCD) and approved 6y th� Federal Highway Administrata�• as the Natianal Standard. Traffic cont�•al c�evice signs a��e those signs that are classified and defin�d by their function as �egulatory signs (that give notiee of tzaff c iaws o� regulations}, warniz�g signs (that giv� notice af a situation that might nat readily be apparent), and guide sigt�s (that show route designations, dizections, distanees, services, po�nts of interest, anc� other geagraphical, zecreationai, Q� cultural infoi•mation). A traffic control device sign should be exerx�pt from the City of Clearwater's iand use regulations as set forth i� Division. 18, and such aYenlption is not based upon an impez�nissible content-based distinetion, 64. Any sign #hat is noi visibie fro�n a public stzeet, sidewalk ar �•ighi-of-way, or fiom a na�igable waterway or body of water, should be e�empt fi•om the City's sign regulations within Division l. S, eYCept for a sign for a cammercial use that is �isibl� fi•am an: abutting residential us�. 65. The Center for Governn�entai Responsibility's 1989 Model Code for local governrnents at Seciion lO.Ol.00.A recammended an eYemption �or signs that are noi designed ar lacated so as to be visible fiom any st�•eet or adjoining propei�y. 66. In meeiing t�e pu�poses and goals established in the prearrzbles to O�dinance $343-12, it is appropriate to prohibit and/or to cantin�e to p�•ohibit ce��tain sign types, with limited eYCeptions that are based upon functian o� use in con#rast to the conte�t af the message display�d. It is appropriate to prohibit aneVor to continue to generally prohibii the following sign IE�ii�:�: City Council af Clearwaier, Flarida and Mayor Geo�ge C�•etekos Juty 30, 2012 Page 12 Attachment number 8 \nPage 1: types, except as otherwise provided in the Cornmunity Devel�pment Code: halloons, cold air inflatables, streatners and per�nants; bench signs; billboards; electronic changeabl� message signs; menu signs that change more rapidly than once every three haurs; pa�ement �narkings; po��able signs; raof or above-roo� signs; sidewalk signs; signs attached to or painted on pi�rs or seawalls; signs in ox upon any body of water; signs located on publicly-owned land or easements o�• inside stree# rights-o� �ray; signs that emit sound, vapor, s�ake, octor, pat�ticles, ai• gaseous matter; signs that have uns�ielded illuminating devices or which refleet lighting onto public rights-of way th�reby creating a potential traf�'ic or pedestrian hazard; signs that ma�ve, i•evol�e, t�vi�•1, �otate, flash, scintillaie, blink, flutter, or appear to display rnotian in any way whatsoe�er, including animated signs, muiti-p�•ism sign�, floodiights and beacon �ights; signs that obstruct, conceal, hide, or oth.erwise obsc��re fi•om view any traf£'tc control device sign or official traffie signal; signs that present a potential t�affic ar pedestrian hazard, including signs which obst�•uct visibility; signs attached to or placed on any tree or other �egetation; signs cazried, waved, oz otkerwise displayed on public rights-of-way or �isible from public-�ights-of way that are intended to draw attention for a comm�rcial purpose; snipe signs; thx•ee-dirnensional objects that are used as signs; vehicle signs and pai�able trailer �igns; and any pe�•manent sign that is not speei�'ically described ar enumerated as permitted within t�e specific zoning district classifications in the City's Comm��nity Development Code. 67. The Center for Gover�ental Responsibilzty's 1989 Model Coc�e contained a p�•oposed land c�evelopm.ent regulation that would prohibit balloons, streamers, pennants, ar�d other wind-acti�ated sign types, at Seeiion 10.02A2.H., specifically prohibiting "Signs, commonly referred to as wind signs, consisting of one or tnore hanne�s, flags, pennants, ribbons, spinners, stzea�n�rs or captive balloons, or othez• objeets or mate��ial fastened in s«ch a manner as to move upon. being subjeeted to pressure by wind," as a p�•o�ibition that would fi�rthe� gavernmeniai purposes of aesthetics and otherwise. Additionally, cold air inflatable signs were identi£'ied atnong the exa�nples of prohi�itec� sign types identified i� the study, Enhancing the yisticrl �nva��on�ttent Thr•ough Srgn Regaticrtions, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and th� prohibition of the same wa� supported by the purposes set fo1�h in the City af Cleai�water's sign r�gulations. 68. T�e City of St. Petersburg's sign code that eontained a si�nilar prohibition on cold aix inflata�les, banners and per�nants (St. Peiersbu��g's Code at � I6-671(5}, pxohibiting "pennants, sti•eame�•s, cold air inflatabies, and banners, e:�cept foi� special aceasions for a Izmited time and frequency as pe��itt�d in sections 1b-712(1}h. and 16-713"), and a similar prohibitian on inflatabie devices that are tethered and do nat touch the g�•ound {St, Petersburg's Code at § 16-671 {6)), we�'e rietermined to be eontent-neutral and not eontent-basec� in Gr�anite Stcrte Outt�oor• Advej�tising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersb�rjg, �'la., 2002 WL 3�55895b (M.D.Fla. 2Q02}, Uff'd in part and j'ev'd in par�t, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l Ith Ci�. 2003), ce�{t. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de no��o appellate zevi�w confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based ir� larg� part upon the governrr�ent's interest in reg�lating speech and tl�e St. Petersburg's Cade that s�ated at � 16-667{b)(2) that its enactment was to pramote unifol�nity, piese�ve aesthetics and fostei• safety and that �•elied upon the precedent o� War�l v. Rock .�gainst l�c�cisrn, 49I U.S. 781, 791 {1989). IE�ii�:�: City Council of Clearwate�•, Flo�•ida and Mayor G�orge Cretekos July 30, 2012 Page 13 Attachment number 8 \nPage 1; 69. It is th��•efore appropriate to prohibit balloons, cold air inflatabies, sti•eamers and pennants, with limited eYCeptions for thei�• use on public p�'operty under the limited circurnstances set fo�•th in ti�e current Code at Sec#ion 3-1 SOS.V. [to be amended and renumbered to Section 3-1SQ6.R.], because such wind�activated devices utilized as signs to draw attention from passing motorists are generally distracting in nature, se�ve to deg�•ade community aesthetics, and are inconsistent with the ge�ei•al prineiples and purpases of Division 1 S. 70. The district court in the Granite-Clecrr-�vater decision addressed current Section 3- 1803,8.'s prohibition on "[b]alloans, cold air inflatable, streamers, and pennants, e�cept whexe allowed as go��el�nt�aental cr�ad public pasrpose signs for special events of limited time and frequency, as approved by the city manager or th:e city commission," and th.e court s#ruck Section 3-1803,B, upon determining that the distinciion between "governmental and public puipose signs" and "nan-governmental and non.-public purpose signs" for such special events lacked the nec�ssai•y reasonable fi� as it relates to furthering the gove�'nmental inte�•ests in aesthetics and traffic safety, especially insofar as the prohibition's e:�ception did not state that it was only limited ta "public pzope�ty" [see G�anrte-Clearzvater at 1335]. 71. It is appropriate to address the concei�ns eYpressed by the district court in th.e Gj�anite-Cle�n��vcater° decision and to adopt a modified �e�sion of the fortr�e�• Seetion 3�1803.B. [to be renuznbered as Section 3-180�.A.] and eYpressly limitiztg the excep#ian to the limited eircutnstances ��hen ba�loons, cold air inflatables, stzeamers and pennants are located on public proparty subject to criteria set �'orth in t�e Code, and to similarly madify the p�•avisions of the cuzxent Section 3-1SOS.V. [to be r�numbered Section 3-1806.R.] by claxifying that the eYCeption for balloons, cold ai�• inflatable, sireameX�s, and perinants is limit�d to when theiz use is on "public prope�-ty" [see Gf�anrte-Cleartivater• at 1335; see also Plensa�t Gr�ove Ciry, Utcah v. Strmmirm, 555 U.S. 460, �67, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 1131 (2009) {the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause cioes not eYtend io government speech)], and by setting fot�th in these preambles the rationale for the adoptio� ofr the p�•ohibitian ancl limited exception�, as clarified. 72, It is appropriate to pz•ohibit beneh signs beeause #he same visually degrad� the cammi�nity character and are inconsistent with the genera� principles and purpos�s of Division 1.8. The Center for Governrnen�al Responsibility's �9$9 Moc�el Cod� contained a proposed pro�Zibitian on beneh signs, at 10.02. T. ("Signs placee� upon benches, bus shelte�•s or waste �•eceptacles, eYCepi as rnay be authoriz�d in w�•iting [pursuant to a state stati�te]"). �'urth.er, bench signs were ic��ntified among the exarnples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhcrncing the Visical En��i��onn2ent Thl�ough Sign Regarlatfons, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Ham�n�r & Assaciates, Inc. (2002), and that #his prohibitian su�pai�ts the putposes of the City of C�ea�•water's sign regulations. 73. Th� City of St, Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prahibition on bus shelter signs and bench signs (St. Petersburg's Code at � 16-6'71(2), prohibiting "bus shelter signs and }�ench signs eYCep# when approved by a local govei�ent, pi�rsuant to F.S. � 337.�07{2)(a)" but nat prohibiting "the iden:tification o� the transit company o�• i#s route schedule") was determin�d to be content-neutral and �ot content-based in Granrte State Oirtcloor r�clvertisi�rg, Inc. v. City of St. Pete�°sbtstg, Flca., 20�2 WL 3�SS8956 (M.D.�Ia. 2002), crff'd in IE�ii�:�: City Council af Clearwate�, Florida and Mayor George C�etekas J�ly 30, 2012 Page l4 Attachment number 8 \nPage 1� part crrtd rev'd in paj�t, 348 F.3d 1278, �281-1282 (I lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo app�llate re�iew confi7ned #hat the o�•dinance was cox�tent-neutral basec� in large part upan the gove�•nment's interest in regulating speech and the St, Peie��sburg's Code at §� 6-667(b}(2) that stated �hat its enaetrnent was to promate uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety anc€ that relied upon the precedent of War�d v. Rock Against Racis��a, �91 U.S. 78 �, 791 (1989). 7�. The distriet cou��t in the Gj•anite-Cleat��vatet� decision nafed that Ai�ticle 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Cleat•wc�te�� at 1334], and this would be inc�usive of the prohibition on bench signs, other than th.e signage necessarily associated with the id�ntification of the tiansit company and the route schedule, which functions to identi�y the benches and t�e related t�ansit routes. 75. Billboas•c�s detract fiom the naiural and manmade b�auty af the City. The American Soeiety of Landscape A�•chitects has c�etermined that hillboards tend to deface nearby scenery, whether natural or built, rural or u�•ban. States such as Vermont, Alaska, Maine, and Hawaii �ave prohibited the construction of billboards in thei�• siates and are now billboard-free in an effort tQ promote aesthetics and scenic bea�iy, The p�•o�ibition of th� construction of billboards and c�i•tain oth.e�• sign types, as well as the esta�lishment and continuation of he�ght, size and other standards fa�• on-premise signs, is consistent with the policy set foz•th in the Florida Constit�tion that it shall be the policy of the state to conse�•ve and protect its scenic beauty. 76. Caiti�s Y�ave ��ecognized that outdoor advertising signs tend to inte�•�upt what wauid othe��wise be the natu�•ai landscape as seen fronr� the highway, whether th� view is untouched or ravished by rnan, and that it would be unreasonable and illogical to eonclude that an area is too unattractive to justify aesthetic improvement [see E. I3. Elliott �1dv. Co. v. �1�Ietropolita�r Dade Totivn, 425 F.2d 1�41 (5th Cii•. 1970), cert. clrsfnissec�, 400 U.S. 878 (1970); John Donnelly � Sons, Inc. v. Oartdoof� �d��ertising l3cl., 339 N.E.2d 709, 720 {Mass. 1975}]. Local governments may separately classi�'y off site and on-site advertising signs in taking steps to minimize visual pollution �see City of Lake YYcrles v. La�nc�3� .�dve��ti.sing Association of LakelandFlorida, �14 So.2d 1a30, I032 (FIa. 1982)J. 77. Billboarc�s attract the attention of drive�•s passing by the billboards, the�eby adversely affecting tzaffic safety and constituting a public nuisance and a n�xio�is use of the lan.d on which the billboards are erected. The Unitec� States Supreme Coui�t and ma�y fede�•al coua-ts hav� accepted l�gislative judgments and dete��ni�nation� that the prohibition of billboards pramotes traffic safety and the aesthetics o� the sunounding area. [see 1�Iett�orrzedia, Inc. v. City o,f San Drego, 453 U.S. �90, 5�9-510 (1981); Nc�tional �dver•tising Co. v. Ciry &�"oti��n of Denves•, 912 F.2d 505, 409 (10th Cir, 1990), and Oartdoor Systerns, Inc. v. City of Lenexa, b7 F. Supp. 1231, 1239 (D. Kan. 1999)�. 78, Biliboarcis are a�o�7n of advertisemeni designed to be seen vvithout the exercise of ch�ice ox volition on the pa��i of the observer, unlik� other fo��ns of adveztising that are ardinarily seen as a matter af chozce on the paz�t af'the observer [see Packer� v. Uicrh, 285 U,S. 1Q5 (1932); IE�ii�:�: --- Attachment number 8 \nPage 1; City Council of Clearwatez, Florida and Mayar George Cretekos 7uly 30, 2012 � Page 15 a�d General Outdoor Adve�atrsrng Co. v. Depc�r•tme�at of Pa�blie Works, 2$9 Mass. �49, �93 N.E. 799 (1935}]. 79. On-site business signs are considered to be pazt of the business itself, as distinguished from aff-site outdoor adveztising signs, and it is well-recognized that the unique nature of outdaor advertising and the nuisances fostered by 6illboard signs justify the separate classification of such struciures for the pui�poses oi go�e�nmental regulation and restrictions [see E. I3. Ellia#t Adv. Co. v. �Lletrapolitcrn Dade To��n, 425 F,2d 1141, 1153 ,(Sth Cir. 1970), cer�t. dei�ied, �00 U.S. $78, 91 S.C. 12, 27 L. Ed. 2d 35 {1970), quoting U�rited �c�vertrsing Co�p. v. I3o��oargh of Ra��ita�r, 93 A.2d 362, 365 (1952)]. 80. Billboa�•ds are a traffic hazard and inapair the beauty of the su�•rounding area, and th� p�•ohibition of the con:stiuction of billbaards will reduce these harms [see Oirtc�oo�• Systetns, .Tnc. v. City of .Lenexa, 67 F.Supp.2d I231, 1239 (D, Kan. 1999)]. Anything beside the road wi�zch tends to distract the driver of a motoz vehicle directly affects i�•af�c safeiy, and signs, tivhich dive�-t the atter�tion of the driv�r anc� occ�pants of mota�• vehicles from the highway to o�jects away from it, may reasonably be found ta increase #he danger of accidents, an�i agrees with the cou�•ts that have �•eached the same deterrt�ination [see In re �prnion of the Jacstices, 1 Q3 N.H. 265, 169 A.2�i 762 (1961); �Vei��rnan Signs, Inc. v. Hjelle, 268 N.W.2d 74l (N.D.1978)�. S 1. Billboard signs are public nuisances giver� their advers� impact an both traffic safeiy and aesthetics. The p�•esence of billboards along the federal interstate and the ��deral-aid prirr�ary highway syst�ms has preventec� public property in other jurisdictions from being used £or bea��tification putposes due to view zones established by �tate acirninistrative z•ule, A prohibition on the er�ction of o�f-site outc�oo�• adve�tising signs will reduce the numbei• of driver distractions and the number of aesthetic eyeso�•es along the roadways and highways of the City [see, e.g., E. I3. Elliott �dy�. Co. ��. �i�Iet�•opolitcrn Dade Tozvn, 425 F.2d 11�1, 1154 (Sth Cii�. 1970), ce1•t. denied, �00 U.S. 87$ (1970)]. 82. Scenic Ame�•ica, Tnc. recommends impro�ements in �he scenic character of a co�nrnunity's landscape and appearance by prohibiting the constructio� of bilibaarc�s, and by setting height, size and other standards for on-premise signs [see Scenic Ame�•ica'� Seven Principles fa�� Scenic Conser�aiian, Principle #5�. Mot�e than two hundred Florida connmunities have adopted. ordinances prohibiting the const��uction of billboards in their communities in arder to achieve aesthetic, beauti�`ication, traffic safety, andloz other related goals. 83. In orde� ta preserve, p�•otect and promote the safety and genez•al welfa�•e of the residents of t�e City, it is necessary io �•egulate off site advertising signs, commanly known as billboard signs or billboards, so as to px�ahibit the construction o� billboards in all zoning distzicts, and to prravide that the far�going pi•ovisions shaIl be severable. 84. The prahibition of billboa�ds as sei forth in O��dinance 8343-12 wi�1 improve th�e beauty of the City, faster ovezall improvement ta the aesthetic and visual appearance af the City, presercve and open up areas fo�• beautification on public property adjoining the public roadways, increase the visibility, �'eadabiliiy and/or effectiveness oi on-site signs by reducing andlor IE�ii�:�: City Council of Ciea��wat�r, Florida and Mayoa• George Creiekas 7uly 30, 2012 Page 16 Attachment number 8 \nPage 1E diminishing the visual cl�tter of off-site signs, enk�ance the City as an att��active place •to Izve and/or wark, rec�uce blighting influences, and irz�prove traffic safety by redueing driver dist��actions, 85. Tt is appropriate #o prohibit discontinued signs andlo�• sign st�uctures because tl�e same �isually degrade the eomrnunity character and are inconsistent with the gene�•al principles and pu�poses of Division 1.8, Under state law, whic� may be n�oi'e perrrxissive tl�an local law, a nanconfoi7ning sign is deenrzed "discontinued" vvhen it is not operated and maintained for a periad of twelve months, and the follow�ng canditions under Chaptez 14-14, Florida Adrninistrative Cade, shall be considered failure to operate and maintain the sign so as to render it a discontinued sign: (1) signs displaying only an "available for Iease" or similac message; {2) signs displaying adve�•tising �a�• a product or service which is no longez availab�e; o�• (3) signs which are blank or do not identify a particulaz• product, se�vice, or facility. 86. The district court in the Granite-Cleaf�tivatet• decision noted that fo�7ner Sec�ion 3- 1803 prohibited t�venty-five c�iffer�nt #ypes of signs (such as abandoned signs), and that A�•ticle 3 in gen�ral was not co�tent-based [see Gr•anite-Clec�r��ater� at 133��. 87. It is apprapriate to prohibit elec�ronic changeabl� message signs, with limited e;�ceptions for m.enu display signs, legally noncor�forming �xzessage signs cansisting of {a) genezal message signs that change na �ore frequently than once eve�y siY hours, and (b) timeltem:perat�re signs that change no more frec�uently tha� once every �inute, because such devices are cl.istracting in nature and serve to degrade cornmunity aesthetics a�d are incansistent with ihe general principles and purposes of Division 1 S. 88. The Center fo� Gove��mental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed prohibiiion on signs wi#h lights o�' illu�nination ti�at flash, rnove, rotate, scintillate, blinlc, flicker or vary in intensity or co�or exeept for ti�ne-temperature-date signs, at 10.02.02.F. ("Signs with lights or illumina#ion that flash, mave, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, or vaiy in intensity or color eYCept for time-temperatu�e-date signs"). The Center faz Gavernmental Respansibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed li�nited exc�ption from the general prohibitiorz on ehanging s�gns for time and temperature signs, but only as pe�•manent accessory signs on corr�mercial parcels and subject to other criteria, at 10.04.0� of ti�e Modei Code. Fui�hei•, changeable rnessage signs tivere identi%ed among the examples of p�•o�ibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing #he Vr�tral Envi�•onment Thl�oirgh Srgrr Regulcations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hamme�• & Assaciates, Inc. (2002}, and such prohibition supports the pu�poses of the Ciiy of Cl�arwater's sign regulations. 89. The district court in the Gr•anite-CIea1•s��ceter decisian addressed Section 3- 1804.F., General Standards, wherein the City specifically regulated the pIacement, size and Iocation of time and terz�perature signs [see Gr�anite-Clear��atef• at 1335�. The c�ist�•ict court rejected the contention that Section 3-�80�4.F. was an im.pei�nissible content-based e�ception zendering the ordinance unconstitutiona�, and the court observed that this sign cat�gory {tizxze and ternrxperature signs} and its �•eg��ations were also a good example of ho�v tlne ardinance was content-neut�•al [see G3•crnrte-Clear�s�c�ter° at 1336]. Finally, the district court concluded that th� IE�ii�:�: Ciiy Council of Clearwater, Flo��ida and Mayor George C�•e#ekos July 30, 2012 Page 17 Attachment number 8 \nPage 1� category was content-neuiral inastr�uch as the provision was not an attempt to censor speech nr enforce regulations based on viewpoint; and the coui�i dete��nined that inasmt�eh as a time ar�d ternpezatur� sign has no viewpoint ancl meiely zelates factual information, the pro�ision was not an atternpt to censor speech or lfmit the fi•ee eYpression of ideas-especially in light of the City of Clearwater's specifie pi•ohi�ition in Section 3-180�.H, on placing any li�nitation on a sign based on the content of the message [see Gt•anite-CleUr�vater• at 1336�. 90. The City o� St. Petersbu�•g's sign code cantained prravisions that allowed for "time and temperatu�•e signs" not to e�ceed 20 st�uare feet within certain land uses �see St. Petersbu�•g's Cade at §� 16-749(1)a.5., 16-7d9(1)b.3., 16-710(1)a.5., 16-710(1}b.3., 16-712(�)e., and 16- 712{2)c.] and that these six provisions were among more than fifty different provisions t�at were challenged by Granite S�ate in Granite Stccte Dutc�o�j• �d��eriising, Inc. v. City of St. Petef�sbarr•g, Fla., 2002 WL 3455895b, *12, n.23 {M,D.FIa. 20Q2}, aff'd in paNt anc� �•ev'c� in pa��t, 3�8 F.3d 1278, I281-1282 (11th Ci�•. 2003), cer•t. denied, 541 U.S. 108b (2004} [see �rtso G1�anite State Outdoor� Aclvertrsrng, Inc. v. Crty of St. Peter•sbujg, Fla., Case No. S:OI-cv02250-JSM (�.D,FIa.}, Doc. l, E�h. A and Doc. 54, p. 11, n. 6]. Tl�e district couz�t in G��anite State v. S% Petersbali�g, determi�ed that the fo�egoing provisians pe��aining ta "#ime and temperature signs" did not i•ende�' the ordinance uneonstitutiona� pe3• se (id. at �` 12, n, 23). The Elevenih Ci�•ctiit, upon a de novo appellate review, confi�•med that the ot•dinance was content-neutral based in large pat�t upon the fact tl�at the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St, Peteisbu��g's Code at Section l 6-b67{b)(2)) was to promote unifoi7nity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the �act that the gov�rnment's objective in regulating speech was the controlling eonsideration unde�• the govei�ning pzeeedent of Wa�°c� v. Roekr�gainst Rczcism, �91 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). 91. In the f�ture the�e wi11 no la�ger be a need for time and temperaiure signs due to the expansion of eIectronic de�ices and insiruments that display time and tempe�atu�•e, and it would se�•ve the stated inkerests of tl�e Ciearwater Development Code ta prohibit p�•oliferation of dist�•acting and incongruaus changing message signs by elirninating the eYCeptian for tim.e and temperature signs, while g�•andf�.thei�ing e;�isting tirne and temperatu�•e signs for their continued ope�•ation. 92. Additionally, it is ap�ropriate to p�ohihit signs that change messages more frequently tl�an eve�•y tl�'ee houcs because tke sa�e visually degrade the cc��nmunity aesthetics and character and are inconsisteni with the general p�•ineiples anc� pur�aoses af Division 18, with ar� exeeption for signs that function as menu display signs so as to allow for changing messages for differeni rnenus du�•ing the course of t�e day. 93. A changeable elect�•onic �nessage sign provides moi•e vis��al stimuli than a traditional sign, and it has been ji�dicially noticed that such changeabl� elect�•onic message signs will logically will ba inore distracting and mora h�zardous {see 1V�rser Jeti��elet�s, Inc. v. City af Concor•d, 513 F.3d 27 (lst Ci�•. 2008}). Further, it has been judicially noticed that the alternative of all�wing eleci�onic message centers but imposing certain canditions on #hem, such: as limiting the nurz�ber of times per c�ay a m.essage can �hanga, would have steepe�• �nonitoring costs and other complications and that sueh consicierations suppo�'t a znunicipality's outright prohibition on IE�ii�:�: - - Attachment number 8 \nPage 12 City Coun.cil of Clearwater, Fla�•ida and Mayar George Cretekos July 30, 2Q12 �age I8 electronic changin� message signs (see 1Vase1� Je�tifelers, Inc. v. City of Concof°d, 513 F.3d 27 (lst c��•. Zoos�}. 9�. The distzict court in the Grcrnite-Clea�ivater decision noied that former Sectian 3- 1803 prahibited twenty-five different types af signs {such as menu signs on which the messag� chan�es moz•e rapidly than once every th�ee hours), ar�d that A�•ticle 3 in general was not content- based [see Gt�at�ite-Clecrrtivatej� at 1334�. 95. The Center foz Governmental Respansibiliiy's 19$9 Model Code contained a proposed prohibition on signs paintec� on the pavement, except fo�• house nurnbe��s and traffic control signs (see Madel Code at 10.02.02.5, stating "Signs that are painted, pasted, o�• printed on any cu�bstone, flagstone, pavement, or any portion o� any sidewaik o�• st�eet, except house nu�nbers azzd traf%e cont�•ol signs"). it is app�•apriate to prohibit pavement ma�•kings that are not traific control device signs (whieh are exempt fzo�n regulation unde�• the City's land development regulations) and except for street addresses (which a�•e not content-based and are necessa�y fox comrnei•ce and function for health anc� safety concern�) b�cause such markings are distraeting in nature and seave to degrade cornmunity aesthetics and are inconsistent with th.e general principies anci puipases af Division 1 S of Article 3 of the Clea��water Code. 96. The district court in the Granite-Clea1��c�ter decision r�ated that Artzcle 3 in general was not content-based, and that categories for pz•ohibited signs, s�ch as pavement markings with certain eYCeptions [fa��er Section 3-1803.F.], were not content-based [see Gr�anite-Clear•��}�rte1� at 1334, n.36 and 1345-1347]. 97, The City a� St. Peters�uzg's similar p�•ahibition on pavement markings (St. Petersburg's Code ai � 1&-671{4} prollibiting "pavement markings, eYCept o#'£'icial traffic control markings or vvk�ere otherwise authorized") was determined to be content-neutral and not content- based in Gr•canite State Outdoof• .hir�ve��tising, Inc. ��. City of St. Pete��sbarrg, Flrr., 20Q2 WL 3�558956, "12, n. 23 (M.D.FIa. 2002), a,ff'd in pcal•t crnd rev'd rn pc��t, 3�8 F.3d 1278, 12$1-1252 (11ih Ciz. 2Q03), cert. c�enied, 541 U.S. 1086 (200�). T�.e dist�•iet court in Grcrnite State 3�. St. Petersbarjg, deterrnined that the foregoing p�•ovision prohi�iting "pavement markings," wi#h limited exceptians, did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at � 12, n. 23). The Eleventh Cireuit, �pon a de t�ovo appellata review in Granite State v. St. PeteNSbulg, confi�7ned that the or�inance was content-neutral based in large paz�t �pon the fact that the goveimment's stated intez•esi in regulating speech {see St. Pet�r�burg's Cocl.e at �ection l.b-667(b)(2)} was to p�•ornote unifo��mity, p�'eserve aesthetics and £nster safety, and based upon the fact that the gov�rnment's objective in regulating speech was the eontrolling con�ide�•ation under t�e gove��ning precec�ent of IYcrrd v. RockAgainst Rc�cism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989}. 9$. The sign iype k�awn as a po��ta�le sign �nay be legally prol�ibited (.ree Har•nish v. �Ylc�natee Coarnty, 783 F.2d 1535, 1540 (l lth Cir. 1986}; Lrndsay v. Sc�n �ntonio, 821 F.2d 1103, 1111 {Sth Cir. 1987)). It is approp�•iate to continue to prohibit po�•table signs as ��nnecessa�y visual c1utt�� and that s�ch sign type is inconsistent with the goals an:d purposes of the City's �and development regulatians expressed in Division 18. The prohibition of portable signs reasanably ad�ances the governmental gaal of protecting the aesthetic envi�•onment of the City IE�ii�:�: City Cour�cii of Clearwater, Florida and Mayor George C�•etekos Ju�y 30, 2012 Page 19 Attachment number 8 \nPage 1S [.�ee Harnish v. 1Yfanatee Totivn, "183 F.2d 1535 {11th Cir. 1986) and Don's Po��ta Signs, I�rc. v. City of Clea��vater, 298 F.2d 1051 (l lth Cir. 19$7}, cert. denied 485 U.S. 98 (1988)�. 99. The Center for Gavernmental Res}�onsibility's 1989 Model Coc�e eontained a p�•oposed ]and developrnent regulation that prohibiteci portable signs [.ree prohibiiian in Model Code, � 10.02.02.Y., and see definition o� "po�-�able signs" a# Model Code, § 10.00.0� ("Any sign which is manifestly designecE to be transported by traile�• ar on its ow� wheels, including such signs even though ihe wheels may be remaved and the remaining chassis o�• suppoi�t str�cture con�erted ta an A or T fra�e sign and attached tempora�•ily to the g�•ound"}], and cited the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Hcat•nish v. �i�f�natee County, 783 F.2d 1535 {1 lth Ci�•. 1986), as suppoi�t fa�• such a prohibitzon. 100. Portable signs were also amang the examples of pi•ohibited sign types identified in the shidy, .�nhancing the Yistcal Envi3•onment Throa�gh Sign Regarlations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hamrr�er & Associates, Inc. (2042), an.d that the prohibition of this sign type vvas found by that sti�c�y to suppo�� the stated purposes o� th� City of Clearwater's sign regulatians. 101. The City of St. Petersbui•g's sign code that contained a si�niiax• prohibition on po��table signs (�i. Pe�ersburg's Code at § 1b-671(6), prohibiting "poxtable signs, including ..."} was detez�nined to be cantent-neutral and not con:tent-based in Gr�c�nite State Ozrtdooj• Aclve�tising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersbarjg, Fla., 2402 WL 3�558956 (VI.D,FIa. 2002}, rff'd in part and r�ev'c� in pa1�i, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (1 lth Cir. 2003), cert. deniecl, 5�1 U.S. 10$6 (2004). The distriet eourt in G1•rc�rite_State v. St. Petel�sbacrg, dete�•mined that prohibitions, similar to the one on "pa��table signs," did not render the ordinance uncanstitutional �e�� se (ic� at * 12, n. 23), ancl note�i that a�nunicipality may choose to prohibit all pa�-table signs in fi�i�ti�erance of its aesthetic concerns (id. at �14, citing 1�Iesser v. Cily of Douglasville, Ga., 975 F.2d 1505, 1510 (1992)). The Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate �•eview in Graniie State v. St. Peter�sharj•g, confirmed that th� ordinance was content-neutral based in Iarge pa�-� �apon the gov�rnment's interest in regu�a#ir�g speech and th� St. Petersburg Code at § 16-6b7(b}(2) that stated that its enactment was to promate unifo��nity, pr�se��ve aesthetics and foste� safety and that �•elied upon the precedent of YYard v. RockAgainst Rcrcism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 {1989). �02. The dis#�ict court in the Graanite-Clear�tivate�� decision noted that foxmer �ection 3- 1803 prolnibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as portab�e signs}, and that A��ticle 3 in general was nat eonteni-based [see Grcanite-Clear��vcrter at 1334]. 103. It is app�opriate to prohibit roof anc� above roof signs b�ea�se such signs are distracting ir� nature, serve to degrade connmunity character, and aesthetics and are inconsistent with the gerzeral p�•inciples and pu��poses of Division 18. The Center for Gove�•nmental Responsibiliiy's 1959 Model Code contained a praposed land development regulation that would prohibit roof signs at Section 10.��.00, which allowed for pei•�anent accessory signs but d�d not allow a permanent aecessoiy sign to be a roof sign {which is de�ned at Section 10.00.04 as "A sign placet� above the x•oof line of a building or on oz against a roo� slape of less than forty-five {45) cieg�•ees"). Roof and above �•oof sign� were alsa identified among the e�arnples o£ IE�ii�:�: City Council of Ciearwatez•, k'lorida and Mayor Geo��g� Cretekos_ July 30, 2012 Page 20 Attachment number 8 \nPage 21 prahibiteci. sign types in the study, Enhancing the Visaccrl Eravir•onrrtent Thr�oitgh Sign I�egarlations, Volurne One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002}, and the prohibition o� such sign types supported the putposes of the City of Clea��wate�'s sign ragulations. 104. The City o� St. P�tersbu�g's szgn code that contained. a similar prohibition on roo� signs (St. Petei�sb��•g's Cade at � 16-671('7), prohibiting "roof signs, except integral �•oof signs in noni•esidential districts") was detez�ined ta be content-neutral and not content-based in Grtanrte State O�rtdoof• �c�vertisirrg, 1'nc. v. City of St. 1'etej•sbicr•g, Fla., 2�02 WL 3455895& (M.D,FIa. 20�2), aff'd i�a par•t and rev'd in pt�rt, 3�8 F3d 1278, 1281-I282 {l Ith Ciz•. 2003), cer•t. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (200�). The dist�ict court iz� G��anrte State v. St. Petersbt�tg, detertnined that a prohibition on signs, sinnilar to the one on roof signs, did not render the ordinance ��nconsiitutional pet� se {ic� at "I2, n. 23), The Eleventh Circuit, upan a de novo appellate review, confirm.ed that the ordinance was content-net�tral based in la�•ge part upan the gove��snent's inte�•est in regulating speech, and the St. Petersburg Code at � 16-6b7(b}(2} that stated that its enactmerzt was ta proinote unifarrnity, preserve aesthetics and fastei• safety and that relied upon th� precedent af YYar�d v. KockAgainstRaeisl�t, �91 U.S, 7$1, 791 (1989). 105. The dist��ict court in the Gr•anite-Clecrr•��crtej� decision noted that fortne�• Section 3- 1803 prohibit�d twenty-five diff�rent types o� signs (such as roof signs), and that Al`ticle 3 in gene�•al was not content-based [see Granfte-Clear��vatera at 133��. 106. Sidewalk signs, sometimes kr�awn as sandwich boa�•d signs (except as then aIlowed in the Dow�town District}, were identified a�nong the eYannples of prohibited sign types identified in t�e study, Enhancing the Vrsacerl �nvironrnent Throzrgh Sign Regarlcrtions, Volume One, at SectiQn 3, Engelhardt, Ham�nei� & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were suppoi�ked by the purposes set fo�•th in the City of CIea��wate�•'s sign regulatians in Division 18. It is appzopriate to gene�ally pi�ohibit sidewalk signs because such signs add ta sign clutter and �re inconsistent with the general principles and purpases of Divisian 18, exce�t in Iimited insta�zces, �uch as where sidewalk signs in com�nercial districts may serve a temporary iunctian of providing infoi7naiian when #he con.struction of pu�lic improvemen#s is ongoing, or in ot�er lirnited cia•cumstanees where suck signs pro�ide ir�poi-tani infor�nation to the public, and this prohibition is consistent with the prohibition upheld by the distx•ict court in the Gr•anite-Cleal�tivater• decision, where the court review�d foi�ner Section 3-1803.L., which at that time prahibited sandwich board signs eYCept io t�e extent pe�7nitted in the Downtown Distriet, and upheld that i�estriction after striking urvelated provisions froin formez• Section 3-1803.L. [see Gr•anite-Clea�•�vater� at I339]. Ia7. The City of St. Pet�rs�urg's sign code that contained a sirnilar prohibition on sandwich boa�•d signs (St. Pete�sburg's Code ai § 1b-671(8), pi•ohibiting "sandwich boar�i signs") was detertnined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Gra�rite State Oirtc�oof• Adve1°tising, Inc. v. City of St. Petel�sburg, �'1�., 2002 WL 34558956 {M.D,FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in paj•t, 3�8 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.5. 10$6 (200�), wher� a de r�ovo appellate review confii�ned that the o�•dinance was content-neutrai based in la�ge part �pon the gove�•nrr�ent's interest in z�egulating speech ar�d the St. Pete�•sburg Code at § 16-66'1(b}(2) that stated ihat its enactment was to promote uni�oz�nity, preserve aesthetics and IE�ii�:�: City Council of Ciea��water, Florida and Mayor George Cret�kos Ju�y 30, 2012 Page 21 Attachment number 8 \nPage 2 foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Wa�•d v. RockAgttinst Rucisrn, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). 108. Si�ns attached to or painted on pie�•s and seawalls, other than official regulato��y or wa��ing signs, �etract from tke aest��tic environment, and such signs conflict with the purposes of Divisian 1 S, such as enhancing the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to Iiv�, vacaiion and cond��ct business, and prese�•ving and enhancing the natu�•al and scenic characte�•istics of the City af C�eai�vater as a waterfront eommunity. 109. Tke City af St. Petei•sburg's sign code that containec� a prohibition on signs attached ta or painted on p�e�s or seawalls (St. Petersb��g's Code at § 16-b71(9), pzohibitin� "signs attac�ed to or painted an piers or seawalls, unless otherwise a�tha�•ized, sueh as official �•egulatory or wa��ing signs a�proved by the City Manager") was determined to be content- neuh•al and not content-based in Granrte Sti�te �actdoor• �idvertrsing, Ir�c. v. City of St. Petersburg, Tlcr., 2002 WL 34555956 {M,D.FIa. 2002), a,f'f'd in pa�•t and �•e��'d rn pc�rt, 348 �.3d I278, 1281-1282 (11th Cir. 2003}, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1�86 (200�), where a de novo appellate review con�'irm�d that the ardir�ance was content-neui�•al based in large part upan the goverrimeni's inter�st in regulating s�eec� and th� St. Petersburg Code at § 16-66'7(b)(2) that s#ated that its enac#ment was to p�•ornote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safeiy and that relied upan the precedent of YVc�1•d v. Rock�gainst Racis�rr, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (i989). 110. Signs painted on piers and seawalls were a�nong the e�arnples a� prohibited sign iypes identified in the study, Enhancing the Visu�rl �'nvi�•onl�aent Throargh Sign Reg��lations, Volurne One, at Seetion 3, Engeiha�dt, Hamtner & Associates, Tr�c. (2002), and such prohibition supported the pu�poses of the City o� Cl�a�tivater's sign �'�gulations. Further, tl�e distric# coui�t in the G3•anite-Clecc��u�crter d�eision noted t�iat fo��rner Sectian 3-1803 prohibited twenty-fve different types of signs (s�ach as signs atiached to or painted on piers and �eawalls, other than official regulato��y or warning sign�), and tha� Article 3 in general was nat content-based �see Grc�nite-Clearz►�ater at 1334]. 111. Signs in or upon any ri�er, bay, lake, ar ather body af wate�•, d�traet from the aesihetic environment, ancl such signs conflict with the pua�poses of Division 18, such as er�hancing the atttactiveness and econonnic well-being o� th� eity as a place to live, vacation and conduct business, and preserving and enhancing the natural ai�d scenic characteristics o£th� City af Cleai�water as a�vaterfront co�nmunity. 112. The City af St, P�tersburg's sign code that contained a pra�ibition on signs in or u}�on any river, bay, lake, a�• oth�r body o� water (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16�671(10), p�•ohibiting "signs in ar upon any river, bay, lake, or other bady of wate�•, unless othez�wise auth.o�•ized by the Ci�y Manager, s�ch as official regulatory or wa�•ning signs") was determined to be content-n�utral anc� nat content-based in G��anite Siate Oaatdoor .r�dver�tising, Inc. �>. City of St. Petersbzrjg, Fla., 2fl02 WL 34558956 {M.D,FIa. 2002), aff'd rn paj't and tAev'd in part, 34S �'.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Ci�•. 2003}, cert. clenied, 541 U.S. 1086 (200�), where a c�e novo appella�e review confizmeci that the nrdinance was canteni-neu�ral based in large pa�� upon the gove�•nment's interest in regulating speech and the St. Pete�•sburg Code at � lb-6b'7(�)(2) that IE�ii�:�: -------- Attachment number 8 \nPage 2: City Council af Clearwater, Florida and Mayo�' George Cretekos July 30, 2012 Page 22 stated that its enactment tivas to promote uniformity, px�eser�� aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the p�•ecedent oi Wcard v. RockAg�inst Rczcistn, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). 113. Si�ns on or �pon a river, bay, lake oz water were identifiec�. among the e�amptes of p�•ohibited sign ty}�es identified iz� #he study, Enhcrr�cing the Vistrc�l Envir•onn�errt Throirgh Sign Regtrlalior�s, Volunne One, a# Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Assoeiates, Inc. {2002), that were suppo�`ted by the put�ases set foi�ih in the City of Cleai•water's sign regulations in Division 18. Fu�•ther, the district coui�t in the Gr•anite-Clea��vater decision noted that former Section 3- 1803 prohibited twenty-five di�ferent types of signs {such as signs in ar upon any �•iver, bay, laka, or other body of water), and that Article 3 in general was not cantent-based [see Gr�anrte- Cleat•tivate�• ai 133�], 11�. Signs on publicly-owned land or easements or street �•ights-af-tivay [exeept (a) as allawed i� the renumber�d Seetion 3-180b,�, (b) signs on transit shelters e�•ected pursuan.t to Sectian 3-2203 and permitteci pursuant to the renumbe��ed Seetion 3-1807.B.5, (c) sidewalk signs to the e�tent p�r�nitted in Seetia� 3-1806.U., or the renumbe�ed Section 1807.B.4., (d) as allowed in the renumbered Sectian 3-1807.A., and (e) as aliowed in the r�numbered Section 3- 1806.V. and renurnb�red Section 3-1$06.W.] detract fz�orr� the aesthetic environment, and such signs conflict wiii� #he putposes of Division 18, such as enhaneing the aitraetiveness and econamic well-being of the eity as a place to live, vacation and conduct business. 115. The Center fo�• Goverr�rzzental Respons�bility's 1989 Model Code for iocal gavernments, at Section 10.01,00.A,, reeom�ended an exernption for signs necessary to p�•o�nate health, sa.fety and we�fare, and other zegulatory, statuto��y, traffic control or directional signs erected on public propexty �vith pei7nissian as appropriate fi•orn th� State of Flozida, the United States, of eity or county govel�ments, and that exen�ptions for statutory signs and t�•affic control device signs fram regulation unc�er Division 18 are inco�porated into t�e n�w Section 3-1803.C. �nd Section 3-�803.D,, and are not within the scope a£ the p�'ohibited signs listed in the new Section 3-180�.M. 11 f. The district cout�t in the Gr•�anfte-Clearti��ate1� decisian reviewed and upheld foxmer Section 3-1803.L, after striking thirteen words as set forth below, r�vhich at that time prohibited cei�tain signs, including "[s�igns Iocated on publzcly owned land o�• easements or insida street �•ights-of-tivay, eYc�pt signs rec�uired or erected by permission of tkie city managez• o� city cammission, signs or transit shelte�s erected pursuant to section 3-22Q3, and sand�v�ch baa��d signs to the eYtent perrnitted ir� the downtown district," and which furti�er provic�ed that "[p]zohibited signs shall include b�it shall not be limited to handbills, posters, adver�tisernents, ar notices that are attached in any way upon lampposts, telephone poles, utility poles, bridges, and sidewalks" �see G3�rrnite-Cle�n��ater at 1339] �see also Plecrsant Gr�ove Crty, Utah v. Surn�r�ar�rr, 555 U.S. 4bQ, �67, 129 S.Ct, 1�25, � 131 (2009)�. The districi court iz� the Granrte-Clea��vater deeisian struck the fallowir�g language that then appeared in Section 3-1803.L, "signs required ar ex•ected by pei�ission of the city manager or city commissian," due to a detei7nination that the sarrze a1la�ved officials to exe�cise undue cl.iscretion, and upheld the remaining pi•avisions of Section 3-18Q3.L, [see Gt•anite-Clertrivc�tef• at 1339]. Subsequent amendments were rr�ac�e to the Clearwate�• Dev�lopment Code to limit ar�y undue discretion of the city manager and city IE�ii�:�: City Council of Clearwater, Florida and Mayor George C�•etekos July 30, 2012 Page 23 Attachment number 8 \nPage 2: commission and to pro�ide criteria to address the concerns �aise�. by tne dist�•ict court in the Granite-Cleal��Tater� decisior�. 117. Signs on easerr�ents or right-of-way were identi£'ied among the examples of prohibited sign types ic�entified in #he study, �nhcrneing the Visaaal Envrr�onn�ent Th1•ough Sign I�egxrlations, Volume One, at Seetion 3, En�ell�ardt, Hamrner & Associates, Inc. (2002), tha� were supported by the pu�poses set forth in the City af Clea��vate��'s sign regulations in Division 18. 118. The City of St, Petersburg's sign code that contained a p�•ohibition on signs that are ereeted upon or pxoject over public righis-of way (St. Petei•sburg's Code at § 16-b71(11), p�•ohibiting "signs that are arected upon or project over p�blic rights-of-way or p�•esent a pot�ntial traffic ar pedestrian hazard" and which "ineludes signs wl�ich obstr�ct visibility"} was determined to be co�tent-neutzal and not cont�nt-based in G�•r�nite State Otrtdoor �1dve�•tising, 1'nc. v. Crty of St. Pete��sbirr•g, Fia., 2002 WL 3�558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in prrrt ancl r•ev'd rn paj�t, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003}, cer•t. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (20a�), where a de novo appe�late �eview confii7ned that the orciinance was coz�tent-neutral based in ia�ge part upon {1) the govei�unent's interest in �•egulating speech anci (2) the statement in the St. Peters6urg Cade at § 16-b{7(b)(2) that its �nactment was ta promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foste� safeiy and that relied upon the precedent of YYaf•d v. Rock Agcrinst Rcrcism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1g89). 119. Signs that emit sound, vapo�, smoke, odor, pat�ticles, or gaseous �atter eor�flict with the puiposes of Division 18, s�ch as enhancing the attrac#iveness and economic well-being of the city as a plac� to live, vacation and eonduct business. The Cente�• for Gavernmental Responsibility's 19$9 Model Code contained a p�oposed land development i•egulation that would prohibit signs that emit saund, odor, o� visibie mattet such as vapor, srnoke, pa��ticles, or gaseous matter, ai Model Code i0.02.02.J., prohibiting "Signs that emit audible sound, odor, or visible matter such as smoke or steam," as a�rohibition thai would further gove�•nmental pu�poses af aesthetics and traffic safety. Adcl.itianally, tl�e Cente�• for Ga�erntnental Responsibzlity's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulaiion that would prohibit signs thai emit any sounc� that is intended to attract attention, at Model Cade I0.02.I., pro�ibiting "S1�i15 fihat incoiporate projected i�ages, ernit any sound #hat is intended to attract attentian, ar involve the use of animals," as a prahibitian that wo�.�ld �urther govert�ental purposes of aesthetics and traffic sa�ety. 120. The City of St. Pete�'sburg's sign code that contained a similar pz•ohibition on signs that er�it sound, vapor, smoke, odor, pa�•iicles, or gaseaus �natter {St. Petersbui•g's Code at § 15-b71{12), p�'ohibiting "signs that emit sound, vapor, smoke, odor, pai�ticles, o�• gaseous �natter") was d�termined to be content-neutral and nat content-based in Gr�rnite Staie 4a►tdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersbxrrg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D,FIa. 2002}, cff'd in par•t and rev'd an parat, 3�8 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 {1 Ith Cir. 2003), ce1�t. denied, 54I U.S. 1086 (200�k), where a de navo appe�late r�view confiiYned thai the ardinance was content-ne�tral based in large pai� upan the governmen�'s inte�•est in regulating speeeh and tke St, Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b){2) that stated that its enactment was to pramote unifor�nity, p��eserve aesthetics and IE�ii�:�: City Councii af Clearwater, Flo�•ida and Mayor George Cretekos July 30, 2412 Page 24 Attachment number 8 \nPage 2� foste� safety and that relied upon t�e pxecedent of YVccrd v. Rock Against Racism, �91 U.S. 7$1, 791 (1989). �'urther, signs emitting soun.d, vapor, s�oke, andfar odor were identifieci arnong the eYamples of �rohibited sign types in the study, Enhancing the Visual Envi�•o�trnent Thro��gh Sign Regulairons, Volu�ne 4ne, at Section 3, Engelhax•dt, Ham�ne�� & Associates, Inc, (2002), and that the prohibition of such sign types supported the puzpos�s of the City of Clea��water's sign regulations. 121. The disi�•ict court in the Gr�rnite-Clear�lvater decision noted that �a�7ner Seetion 3- 1803 p�ohibit�d tweniy-five di�ferent types of signs (whic� included signs that emit �oimd, vapor, smol�e, odor, particles, or gaseo�s matter), and that Article 3 in general was not content- based [see Gj�anite-Clec�r��vater at 133�]. 122. Consistent with the p�izposes of Division 1 S, signs that have unshielc�ed iiluminaiing devices or which reflect lighting onto public rights-of-way thereby ci•eating a pot�ntial traffic or pedestrian hazard should continue to 6e prohibited in: Section 3-180�.0. The Center for Govei�nental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code eontained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit "[s]igns that a�•e of such intensity o�• brillianee as to cause glare o�• impair the visian of any matorist, cyclist, or pedestrian using or enie�•ing a public way, or that af a hazard or a nuisance to occupants of any property b�cause of glare or other characteristics" at Madel Code 10.02,02.P., as a prohibition that would fut�her governmer�tal purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety. 123. The City a� St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a simila� prohibiiion an signs that I�ave unshielded, illu�ninating devices (St. P�tershu�•g's Cade at § 16-671(13), prohibiting "signs that have unshielded, illuminating devices") was deter�nined to be content- neutral and not eante�nt-based in Grcrnite State Oarttloo�� r�clvet•tising, �nc. v. Crty of St. Petej•sbzcfg, Flcr., 2Q02 WL 39�SS895� (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in perl�t and j�ev'd in pc�i�t, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 {I1th Cir. 2003), cer�t. denied, 541 U.S, 10$b (200�), where a de novo appellaie review confirmed that the ordinance was eontent-neu�ral �ased in large part upon the gavernment's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § I6-667{b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to pro�note uniformity, preser�e aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Wirrc��. Rock�gainst Racisrr�, �91 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). 124. Signs with unshielded illu�inated devices were id�ntified among the e:�amples of prohibited sign typ�s in the study, Errhancing ihe Viszral Environrnent Th��oargh Sign Regtrlation.r, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelha�•dt, Hamm�r & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that the prohihition of such sign types suppoi�ted the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign �egulations. 125. Additionally, �ection 479.11(S), Florida Statutes, p�•ahibits the erection, use, operatio�, or �aintenance of certain specified signs, including any sign w�ich displays intez�nittent lights noi erz�bodied in the sign, or any �•otating or flashing iight �vithin 100 feet of the outside boundary of the rigl�t-of-way af any highway or� the State Highway System, interstate highway syste�n, oi• federal-aid px•imary highway systerz� or w�ich is illurninated in such a IE�ii�:�: City Cauncii of Clearwater, Flo�•ida and Mayor George C�etekos Juiy 3 Q, 2012 Page 25 Attachment number 8 \nPage 2: manner so as to cause glare or to impair the vision of motorists ar at�erwise dis#ract rnotozists so as to interfere with th� motorists' ability to safely aperate their vehicl�s. 126. The district court in the G�•anite-Clear�i�atel� decision noted that former Sectian 3- 1$03 p�ohibited twenty-fve different types oi signs {such as signs that have unshielded iIluminating devices or which reflect lighting onto public rights-of-way thereby ereating a potential traffic or pedestrian hazai•d), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see G�•anite-Clern��~fcrter at 133�]. �27. A prohibition on signs that rr�ove, revolve, twirl, rota#e, flash, scintillate, blin.k, fl��ttei• or appear to dis�lay motion, including animated signs, muiti-prism signs, floodlights and beacon lights {e�eept when requi�'ed by tk�e �'��iei�al Aviation Agency o�• ot}�er gove�nmental a�eney), unless otherwise e�p��essly ailowed, is eonsistent with the purposes of Division 18, including the lessening of hazardous situations, pzotecting t�e public fi•om the dangei•s of unsa�e signs, �•egulation of signs in a manner so as to not intei�fere with, obstruct vision of, o�� dist�•act moto�ists, bicyclists or pedestrians. A pzahibition on the aforesaid signs is also eonsistent with the purpose of #he land c�evelapinent regula�ions to enhance the attraetiveness of the community anci to preser�e and enhance the natural anc�. scenic charaeieristics of a wat�rfront and r�sart community, 128. The Cente� fo�• Gavernmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a p�•opos�d land develop�-rient �•egulatian that would prohibit "[s]igns with visible moving, revolving, or rotating parts or visible mechanical move�n�nt of any description oz other appaz•ent visible movemen.t achie�ed 6y electrieal, electronic, oi• mechanical means, except �or ti•aditional ba�•ber poles," at Mod�l Code 10.�2.02.D,, as a prohibition that would itxrth.er gove��unental ptupases af aesthetics and traffic saf�ty. Additianally, the Ce�tei� for Governmental Respansibility's 1989 l�iodel Code contained a proposed tand c�eveloprrzent �eguiation tliat would prohi�it "[s]igns with the optical illusio� of movemeni by means of a design that presents a pattei�n capable of givin� the illusion of motian or changin� of copy," at Model Code 10.02.02,E,, as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety. 129. The Center far Goverr�ental Res�onszbility's �989 Model Code also contained a proposed land develapment regulation that wouid prohibit "[s]igns with lights or illurnination: that flash, move, rotate, scintillate, hlink, flicker, o�� va�•y in int�nsity or color exeept for time- tempei•ature-date signs," at Moc�.el Code 10.02.02.F., as a prohibition that wauid fiii�her gove�rim�ntal purpases of aesthetics and t��affc safety. Furthe�•, th� Center for Gove��nrr�ental Responsibility's 1989 Model Coc�e contained a proposed land developm�nt regulation that would prohibit "[s��archlights used to adve�•�ise or promate a�usiness o�• to attraet e��stomers to a property" at Model Code 10.02.02.R., as a prohibition i�at would fiuthe� govei•nmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety. 130. The City of St. Petersb��z•g's sign code that contained a simil� pzohibition on signs that move, �•evolve, twirl, i�otate, flash, incl�ding animated signs, multi-pris�n si�ns, and beacon lights {,St. Petersbu�g's Code at § 1b-671(14}, prohibiting "signs that move, �•evoive, IE�ii�:�: City Council o�Clearwater, F�o�•ida and Mayor George Cretekas July 3d, 2012 Page 26 Attachment number 8 \nPage 2E twirl, rotaie, flash, including animat�d sigr�s, muiti-prism signs, and beacon lights e�cept when required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other go�vet�nmental agency") was dete��nined to be content-ne�tz•al and not content-based in Gr�anite Stcrte Outdoor �1 dvel�tisrrrg, Inc. v. Cily of St. Petersbtrrg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M,D.FIa, 2�02), aff'd i�r pa1•t and rev'cl in pay�t, 348 F.3d 12?S, 1281-1282 (Ilth Cir. 2003), cert. t�eniecl, 54� U.S. 1086 (20Q4), wher� a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neut�•al based in large pa��t upon the govei7unent's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667{b)(2) that stated that its enaetm�nt was to promote unifarmity, p�•eserve aestheiics and foste�• safety and that z•elied upon the p�•eeedent of YYard v. RockAgainst Racism, 491 U.S. '�81, 791 (1989), 131. A prahibition on signs utilizing beacon lig�ts should not apply, anc� beacan lights utilized as a sign shoulci. be eYempted fzom prohibition if and when the same is rec�uired by th� Fedei•al Aviation Agency or other governrnental ageney for a public puapose. 132. Signs t�at move, revalve, ��otate, and/or flash we�'e identified among the eYamples of prohibited sign. types identif �d in the study, Enhancing the Visual Enviy'orarrre�at Tht�ozrgh Sign Kegarltrtions, Volume One, a� Section 3, Engelhardt, Har�er & Assaciates, Inc. (2002), that r�ere supported by the pur�oses ,set fo��h in the City of Clearwater's szgn regulations in Division 18. 133. The dist�•ict eou�-t in the G��unite-Cleaj•tivater� decision noted that fo��ner Section 3- l SQ3 prohibited twenty-five different ryp�s of signs (s�ch as signs t�at �no�e, revolve, twiri, raiate, flash, including animated signs, na��lti-prism signs, t�•z-visians signsj, and that A��ticle 3 in general was not content�based [see G�anite-CIeaN�vater ai 133�]. 134. Signs that obsir�ct, conceal, hide, oz othe�•wise obscure from �iew any traffic eontrol device sign or official t�•affic signal should be prohibited, eonsistent with the purposes of Division 18. Signs abst�ucting traffic or other govei�tunental signs were identified among th� eYampies of prohibited sign typ�s identified in the st�dy, Enhc�nci�rg the Visticrl Envi1•ontr�ent Thr•otrgh Sign Regl�lcaltons, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associaies, Inc. {20Q2), that wei•e supported by the puzpos�s set foi�h izt the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18, A p�ohibition on sig�ns that present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard, includir�g signs which obstruct visibility, are consistent with the purposes of Division 1 S, inchiding the lessening of nazardous siti�ations, p�•atecting the public f'ram the dange��s of unsafe signs, regulation af signs in a�nanner so as to not interfere with, obstruct vision o% or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians. 135. Tkte City of St. Pe�ersburg's sign code that con�ained a similar �rok�ibition on signs that obstruct, canceal, hic�e, or otherwise abscu�•e from view ar�y afficial traffic sign (St. Petezsburg's Code at § 16�b71(15), prohibiting "signs that obstruct, conceal, hide, or otherwise oi�scuze from �iew any afficial traffic or gavei�nrr�en# sign, signal, or deviee") was de#etmined to be cantent-neutral and not content-hased in Granite State Ouldoor �Idver•tisrng, Inc. v. City of St. Petersbarrg, Flt�., 20Q2 WL 3�558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), c�ff'd in paf°t and re��'d in p�r7, 348 F.3d 1278, 1251-1282 (l lth Cir. 2�Q3), cert. clenied, 5�� U.S. 1086 (200�), where a de novo appellate revie�v conf"irrr�ed tl�at #he ardinance was cantent-n�utral based in large part upon the IE�ii�:�: - Attachment number 8 \nPage 2� City Council of Clearwat��', �'lorida and Mayor Geo�ge Cretekos 3uly 30, 2012 P�ge 27 gove�7unent's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at ��6-667(6)(2) that stated that i#s enactment was to p�•omote unifaxmity, preserve aestheties and foster safeiy and that z•elied upon the preceden:t af YYaP'd v. RockAgainstRacrstn, �91 U.S. 781, 791 (1989}. 136. The district court in the G�anite-Cleartivater decision noted that farmer Section 3- 1$03 prohibited twenty-£'iv� different iypes of signs (such as signs #hat obst�uet, conceal, hide or ot�erwise obscure from �iew any official traffic or govei�unen# sign, signal or device), and that Article 3 in genezal was not conteni-basec� [see G3•anite-Cleaj•�vrctej� at 133�]. 137. T�e Cente�• for Govex•nrnental Responsibility's 1989 Madel Code fai' iocal gover�ments, ai Model Cot�e 10.02.Q2.M., prohibited "Signs that obstruct the vision of pedestrians, cyclists, or tnotorists traveling on or entering public streets," and at Model Code 10.42.02.P., prohibited "Signs that are of such intensity or brilliance as to eause gla��e or zmpair the vision of any rnotorist, cyclist, or pedestrian using oz ente�•ing a public way, or #hat of a l�azard or a nuisat�ce to occupants of any propei�ty because af glare or oth.er characte�•is�ics". 138, The City a� St. Petersburg's sign code that contained similar prohibitions on signs that present a potential h�affic or pedestrian hazard, which inehide�. signs which ObSiIUCi visibility (St. Petersbu��g's Code at § 16-671(11), prohibiting "sigr�s that ... present a poteniial t�•affic or pedestrian hazard, This includes signs which obstruct visibility"} was detei7nined to be eontent-neutral and not content-basec� in G�•anite State Otcir�oor Adve1•tisrng, Inc. v. City af St. Petet•sbzar�g, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M,D.FIa. Zoo23, �rff'd rn part und t�ev'd in par•t, 348 F,3d 1278, 1281-1282 (I lth Ci�•. 2003), cer°t. de�ried, 5�1 U.S. 108b (200�), whe�e a de novo appellate review confi��ned that the ordinance was conten#-ne�tral based in large pa�•t upon the governmeni's interest in regulating spe�ch and t�e St. Pete�'sburg Code at § 16-6�7(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to pro�note unifo��nity, pr�serve aesthetics arad foster sa�ety and t�at reliecl upon the precedani of tYa1�d v. RockAgainst�tracisrt7, 491 U.S, 781, 791 (1989). 139. Signs fhat present potential traffic or pedestrian hazards were �denti�'ied among the exarr�ples af prohibited sign types identi£'ied in the study, Enhancr�rg the Vistrrrl En��it•onrnent Throzrgh Sign Regzclations, Val�m.e One, at Section 3, Engell�a�•dt, Hammer & Associaies, Inc. (2002), that weze supported by the puzpase� set forth in the City of Clea�water's sign reguiatians in Division 18. Additionally, the district eoui�t in the Grtanite-Clecrt`bi�Lil23° decision noted that foi7ner Seetion 3-1803 prohibited twen�y-five different types of signs (such as signs that present a potential trafiic or ped�strian hazard, inc�uding signs w�ich abstruct �isibility), and that Article 3 in geneial was not content-based [see Grcrnite-Cle{rrtivatel� at 133�]. 1�0. Signs attaehed to o�• placed on any tree or other vegetation adei to visual pollt�tian and ciutter, and should be p�'ohibited to fi�rther the purposes of the City's land c�eve�opment regulations an:d Di�ision l S of Article 3 of the City's Code. i�f, Signs attached to a tr�e or vegetation were identified among the exainples of pxohibited �ign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Vrsual Envrronrnent Thl�oargh Sign Regtrlatron,s, Valume Orze, at Section 3, Engelh.a�•dt, Hammer & Assoeiates, Inc. {2002), that we�•e supportec� by tl�e purpases set forth in the City af Clearwater's sigr� regulations in Divisian IE�ii�:�: City Councii of Clearwater, Fiozida anc#. Mayor George C�'�tekos 3uly 30, 2012 Page 28 Attachment number 8 \nPage 2< 18. Further, Chapte�• 479, �'lorida Statutes, at �ectian �79.11(9) (2010), prohibits any sign erected, usecl, aperated, o� maiz�tai�ed that is nailed, fastened, or affi�ed to any t�ee and which is adjacent #o the right-of-way of any po��ion of the intei•state highway system or the federal-aid pi•imary highway system. Addition.ally, the district cou�� in the Granrte-Clea1•tivutet� decision noted that Article 3 in gen�ral was not content-based, and that ca�ego�•ies for prohibited signs, such as signs attached to vegatatian [farnner Section 3�18�3.R, novv renumb�ied to Seetion 3- 1804,5� were not content-based [see Grtanite-Clea�•�vr�te3• at 133�, n.36 and 13�5-13�7]. 1�42. Signs intended to draw attention for a corr�mejacr�rl puipose and that are ca��'ied, waved o� othe�•wise displayed by parsons either on public rights-of-way or in a manner visible frorr� publie rights-af way (vvhich does not include ar limit the display of p�acai•cis, banners, flags oz ather signage by persons participating in demons#ration�, political rallies and similar events) eonflict with tne purpases of Division 18, such as enhancing the aiti�activaness of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduet business, and regulating signs in a�nanner so #hat i�ey do noi inte�fere with, obstruet the vision of, or disti•act motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians. Accordingly, the renumberec� Section 3-1803.T e�pressly prohibits signs that are intended to drar�v attentian for a cammercial purpose and that a�•e cat�•ied, waved or otherwise displayed by pezsons either on public �•ights-af-�vay or in a manner visible frorn public rights-af �vay, and that the foregoing piovision is not in#enc�ed to limit the display of placa�•ds, banners, flags or other signage by persans participating in demonstrations, palitical railies and similar evenis. 1�3. In rneeting th� puiposes and goals established in Ordinance 8343-12, it is appropriate to prohihit andlor to cantinue to prahibit the display of what �as �ecome known as "human signs". 1�4. The distzict coui�t in the Gj•anite-Clear•ti��atef• deeision addressed the restriction in fo��er Section 3-1803.5 �renumbered as Section 3-1803.T] which prohibited signs that are "carried, waved o�• otherwise displayed" in public rights-of-way or "in a rnanner visible frorn p�iblic rights-of-way" and "directed toward such displays intendec� to draw attention fa�• a cornr�ze�cr�rl pacrpose, ar�d is not intended to lirnit the display of placards, banners, flags or ot�er signage by pei•sons demonstrating in demonst�•ations, palitical rallies or simila� events" [see G��cr�rite-Cleartivater• ai 13�0-13�1]. The district court in the Gt•anite-Cleartivater decision found that the restriction in foi•rner Section 3-1803.5 j�•enurnberec� as Section 3-18�3.T] was content or vievvpoint-neutral and. justified by Clearwater's stated intet�ests in safety and aestheties, and that the additional guidance pro�ided in the prnvision assu�•es that governmeni officials a�•e not given ��nbriciled diseretion [see Granrte-Clecarti��ater at 1340-13�1]. 145. 0#'f p�•emises signs that are tacked, nailec�, posted, pasted, giued, or otherwise attached ta trees, poies, sta�Ces, or fences, and which a�•e not otherwise exp�'essly allow�d as a permitted sign, also known as "snipe signs," add to visual pollution and clutter, and sk�ould be prohibited to fi�riher the purposes of the City's land development regulations and Division 18 of Article 3 of ihe City's Code. 14b. The district eourt in the G�°anrte-Clearz3�ater� decision upheld the City's prahibition an snip� signs aftez severing the �vozds "other objects" in the def�nition of Sectian 8- IE�ii�:�: Attachment number 8 \nPage 2S City Council of Clearwater, Florida anc� Mayor Geozge Cretekos July 30, 2012 Page 29 l0I in o�•dei• to remove a conflict between S�ction 3-1806.B.3 (allowing attached signs} and Sec�ion 3-1803,T (prohibiting snipe signs that would ir�cl�de attached signs to objects otl�e�• than thos� Iisted) [see G��anite-Clear��ater• at 1335]. Additionally, snipe 51�215 wer� among th� examples of prohibit�d sign types id�ntiiied in t�.e siudy, E�th�rneing the Yisual Environment Through Srgn Regaclattons, Volurne One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Harni�e� & Associates, Inc. (2002), th�t supported the p�rpases set foi�h in Division I8 of Article 3 of the City's Code. Further, Chapter 479, Florida 5tatutes, at Section 479.11(9) {20�0), prol�ibits any sign erected, used, operated, or rnaintained that is nailed, fastened, or affi�ed to any tree and whicl� is adjac�nt t� the right-af-way of any pox•tzon of the interstate highway system ai• the federal-aid prinaaiy highway system, in the interests of aesthetics and tzaffic safety. 147, The City of St. Pe�ersburg's sign code that cantain�d a simila�� prohibition on snipe signs (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-b71(16), p�•ohibiting "snipe signs"} was det�rmined to be content-nei�tral and nat content-based in Gt•anite State Ozridoo�• A�lve1°tisrng, 1'nc. v. City of St. Petet�sbzrfg, Fla., 2002 WL 3�55895fi (11�1.D.Fla. 2002), aff'd i�r pc�rt an�l r•ev'd r�r part, 3�8 F3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Ci�•. 2003), cej�t. de�ied, 5�1 U.S. 1086 {200�), The ciistrict cour� in GNanrle State v. St. Petershar�•g, determined that the foregoing provision prohibiting "snipe signs" did nat rende� the ordinance uncons#itutional per se (id. at "12, n. 23}. The Eleventh Circuit, upon, where a de noj�o appeIlate review confi�7nec� tl�at the ordinance was eantent-neut�'ai based in large pat�t upon the government's interest in regulating spe�ch and the St. Petersbui•g's Code at � 16-667{b}(2) that stated that its enactment was to prorr�ote unifo�mity, p�•ese�ve aesihetics and foster safety ant� that relied �pon the p��ecedent of Wir��d v. Rock�gcrinst Rracism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). 148. Three ciimensional objec#s �sed as signs conflict with the pu�poses of Dzvision 18, such as enhanci�g t�e a�tractivene�s of the city as a place to live, vacation and canduct business. Three-dimensional at�jects used as signs were identiiied amorzg the eYamples of prohibited sign types identifiecl in the study, Enh�ncing the Visatc�t En��i�anment Thraotrgh Sign Reg�rlations, Volume One, at Sectian 3, Engelharc�t, Hammer & Associates, Inc.-(2002), that we�•e suppoi�ted by the purposes sei forth in the City of Clea��water's sign regulations in Divisian 1 S. 1�9, The City af St. Peters�u��g's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on tl�ee-dimensionai objects that are used as sign� (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-b71{1$), prohibiting "th�ee-dimensional abjec�s that are ��sed as signs") was deter�ined to l�e content- neutxal and nat eonter�t-based in Gracrnite Stc�te �tstdoo3� Advertisrng, Inc. v. Crty of St. Pete3•s1�arNg, Fla., 2402 WL 3455895b (M.D.�'la. 20Q2}, aff'c� in pc�rt and j�ev'd in pat�t, 3�8 F.3t� 1278, 1281-�282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 5�1 U.S. 1086 (200�), wher� a de novo appeilate review confi�7ned that tlne ordinance was content-ne�tral based in large pai�t upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. 1'etez•sburg Code at § 1b-667(b)(2) that s�ated that iis enactment was to px•omote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety an.d that �•elied upon the preced�nt of YYarc� v. Rackr�gain,st Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). 150. The districi couzt in the Gt•anite-CIeal��vater decision noted that former Section 3- 1803 prohibiteel fwenty-fve different types of signs {which inc�uded three-dimensional objects IE�ii�:�: City Couneil o� Clearwater, Floz•ida and Mayor George Cretekos Juty 30, 2�12 Page 30 Attachment number 8 \nPage 3l that a�e used as signs}, and that A�•iicle 3 in general tivas not content-based [see Granite- Clec�r�ti}c�ter at 133�]. 151. V�hicle signs and po�'table ti•ailer signs detract from the aesthetic en�ironment, and such signs canfliat with the pu�poses of Divisian 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to liv�, vacation and co�duet business, and p��eservir�g and er�hancing the natural and scenic characteristies of the City of Clea�water as a watezfiont community. V�hicle signs anci. po��table trailer signs were zdentiiied among tke exa�nples of prohibited sign types identif ed in the study, Enhcrncing the Visacal En��i1•onment Throargh Sign Regarlation,s, Volume One, ai Sectian 3, Engelha�•dt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. �2002), that we�•e s�pported by ihe pu��poses set forth in the Ciiy of Clearwatei's sign regulations in Division 1 S. 152. The C�nte�• for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code for local govei�ments, at Model Code 10.02.02.W., �rohibited vehicle signs with a total sign a�•ea a� any vehicle in eYcess of ten (10) square feet, when the vehic�e: (1) is parked for more than si�ty consecutive �ninutes vvithin one hundred (1Q0} feet of any stz•eet right of way, (2) is visible fram the street righ.t of �rray that tke vehicle is within one hundred (100) feet of, and (3) is not regularly useci in the conduc# af the business advertised on the vehicle; and fu��ther providing that a ve�icle used primarily far advertising, or fo� the purpase of providing trans�ortation fOT OWII�TS or employees of the occupancy advertised by the vehicle, shall not be considered a vehicle used in the conduct of business. Nea�ly identical p�•ohibitions on vehicle signs have upheld against a constitutianal cliallenges (see Perkins v. Totivn of Of�ange Pa1�k, 2006 WL 5988235 (Fla. Cir. Ct.). 153. The Center fo� Govez•nmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code �or local gove�•n�nents at Model Code 1 Q.02.Q2.Y, prahibited "po��abl� signs as defined by this Code," and therein at 10.00.04 defined "portable �ign" as "any sign which is manifestly designed �o be transpo��ted by trailer or on its awn wheeis, including such signs e�en though the wheels may be ��emo�ed and the zemaining ehassis or support structu��e canverted to an A ar T franne sign and aitac��ed te�nporarily to the ground" and that a similar prohibition was upheld in Har•nish v. 1Ylcrraatee Cotrnty, 783 F.2d 1535, 1540 {11th Cir, 1986). 1 S�, The City af St. Petersbuz•g's sign code that contained sinnilar prohibitians or� portable signs and vehicle signs {S#. Petezsburg's Code at § 16-6'11(fi} and {19)), were datermined to be content-neutz•al and not content-based in Granite State Oartdoot• �dve3�tisrng, Inc. v. City of St. Pete�sbirr�g, Flrr., 2002 WL 3�558956 (M.D.�'la. 2002), c�ff'c� in ptct•t �nd rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. �'eniecl, 541 U.S. 1086 (2�0�), whe�•e a de novo appelIate �•eview eonfirmed that the o�•dinance was content-neut��al based in large part upon the govern�nent's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at � 16- 667(b)(2} that stated #hat its enactrr�ent was to pron�ote unifarmity, p�'ese�ve aesthetics ancl foster safety and that relied �ipon tke prec�dent of �Yat•c� v. Rock Against Racisrn, �91 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). I[�ii�:�: City Courzcil af Clearwater, Florida and Mayor Gearge Cretekos J�ly 30, 2012 Page 31 Attachment number 8 \nPage 3 155. The district court in ihe G3•axite-Cleaj•tivate�� decision n:oted that fo�•mer Section 3- � 8Q3 prohibited twenty-�ive different types of signs (such as portable signs and �ehicle signs), and that A�ticle 3 in general was not eontent-�as�d [see Granite-Cleartit�ater° at 1334�. 156, Any perm.anent sign that is not specifically d�scribed or enumerated as permitted within the specific dist�ic� classifications in the Com�nunity De�velopmen:t Code should ear�tinue to b� prohibited in the renumbered Seciion 3-1804,X, with clarification that the fo�egoing p�•ohibition pe��tains to permanent sign types. 15'7. The City of St. Pet�rsburg's sign code that contained a si�mila� prohibitian on signs not specifically described or �numeraied as pei7nitted within the specifc land us� classification� in the article 16 of the St. Petersburg Code (St. Pete�•sburg's Code at § 16-67I (20), prohibiiing "any sign that is not specifically described or enumerated as permitted within the specife lar�d �se classifications in this az•ticle") was detei�nined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Grc�nite St�rte Dutdoo3� Advertisr�ag, Inc. v. City of St. Pete��sbtrrg, Flcr., 2002 WL 3455$956 (M.D.FIa. 2042), c�ff'd i» pa�t and rev'c� in par•t, 348 F3d 1278, 1281-1252 {l lth Cir. 2003), ce3�t. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004}, whex�e a de novo appellate re�iew confirmed that the ordinanc� was content-neutral based in large pat�t upon the go�ernrnent's interest in regulating speech and the St. P�tersburg Code at § 16-6fi7(b){2) that stated that its enactment was ta promote uni�oi7nity, prese�ve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the preced�nt af �Ya1°d v. RockAgainstRcacistn, �91 U,S. 751, 791 (�989), 158. T�e district court in the Granite-Cleaj•tivatej• decision noted that fo�'mer Section 3- 1803 prohibited twenty-fve dif�erent types oi signs (which incl�ded any sign that is not specifically described or enumerated as perrr�itted within the specific district classifications in the Developmeni Code), and that ��iele 3 in general ivas not content-based [see Granite- Clearlvate�� at 133��. 159. In ca��ying out and imple�nenting the purposes of the land development regulations governing signage it is appropriate to establish ge�exal standards including the following: the e�tablishr�ent of a minimum setbaek for signs of ii�e fee# froan the pzoperty line; the allowance of n�on signs and lighting and praviding the ci�•cumstances whereby neon Iighting is counted to�ra�•d the allowable area of pe�n:�issible signage; the establishment of cei�tain conditians whereby illuminated signs may be operated; the allowane� of banners and flags and �roviding the circumstanc�s whereby the same a�e counted taward tY�e allowable area of perr�issible signage; the allowance of signs t�at fi�netian to display changing gasoline prices (gasoline price display signs) except vahe�•e speciiically p�•ohibited, and also providing certain height limitaiions and #he circumstances whe�•eby the same a��e cotmted toward the allowable area of permissihle fi•e�standing signage; the allo�uance of signage on awnings subject to cei�tain limitations such as size; a provision that ma�es it clear that other codes may be applicablc, namely building and electrieal codes; a provision that specifies that signs shall not have limita#ions bas�d upon the content of the mes�age eontained on the signs; and a provision cadifying that noncornmercial speech may be substituted �or comrnercial speech. IE�ii�:�: City Council af Clearwater, Florida and Mayor George C�•etekos J�ly 30, 2012 Page 32 Attachment number 8 \nPage 3: 16Q. Tn ihe interest of both aesthetics and traffic safe#y, na sign shali be located within five feet o�a property line af a parcei pxoposed for development. 161, In tl�e interest of aesthetics and traffic safeiy, it is appropriat� to addz�ess circumstances when neon lightin� shauld noi be xegai•ded as signage for pu�pose of Iand development �egulations that regulate signage, and ta provide for circumstances when neon lighting used as fr�estanciing designs or mu��als or as atiacl�ec� mu�•als oz• designs ut�ela#ed to the a�•chitectural features of ihe building should be counted toward the allowab�e area of the proper�ty's or occupancy's freestanding or attaehed signage, as applicable. �62, In the interest af aestketics and tzaffc safety, it is appropriate ta pravide that the lig�t fiom any illuminated sign shall b� sl�aded, shielded, or directed away fi•om adjoining street righis�of way and propei�ii�s; that no sign shall have blinking, flashing, or fli�ttering lighis or other ill�minatian devices which have a c�anging light intensity, b�ightness, colo�•, or direetion or as otherwise prohibited in the new Section 3-1$04; that no colored lights shall be used at any location or in an.y manner so as ta be conf'used with or consi�ued as traffic-cont�'ol devices; thai neither the direct nor the reflected lig�t from prima�y light sou�•ces shall ereate a trafiic hazarci to operata��s of motor �e�icl�s on public thoro�ghfares; and thai the light which illuminates a sign shall be shaded, shielded, or di�•ected so t�at no structure, including sign suppo��ts or awnings, axe illuminated hy such lighting. 163. In the inte�est of aesthetics and traffic safety it is appropriate to pz•ovide that a banner or flag may be used as a permitted freestanding ar attached sign and, if so used, the area of tl�e banner or flag slaall be included in, and limited by, th.e computatian of allowable ar�a for freestanding o�• attached signs on the prope��ty, unless oth:erwise p�ovided in Division 1$, such as inth� new Seciion 3-1$OSb.G. 16�. The dist�•ict court in the Gr•anite-Clecrr•tivate� decision noted that Article 3 ir� general was noi content-hased, arnd that there we�e legally �•equired or justifiabl� eYCeptions such as construction signs [former Section 3-1805.F.� and for sale signs [former Section 3-1805.0.], and that the eYCeptions for flags [former Section 3-1S05.G.], was also not content-based [see Grcenite-Cle��r-��ater� at 1339, n.36 and 13�5-1347]. 165. Consistent with tke piirposes of Division 18, gasoline p��ic� display signs �hall be allo�red in all non-�'esidentia� districts e�ceept where specifically prohibited; gasoline price display signs shall be placed in the vicinity of the pump islands and shall nat eYtend ab�ve any pump island eanopy ar they sha11 be attached to the primary freestanding sign for the propei�ty; if attached to the freestanding sign, th.e area of the gasoline p�ice display sign ska�l �ae coi�nt�d toward the allowable a�•ea for �he freestanding sign; anc� a gasolin:e price display sign may b� changed manually or electronically in recognition af intei7nittent changes in fuel price� which �nay occur ma�•e often t�an once per day. 166. The disi�•ict court in Granite State Dartdoo�• Advertising, I�tc. v. Crty of Clear��ate�, Flc�. (G��anite-Clecal•��ate3), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 133�, n. 6 and 13�-5-13�6 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd rn part crnc� rev'd tn part on other• gr•ount�s, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 {11th Cir, 2003), IE�ii�:�: City Cotu�cil o� Clearwater, Florida and Mayor George Ci•etekos July 30, 2012 Page 33 Attachment number 8 \nPage 3; cert. denied, S43 U,S. 813 �8 (2004), addressed Article 3, Division 18's General Standards, whei•ein the City specificaily regulated the placement, size and location of gasoline price signs [see Gr•antte-Cleat•wcrte�� at 1336], rejected the contention that foi7ner Section 3-1$04.E [now renumbered to Section 3-1805.E] was an im�permissible confent-based �YCeption rende��ing the a�•dinance unconstitutiornal, and observed that t�is sign category (gasoline price signs) and its regulatians were a good eYampl� of how the oxdinanc� was content-neutral [see Gt•anite- Cleaj�lvatef• a# 1336]. 167. The federai district couri in the Gj•unite-Cleur��ater decision eonch�ded that th� categoi•y for "gasoline price signs" was content-neutral inasmuch as tile provision was not an atte�npt to censo�• sp�ech or enforce regulatians based on �iewpoint inasrnuch as a gasaline price sign has no viewpoint and meie�y relates faetual infoi�nation.; hence, the pravision is not an attempt ta censor speech or limit the free eYpression of ideas-especially ir� light of the City af Cleaxwater's speciiic prohibitian in then Seetion 3-1$04.H on piaeing any Iimitation on a sign baseel on the cat�tent of the message �see Gr•c�nite-Cleaj•�vate�• at 1336]. lb$. In the interest of �ath aestheiics and traffic safety it is appropriate ta regulate signage, inclusi�e of g��aphic elements, that appear on awnings. 169. It is appropriate ta specify th�t in addition to land development reguiatior�s identified in Division 1 S, signs shall comply with all applicable building and ��ect��ical eode �•equirement�. 170. The districi court in the Gr�nite�Clec�r�vater decision cited fai7n�r Section 3- 180�.H. {providing "no sign shall be subject to any li�nitation based on the content of the message"} in determining that �he challenger could not rnake a facial ehallenge to Article 4 of the Code; and the disirict cout�t stated that the City'� ordinance was conteni-neutral under T'ho�nc�s v. Chicago Paf�k, 53� U.S. 316 (2002) [see Gj•anite-Clec�rtivater° at �325, n.20]. Consistent rvith p�•ioz code �]I'OV1510I15 contain�d witl�in formez• Sectio� 3-1$��.H. �xen�tmbered to Section 3- 18�S.H.], natwithstanding any othe�• p��ovision of the Community Developm�nt Code, no sign s�all be subject ta any Iir�it�tion based on the co�ter�t af the �n�ssage contained on such sign. 171. The City of Ciea�water has allawed nancammereial speech to appea�� whe�•ever com�ercial speech appears; and the City desi��es to continue that practice thza�gh the specifzc inclusian of a substitution clause thai eYpressly aliows non-cornme�•cial messages ta be substituted for corn�ezcial messages. By confii7ning in its a�•dinance tl�at noncomrnercial messages ar� a�lowed whe��ever co�n�nercial messages are permitted, the City will continu� to ove�come any constituiional objection that its o�•dinance impermissibly favors comrr�e��cial speech noncommercial speech [see Otrtc�oora Systenas, Inc. v. Ciry of Lenex�r, 67 F. Supp, 2d 123 I, 1236-1237 (D. Kan, 1999)]. 172. There are ma�y signs and sign types that may �e allowa�Ie and �ermitted without development xevie�,� pl�rsuant to Az•ticle 4 af the Co�znunity Development Cad�. Consistent with the pui�poses of Division I S, the�•e should be allowed withaut perinitting one ac�dress sign of no more #han two st�uare feet of total sign face area for eac� parcel of land used for r�sidential IE�ii�:�: Attachment number 8 \nPage 3� City Council of Clearwater, Flarida and Mayor George Cretekos July 30, 2012 Page 34 purposes and na more ihan. one square foot for each number contained in the p�'operty addr�ss fa�• each parcel af land used foi• non-residential pu�poses, with: the square footage for the address sign being allowed in addition to the tatal squax•e signage fooiage allowed in the renurnbered and rnodified �ection 3-1807. 173. The City of St. Petersbu�•g's sign code contained a pro�ision that exerr�pted "addzess numbers" from pe�•mittin.g and other regulata�`y require�rzents (see St. Petersburg's Code at � 16-670(a}(1}) and that this provision was arnong mo�e than 50 diff�rent provisions that were ehallenged by Granite S#ate in Granite State O�rtc�oor Adveratrsing, Inc. v. City of St. 1'eter•sbarlg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, z12, n.23 (M.D.�'la. 2002), �rff'd in perf�t �rnc� rev'd in perj•i, 3�8 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cer•t. denied, 5�1 U.S. 108b (2004). The district caurt in Gr�rnite Sta#e v. St. Peiey�shut•g, determined that the foregoing provision exempting "street addresses" ciid not renci.e�• the ordinance unconstitutior�al per se (r�I at �` 12, n, 23). The Eleventh Ci��c�it, upon a de raovo appellate re�iew, confia7ned th.at the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upo� the �act that the gove��nent's siated inte�•est in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code ai Section 1b�667(b}{2)) was to promote uniformiiy, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based �pan the fact that the gov�rnment's abjective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration undez th� governirzg precedent oi Ward v. Rock Agcrinst Racisrn, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). 174, Unc�ex current jurisp�•uc�ence [see, e.g., Lin�rial°k Associcrtes v. Tox��r of �T�illingboro, �31 U.S. S5 (1977)�, on-site real estate signs, �uch as "for sale" szgns, shou�d be allowed given #he impoz•tant roie and unique fi�nction that real estate signs, such as "for sale" signs, per�orm on the premises where they are located; and also under c�r�•ent jurisprudence [see, e.g., Laclue v. Grlleo, S 12 U.S. �3 (1994}], signs that allov�r p�•aperty owners, especially i•esidential horneowners, ta fi•ee�y eYpress a particular point af view on their own property �houid be reasonably accommodated and may be un:it��ely valuable, whieh may be accornmoe�af�d by the allnwance of a fi•ee �Ypression sign; 175. The distriet court in Gt�anite State �utdoar �ldvertasi�rg, Inc. v. City of Cle�r��vater•, Fla. {Gr•anite-Cleaj��a7atet), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1.334, n. 5 and 13�5-1346 {M.D.FIa, 2002), aff'd in p�r•t ancl rev'd in pa�•t on othej• g�°oirnc�s, 351 F.3ci i 112, 1l 18-1119 (1 lth Cir. 2003), cerai. denied, 5�3 U.S. 813 48 (20Q4), add�•essed the constitutionality of provisions gaverning nan-election yaz•d signs in �•esidential areas, which pi•o�isions contained both a six-�oot size limitation and a durational limitatian af ninety days d��ring a ane year periad [see G�°arrite- Cleaj��vatet� at 1336-1338�. 176. The ci.istrict court in Granite-Clea��f�ater• agreed with the reasoning of Br•ayton v. City of �Vew Brighton, 519 N.W.2d 243 (Minn,199�) (upholding an ardinance that allowed one non-eomme�cial sign all year long and adc�itional non-commercial signs du�•ing ti�e eiection season), and �ounc� that the pro�isions were constitutiona� if the ninety-day duratiozial limitation was st��ck and severec�, the�•eby a�lowing ane terr�porary yard sign (in residential axeas) all year long [see Gt�a�rite-Clea��ti��crter• at i336-1338], which may function as a fi•ee expression sign. IE�ii�:�: City Cauncil of Cleaz•water, Florida and Mayar George Ci•etekas July 30, 2012 Page 35 Attachment number 8 \nPage 3; 177. It is appropriate ta e�pressly provide for th� d�splay of one temporary fr�e- expression sign on each parcel �vithin the City wi#hout any dui•ational limitation, and th� allowance of a free eYp�•ession sign on each parcel should be in addition to the ��ight to display te�nporary election signs p��iar to an elee�ion to maximize the oppai�unity fo�• political speech, subject to �•easonable time, place and manner provisions that address hei�ht, size, number, location, seti�ac�, anct othe�• factors tl�at cont�•ol the sp�ead of visual blight and sign elutter, and � such rigl�t to display a temporary fi•ee expression sign be in addition to the right to utiliz� a message suhstitution clause to display a noncommerciai tnessage in lieu af a comme�•cial message on a lawF�l sign. I78. Unde�• current ,�urisprudence, election signs are generaily accozdec� a higher level of p�•otectian under the Fi�•st Amend�ent than any ather classification ar type of speech. 179, Durational lirnitations on election signs, sorr�etimes referred to as political signs, are frequently problemaiic �vhen th� limitations affeet the posting of electian signs pt�ror• to the eleetion coneex�ning the candidate or ballot issue to which they pextain, but durational limits requi�•ing the renaaval of election signs following s�zch election are generally pea7nisszble [see, e.g., El�ction Signs a�nd Time Limits, Evolving Vaices i� Land Use Law, 3 Wash, U.J.L. & Pol'y 379 (2000)]. 180. �'i•ee e�pression signs a�e sufficient to allow fo�• politieal speech icnrelated to particular candidates or ballat issues. I81. As set forth above, t�e City af Cleartivater in#ends to expressly pro�ide ihat p�•op�rty owners rr�ay display at least one t�mpo�'ary sign for free expression at all times {free e�pression signs}, and that in ucldition thereto it intends to �xpressly provide that piopei�ty owners may maintain additianal temporary signs displaying their support oz opposition to political candidates and ballot issues before the elec#ian ta which they pertain (eleetion signs). 182. The provisions �or t�mpo�•ary real estate signs, fz•ee e�pression szgns, election signs, and certain other sign iypes a��e not intended to dirnini�h o� lessen the City's inter�sts in aesihetics o�• traff c safety, but the saz�e are adopted in z•eeognitian of ti�e �aseful fi.mciions and practical needs served by si�ch signage in tk�e City's cor�e�•ce anc�/or in the political freedom that must be accorded its citizens to freely express their points of view and political desires. 183. Under cu�•z•ent jurispauc�ence, the City of C�eazwater's sign regulations may be under-inclusive in theii• reach to serve the City's interests in aestheties and traffic safety, while at the same tirr�e balancing the inte�•ests protected by the First Amendzz�ent [see, e.g., �b.fernbers� of City Cozencil v. Tcrrpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (195�-); Cordes, Sign Reg��lation After Lad�e; EYamining the Evol�ing Linnz#s o� �irst Amendm�nt Protection, 74 Neh.L.Rev, 36 (1995); Lo�rgvietit� Oi�tdoo�� Ad�Je�tising Co., L.L.C. v. City of �Yinte�• Garc�en, Florfdcr, 426 F.Supp.2d 1269, 12'�2 (M.D.Fla. 2006)]; and the City may from time to time m4dify its sign �•egulatior�s so as to provide additional li�nitations to f�rthe� serve the City's inte��ests in aesthetics and/or trafiic safety. IE�ii�:�: City Council of Clea�water, Florida and Mayor Gearge Cre#ekas July 30, 2012 Page 36 Attachment number 8 \nPage 3E 18�. "Holiday decorations," as defined in the aceompanying am�ndtnents, should not be included wit�in the definition o� the term "sign" for pu��poses of the land developm�nt zegulations under Ai�ticle 3, Division 18, of the Community Developm:ent Code, and the definition of "sig�," as defined in the acco�panying amendments, has been revised to accomplish the eYCiusion af such decorations from the defini#ian of "sign". In light af the foregoing, zt is appropriate ta deleta the provisions of the cui7ent Section 3-18a5.D, that allow holiday decorations as signs faIlirtg undar a land development regulation. 185. The district court in Gr��rite �State 4utdoor• Advej•tising, Inc. v. City of Clearu�ate�{, Fla. (G7•anite-Cleaj��vuter), 213 F.,�upp.2d 13I2, 133�, n. 6 and 13�5-13�b (M.D.Fla. 2002), aff'd rn perpt and rev'd in pa1•t on ather groarnds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118�1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (200�), detex�nined that the provisions incoiporated into ihe former Section 3-1$OS.C.2 allowing temporary speeial ev�nt and/or puhlic purpose signs af a ternporary nature Iacked stafficient critezia to guide an official's decision as to the type of sign, size, design and Iength of display, and ihe p�•ovision was severed in its entirety as p�o�iding an official with t�o much discretion to withstand constitixtional sc�utiny �see G�•anite-Clearti��ater• at 1338-1339]. T�.erefor�, the City o�Clearwater �er�ded �a�'mer Seetion 3-1$OS.C.2., pre�iously struck by th� distric# coui� from the Community Development Code, to eli�inat� the undue discretion and ta add content-neutral objectzve criteria [see Ordinanee No. 6997-02, Section 2, ac�opted on July 18, 2�02]. 18b. Gi�ven the unique func#ion seived by temporary grand opening signs and te�nporary special event or puhlic pu�pose signs, it is appropriate to continu� to allow s�ich signs without a pe�7nit. One tenc�porary grand opening sign sha11 be perznitted for thirty (3�) days aftei• the issuance of an occupaiional licens� for any new business, new awner of an existing business, or business name change, and such sign shali not exceed twelve (12} sc�ua�•e f�et in total sign face a�•ea a�• such sign rnay be a temporary cove�•ing, such as a�oaster cover, sign baot, o�� sign sock, which cove�•s an ex�sting la�vful and pe��rnitted sign, whether an attachett sign o� a freesianding sign. - 187. In oi�der ta pz•ovide fleYibility fo�• the holding of a special event o�• for the display of infoa7nation £or a public p��•pose, it is necessary to allow fa�• tempoxary special ever�t or public pwpose signs that m�et ce��tain objec�ive conteni-neut��al crite�•ia, as initially developed and adopted in �uly 2002 by way of Ordinanee Na. 6997-02, Sec#ion 2. 188. Temparary special event ar public purpose signs shall be allowed subject to app�oval by the co�munity develQpment coordinator provided the temparary signs meet the following c�•itaria: (a) the signs are te�npora�•y signs for a lirz�ited time and #'requency, (b) the signs are for a special even:t or a public purpose af a tempora�y nature, {c) t�e signs do not aYCeed the maYimutn height and size requirements for f'reestanding signs under the Co�nunity Development Code, (d) the c�isplay Qf tempoi•ary �igns for a special event shall not begin any earlier than ttivo calendar days before the event and s�all b� removeci within one business day afte�• the event, and {e} th� signs wil� meet the following pu�poses of Article 3, Division l&, to wit: (1) �he signs will �ot conceal ar obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [Section 3-1$02.F.], (2) the signs will not conflict ��ith the p�•incipal pei�nitted use af the sit� or adjoin�.ing sites [Seetian IE�ii�:�: City Cauncil of Clearwater, �lorida and Mayor George Cretekas July 30, 2012 Page 37 Attachment number 8 \nPage 3� 3-1802.J.], (3) the signs wili not interfere with� q�35tT'L1Ct V2310I1 Of OT C�15�i•act motorists, bicyclists or pec�estrians [Section 3-1802.K.], and (�) ihe signs will be installed and �naintained i� a safe tnanner �Section 3-1$42.L.]. � 89. Consistent with the general �tandards in renutnbe�•ed Section 3-1805, the approval or disapproval of tetnporary speeial event ar public purpose sigr�s shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i. e., the viewpoint expressed) on such signs, the community dev��opment coozdinato�' shali rende�• a decision within ten (IO) days afte�• an application is made faz such signs, and such decision shall be deemed an adminish�a�ive inte��retation and any pe�son adve�sely a�fected has t�ie right to appeal the decisian io the community develapment boazd pursuant ka Sectian �-501(A). 190. Given the p��eval�nce of valet parking within az•eas fiec�uented by visiting tourists and given the unique function served by on-premise signage that indicatas the location of a valet statian, it is apprapriate to allow fo�• a single sign indicating a valet parking station, pravided such sign meets �•easonable criteria that is based upon the pu�'pases af Division 1$, and fii��the�• provided that such sign is visibie o�ly dui�ing the hou�s that the valet is operating. 191. It is nec�ssary and apprapriate to allow one temporary eonstruction sign loeated on a parcel proposed for development d�i•ing t�e period that a huilding pelmit is in fo�•ce, provided that such sign does not eYeeed a reasonable size rest�•ietion based upon the natu�•e of the Iand use as �esidential or non-residential. It is furiher necessary anci appropriate ta establish reasonable c�•iteria for the dimension� of such signs bas�d upon the zoning districts andfor land us�. The balance achieved for #he modest display of temporary consi�•uctifln signs as �imited by land use classification and placement stri�es tke appropriate balan.ce that �neets the principles of the City's land use r�gulations. It is na� necessary to �•equire a permit foi• tempoi•ary construction signs as allowed under Division 18 of A��ticl� 3 o�the City's Con�munity Development Code. 192. The districi court in Gr•anite State Otatdoor 14dver•trsing, Ine. v. City of Cletr�•�vater•, Fla. (Granite-Clec�j�tivate3), 213 �'.Supp.2c�. 1312, 133�, n. & and 13�5-13�6 (M.D.Fia. 2002}, aff'd in par�t ancl rev'd in pc�1�t on other gt�ozrr�d,s, 351 F.3d lll2, i118-1119 (llth Ci�•. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S, 813 �$ (20Q�), rejected the assertion that the allowance of a te�npoiary canstruction sign as p��ovided ir� far�ner Seciion 3-1$OS.F.I �•an a�aul of equal p�•ot�ction consid��'ations inasmuch as that provision was among the City's tirx�e, place and rz�anner regulations that wei•e both reasonable and narrowiy tai�ored to advance the substantial and carefully enumerated gove��nent interests set forth in Secti�n 3-1802 of the Corr�munity Develop�nent Code, and the district eo�irt further nat�d thai private resic�ences ace given a�nple alternati�es to express their vie��point by a window sign, a tempoz•a�y yard sign, a�• a flag [see Graarrite-Clear•��ate3• at 1340�. Furt�er, ihe co�i�t noted t�at Article 3 in. gene�'al was r�ot c�ntent- based, and that there w��'e legally requireci or justifia�le exceptions suc� as construction signs jformer Seetion 3-1805.F] [see Grcrnite-Clecrl�ti��rter• ai 133�-, n.36 anc� 13�5-1347]. 193. The City of St. Petei•sburg's sign code contained a similar provision that exernpted "construction/contractor signs" not to exceed a c�rtain size while the work was in p�ogress o�' duiing th.e period of #ime that a buiiding permit was �alid from pei�nitting and other IE�ii�:�: City Council of Clearwater, Florida and Mayor George Cretekos July 30, 2012 Page 38 Attachment number 8 \nPage 32 reguIata�y requirements {see St. Petersbu��g's Code ai § l b-b70{a)(5)} and that this provisior� was among the provisions that were ehallenged by Granite State in Gr�anrte State �artdoor Aclvertising, Inc. v. Ciiy of St. Peter•sbzc�g, Fla., 2002 WL 3�558955, *15-16 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'cl in paj�t r�nd ��ev'd in pa1�t, 34$ F3d 1278, 128I-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cej•t. c�enied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004) [see also Granite State Outdoor Adve3°tisi�ag, Inc. v. Ciry of Si. Pete��sb�crg, Flca., Case No. 8:01-cv02250-JSM (M.D.FIa.), Doc. 1, E�h. A and Doc. 5�, p. I 1, n. b]. The district couz•t in Granite Siate v. St. Peiersbarrg, deterrnined that provisions such as the ane that e�empted "construetianlcontractor si�ns" did not render the ordina�ee �ncanstitutional pef� se (ic� at "12, n. 23). The Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate �•e�iew, confirmed that the St. Pete�sburg ordinance was cantent-neuiral bas�d in large pai�i upon tne fact that the gover�ent's stat�d interest in reguiating speech (see St. P�tersburg's Code at Sectio� 16-667(b}(2)) was to prom.ote unifra��nity, p��eser�e aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the faet that the government's objective in regulating speech was the con#rolling eonsideration unde�• the governing precedeni of �i�a��c�v. lzockAgainst.�Zacrsjn, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). 19�. In a pria� version of the City's land develapment regulations, in effect in 1991, there �vas an impei�missible distinction drawn within the te�t as to flags o� a governtnental unit or body, such as the American Flag ar the flag of the State of Florida, and non-gavarnmental flags, such as hypothetical �Yart�ples of a Greenpeace logo or a union a�filiation, and this content�based distinc�ion between flags was struck do�vn in Dirr7mitt v. City of Cleaj•titjatej�, 7$2 F, Supp. 58b (yI.D.FIa. 1991), crffrrnred and 3r7odifec�, 985 F.2d 1565 (llth Cir. 1993). In 1992 the City of Ciea�•wate�• ac�opted amendm�nts designed to eliminate impermissible content dist�nctior�s between gavernrnent flags and non-government flags (see Ordinance No. 5257-92 adapted Septem:ber 17, 1992). Thei•e is no intent to distir��uish between flag nnessages, and the content neutraiity ofr flag �'egulations established by ordinance in September 1992 is continued within the accompanying sign regulations. 195. For flags displayed on a flag pole not eYCeeding thirty-five feet in height o�• on an attaehed bracket it is appropriate to allow one flag per detached dwelling unit, three flags p�i• pa�•cel o� iand used �ar m�ltifarnily �•esid�ntial purposes, and th�ee flags pei parcel of lar�d used for non-residentiai purposes, ancl this allawance strikes the app�'opriate balance between allowing flags on the ane hand, and controlling clutte�• an the oihe�• hand, and t�at this balance meets the principles of the City's land use regulations, and if so used the area of the flag shall not be included in, and lirnited l�y, the eamputation of allawable area fo�• fr�estanding or attaehed signs on the propei�y. 196. The district court irz G1°a�rtte State Dutdoor �dy�ertising, Inc. v. City of Clearvvatet•, FIa. (Grarrrte-Clear��ate�), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 133�, n. b and 13�5-1346 (Ni.D,Fla. 2002), aff'd in par�t and rev'd in par•t on other• gj�oz�nc�s, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), noted that Ai�ticle 3 in generai was not content-based, and that the e�ceptions for flags [§ 3-1805.G] was not eontent-based [see Gj•a�rite-Cleartivafer at 1334, n.3G and 13�5-1347�. 197. �i�st as there should be reasonable aceommac�ation for temporary on-p�•emise real estate signs ta facilitate the pu�•c�ase, sale or rental of real property, there should aiso be IE�ii�:�: City Cauncil of Clearwater, Florida and Mayor George Cretekas July 30, 2012 Page 39 Attachment number 8 \nPage 3S reasor�abie aceommodation for the temporary display of signage %�• a ga�'age o�• yard sale of pe��sonal p�•operty that is limited to the day of the sale, that is iimited in size to �o more than a total of �aur sc�uare feet of sign face a�•ea per sign, and that is limited to no mare than one such sign on the prope��ty where the sale is eonduc#ed and n.o more than two such signs on other private�y owned parcels of land. 198. Thei�e shouid be no zestraint on the content of such tempora�•y signage for the sale of personal property, and the provisions regulating the same are designed to be content-n��tral. 199. The district court in G�anite Siate Ozctc�ooj• Ac�vej•trsing, Inc. v. City of Cle�r��water, FI«. (Grc�nite-Clear•�►late� j, 213 F.Supp.2ci. 1312, 133�, n. 6 and 13�5-1346 {M.D.k'la. 2002), aff'd in p�rt crnd j•ev'd in perr�t on other gj•otrnds, 351 F.3d 1112, I ll$-1119 (llt� Cix. 2003}, cert. denied, 543 U.S. 81.3 4S (2004), noted that Articie 3 in general was not content-based, notwithstanding de minimis e�ceptions such as the pravision for garagelyai•d sale signs [§ 3- �SQS.H] [see Grc�nite-Cleaf��vcrte3• at 1334, n.36 and 1345-1346], 200. The City of St. Peiersbu�•g's sign code cantained a provisian that exempted "garage or ya�•d sale signs" not exceeding four square feet fi�o�n pe�'mitting and other ragulatory requireme�its (see St. P�tersburg's Code at � 16-b70(a)(18)) and that this provisian was among rnore than 50 different p�•ovisians that were challenged by Granite State in G��anite Stcrte Otrtdoo�• �dve�tising, Inc. v. City of St. PePersbarrg, Fla., 2002 WL 3455$95b, * 12, n.23 (�I�I.D.Fla. 2002), aff'd irr pa�•t and �•ev'd in part, 3�8 F.3d 1275, 1281-1282 (1 Ith Cir. 2003}, cert. denred, 541 U.S. 1086 (20Q�) [see also G3�anite State Otrtdoor• �dve��tising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersbzrrg, Fla., Case No. 8:01�cv02250-JSM (M.D.FIa.), Dac, l, E�h. A and Doc. 54, p. 11, n. 6�. The district court in Granite State v. St. Petei°sbirrg datermined that #he provision exe�npting "ga�•age ar yazd saie signs" did �ot renc�er the ordinance �nconstitutional per• se (fd. at � 12, n. 23}. The Eleventh Cireuit, upon a de novo appallate review, eonfil7n�d that the oreiin.ance was eontent�neutral based in large part �pan the fact that the govern�ent's stat�cl inte�est in �egulating speech (see �t. Petersbuzg's Code at Section l.6-b67(b)(2)) was to pz•omot� �niformity, pzeser�� aesthetics and faster safeiy, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration under the governing precedent o� YYard v. Rock �gainsi Rcrcism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 {1989). 2Q1. "Machinery and equipment signs," as defined in ihe accampanying annend.ments, sho�ld not be included within the de�nition o� the ter•� "sign" for purposes of th.e land elevelopment regulaiions undez A��ticle 3, Di�ision l. S, af the Community Development Code, and the definition of "sign," as defined in the accompan.ying a�nendments, has b��n revised to aceompiish the exclusion of such objects fram the definitian of "sign". Tn light af tl�e �oregoing, it is appropriate ta dele#� the provisions of the current Section 3-1$OS.I. t�at allaw signs which are intag�•al and ir�ciderntal to equipment, or rraachinery ancl cover not more than 2Q pez•cent of the exterior s�rface of sueh ec�uipment, facilities or �nachinery. 202. Menu signs sar�e a unique filnction in connection with land usec� fa�• �•estauranis within the City, and given #he �inique function seived by such men� signage it is impoi�iant to aIlaw for the satne in addition to any other perm.anent f'reestanding o�• attached signage alla�ved IE�ii�:�: City Council o� Clearwater, Florida and Mayar George Cretekos July 30, 2012 Page �0 Attachment number 8 \nPage 4t on a non-residential parcel. It is therefore app�opriate to continue ta a11ow for attaehed menu signs with reasonable eriteria as to their ditnensions based �pon their function. 203. Th� City of Clea�•water finds and detezmin�s that ii is necessary and appz•apriate to allow onsite diz•ectional and traffic control signs subject to reasonable dirnensional criteria in recognition of iheiz function. The provisions set forth in Section 3-1806.7. for onsite directional and h�affic control signs are consistent with tha gene�al pxincip�as anc� purposes set foi�th in Division I S. 20�. Tt is necessary and approp�•iate to continue ta allow signs identifying parkir�g space numbers provided that such signs are painted an the paved su�faee of each space or do not exceed one-half sc�ua�•e foot of sign face area per sign. The provisions set fo��h in Sectfon 3- 1$06.K. for signs iden�ifying parking space numbers are consistent with the general principles and purposes set foxth in Division 18. 205. It is necessary and appropriate to allow signs identifying marina slip numbcrs provid�d that such signs are painted on t�e dack in fiont of each slip or do not eYCeed one squa�e feet af sign face area pe�• sign. The dist�•ic� coui� in the Gt�anite-Clear�ia�ater decisian noted t�at A��ticle 3 in general was n.ot content-based, notwithstanding de rrzinrrr�is exceptions such as marina slip numbers �former Section 3-1$05.T.] [.ree Gr•anite-Cleartivater� at 133�, n,36 and I345-13�6]. The provisians set fo�•th in Section 3-1806,L far marina slip and directional signs are consisteni with. the ganeral principles and purposes set fot�h in Division 18, and are based upon and oriented to the function servec� by such �igns in cannection with marinas. 2��. It is appropriate to deiate the pravisions of the cu�•z�ent Sectian 3-180SN. that pertained to temporaiy yard signs ar�d to separate thas� pro�isions into separate sections pe��taining to tempo�•a��y free eYpression signs and ter�pora�•y election signs, as Section 3-18Qb.B. and Section 3-180b.C., given the diffe�•ent filnc�ions that each such sign type serves, and to codify cur��ent practice. 207. The district cou�t in the Granr�e-Clec�r��Uter cieeision add�essed the constituiionality of provisions governing yard signs for a political canc�idate or issue, vvhich provisions contazned both size lirr�itatians and duraiional limitations [see Granrie-Clea��ate�• at 1336-I338�. T�e co�.i�� ound that based on th� totality of the case law and cammenta��y an this iss�e the sixty {60) day time limit on. such signs before ar� electi�n was unconstitutional and that the seven (7) ciay iimit on removing the sign aft�r the electio� vvas constitutianal and a reasonable limitation justif ed by Clearwate�•'s purpose a� controiling aesthetics, and severed the si�ty day #ime pe�•iod [�ee Grcrnite-Cleul�tivcttel� at I33b-1338�. The g�idance of the distz•ict cout� is incnrparated into the codified re�isions that appear irz #he new Section 3-1$Ob.C., govex�ing temporary eiection szgns. 208. Cansiste�t with the p�.i�poses of Division 18, it is necessa��y and appropziate to allow one te�poraz•y real estate sign pe�• pa�cel of land indicating #hat a pare�l of land or a builciing lacated on tl�e parcel of land or part thereof is for sale, for lease or otherwise availalale for conveyance, provided that such sign does not eYCeed a zeasor�able dimensional or othet IE�ii�:�: City Council of Clearwater, Flarida and Mayor George C�etekas July 30, 20 i 2 �age 41 Attachment number 8 \nPage 4 restrictions based upon the designation ancUor use of the land, such as family dwellings, duplexes and iownhouse units, multi-family purpases other than tor�n house units, or non-z•esidential pmposes. 249. The baiance achieved fox• the modest disp�ay of real estate signs as limited by land use and placement strikes the appropriate balance that meets the general p�•ineiples and pui�pases of the City's land use regula�ions as set forth in Division 1$. Fw�ther, the di�ensional crite�•ia s�t fo��th in the new S�ction 3�1806.M, fo�� tempo�•ary real estaie szgns are appropriate based upon ti�eir function and �ased upon the general pi�inciples and puiposes set forth in Division 18. 210. Allawing exemptians or exceptions for certain signag� based upon the fiinciion served by t�e sigz�age (e.g., warnzng signs, directional signs, real esiate signs, and other sign iypes described in O�•dinance 8343-12), is prefer�ed to requiring pe�•mits for all sueh �igns or alternatively, banning all such signs. 211. Under current jurispz•udenca [see, e.g., Linfrac�t�k .htssociates v. Town of Willingbot�o, 431 U,S. 85 (1977)j, on-site xeal estate signs, such as "fo�• sale" signs, sho�.ld be allowed given the important rol� and unique f�netion that real estate signs, sueh as "for sale" signs, perforrn on the premises whe�e #hey are located, The dist�•ict court in the Grcr�rite- Cleaj•�vater decisian noted that Articl� 3 in gene��al ��as not content-k�ased, and that "for sale signs" were among the legally req�i�•ed or j�stifiahle exceptions [see G��anite-Clea��aate� at 1334, n.36 and 1345-13�7]. Further, the court rejeeted the argument that an eYCeption a� "for saie signs" was impe��missibly content-based, describing that argument as an "almost-conclusory mandate" or "conclusoi•y theoiy" [see Granite-Clear��verte�� ai 1327-133�-]. 212. The disti�ict coui�t in the G1�anile�Cle�r1��Tate�• decision noted that signs ar� speech and can only be catego�•ized or differentiated by what they say; that this �na�es it impossible to avet•look a sign's conten� o�• message in fo��nulating regulations and making eYCeptions for distinctions �ec��ired by law {i.e., for sale signs), and that the�•e is no other way to make an e�emption o�• classify a"for sale" sign as a"for saie" sign without �eading the wozds "Far Sale" on the sign [see Grc�nite-Clecrr•ivc�ter at 1333]. The couzt also noted that in looking at the general principles of th� Fi�•si Arz-�endment, as guided by �I�Iembe3•s of the Crty Cozrncil of �os �ingeles v. Taxpayers for Vrrreeni, 466 U.�. 789 (198�), #he real is�ue is whether the distinctions or e�ceptions to a�egulation are a disgu�sed effort to control the free eYpressic�n of ideas or ta eenso�• sp�ec�; and �urthei� noted that car�mon sense and rationality wauld dietate that the oniy method of distinguishing signs for pu�•poses of enforcing even content-neutral regulations, s�ich as nurnbe�•, size or height restrictions, is by their message [see Gr�rrnite-Clear��>c�iet•�. 213. The City of St. PetersbL��•g's sign code contained a provision that exempt�d "real estate signs" (sometimes known as foz sale signs) from permitting and o#her �egulatory requi�•ements (see St. Petez•sburg's Code at § 16-670(a}(12)}, anct this provision was among �nore than Sa diffe�•ent p�'avisions #hat were challenged by Granite State in G3•anite State Outdoor� Advertisrng, Inc. v. City of St. Petersbar��g, Fl�r., 20Q2 WL 34558956, � 12, n.23 (M.D.Fia, 2002}, aff'd in prert and f•ev'd in pc�t•t, 3�$ F.3d 1275, 1281-1282 (1 lth Cir, 2003), cer•t. c�ertied, 541 U.S. 1086 (200�) [see also Granite Sfate Otrtdoor Adve�•tising, Inc. v. Ciry of St. Pedersbu�•g, Fl�r., IE�ii�:�: City Council of Clearwater, Florida and Mayor George C�•etekos July 30, 20I2 Page �2 Attachment number 8 \nPage 4: Case No. 8:01-cv42250-JSM (v1.D.Fla.), Doc. l, EYh. A and Doc. 54, p. 11, �. 6]. The district court in G�•anite Stcate v. St. Petersbutg, det�rmined thai th.e �oregoing provision exe�npting "real estate signs" did not rend�r the ordina�ce unconstitutional pef� se (id at "12, n. 23). The Eleventh Circuit, upon a de navo appe�late z•eview, canfii7ned that the similar orelinanee at issue in St. Petersburg was content-neuti•al based in Iarge pai•t upon the fact that the governrnent's stated intez•est in regulating speech (see St. Peter•sburg's Code at Section 16-b67(b}(2)) was to promote unifoxmity, presei•ve aesthetics and foster safety, and based �pan the fact that the gnvernment's objective in regulatin:g sp�ech was t�e controlling conside�•ation under the governing p�'eeec�ent of Yi�af•d v. Rock�igairrstRacisna, �91 U.S. 7$1, 791 (1989}. 214. In the intei�est of aesthetics and traffic sa£ety, it is not necessary to �eg�late through the issuance o� sign per�nits for those signs within a stadium p�•avided the same are not oriented to�vard and reac�able from outside of the stadium. 2� 5. Consistent with the p��iposes of Divisian 18, window signs should have a size Iimitation that limits such signs or combination of such signs to twenty-five percent (25°/o) af the total area of t�e window(s} where th� sign or signs are lacated and face a right-of-way, with the twenty-five pez�cent limitation allowec�. for the window sign(s) that faee each right-of-way whe�e thera is a co��ner lot ar through lot; provided further that in no case shall the cumulative area of all window signs located inside an enclosed area for purposes af advertising exceed fifty square feet, if oriented toward and visible fi•om an adjoining i•oadway o�• navigable wate�way or body of water. 216, The c�istrict eout�t in the Granite-Clear��crte�� decision struck the forjner prohibition in forme�� Section 3-1803.U. (prahibiting tempazary window signs in residential areas) due to �ts conflict with former Sectian 3-1805.Q. {allowing window signs of up to eighi square feet in area, not to e�ceeed 25% of the windaw area, without making a�•esiden.tiallnon- i•esideniial distinction within former S�ction 3-1805.Q.) [see G��tnite-Clea�°��rte�• at 1335], but upheld the restriction in fo�7ner Section 3-1805.Q that allow�d window signs of up to eight sqi�are f�et in area, but no� to eYCeed twenty-five pei•cent (25%) a�the window az•ea. Cansistent with the pl�rposes of Division 1S, it is appropriate to continue a similar size iimitation in former Seciion 3-180S.Q for window szgns as modifiecl in a z•evised Section 3-1806,0. 217. In the interest of a�sthetics and tzaffic safety, ii is approp�•iate ta continue to p�•ovide for the allor��ance of safety ar warni�g signs subject to reasonable dirnensianal c�•iteria. 218. The City of St. Petei•�hurg's sign code contained a provision that e:�empted "wa��ing signs" not to exceed si� sc�uare feet from pezmitting and other �•egulatory requii•ements (see St, Petersbu�•g's Code at § 16-67�(a)(�5}) and that this provision �vas among rno�e tharz SO diffe�ent piovisions that were challenged by Granite State in Grcrnrte State Ox�tdoot� �Ic�vertising, Inc. v. Ciry of St. Peie3•sbu�•g, Fla., 2002 WL 3�558956, � 12, n.23 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in pi�rt crnd �°ev'd i�r �art, 3�18 F.3d 1278, 1281�1282 (llth Cir. 2003), eert denied, 5�1 U,S. 1086 (200�1) [see atso Grc�nite State Dutdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Peter�sbacl•g, FIa., Case No. $:01-cv02250-JSM (M.D.Fia.), Dac. 1, E�h. A and Doc. 54, p. 11, n. 6]. The district court in Granite Strrte v. St. Petef�sbarjg, determined that the foregoing proviszon e:�empting "wa�ning IE�ii�:�: Attachment number 8 \nPage 4; City Council of Clearwater, Flo�•ida and Mayar Geoz•ge Crete�os Ju�y 30, 2412 Page 43 signs" did not �'ender the ordinance unconstitutional per se {id. at * 12, n. 23). The Eleventh Ci�•cuit, upon a de novo appellate re�view, confirrrzed that the ordinance was content-r�eutral based in large part upon tl�a faei that the government's stated interest in zegulatin� speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Seetion 1��667(b)(2)) was ta proznot� unifoi7nity, preserve aestheties and faster safety, and based upon the fact that tha govei�unent's objective in �•eguiating speech was the controlling conside�•ation under the governing preceden:t of �Yard v. Rock �gainst Racisrn, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989), 219. Consistent with the principles and pu�poses of Division 18 and eonsti�utional considerations, it is app�•opziate to continue the substitution clause in the cuz�•ent Sec#ion 3- 1805.5. in the renumbered Sectinn 3-1806.Q., specifying that "a change in a sign rnessage or pan�l on a previously approved, Iawful sign, e.g., arzy sign a�lowed ��nder th�s ordinance may contain, in Iieu of any ather copy, any otherwfse lawful noncommercial message that complies with aI1 other rec�uirements of this orc�inance," and clarifying thai the provision does not pe��mit "design" changes fi�om a sign pi•eviausiy approved under the Comprehensive Sign Program. The provisions of the cui�•eni Section 3-1$05.T. will be obsolete upan the adoption of the new Seciion 3-1806.L. 220. Consisteni with tk�e putpases of Division 18, it is an appropriate balance to aliow "balloons, coid air inflatables, streamers, and pennants" as goverruraental and public purpose signs if the city manager finds that this sign type meets the following crite�•ia: (1) the sign type is for a special e�ent, {2} the special event is fax a litnited tir�e, (3) the special event is for a limited fi•equency, and (4) the sig� type, if allotived far a limited tirne and frec�uency, will �neet the following puiposes of Division 3, to wit: (a) the signs will not caneeal or obsfrtzct adjacani iand uses or signs (Sectior� 3-1802.F.), (b) the signs will not conflict with the principal permitted �se of tY�e site oz adjoining sites [Section 3-i802.�.], {c) the signs will not interfere with, obsi�uct vision of or dist��act �noto�ists, bieyclists o�� pedest�•ians [Section 3-1.8�2.K.], and (dj t�ie signs wi�l be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3-1802,L.], p�ovided that cansisteni �vith the gene�•al standa�•ds in the new Sectian 3-18Q5, the approval or c�isappro�al shali not be based on tYze content of the message contained (i.e,, the viewpoznt exp�•essed) on any such sign, and further p�•avided that the ciiy manager renders a decision within ten days after azt application is made far utilizin.g this sign iype at a special event. 221.� Consistent with the puipose� of Di�ision 18, it is appx•opriate to allow a sign an publicly owned land o� easements or inside street rights-of-way if the city manager finds that the sign meets certain criteria as set fo�-th in the propased Section 3-18Q6.S. and pro�ided t1�at consistent with the gene�•al standards in tl�e p�•opased Section 3-1805 the approval or disapproval shall not be based o� the content of the �nessage cantained (i.e., the viewpoint eYpressed) on such sign. 222. Consistent with t1�e pu��poses se# fo��t� in Division l S, it is appropziat� To allow a p�i•manent sign an public easenrzents ar inside st�•eet rights-of way provided the city manage�• finds that the sign �neets the criteria set farth in the renun�bered Section 3-1806.T. IE�ii�:�: Attachment number 8 \nPage 4� City Council of Clearwater, Florida and Mayo�� George Cret�kos 3uly 30, 2012 Page �� 223. Consisteni with the purposes set �ai�h in Division 1$, it is appropriate to continue to allow tempora��y sidewalk signs during construction subject to reasona�le crite�•ia based upon the function that such temporary signs ser�e for properties abutiing public construction prajects that a�•e scheduled to last one h�ndred eighty days or longer. 224. Consistent with the pu��ases set forth in Di�ision 18, it is appropriate to allow one attached s�gn pez• city park or crty recreation facility for the puz•poses of identifying a prograna provider or information concerning programs at such park or rec�•eatian facility based upon dimensional criteria that takes into account the sign �unciion and subjeet to a design astablished by the approp�iate governmental agency far a sign on city-awned prape�•ty. 225. Consistent with the City's interes� in aesthetics and traffic safety, it is appropriate to make provision fo�• adopt-a�pa��k and acknowledgement signs wit�in Division 18. 226. Provisions should be included within a new Sectio� 3-1806.W. of the land de�veloptr�ent regulations to provide contez�t-neutral e�•ite��ia �or adopt-a-park and acknawledgement signs on ciiy rights-of way and city-owned property, where the eriteria is based upon the unique fiinction served by such signage and sign types. The pro�isions alinwi�g for adopt-a-park and acknowl�dgemeni sig�s �e li�ited ta a unique class af signs Iocatecl. an city rights-of way ancl city-orvned prope��y (see Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summtrrn, 555 U.S. 460, �67, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 1131 (2009} {the First Amendment's Ftee �peech Ctause does not extend to governm.ent speech)}. 227. There a�•e pe��itted signs and sign types that should have development re�view as part of the City of C�earwater's land developrr�zent ragulations, and development re�view of such sign types is co�tinued in Division 18 of A��icle 3 af the City's Cammunity Development Code as a renurnbered Section 3-1807. 228. The district court in the Granite-Cleat�ti��ate�• decision deteimined that the categaries and reguiations set forth in then Section 3�1806.A.1.-3. fo�• freestanding subdivision developnrzent entry signs, fre�standing nnultifamily eniry signs, sehao� and pa�•� monument iclentificatiori signs, and transzt shelter signs were nat imperrraissible eontent-basec� p�'ovisions inas�nuch as these p�ovisions did not li�it the eYp�•ession of ideas or censor speech [see Gr•anite- Clern�ti��c�ter at 1338], 229. Tl�e criteria sei foi•th in the �•enumbered Section 3-1807 {renumbered fiorn Section 3-18�6] for various sign �.ypes in diffezent zoning districts and for c�iffe�ent land uses ant�. va�•iaus are basec�. upon the purpases set forth in Division 18 and are nat content-bas�d distinetians but are instead based upon t�e fi�r�ction and locatzon af the signs described. 230. �n eonnection with transit shelter signs the City settled litigation wi#h Clear Channe� �utc�oor, Inc., foi7nerly known as El1er Media Company (previously known as Pah�ick Media} in that certain case captioned Pafr�ick �i�ledia G�otrp, Inc. v. Ci1y of Clea1°��ater, Case Na. 93-174-CI (21), in the Cireuit Coui•t of the Si:�th Judicial Circ�it in and for Pin�ltas County, F1o�•ida, in a stip�alated settlement whe�•eby Eller Mec�ia Compan.y ag�'eed to rerz�ove numerous IE�ii�:�: City Cauncil of Clearwater, Flo��ida and Mayor George Cre#ekos July 30, 2012 Page 45 Attachment number 8 \nPage 4; biilboard structu�•es thi•ougho�t the City of Clearwatez upon certain canditions precedent, ineluding the City of Cl�arwater's adoptzon of an ordinance that would aliow up ac�v�rtising on �ip to 50 transit shelte�s that �ight be placed within the boundaries of t�te City of Clearwater puz•suant to an interlocal agreernent between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County dated January 1 �, � 992. 231. The City af Cl�arwater agreed to allow signs on txansit shelters as �ecessa�•y to secure the removat of much largei• billboard st�uchues that tivere inconsistent with the City of Clearwater's land development z•egulations and the City's aesthetic goals, and such signs were permitted on transit shelters appzovec�. in accordance with Article 3, Division 22 of the Clearwater Developmenf Code, and subject to restrictions that were ic�entified ir� the provisions o�the cu�7ent �eciian 3-18Q6,B.3.a.-d. ane� that ar� carried forwa�•d in the renumbez•ed S�ction 3- 18Q7.B.S.a.-d. of the Cleaxwater Development Cac�.e. The City of Clearwate�• did not agree to or accept �Iiy �Ell`�i18i' LriCl1P5i011 a� adve�-tising on sti•eet fitrniture bViti]1l1 1tS pU��1C Ti��1tS-�� ti'Vaj7 othei• t�an as set fo��th in the interlocal agreement and secur�d the removal of more than twenfy billboard structures as the end �esult a� th� stipulated settlement ter�ns and the ac�option af Ordinance No. b306-98, the Transit Sheltez• 4�•dinance. 232. The district cou��t in the G�•artrie-Clear�E�crtel• decision addressed then Section 3- 180b.B,5 which allowed certain signs by perrnit through the developn�ent revie�v process, including "[c]hangeable copy signs pravided located on public propei�y serving a significant public pu�•pose," and re�ecteel the argument that that the phrase "significant public purpose" gave officials impez•missi�le discretion, and fu�•ther found tkat this disc�•etion was reasonabl� especially given #�iai this section only applied to signs on public propei�ty [see Gy�anite- Clea�ti��ater• at 1339]. 233. The City of Clearwat�r's determination of significant public pu��ose may extend to certain properties tkat host large entet�tainment venues, provided that criteria are established to prohibit impe��nissible discretion. 234. The City of Clearwatex• k�as previously adopted a comprehe�sive sign prog�•a�n that was the subjeet o� judicial scrutiny in Gra�rrte State Outdoaj� Acl��ertising, Inc. v. City of Cle�rj-►vater, Fla. (Gr�r�rite-Clear��jater), 213 F.�upp.2d 1312, 133�, n. 6 and 1345-1346 {M.D,F�a. 2002), crff'c� in prrr•t and j�ev'cl in paj�t on othe�� g��or�nd,s, 351 F.3d 11 i2, 111$-1119 {11th Cir. 2003), cert denied, 5�3 U.S. 813 �8 (200�). The district coui-� in the G3•anrte- CIea�Ativ�rter decision adc�ressed a challenge made in 2001 ta the discretion af�orded in the City's Compr�hensive Sign Program, as the sarne was then set fo�•th in Section 3-180?, ancl the cou��t detezminec� t�at the fleYibility eriteria were sufficiently objective and clear, in.cluding those referen.ces to "community CIlal�CteT�" "exisiing llilatiPaCt1V� signage," �riCl "imp�•avernent O� appearance" [see G1•cr�zite-Clear��vater� at 1339], 235. The City has mada several changes to the Comp�•ehensi�ra Sign Program to �•efine that pragram based upon e�cperience, including rr�odifications as set foi�th in O��dinance No. 6928- 02, �� 88-91, Ordinanee No. 6997-�2, §� S-7, O�dinance Na. 7�31-Ob, � li, and Ordinance No. 7835-47, � 29, while maintaining objecti�e and clear fleYibility critex�ia. Based upon fii��ther IE�ii�:�: City Council of Clearwater, Florida and Mayor George C�•etekos July 30, 2012 Page 46 Attachment number 8 \nPage 4E eYperience with th� Comprehensive Sign Program and based upon the reeommendations from its professional planning staff, several additional changes to the Comprehensive Sign Pro�rarr� �ouid be appropriate. 236. The permitted signage under the Comprehensive Sign Program should continue ta preelude and ba�• all prohibited sign types, inc�uding all pzohibited signs identified in the renumbe�'ed Seetion 3-1$0�, as set forth in Ordinance 8343-12, and ather prol�ibited signs or sign types tha� would not be appropriate for the Cornpxehensive Sign Progz•am. 237. T�e dist��ict court in Gr�anite State �trtdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cleat�u}ater, Flcr. (G1°anite-Clec�t�tivatea), 213 F.Supp,2d 1312 (M,D.FIa. 2Q02), aff'c7 in pat�t a�a�l f•ev'd in par�i on other• grazrnds, 351 �'.3d 1112 (l lth Cir. 2003), ce1�t. cle�aied, 543 U.S. 813 {2004), cited the several�ility pzo�isions of both Sectzon 1-107 of the Cade and the Development Code, Ord. No. 53�$-99, §�(Jaz�uary 21, 1999j, as a basis for severing isolated portions of A��icle 3 of the Community Development Code [see Grr�nite-Clerrrtivc�ter at 1326, n.22]. The Cornmunity De�elopment Code's severability clause �vas adopted ��i#h the intent of upholding and sustaining as rnuc� tif th� City's regulatians, ineluding its sign ��egulatians, as possible in the event th.at aYy pot�tion tke�eaf (including any section, sentence, clause or phrase) be held invaiid ar uneonstitutional by any cou��t of campetent jurisdiction. 238. Under Floricla law, whenever a po�-tion of a statute or ordinanee is declaz•ed unconstitutional, the re�ainder af tk�e act ��ill be pe�•mitted to stan�i pro�ided (1) the unconstitutional provisians can be separated from the re�aining �valid pro�isions, {2) the legislative purpose(s} eYpressed in t�e valid p�•ovisions can be accomplished indeper�dently of those whicli are void, (3) the good and the bad features are not so ins�parable in substance thai it can be said that the legislativ� body would have passed the one without the other, and (4) an act compiete in itself rer�ains after the �alid pro�isions are st�•ieken [see, e.g., Wfrldrup v. Dugger•, S52 So. 2d 687 {Fla. 1990)]. 239, There have been several judicial decisions where eourts have nat given full effect to severabi�ity claus�s that applied to sign reguiations anci. whei•e the cou�•ts have eYpressed unc�rtainty over whether the legislative bady intended that severability would apply to certain �actual situations clespite the presumption that wQUld ordinarily flow fi'om the presence of a seve�•ability clause. The failure of some courts to uphoid severahility clauses has Ied to an increase in litigation seeking to strike c�own sign oi•dinanees in their enti�•ety so as to argue that the developers' applications to erect pxohibit�d sig� types, such as billboai•c�s, rr�ust ba granted. 2�0. Har�vcver, ihe City has consistently adopted and enacted sevezability provisions in connectian wit� its ordinance code p�•avisia�s, and it is ap�aarent that the City of Clearwater wishes to ensure that seve��ability provisions apply to its land de�e�opmeni reg�lations, including its sign regulations. There is an a�nple record of the City's intention that the p�•esence of a severability cla�se in connection with the City's sign regulatior�s be applied to the ma�irnurr� e�tent passible, even if less sp��ch would result from a determinatian that any e�ceptians, lirnitations, variances o�• other p�•ovisions are invalid a�• uncons�itutional foi� any reason whatsoever. IE�ii�:�: City Council of Clearwater, Florida and Mayor George Cretekos July 30, 2012 Page 4? Attachment number 8 \nPage 4� 241. The prohibition on billbQards, as contained in Oi•dinance 83�3-12, should continue in effect �egardiess of the invalidity oz unconstit�tionality of any, or even all, other provisians of t�e City's sign regulations, other ordinanc� code provisians, or othe�• laws, for any reason{s) whatsoever. 242. There s�iould �e an ample record that the City intends that the height and size limitatians on fiee-siaztding and othez• signs eontinue in effect rega�•dless of the invalidity or unconstitutionality of any, or even all other, provisions of the City's sign regulations, othe� ordinanee code pro�isions, o�• ather laws, for any reason(s} whatsoeve�•. 243. There should be a� ample reeord that the City intends ihat each prohibited sign- type identified in Seetion 3-180� (Prohibited signs) continue in ef�ect �•egardless of the invalidity o� unconstitutionality of any, or even all, other provisions of �he City's sign �egulations, other ordinance code pro�isians, or other laws, for any reason{s) whatsoever, 24�, Even though there axe athe�• provisions that pertain: ta severability and t�at extend to Az•ticle 3, Division 1$, of the Community Development Code, it is approp�•iate to emphasize the impoztance of severability and the desi�•es eYpressed in the preambles to Ordinance 8343-12 above that severabiiity be applied even if less speech resu�ts, and that a new Sectian 3-1809 (Severahility} be added to Article 3, Division 18, as set forth in the new Divisian 1S aitached h:ezeto and �nade a part hereaf. 2�5. The City of Clea�•wat�r is aware that there have been billboaz•d develo�ers who have maunted legal challenges to a sign ardinance, either in its entirety or as io some lesser pa�-�ian, anc� ai•gued that ihere eYisted a vested right to erect a bil�board thraugh the mere sub�nission of one �r more prior pei7nit applicatians, so that in the eveni iha# the billboax•d developer is successful in obtaining a judiciai decisio� that the entii•ety or some lesser portion of a sign oi•dinance or its pe��itting provisions are invalid ar unconstit�tional, the billboard d�veloper might tken seek to compel the local goverr�mer�tal unit to issue a pe��nit to allow the billboa�•d developer to erect a permanent billboard structu�•e within the local govet�nen�'s ju�•isdiction. 246. Bi�lboards simply az•e nat a compatible land use within the City, and there can be no good �aith reliance by any pi'ospective billboard developer under Flo�•ida �esteel rights law in connection with the prospective erectian o�• const��ction of n�w or additional billboa�•ds within the jurisdictional limits of the City. Very trul �;�� , � �� ; � ��_�-x�.w.�.... Wi ia D. B�•�nton- IE�ii�:�: �_'.�� '�'� C.:1.� ��`I` �:�'I� �`� � �� vvn�� r��ns ��°,a°wi�g�, pi�tur�� sy�r�ba�s� �ai�tin�� r s�ulptu�°� �hi�� i� t��t �.��:��{� � �r�d��t �r ��s��ss �n� wl�i�� r� r�€�� di�pl�y�� njun��t�� wi�l� a ��r�rr��°eia�, ��- prs��t c�� c�n��-c��`i� ��t�r��-i;��, ,F r �� ;F .�r�iw��1� �i��a� � tv��- �� i�r�:�:wdim�r��i�n�� •��i.��i�� i�� -�� : ��6�� ' �� ;�i�� t�"� �I��1, c��. ��'�� t•�th�r th�� sp��'��y ��v�;� �� r�� f t�� bu�ir�� c�r � �o��m�rci�1 �n�� t �� r�d�� r s��°i�:�� a�`�`�r�d ar� �h� pr�pe�y upc�n �r1�ic� tk�� rtva€�ar� �s d��y�� vv�v��, ur�t��r�3n� �hall r��t ��d� a��r c�t�j�ct, dr��ri�a�y pict��°c�, �yr�-�1��, ��in�i�� i�clt�c�i�� h� �a�i�tir�;� �f p��t�r��a� a�° d��g�s�, �r �c��tur�, wh�� p�'�m�t�� a s��k�r's �c�an��n�c int�r�st�, ��-c�� id�� ,� ca��rr��ci�l rn�ssa�� r ��her��ri�� i��ti�� r�-�c��ct, s��i�� a�- �us�� s�i�i e�r � ��jail��l� �t� t��: ��r�y wh�r� t�e ��r�� i� dis�l��rec�, m � �'�", � �"� � IJ � . ��"��"� � � rn ��°t��°��•� ��ar-�;� dr��ing�, pict�ar��, �y��€�1�, p��n��,�� i��n� tl�� p��ti�� ' �,��.s c�r �i��i��s� a� se�l��ure, ��i�� €�� c�t in �� a��r ici�;t�tif� � �r�d:��, ��ic� �r bu�ii��s ��1� a�r ��ai�abl� €�� `��i��, �� ;, r f_., . �� .. , t.� � � � �;�. , �k �.. � 4 j�:e. � f�,. F C r ��'n,�k.� n,f r��t c�r ��t��r��•�.� ��r�� r��i�� ct°�� y �r�1�t� ��hibi�ing th� l�i��st q��li�� c��` ��11 �r�� e��c �rin�i��, ir��l��ing ��t ��t l�n�.i��d t� p�ir�ti�t�s, ��u��t��, :;t�in�d ��, �t��ux��, �� °�li��°s, ��r�r�in�;s, ��rvi��, #'��s�c��, �n�bi��, r��al�, call��e�, ��ai��, t�p��, ph��gr�phs, dr��ri��, ��urr��s�t� ai�d ��ii�s. , .�rt ��s ti�e ��y�� `��uc� c�f a �kil�� i�t ��° �roup af a�°��sy r�� rc�rl�� a��rd�� ae��h�ti� ��•i�z��l�� n� i��1u��s, b�t i� ��t l��i�� t�� r��it�ct�r�l ��h��z�nt�, ��i�.l �a��s�a�� t��i��r�ts, p�i��g�, �cul��r�, �n��-�vi��, murals, r�l��ile�, p��;r��sh�, �r�wi��;� �� c�r��; �� ri�_ T"1�� fa�l��i�� all �s�t b� ��ns�d�r�d wr�rk� �� r�: �n�c�ani�� • ��1�� r��°c�d��ii��, ��n�r��r��ally ��-c��uc�d �t��s, a�-c�itec��~�1 r��h�li��n �r h��c��r�� r��er��ti��. � W � � W � �� r� �� a�� n a re��i�� f' electi�� si��s �nd re�l �st�t� si�ns fa�� c�� n e��r�r�� r��bs�t��, th� ��1�c��i�g �t��rd si�n si��s �re ava��. ��1 �s�� i �s �l��ti�n �i J�� onstructic�r� ��s �„ � ��,, � ]. s.�. � 2" x 1$" = 1.5 s��: 12" ;� 1 �" = 1,S �.�. 9" x ��" = l .� �.f: � �>, x ��" � r� s.i. 1 �'` � 24" _ � s.�. 1?'' ��g" � 1.� s.f. 2�'" x 24'' ��.f. 24" x��" -- � 4.f: l2" x��'" =� s.�. 24�� 3b`' =��,£: 2�'� � 3+6" .� 6 s.�`: � �" � ��" — � 5,��. �'�4' � �4" _ �,:� 5.$'. ��" ?C ��" -- �$, ) 5.�. 1�" :� 3�" = 3.7� s,f` ��" x�R" = 1 Z�;_fi 4�" x 4�'' _� 6 s.f ��'9 X �.�}� —° � S.f. �� 5 X ��'� �- lf3 5.�: ��+'� X ��t� �� .�. ��7� Y5 L�" - } �.�`, ��ryA X �'�7�{ - �� 5.�. �g" � ��?z� ,.�. )�'L 5.�. ��v� :� ?l7'' = l�a 5.�. ��7'T X �$" = � � .�.A, 4��' � &8" = � � �.�- ��' � 9�i'" = a`� s �` ��ff Rec;c��nr��n�atit�ns �r�� x�ressi€�� ns: 'I'��a�e�r�r�r �;1ec�ic�� Si�ns; '�`�r��rary � �ns��`�ct��t� �i�n�: Ci�ra�e-Yard `��e SI�;�s: Re�l ��t�t� �i�n, � s�u�re �e�t �n a�� ar�� 4 squ�re feet �c,r ��n�Ie far�ilyJdupi��e�lt�w�n�€�m�s � squ��c; feet fc�r �i�gi� �'�mi�y�Jdup�exllor��hc��es l��t�u�r� fe�t f�r rr�ul�i-famiiv a�+� c��rarne�ci�l 4 �quare �'��t � s�u�°� i'eet �`c�r sir��le t��r�il}�j!'��aplex�slt��nl��n�� i squa�� t i� t�rau�ti-f��ily ��n�i c�rt�rner�ial ��°�as �.�`°�� ` ' � � W � �<< �� , � W � � W � � W � � W � � W � � W � � W � City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Adopt Ordinance 8335-12 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose post of�ce address is 1907 Calumet Street into the corporate limits of the city and redefining the boundary lines of the city to include said addition. SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo ��11�:�� Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 ORDINANCE NO. 8335-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF THE SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD AND FRONTING ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH HERCULES AVENUE, CONSISTING OF A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF SECTION 12 AND THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 1907 CALUMET STREET, INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY, AND REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the owner of the real property described herein and depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A has petitioned the City of Clearwater to annex the property into the City pursuant to Section 171.044, Florida Statutes, and the City has complied with all applicable requirements of Florida law in connection with this ordinance; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The following-described property is hereby annexed into the City of Clearwater and the boundary lines of the City are redefined accordingly: See attached legal description, Exhibit "A" (ANX2012-05003) The map attached as Exhibit "B" is hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. The provisions of this ordinance are found and determined to be consistent with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The City Council hereby accepts the dedication of all easements, parks, rights-of-way and other dedications to the public, which have heretofore been made by plat, deed or user within the annexed property. The City Engineer, the City Clerk and the Planning Director are directed to include and show the property described herein upon the official maps and records of the City. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. The City Clerk shall file certified copies of this ordinance, including the map attached hereto, with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and with the County Administrator of Pinellas County, Florida, within 7 days after adoption, and shall file a certified copy with the Florida Department of State within 30 days after adoption. IE�ii�:�/ Ordinance No. 8335-12 PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Approved as to form: George N. Cretekos Mayor Attest: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Rosemarie Call Assistant City Attorney City Clerk Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 IE�ii�:�/ Ordinance No. 8335-12 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for Property located generally at 1907 Calumet Street. Parcel I.D. No. 12/29/15/00000/210/0100 As a point of reference commence at the Northeast corner of the Northwest % of Section 12, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, Pinellas County, Florida and proceed N 89°22'21" W, along the North boundary of said Northwest %, a distance of 50.01 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and a point on the West right-of-way line of Hercules Avenue; thence S 00°17'46" W, along the said West right-of-way line, a distance of 171.55 feet to a point on the Northerly right-of-way line of the Seaboard System Railroad; thence N 72°55'04" W, along said Northerly right-of-way line, a distance of 355.97 feet; thence N 00°19'S7" W, a distance of 157.67 feet; thence S 54°36'43" E, a distance of 158.35 feet; thence N 89°43'35" E, a distance of 212.97 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 46,327 square feet or 1.06 acres more or less. IE�ii�:�/ aarss 3.03 A c cc� -� • � y,y_ • - • ,i.. '.1.26.�. • `'I�tw�� . � ' iro 171 931017 � 3N36 �f 1/1� � 4391 2.65 A c �c� V Q' 13.10 Ac�c� W � Z ,°° r�or � �• ��o,• � ' . . ::� �� '. Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 .�--r� _ ' . ��'v c. . . � � . �= .. , . .f . ' • �i: .. � :t�?:'Aaror�' ' . . . �fOQ +� I : . f.:. : :.. ..: ; . . . ;�#-� ��__, . . 'E . . _ , . . �, , . -•�� . . . ..• •1•�.. � . . . ' . . , .. . ... ;, , • 'F• . i�. : . '�• '�i: . '. • �.... , . ,•I: . . '�' • .. ':�:. '�' .?eso •• � . ;.�; .. : . : .. , . . . . ,�,�, . . . ;•,�, •. . . ,. . . . . : � F �, , . . : �`. '. . . . . , . . . . • . . . . .. :.E•: , .';;. r�' ;.1.�'=�,,":�:, � � � . � . � . . :7��8' . �''y ' . � �.�� . . .�'• •'�`'•'�•`,„ -' ••..4;'-:+'. �. .••�:�. . .:. " :'��'� ;�:�;.•":'' . -1� '4;•.�'•3•� •l1:� .5' .B •.�• .g:�;�,`�g' .�ip• • ,i.y . �' .!' .'i�' :F: r�; •�' :i; :r•';: .�: ,� j� ';�:.�.' �•: ;a� •4; �,1'. ;• " "• �:� `. � � 760+0: • .'a6e'a.'.'.H'•.. •.•.��9; •�••'.•• .b% `N•. ��. •. , • •, :�' .�:�" �:•a. : .� �: ,. ..• ;� �� `�,•.. . �.t. "• � . � �' • �� = .. �.?��.;._ _ •�'-' ' �'.'� ' •�� . � .. .- . • • •... : . • . � �• —�,�.�,•—. ` . ' ,•'S ERe +D' . ..,.<i . .. ^•fT�:• : . �! ,1,+1�, W�•,�i�.�� . . � . , r .. ;:;; ., :. . . '; .:: . :•�.. . ..,.. � :��j.�::.. .�: '.�:.i: ',�;:�.:A.' ;�,;;�.� .,;...a. . �:.1597'.;..•.:. .. :�;� �.. •�;�: �_ ,..: .�:.a.: . .... .:�, .. -:�. ��:: � � : �: �� O::s:: �.�. . ::.::; : rt.:` :a�::: - - :'!:'•��" . �. . . _ ... • . _. . . .:. ' � � . . •:�' .. �:• PROPQSED ANNEXATlQN MAP Owner: Instrument Transforr�ers, Inc. Sifie: From : To 1907 Calumet Street Land 1�se IG & lL IG 8� IL Zoning M-1 Light Manufact�ring & M-2 Heavy Manufacturing IR� EXHIBIT "B" Case: Property . Size (Acresl: PIN: Atias Page: ANX2012-05003 1.07 acres 12-29-15-00000-210-0100 262A C:1Documents and Settingslelten.ayolLocal SettingslTemporary Internet �'ileslContent.0ut1ook1529TIX6V1ANX2012- �tem # 7 05003_Propased.doc City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Adopt Ordinance 8336-12 on second reading, amending the future land use plan element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city to designate the land use for certain real property whose post of�ce address is 1907 Calumet Street, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Industrial General (IG) and Industrial Limited (IL). SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo ��Il�:�ij Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 ORDINANCE NO. 8336-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY, TO DESIGNATE THE LAND USE FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF THE SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD AND FRONTING ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH HERCULES AVENUE CONSISTING OF A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF SECTION 12 AND THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 1907 CALUMET STREET, UPON ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, AS INDUSTRIAL GENERAL (IG) AND INDUSTRIAL LIMITED (IL); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the amendment to the future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORI DA: Section 1. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City of Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereinafter described property, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as follows: Property See attached legal description, Exhibit "A" (ANX2012-05003) Land Use Cateqory Industrial General (IG) & Industrial Limited (IL) The map attached as Exhibit "B" is hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. The City Council does hereby certify that this ordinance is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, contingent upon and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 8335-12. PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Approved as to form: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney George N. Cretekos Mayor Attest: Rosemarie Call City Clerk Ordinance No. 8336-12 I[�'ii�:�:3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for Property located generally at 1907 Calumet Street. Parcel I.D. No. 12/29/15/00000/210/0100 As a point of reference commence at the Northeast corner of the Northwest % of Section 12, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, Pinellas County, Florida and proceed N 89°22'21" W, along the North boundary of said Northwest %, a distance of 50.01 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and a point on the West right-of-way line of Hercules Avenue; thence S 00°17'46" W, along the said West right-of-way line, a distance of 171.55 feet to a point on the Northerly right-of-way line of the Seaboard System Railroad; thence N 72°55'04" W, along said Northerly right-of-way line, a distance of 355.97 feet; thence N 00°19'S7" W, a distance of 157.67 feet; thence S 54°36'43" E, a distance of 158.35 feet; thence N 89°43'35" E, a distance of 212.97 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 46,327 square feet or 1.06 acres more or less. I[�'ii�:�:3 � ;�. _, , ., . �:�:�: : " :r:. .��:::. � Q � � 17'!0 = t: W _ Z i7i5 ,�o, Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 . . � v �. . . � � . f• .. IL �� • . . � �� :,�� .. ::. . .. ��;, .. . . ' � . �� =�� •-:�. .. . •_ . , . .. .: . .:. , ... �. .. IL . . : r.•:: . . ; r::: .. •• ,. 'rsao .. :: . . .. � �.��:r� : .. .. , ...... . . . . . , . �.;fio� �- . � � . - :. � � � . . .,�oz: :.-. � . � �� . . . . . : �::: . — . . �:;��:€ � .��. ��:� �:�. �:�� :�: - ':� • • . . . . . .'.6�' : '.�� : . �.. ? � ; �.' : :�', b: : ' '' ' : : =� ��'• .�� • ... . • . . " . :�s,a��iNAOt�•�� . " • . . . . . . . . . Y •. �� .h�� •m .�P �' � �� `� '�•� •� �• • • �• �••�•• ' � : �9� �� ,�'. �,�, • �� • .`. °'.. .'�s .o°�� . . •o ; • �"': � �•iSS7r . � ' 1�• �N: • �. '"�.. '��;• . , . , . :�,:�.' '_�•�_.� FUTURE LAND USE MAP Owner: Instrument Transformers, Inc. Site: From : To: 1907 Cal►�met Street Land Use IG & IL IG&IL Zoning M-1 Light Manufacturing & M-2 Heavy Manufacturing IRT EXHIBIT rrBrr Case: Property Size (Acres]: PfN: Atlas Page: A N X2D 12-05003 1.07 acres 12-29-15-00000-210-0 l 00 262A C:1Documents and Settingslellen.ayolLocal SettingslTemporary Intemet FileslConte�t.0utlooklS29TIX6V1ANX2012- �tem #$ 05003_FLUM. dac City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Adopt Ordinance 8337-12 on second reading, amending the Zoning Atlas of the city by zoning certain real property whose post of�ce address is 1907 Calumet Street, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT). SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo ��11�:�%� Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 ORDINANCE NO. 8337-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY BY ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF THE SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD AND FRONTING ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH HERCULES AVENUE, CONSISTING OF A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF SECTION 12 AND THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 1907 CALUMET STREET, UPON ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, AS INDUSTRIAL, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (IRT); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the assignment of a zoning district classification as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The following described property located in Pinellas County, Florida, is hereby zoned as indicated upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, and the zoning atlas of the City is amended, as follows: Property Zoninq District See attached legal description, Exhibit "A" Industrial, Research and (ANX2012-05003) Technology (IRT) The map attached as Exhibit "B" is hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. The City Engineer is directed to revise the zoning atlas of the City in accordance with the foregoing amendment. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, contingent upon and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 8335-12. PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED George N. Cretekos Mayor I[�'ii�:�'7 Ordinance No. 8337-12 Approved as to form: Attest: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Rosemarie Call Assistant City Attorney City Clerk Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 I[�'ii�:�'7 Ordinance No. 8337-12 �' i7vn �� l710 IRT ! Q y � � �.i � W 2 z Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 1715 . 8 � - I ' • . { o . 'r• . , ,�o� . E ' ': . . • . 'J��'• . . . f � * • . �N70' . . . :•�. .: " ,; •- '�sea • .: ., . . , � ' . . • � , , '.i603•' • � • . . ' :: . f : . .. . .. .{�trx ^ . . ;, . . . � - ''{;, ' . ' . ' � , .r:;, . � . � • � � � •�� '. �:. .T��.' : 4�'.'.�.�• • •�16q9�•;' � '�"'� ,a� •�'.� �' �•• ��' �� "•'� .. ` . . , •�� . �,9s03. ... • .'r , . ..• :.�,`�.j�ERiN�.ob�;��':. ' • .. .. _ . • • .: •�' . :�.: .� : a �• . +��tl}`. •'0�p • •� � '��'.' • �•raai.'. • : ' �:. �•' ��• • �' .Of��r•� .�We .p{�•..•4; �.•• .. .. .. .�•:N• •(y• � • • ati .. . LI �,� ` .pa' " � __._.. . ... .' ' "' ' .. . ._ ... ._. ••��•_ . _1�'.�•��.'..N.� Owner: ]ns�rument Transformers, lnc. Site: From : �'o 1907 Calumet Street Land Use IG8�IL IG & IL ZONlNG MAP Zoning M-1 Light Manufacturing & M-2 Heavy Manufacfuring IRT �XHIBTT "B" Case: Property Size fAcres}: PIN: Atlas Page: ANX2012-05003 3 .07 peres 12-29=15-00000-210-0104 262A C:IDocuments and Settings1e11en.ayolLoca! SettingslTemparary Internet FileslContent.0ut1ook1S29TIX6V1ANX2012- �tem # 9 05003 Zoning.doc �' i7vn �� l710 IRT ! Q y � � �.i � W 2 z Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 1715 . 8 � - I ' • . { o . 'r• . , ,�o� . E ' ': . . • . 'J��'• . . . f � * • . �N70' . . . :•�. .: " ,; •- '�sea • .: ., . . , � ' . . • � , , '.i603•' • � • . . ' :: . f : . .. . .. .{�trx ^ . . ;, . . . � - ''{;, ' . ' . ' � , .r:;, . � . � • � � � •�� '. �:. .T��.' : 4�'.'.�.�• • •�16q9�•;' � '�"'� ,a� •�'.� �' �•• ��' �� "•'� .. ` . . , •�� . �,9s03. ... • .'r , . ..• :.�,`�.j�ERiN�.ob�;��':. ' • .. .. _ . • • .: •�' . :�.: .� : a �• . +��tl}`. •'0�p • •� � '��'.' • �•raai.'. • : ' �:. �•' ��• • �' .Of��r•� .�We .p{�•..•4; �.•• .. .. .. .�•:N• •(y• � • • ati .. . LI �,� ` .pa' " � __._.. . ... .' ' "' ' .. . ._ ... ._. ••��•_ . _1�'.�•��.'..N.� Owner: ]ns�rument Transformers, lnc. Site: From : �'o 1907 Calumet Street Land Use IG8�IL IG & IL ZONlNG MAP Zoning M-1 Light Manufacturing & M-2 Heavy Manufacfuring IRT �XHIBTT "B" Case: Property Size fAcres}: PIN: Atlas Page: ANX2012-05003 3 .07 peres 12-29=15-00000-210-0104 262A C:IDocuments and Settings1e11en.ayolLoca! SettingslTemparary Internet FileslContent.0ut1ook1S29TIX6V1ANX2012- �tem # 9 05003 Zoning.doc City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Adopt Ordinance 8345-12 on second reading, relating to soliciting the occupants of motor vehicles, renumbering Section 28.041 to Section 21.19, Code of Ordinances, to include street-solicitation violations among those violations that are punishable by a�ne of up to $500.00, imprisonment for not more than 60 days, or both. SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo �[i�ii%�[I] Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 ORDINANCE NO. 8345-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO SOLICITING THE OCCUPANTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES BEING OPERATED IN THE TRAVEL LANE OF PUBLICLY-OWNED STREETS WHILE THE MOTOR VEHICLE IS STOPPED AT A TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL OR AN INTERSECTION OR BEING OPERATED IN THE TRAVEL LANE OF PUBLICLY OWNED PARKING GARAGES AND PARKING LOTS; RENUMBERING SECTION 28.041, CLEARWATER CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO SECTION 21.19, TO INCLUDE STREET- SOLICITATION VIOLATIONS AMONG THOSE VIOLATIONS THAT ARE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF UP TO $500.00, A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING 60 DAYS, OR BY BOTH A FINE AND IMPRISONMENT, AS MAY BE IMPOSED BY THE COUNTY COURT; AMENDING SUBSECTIONS (1), (2) AND (4) TO CLARIFY THE CONDUCT BEING PROHIBITED, THE DEFINITION OF "APPROACH," AND THE CITY-CLERK- CONTACT INFORMATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles of the State of Florida, as of June 1, 2012, has provided 873,436 currently valid decals for motor vehicles in Pinellas County; and WHEREAS, Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in the State of Florida; and WHEREAS, the Tampa Bay area has the second highest incident of pedestrian fatalities in the State of Florida, and City of Clearwater has the third highest among local governments with the Tampa Bay area; and WHEREAS, the orderly flow of motorized traffic is a major concern in congested urban areas, particularly because an obstruction or delay in traffic at one point along a traffic artery results in delays and backups far down the roadway; and WHEREAS, a public safety hazard has been identified with persons approaching motor vehicles to immediately solicit contributions of money or property from the occupants of motor vehicles being operated in the travel lane of publicly owned streets in the City of Clearwater while the motor vehicle is stopped at a traffic control signal or at an intersection or being operated in the travel lane of publicly owned parking garages and parking lots; and WHEREAS, unlike the oral advocacy of ideas, or even the distribution of free literature, successful solicitations from drivers distracts them from their primary duty to watch the traffic and potential hazards in the road, observe all traffic control signals or Item # 10 Ordinance No. 8345-12 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 warnings, and prepare to move through the intersection, parking garage, or parking lot because the individual is required to respond to the solicitor by, for example, searching for currency, passing it along to the solicitor, securing any change returned, replacing a wallet or closing a purse, and then returning proper attention to the full responsibilities of operating a motor vehicle; and WHEREAS, there are numerous and diverse methods of soliciting available in the City of Clearwater that provide ample alternatives for solicitation, including soliciting pedestrians on the sidewalk, canvassing door-to-door, telephoning or emailing individuals, or direct mailing; and WHEREAS, the Ordinance is narrowly aimed at the disruptive nature of immediately soliciting money or property from the occupants of motor vehicles being operated in the travel lane of publicly owned streets while the motor vehicle is stopped at a traffic control signal or at an intersection or being operated in the travel lane of publicly owned parking garages and parking lots and is not intended to restrict the communication of ideas, including the distribution of free literature to occupants of motor vehicles or even the solicitation of the occupants of motor vehicles that are lawfully parked; and WHEREAS, failure to restrict the immediate solicitation of money or property from the occupants of motor vehicles being operated in the travel lane of publicly owned streets while the motor vehicle is stopped at a traffic control signal or at an intersection or being operated in the travel lane of publicly owned parking garages and parking lots will endanger the health, safety, and general welfare of the public by permitting unsafe pedestrian movement within travel lanes, sudden stoppage or slowdown of traffic, rapid lane changing, turns, and other dangerous traffic movement, increased vehicular accidents, and motorist injuries and fatalities; and WHEREAS, Clearwater police officers will frequently observe the same individuals repeatedly soliciting after having been issued a civil citation for unlawful soliciting; and WHEREAS, by moving Section 28.041, Clearwater Code of Ordinances, to Chapter 21 of the Code, the City Council will include unlawful street solicitations among those violations punishable by up to 60 days imprisonment and thus provide Clearwater police officers with the discretion to arrest unlawful street solicitors; and WHEREAS, although the City Council has a substantial governmental interest in enhancing traffic safety and ensuring the free flow of traffic, the City Council also seeks not to sweep too broadly in its prohibitions so as not to burden more speech than is necessary to promote its governmental interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a balance can be reached between its governmental interest in enhancing traffic safety and ensuring the free flow of traffic and a solicitor's First Amendment right to solicit Item # 10 2 Ordinance No. 8345-12 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 by authorizing street solicitations when the solicitors comply with the conditions set forth below; now therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. Section 28.041, Clearwater Code of Ordinances, is renumbered to Section 21.19; and subsections (1), (2), and (4) are amended as follows: Sec. 21.19 �es. ��.�. - Soliciting, collecting, etc., upon ublicl owned streets, parkinq qaraqes, and parkinq lots. (1) No person shall approach a motor vehicle being operated in the travel lane of e� a publicy owned street open for vehicular traffic while the motor vehicle is stopped at a traffic control siqnal or at an intersection or beinq operated in the travel lane of a publicly owned parkinq qaraqe or parkinq lot for any of the following purposes: (a) Soliciting or attempting to solicit the immediate donation� of money or of property of any kind for charitable, religious, educational, benevolent or any other purposes from any occupant of the motor vehicle; (b) Collecting or attempting to collect the immediate donation� of money or of property of any kind for charitable, religious, educational, benevolent or any other purposes from any occupant of the motor vehicle; �{�}Selling or attempting to sell property or services of any nature whatsoever immediately to any occupant of the motor vehicle. (2) For the purposes of this section: - Approach means to make advances towards so as to accomplish the desired result. Item # 10 3 Ordinance No. 8345-12 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 (3) A person, an organization or person acting on behalf of the organization shall be exempt from subsection (1) under the following conditions: (a) The person, organization or person acting on behalf of the organization must provide the following to the chief of police, who shall approve the request within five business days from the date that all of the following information is provided: 1. No fewer than 14 calendar days prior to the proposed solicitation, the name and address of the person or organization that will perform the solicitation and the name and address of the person or organization that will receive funds from the solicitation. 2. Specific details of the location or locations of the proposed solicitation and the hours during which the solicitation activities will occur. 3. Proof of commercial general liability insurance against claims for bodily injury and property damage occurring on streets, roads, or rights-of-way or arising from the solicitor's activities or use of the streets, roads, or rights-of-way by the solicitor or the solicitor's agents, contractors, or employees. The insurance shall have a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence for the general aggregate. The certificate of insurance shall name the City of Clearwater as an additional insured and shall be filed with the office of the chief of police no fewer than 14 days prior to the date of the solicitation. 4. The requirements of insurance contained in subparagraph (a)3. shall be waived where the applicant presents evidence of financial disability or inability to obtain an insurance company that will provide the insurance. Financial disability shall mean lack of present funds with which to pay the premium associated with the policy of insurance described in this section. (b) Organizations or persons meeting the requirements of subparagraphs (a)1.-4. may solicit for a period not to exceed ten cumulative days within one calendar year. Item # 10 4 Ordinance No. 8345-12 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 (c) All solicitations shall occur during daylight hours only. (d) Solicitation activities shall not interfere with the safe and efficient movement of traffic and shall not cause danger to the participants or the public. (e) No person engaging in solicitation activities shall persist after solicitation has been denied, act in a demanding or harassing manner, or use any sound or voice-amplifying apparatus or device. (f) All persons participating in the solicitation shall be at least 18 years of age. (g) Signage providing notice of the solicitation shall be posted at least 500 feet before the site of the solicitation. (4) Any applicant who has been denied an exemption by the chief of police shall have the right of appeal to the city manager. The applicant shall file with the city clerk a written request for a hearing, which should include the grounds for such appeal and the complete name, address, and telephone number of the applicant. Upon the filing of a written request for a hearing, the city clerk shall notify the city manager or city manager's designee, who shall conduct a hearing within 20 calendar days from the date of the filing of the request. At least ten calendar days prior to the hearing, the city clerk shall send the applicant notice of the date and place of the hearing by regular U.S. Mail to any address included on the written request for a hearing and shall also attempt to contact the applicant at any telephone number included on the written request for a hearing to inform the applicant of the date and place of the hearing. If the applicant did not include an address or a telephone number on the written request for a hearing or if the applicant wants to know the status of the appeal, the applicant can obtain information about the date and place of the hearing by contacting the city clerk at (727) 562-4093� or in person at 112 South Osceola Avenue, 2nd floor, Clearwater, Florida. At the hearing, the applicant shall have an opportunity to present evidence, to cross- examine witnesses, and to be represented by counsel. The city shall have the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence and the decision of the city manager or city manager's designee shall be based solely on the evidence presented at the hearing. The city manager or designee shall file a written decision with the city clerk's office within five calendar days from the date of the hearing. The written decision shall contain the findings of fact upon which the decision was based and the legal basis for the decision. The city clerk shall send the applicant a copy of the decision by regular U.S. Mail to any address included on the written request for a hearing and shall also attempt to contact the applicant at any telephone number included on the written request for a hearing to inform the applicant that the decision has been filed. If the Item # 10 5 Ordinance No. 8345-12 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 applicant did not include an address or telephone number on the written request for a hearing or if the applicant wants to know the status of the appeal, the applicant can obtain information about whether a decision was filed, as well as a copy of the decision, by contacting the city clerk at (727) 562-4093� or in person at 112 South Osceola Avenue, 2nd floor, Clearwater, Florida. The decision by the city manager or city manager's designee shall be final and conclusive, subject to judicial review by common-law certiorari in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County. (5) If any provision of this section is declared invalid for any reason, such invalidity shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this section. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Approved as to form: Robert J. Surette Assistant City Attorney George N. Cretekos Mayor Attest: Rosemarie Call City Clerk Item # 10 6 Ordinance No. 8345-12 City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Adopt Ordinance 8347-12 as amended on second reading, prohibiting sitting or lying on the publicly owned right-of-ways, sidewalks, piers, docks, boardwalks, and entryways to publicly owned buildings in the downtown, gateway, and beach tourist areas. SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo ��11�:��) Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 ORDINANCE NO. 8347-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO SITTING OR LYING DOWN UPON THE PUBLICLY OWNED RIGHT-OF-WAYS, SIDEWALKS, PIERS, DOCKS, BOARDWALKS, INCLUDING PUBLIC-ACCESS BOARDWALKS, AND THE ENTRYWAYS TO OR EXITWAYS FROM PUBLICLY OWNED BUILDINGS LOCATED IN THE "CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN CORE REDEVELOPMENT ZONE," THE "GATEWAY CORRIDOR," AND THE "CLEARWATER BEACH CORE TOURIST ZONE"; CREATING SECTION 21.20, CLEARWATER CODE OF ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS, PROHIBITIONS, AND EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater's 107,000 plus residents enjoy a vibrant economy resulting from a huge influx of 5.2 million annual tourists to Pinellas County with Clearwater Beach alone attracting over 800,000 tourists annually in addition to the approximate 600,000 residents in the region who annually visit the beach; WHEREAS, the improvement of the downtown, the East Gateway District, and Clearwater Beach has been a high priority in the City's plan to expand the economic base of the City by attracting new investment and patrons to the area; WHEREAS, Clearwater Beach has an economic impact of over $1 billion and is projected to increase its impact as redevelopment on the beach continues to occur; WHEREAS, the downtown is also projected to attract additional tourists and visitors as redevelopment continues; WHEREAS, the East Gateway District is one of the designated redevelopment areas of the City of Clearwater and it is at a transformative point to change the trajectory of the economy and improve the quality of life for current and future residents and businesses; WHEREAS, the emergence of the City's downtown, the East Gateway District, and beachfront as quality redevelopment areas is due in no small part to the following projects and expenditures by the City of Clearwater: • Cleveland Street Streetscape Phases I and II - Cost: $12 Million As the city's traditional downtown "Main Street," it was important that Cleveland Street offer a pedestrian-friendly environment that attracts residential and destination development, especially restaurant and retail activity. Infrastructure improvements have included: new utility work, lighting, landscaping, site furnishings, amenities and medians 1 Ordinance No.��2� � Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 with opportunity for public art. The project is a central element in the City's downtown revitalization strategy. • Station Square Park— Cost $1.2 million The City/Clearwater Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) developed a master streetscape and wayfinding program for downtown that included the revitalization of Station Square Park, using $490,143.47 from Penny for Pinellas and $29,476.44 from Stormwater Utility. The remainder of the funds was budgeted in the CRA's CIP budget from FY06-07 and FY07-08 funds. The project was completed in 2009. • Main Public Library - Cost: $20.2 million Clearwater is home to one of the most spectacular and impressive public library facilities in North America. The 90,000 square foot library is located on the downtown waterfront and opened in the spring of 2004. In addition to distinctive architecture, the library features a local history center, meeting rooms, rooftop terrace and galleries. • Myrtle Avenue Reconstruction - Cost: $16.13 million Construction was completed in 2006 on Myrtle Avenue between Lakeview and Fairmont. Infrastructure maintenance, including an improved roadway drainage system, installation of new water mains, hydrants, gas mains and sewer pipes, were among the upgrades. • Purchase of Former Economy Inn Motel on Cleveland Street and Surrounding Parcels — Cost: $1.9 million The CRA acquired the 2.2-acre site in December 2010. Once demolition was completed in 2011, the site was sodded and fenced. This is a key redevelopment property for the C RA. • Purchase of Former Car Pro Property on Cleveland Street - Cost: $800K The site was acquired and demolished in 2010 for $325,000. Remediation costs are estimated to be $325,440 and they are funded through the Brownfield's Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF). In 2012, the city acquired 14 S. Evergreen St., a 6,300 square foot property adjacent to the Car Pro, for $145,000. • Gulf to Bay Blvd. and Highland Avenue Intersection Improvements Project — Cost: $660K The main goals of this project are to create an inviting entryway leading to the downtown and address the lack of pedestrian walkways in this intersection. Improvements are projected to be approximately $375,000. The mast arm portion of 2 Ordinance No.��2� � Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 the project is projected to cost $288,163. The project is scheduled for completion in July 2012. • Construction of Sidewalks in the East Gateway District — Cost: $224K Constructing new sidewalks is one strategy aimed at making the East Gateway District a safer and more pedestrian-friendly community. CRA staff coordinated with the Engineering Department for the construction of several sidewalk projects using federal CDBG-R dedicated funding as well as funding from the Annual Sidewalk Program. • Downtown Boat Slips Project - Cost: $13.3 million The project consisting of 126 boat slips with related amenities was completed in 2010. There is side tie dock space for long or short-term rentals, and additional spaces for events and shuttle-ferry operations. Total costs included: Bayfront Promenade $1.32M; Upland Connection (seawall cap, sidewalks, landscaping, property upgrades and ADA improvements) $940K; and Boat Slips $11.13M. • Mandalay Streetscape Improvements - Cost: $3.4 million This major streetscape improvement project along the primary North Beach arterial was completed in February 2003. • Beach Walk - Cost: $30 million This was a project along Clearwater's prized waterfront that was completed in 2008. Beach Walk is designed to revitalize the community that surrounds Clearwater's popular south beach destination. Part of the city's "Beach by Design" plan, it has already played a vital role in attracting new hotel development to the beach; WHEREAS, the City's downtown has attracted the following private investment: • National chain franchises, such as Starbuck's Coffee and Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins, as well as several independent stores/operations, such as Caliyogurt, Eye Shop Optical Boutique, Casanova Italian Restaurant and Lounge, Bob and Daughter Produce, Anytime Fitness, and Clearwater Marine Aquarium's Winter's Dolphin Tale Adventure. • Capitol Theatre Acquisition - In 2008, the City of Clearwater acquired the Capitol Theatre for $2.4M as a public service performing arts center and joined forces with Ruth Eckerd Hall, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation, to occupy, renovate, and revitalize the historic theatre. The total project cost estimate is $14.2M. Water's Edge Condominiums — Water's Edge has 157 luxury condominium units and 10,000 square feet of retail space. The project was completed in 2008. Ordinance No.��2� � Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 • Station Square Residences - The project is a 15-story building with 126 residential condominium units, and 10,000 square feet of ground floor retail including a major restaurant space. In addition, there are 100 public parking spaces within a structured garage. The project was completed in 2008. • Marriott Residence Inn - 7-story, 115-room select service hotel in downtown Clearwater opened in 2008. • Tampa Bay Times Building - In 2012, the city purchased this downtown Clearwater property for the sum of $2.2M. The property presented an opportunity for the city to acquire a strategically-located parcel considered for a number of years as well suited for transit and/or governmental uses. WHEREAS, examples of some of the private investment in the East Gateway District include the following: • Several independent shops/stores, such as Greektown Grille (over $1.6 million), Ultimate Medical Academy ($1.21 million), and Achieva Credit Union (over $300, 000). • East Gateway Farade and Improvement Lot Program - The program's primary goal is to stimulate further investment in the District by transforming the look and feel of commercial corridors. Three projects have been completed, with over $800,000 of private investment: 1390 Gulf to Bay (former La Feria de la Nieve), 1454 Gulf to Bay (former Kyle's Clock Shop), 1225 Cleveland Street (Nature's Food Patch). WHEREAS, the City's beachfront has recently attracted the following private investment: • Aqualea Resort & Residences - 250 hotel/resort units; 18 permanent residential condominiums. Hyatt manages the hotel portion. Construction is valued at $77 million. • Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites — 189 renovated hotel rooms and suites. • Hilton Clearwater Beach — 416 renovated hotel rooms. • Kiran Grand Resort & Spa - Proposed project consisting of 350 hotel units and 75 permanent residences (also known as the Patel project). • Sandpearl Resort - 253-room resort, 50 resort suites and 117 condominium homes (on the former site of the Clearwater Beach Hotel) opened in August 2007. Construction is valued at $48.5 million. • Surf Style Parking Garage — Construction valued at $10.7 million. Project was completed in 2011. 4 Ordinance No.��2� � Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 • Pier 60 Hotel — 85 hotels units. Construction is valued at $8 million. Project was completed in 2012. • Wyndham Garden Clearwater Beach Hotel — 110 units. Construction is valued at $1.6 million. Project was completed in 2012. WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater also spends annually around $602,000 on special events, with $453,000 allocated to downtown events (including funding from the Downtown Development Board), $5,000 allocated to the East Gateway District, and $144,000 allocated to Beach events; WHEREAS, the right-of-way, including the sidewalk, located between the edge of the pavement of a roadway and the adjacent property line of privately and publicly owned properties located in the "Clearwater powntown Core Redevelopment Zone," the "Gateway Corridor," the "Clearwater Beach Core Tourist Zone," as well as the publicly owned piers, docks, and boardwalks, including public-access boardwalks, and the entryways to and exitways from publicly owned buildings located within those areas, are created and maintained for the primary purposes of enabling the public to safely and efficiently move about from place to place, thus facilitating deliveries of goods and services, and providing the public with convenient access to goods and services; and WHEREAS, the right-of-way, including the sidewalk, located between the edge of the pavement of a roadway and the adjacent property line of privately and publicly owned properties located in the "Clearwater powntown Core Redevelopment Zone," the "Gateway Corridor," and the "Clearwater Beach Core Tourist Zone," as well as the publicly owned piers, docks, and boardwalks, including public-access boardwalks, and the entryways to and exitways from publicly owned buildings located within those areas, are prone to congestion and should be kept available to serve their primary purposes; and WHEREAS, evidence from other cities such as Phoenix, Arizona in See/ey v. State of Arizona, 655 P. 2d 803, 807 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982), and Seattle, Washington, in Roulette v. City of Seatt/e, 97 F. 3d 300, 306 (9t" Cir. 1996) and City of Seatt/e v. McConahy, 937 P. 2d 1133, 1138-39 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997), shows that sitting or lying upon the public right-of-ways threatens public safety and interferes with the primary purpose of enabling the public to safely and efficiently move about from place to place, thus deterring members of the public from frequenting a business district and undermining the essential economic viability of those areas — all of which can lead to a spiral of deterioration and blight; and WHEREAS, there exist numerous locations within or in close proximity to the "Clearwater powntown Core Redevelopment Zone," the "Gateway Corridor," and the "Clearwater Beach Core Tourist Zone" where individuals can sit or lie down, including public benches, public parks, and public beaches; now, therefore BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: 5 Ordinance No.��2� � Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 Section 1. Section 21.20, Clearwater Code of Ordinances, is hereby created as follows: Sec. 21.20. Sittinq or Ivinq down upon the publiclv owned riqht-of-wavs, sidewalks, piers, docks, boardwalks, includinq public-access boardwalks, and the entrvwavs to or exitwavs from publiclv owned buildinqs located in the Clearwater Downtown Core Redevelopment Zone, the Gatewav Corridor, and the Clearwater Beach Core Tourist Zone; exceptions. (1) Definitions. (a) Clearwater powntown Core Redevelopment Zone means any of the followinq areas, which qenerally are shown on Diaqram 1: The area bounded on the east by Myrtle Avenue, on the west by the waters of Clearwater Harbor, on the north by Drew Street westward until it terminates at Clearwater Harbor, and on the south by Pierce Street westward until it terminates at the beqinninq of the Memorial Causeway Bridqe, excludinq Coachman Park, Station Square Park, Memorial Parks I& 2, and the Bayfront Tennis Complex. Add the followinq qraphic. Ordinance No.��2� � Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 (b) Gatewav Corridor means the east to west route to the downtown of the City, which qenerally is shown on Diaqram 2, beqinninq at Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Hiqhland Avenue and extendinq west on Gulf to Bay Boulevard to Cleveland Street and then from Cleveland Street to Myrtle Avenue. Add the followinq qraphic. Ordinance No.��2� � Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 (c) Clearwater Beach Core Tourist Zone means any of the followinq areas, which qenerally are shown on Diaqram 3: The area bounded on the north by Avalon Street; on the west by the sandy beach abuttinq the Gulf of Mexico; on the south by the waters of Clearwater Pass; and on the east beqinninq at Gulf Boulevard on the northern end of the Sand Key Bridqe until Gulf Boulevard intersects with South Gulfview Boulevard, then northerly alonq South Gulfview Boulevard to the intersection of Hamden Drive, then northerly alonq Hamden Drive until the intersection of Coronado Drive, then northerly alonq Coronado Drive to and includinq the Clearwater Marina and Causeway Boulevard, then northerly alonq the seawall boardinq Clearwater Harbor to the intersection of Baymont Street, then westerly alonq Baymont Street until the intersection of Mandalav Avenue. and then northerlv alona Mandalav Avenue to the intersection of Avalon Street, excludinq Pier 60 Park and Mandalay Park. Add the followinq qraphic. Ordinance No.��2� � Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 Ordinance No.��2� � Attachment number 1 \nPage 1i (2) No person shall sit or lie down upon the riqht-of-way, includinq the sidewalk, located between the curbline or the edqe of the pavement of a roadway and the adjacent property line of privately or publicly owned properties, upon publicly owned piers, boardwalks, and docks, or upon any public-access boardwalk within the Clearwater powntown Core Redevelopment Zone, the Gateway Corridor, and the Clearwater Beach Core Tourist Zone, or upon a blanket, sleepinq baq, chair, stool, or any other obiect not permanently affixed upon such areas, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (3) No person shall sit or lie down upon the entryways to or exitways from a publicly owned buildinq within the Clearwater powntown Core Redevelopment Zone, the Gateway Corridor, and the Clearwater Beach Core Tourist Zone when the buildinq is opened to the qeneral public. (4) The prohibitions contained in this section shall not apply to any person: (a) Sittinq or Iyinq down in a park or public beach as defined in Section 22.21; (b) Sittinq or Iyinq down due to a medical emerqency; (c) Utilizinq an obiect supplied by the City or other public aqency in the manner it was intended. such as sittina on a chair or bench: (d) Sittinq or Iyinq down in or on a wheelchair, a baby carriaqe, or any other obiect or vehicle in order to move about; (e) Participatinq in or viewinq any activity, such as a parade, festival, performance, rally, demonstration, meetinq, or other event, pursuant to any permit or license issued by the City; (f) Sittinq down while patronizinq a sidewalk cafe; or (q) Sittinq or Iyinq down when it is an inteqral part of a protest accompanied by incidents of speech such as siqns or literature explaininq the protest. (5) Nothinq in the exceptions enumerated in subsection (4) of this section shall be construed to authorize any conduct that is otherwise prohibited by statutes or local ordinances. (6) No person shall be charqed under this section for the first violation unless the 10 Ordinance No.��2� � Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 person continues to enqaqe in conduct prohibited by this section after havinq been: a) Notified bv a law enforcement officer that the conduct violates this section; and (b) Provided an opportunity to relocate to an area where sittinq or Iyinq down would be lawful. (7) It shall be a violation of this section for any person who has previously violated this section and has received notification pursuant to subsection (6) of this section to commit a second or subsequent violation within the same area listed in subsection (1) of this section as the first violation. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Approved as to form: Robert J. Surette Assistant City Attorney George N. Cretekos Mayor Attest: Rosemarie Call City Clerk 11 Ordinance No.��2� � Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 MOTION TO AMEND ORDINANCE 8347-12 ON SECOND READING On page 8, amend the ordinance as follows: The map in Section 21.20(1)(b) is amended to correctly identify Crest Lake Park on the far right hand side of the graphic. Pamela K. Akin City Attorney August 2, 2012 I[�'ii�:�iil City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:8/2/2012 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance 8348-12 on second reading, creating Section 21.21, Code of Ordinances, prohibiting lodging out-of—doors. SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo ��11�:�� Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 ORDINANCE NO. 8348-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO LODGING OUT-OF-DOORS; CREATING SECTION 21.21, CLEARWATER CODE OF ORDINANCES; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS AND PROHIBITIONS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Clearwater City Council finds that individuals who are lodging out-of-doors on publicly owned property for the purpose of establishing a temporary or permanent place of lodging or residence adversely affect aesthetics, sanitation, public health, and safety; and WHEREAS, the unauthorized use of publicly owned property for lodging out-of- doors when the property in question is neither intended nor designed as a camp site, campground, or site for temporary human habitation tends to impair, obstruct, and otherwise detract from the use of the property for its intended purpose; now therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. Section 21.21, Clearwater Code of Ordinances, is hereby created as follows: Sec. 21.21. - Unlawful lodqinq out-of-doors prohibited� (1) The followinq words and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the followinq meaninqs: (a) Lodqinq out-of-doors means usinq publicly owned property for livinq accommodation purposes by the erection, use or occupation of any tent, hut, lean-to, shack, temporary shelter, or the like, for sleepinq purposes or the layinq down of beddinq, such as a blanket, sleepinq baq, bed roll, newspapers, cardboard, or similar material for the purpose of sleepinq. (b) Livinq accommodation purposes means to use publicly owned property as a temporary or permanent place of lodqinq or residence. (2) It shall be unlawful for any person to use publicly owned property in the City for the purpose of lodqinq out-of-doors. Item # 12 Ordinance No. 8348-12 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 (3) A law enforcement officer should also consider one (1) or more of the followinq before determininq if probable cause exists that a person is usinq the real property for livinq accommodation purposes: (a)Numerous items of personal belonqinqs are present; (b)The person is enqaqed in cookinq activities; (c)The person has built or is maintaininq a fire; (d)The person has enqaqed in diqqinq or earth breakinq activities; (e)The person is asleep and when awakened states that he or she has no other alace to live. (4) No person shall be charqed under this section unless the person continues to enqaqe in conduct prohibited by this section after havinq been: (a) Notified by a law enforcement officer that the conduct violates this section; and (b) Provided an opportunity to relocate to an existinq and available public or private shelter space open to an individual or a family unit experiencinq homelessness at no charqe if the person has no leqally permanent or temporary residence. (5) It shall be a violation of this section for any person who havinq previously violated subsection (2) and havinq received notification and been provided the opportunity to relocate to public or private shelter space pursuant to subsection (41 of this section to commit a second violation. A law enforcement officer observina a violation of subsection (51 of this section shall not charqe a person with a violation of this section if the person has no leqally permanent or temporary residence, if the person is willinq to relocate to an existinq and available public or private shelter space open to an individual or a family unit experiencinq homelessness at no charqe, and if the person aqrees to travel and beqins to travel immediately by police transport or police escort until reachinq such shelter space. (7) Whenever a law enforcement officer affords a person an opportunity to travel to a public or private shelter, the law enforcement officer shall advise the person that all of his or her personal property not taken to the shelter, except that which is of no apparent utility or that is in an unsanitary condition, shall be Ordinance No. ��2� 2 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 inventoried and stored by the city police department for a maximum of sixty (60) days, until reclaimed. If the person elects to travel to a public or private shelter, the law enforcement officer shall make available such transportation as may be available for such purpose. (8) Any personal property that was inventoried and stored by the city police department for a person travelinq to a shelter under the provisions of this section and that has not been reclaimed within sixty (60) days of the date the personal property was inventoried and stored shall be deemed abandoned and disposed of accordinq to F.S. ch. 705. (9) Any person who after beinq afforded the opportunity in subsection (6) commits a third or subsequent violation of subsection (2) when shelter was presently available shall be subiect to arrest. If the officer is not aware of presently available shelter space in Pinellas County, the person shall not be charaed with a violation of this section. (10) The prohibitions contained in this section shall not apply to any ep rson: (a) Who is located on park property durinq the hours that the property is opened to the public; (b) Who is usinq a campinq area approved by the City's Parks and Recreation Department; or (c) Who, between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m, is usinq the public beaches or parks that are opened to the public 24 hours per day. (11) Nothinq in the exceptions enumerated in subsection (10) of this section shall be construed to authorize any conduct that is otherwise prohibited by statutes or local ordinances. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Ordinance No. ��2� 2 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 George N. Cretekos Mayor Approved as to form: Attest: Robert J. Surette Rosemarie Call Assistant City Attorney City Clerk 4 Ordinance No. ��2� 2 _ __ _ _ -- . _._ 311J�� t�l. �a�rr��s�.s b�kl t>f �rghts pa�is� �s U.�, m�l - T�rsa�r� ��y'�ei�s � �� t �� , _ _ � � � � . � � : a , ,� � -�, w� ,�� ,� , , , � �� . - � .�- ,�� :,� - �>�, �;�r�, .�a ° .� �_ . � �� . �� . ►�.� �-� � � ��,: �� . .�� . �y ��- ��. � .��. , � � ��.. r � �� ,��. !�.:fY �F . � ��^ _ , , . _.., ` •� , � -.. • � � ., = _. �. �:ro ! " K � r r. r� .. � Y .: . �. � � � . � - ^ : w. � � � � .r + ! � � .. 4 .: � . * ' �y � ; _. ,. +� . .. � .rs � ` ,i " �! i � i 7 "` ' �- ^ � � "'.. r,. �� ... 'y �,. W : .... �. ?��.�. / . i!�' -.�., � �_„. .;.. � .. ... �� . !_.��:E .. w f : ,i� �: Q iY I � le .. ! :1. r w . :f " w �..: � " � ,r 1! "'f . . ' � # � : �. �.. �! • �. �, r ` � " :: �. i ^ ^ � ,. .. A > , . .. �1 .� M, #4.� �� ' !; ..F.� i i ' :�. •#.:�.- � �.AE' ..T:��F ,.1'''�i 1! #t4 ,��: ! . � ' r,�E�.'� � �#� . ^!. 'E '..�.. f ..•,. • .-��° � ! !�. F;_. !I i �m. r � #!.r �� ,..:"�+! iM _ _ 's,� :`i� . '�� R ' f �i!" ! 1��:.: - � R ' � . ! � � A .. :i� � ! � . �A4 . : l; F " R . �. �.V�. t ,�. �. ! R �. :� � , >. ., � �"' ' : ! ":�, ,! �, .rc � . . ., : .. . � ,... K''� •�� .• : V!'� # .,� ,* ��. `.� '� •!r°. +,,'_N, 5.: � ..�•' � r'�E ��;.:1� .`AE .. ik "�^ �l�i° .+�.1[ YY r'�.�°� r.�"i'_ :_ ��' �! �;;. , #,. .i � � ! YI i . a < : ai s� � �� ,e . .�... �� -. .. y �. � �. - . � � r : y , y : ` �� ° .:� : � �.. �' .: �. 1! i ' R" , 1 i'� i^ "i - f. q�,,. '� , e �' �! ; er ■: .� �4 i n'.. M r � . i � �i ♦ ' � � y. f SY , " • r—t � � � � N - w.i'.. � i �.l` ��1� � ��i� . F . !�. ..� ; �,� �,:1 s '�� :a ,k� t '� g °n � e b, � � � : ,'4C...��i City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Adopt Ordinance 8350-12 on second reading, vacating a portion of a 2-foot Drainage and Utility Easement lying on a parcel of land lying in Section 2, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, Pinellas County, Florida, and being a portion of Lot 9, Brentwood Estates, as recorded in Plat Book 59, Page 28 of the Public Records of Pinellas County. SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo ��II�:�K� Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 ORDINANCE NO. 8350-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, VACATING A PORTION OF A 20-FOOT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LYING ON A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING A PORTION OF LOT 9, BRENTWOOD ESTATES, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 59, PAGE 28 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SAID PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Cay 1475, LLC, owner of real property located in the City of Clearwater, has requested that the City vacate the drainage and utility easement depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that said easement is not necessary for municipal use and it is deemed to be in the best interest of the City and the general public that the same be vacated; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The following: A parcel of land lying Section 2, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, Pinellas County Florida, and being a portion of Lot 9, Brentwood Estates, as recorded in Plat book 59, Page 28 of the public records of said Pinellas County, Florida, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, S 00°07'42" E, 50.00 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL TO THE EAST- WEST CENTER LINE OF SAID SECTION 2, N 89°29'42" W, 50.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE, S 00°10'33" E, 250.00 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE, N 89°29'42" W, 160.41 FEET TO A POINT LYING 10.00 FEET EAST OF THE EAST LINE OF LOTS 8& 9 OF SAID BRENTWOOD ESTATES, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 59, PAGE 28 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG A LINE 10.00 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOTS 8& 9 OF SAID BRENTWOOD ESTATES, N 00°08'30" E, 32.58 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED AREA; THENCE DEPARTING SAID LINE LYING 10.00 FEET EAST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOTS 8& 9, N 57°04'58" W, 23.79 FEET TO A POINT LYING 10.00 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF LOT 9 OF SAID BRENTWOOD ESTATES; THENCE ALONG A LINE 10.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 9, N 00°08'30" E, 26.67 FEET; THENCE ALONG A LINE BEING 10.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 9, N 89°24'23" W, 41.94 FEET; THENCE DEPA��1�3 Ordinance No.8350 -12 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 SAID LINE, N 57°04'58" W, 37.40 FEET TO A POINT BEING 10.00 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 9; THENCE ALONG A LINE BEING 10.00 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 9, S 89°24'23" E, 93.39 FEET; THENCE ALONG A LINE BEING 10.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE EAST LINE OF LOTS 8& 9 OF BRENTWOOD ESTATES AND ITS NORTHERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, S 00°08'30" W, 59.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 2213.9 S.F., MORE OR LESS, is hereby vacated, and the City of Clearwater releases all of its rights in the servitude, as described above, to the owner of the servient estate thereto subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall deed to the City of Clearwater a new 20-foot drainage and utility easement, acceptable to the City at the City's sole discretion; and 2. Applicant shall relocate the existing sanitary sewer line to the new easement at the applicant's sole cost and in accordance with the City's specifications and standards; and 3. The applicant shall reimburse the Clearwater Gas System for all costs incurred by relocating the existing gas line; and 4. This vacation ordinance shall be rendered null and void if any of the preceding conditions are not met within one (1) year of the date of adoption of this ordinance. Section 2. The City Clerk shall record this ordinance in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida, following adoption. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED George N. Cretekos Mayor Approved as to form: Attest: Camilo A. Soto Rosemarie Call Assistant City Attorney City Clerk I[�'ii�:�iK3 Ordinance No.8350 -12 S�CT10N v2, TOINNS!-f11' 2� SOVT!-f, TL4NG� rs �AST A1N�LL4S COVNTY, �tc�RJDA t£GAL DESCTZJPFI4N: TNE DESCRlPTlON NEREIN DESCRlSED !S FOR TNE P(JRPOSE OF VACATlNG EXlSTlNG UT1LlTY EASEMENTS WI TNlN TNE FpLLOWlNG DESCRlBED AREA: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING !N SECTlQN 2, TDWlVSN1P 29 SQUTN, RAIVGE 15 FASt PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BE1NG A PORTlON OF LOT 9, BRENTWOOD ESTATFS> A5 RECORDED !N PLAT BOOK 59, PAGE' 28 OF TNE PLJ$L!C RECORDS OF SA1D PlNELL4S COUNN, FLORIDA, SAlD PARCEL 8ElNG MORE PARTICULARLY DE'SCRlBED AS FOLLpINS: COMMENCE AT TH� IJORTNEAST CORNER OF TNE IVORTNWES7 7/4 QF TNE SQUTNWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 2, rQWNS!-!tP 29 SOUTFl, RAIVGE 15 EAST, TNENCE ALQNG TNE FAST LINE OF SA1D NORTNWES7 1/4 OF TNE SDUTNW�ST t/4, S 00'd7'42" E„ 50.00 FEE% TNENCE PARALLEL TO TNE EAST—WEST CENTER LlNE OF. SAlD 5EC7lON 2, N 89"29'42" W, 50.00 FEET TO A POlNT ON 7HE WEST RlGHT OF WAY LlNE OF HlGNL4ND AVENUE; TNENGE ALONG SAlD WEST RlGHT OF WAY L1NE, S 00' 10'33" E, 250.00 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAJD WEST RIGNT OF WAY LlNE, N 89'29'42° W, 160.41 FE'ET TO A POlNT LYlNG 10.00 FEET EAST OF TME EAST LlNE QF LOTS 8& 9 OF SA1D BRE'NTWOOD �STA7ES, AS RECORDED !N PLAT BODK 59, PAGE 28 OF" THE PC18LlC RECQRDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; TNENCE ALONG A LJNE i0A0 FFET FAS7 OF AIVp PARALLFL Wl7N TNE EAS7 LINE QF SAlD LOTS 8& 9 OF SAlD BRENTWOOD ES7ATES, N 00'08'30" E, 32.58 fE'E]" 7'd THE POlNT OF BEGlNNlNG Of T1-!E MERElN DESCRIBED ARFA; TNENCE DEPA}7TlNG SAID LlNE LYlNG 10.00 FEET FASi OF THE EAST LlNE OF SAlD tOTS $& 8, N 57'04'S8" W, 23.79 FEEf TO A PQINT LYIIVG Jd.OQ FEET WEST OF TNE E4ST L!!VE Of- LOT 9 OF SAlD BREfVTWOQD ESrATES; TNENCE ALONG A LlNE 10.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WlTi-! TNE EAST L1NE OF SAfD LQT 9, !V 00'08 30" E, 26.67 FEET; TNENCE ALONG A LlNE 8ElNG 7 D.00 FEET SOIJTH OF AND PARALLFL WlTH iHE NORTN LINE OF SA1D LOT S, N 89'24'23° W, 41.94 FEET; TNENCE DEPARTING SAlD LlNE, N 57'04 58° W, 37.40 FEEf TO A PQ1NT BE1NG 1 a.OQ FEE!' NORTN OF TNE NORTH L1NE OF SAID LQ7 9; T!-tENCE ALONG A LIIVE 8ElNG 10.00 FE'Ef NORTN QF AND PARALLEL WlTN TNE NORTN L1NE OF SA1D LDi 9, S 89'24'23" E, 93.39 FEET; TNENCE ALONG A LlNE 8ElNG T 0.00 FEEi EASTERLY OF THE EAST L1NF OF LOTS 8& 9 OF SRENTWOOD ES7ATES AND 1TS NORTHERLY PROJEGTlON TNEREOF, S OD"OS'30" W, 59.39 FEET TO Th1E PO!!VT QF BEGlNNlNG. SAID PARCEL CONTAlNlNG 22 i 3.9 S. F., MORE OR LESS. SCALE: 7 "=40' DRAWN &Y: A8T �wc. No.rior-�oo-o4s PROJ. No. ? 101-100-04 �as��u�NT va�,arlvN SUNSET &� HIGNLAND EXHIBIT "A',' Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 AAGf 7 OF 2 LEGAL/SK£TCH ONLY -TMfS fS NOT A 80UNDARY SURVEY- N�'S[A?Y�YJ7VGOF�OXID.� !J1/� L9Na 7425 29340 RNODlN PUC£ x�st PHC�ar�'s��2DOpsz�5 FArc,k ole,romxrrar,ee—surursying.co,n �isc�v�,m�rc.arm;�wrrrrres��t� # 1 Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 s�rnvN va, ruwrrsr�rn z9 svvr�, �r,aNr� �s �asr �01NT c�f CVMM�7YC�M�IVT� � T'JN�ELL45 Cc�VNiY, �Lc�RJDA _ , � . _ , . _ , � .ly�. SpRNER dF THE rv. w. 1 J� o�s. t� f7� '— ^� � SEC. 2-29-15 - E.-W. CENTERLlNE QF SECTlON 2 ;� �r J \ � r 3 . E � I � I - o ( � PLATTED 90' DRA!lVAGE & UT1LlTY EASEMENT � � � � ! 4 3 � �� z �'� D.&U. FA5EMENT PER O.R. �807, PAGE 236 � d 10.0' .�._.—.—. C �10 � � �3 W - �.�.— .—.—._'9 ._.—.—._._..— L.---•---.�._._. � QO �, N.� ORNER OF LQT 9�I — —� --�- — — — L8 � -y r � � �i .OT 7 0 RNER OF ' � • � h � i �'' � � . � .� i � � � o � ! - � �� 4 LDT9 �.\ � �6 P.D.B. � ' '� � ! . �z BR�NTWc�OD �STATfS �` - � N � � P.13. Lc�T � GE Zs � I� L � `� � N.E GQf7NER OF LOT� . Q - �� k �a.—.�.1-4 �.—.�� . � • r � •—►�-- ' � i � PLATT�D � 0' DRAINAGE & tJTILlTY EASEMFNT C��I �� o�!� a LINE BEARiiVG DISTANC� i b L1 S d�'Q7'42" E 50.40' ti �� L2 N 89'29'42" W 50.00' b i 4 L3 S QO'10'33" E 250.40' �� F- L4 N 89'29'42" W 160.41' � w L5 N OQ'DS'30" � 32.58' zi w L6 N 5T04'58" W 23.79' -' � L7 N 00'08'30" E 26.67' t�i L8 N 89'24'23° W 4i _94' � svriv�vvR�s Nor�s: � P) TH1S !S N07 A&021NDAF?Y SURVEY. TNIS !S A�EGAL AND SlCE7"CN ONLY. 2) BEARINGS REFERENCED TO THE SOUTH LlNE OF SUIVSEf PO11VT ROAD AS BElNG S 89'29'42" E, PER DEED. ALL GALLS DIV 7NlS LEGAL BASED �iPON FIELD 80UIVDAf2Y SURVEY PREPARED 8Y TNIS FlRM !!Y 20� i. 3} TH1S SURVEY lVOT V,4LID WITNQUT 7NE'. SlGNATl1RE AND TNE ORlG1NAL RAISECI SEAL OF A FLORIDA LlCENSED SURVEYQR AND MAPPER. Dote Signed: Alex B. 7'hompson Jr., P.L.S. Stafe of Florida No. 5318 Regisiered Land Surveyor and Mapper SCALE: � "=40' DRAWN BY.• ABT �•4SFM�NT VACATION D4VG. No.1101--100-048 SUNSET &' HfGNL,4ND PROJ. Na.l f0?-1D0-04 __ L�G�ND PG. = PAGE P.B. = PLAT 800K P.O. C. = P01NT . OF COMMENCEMENT P.0.8. = POINT OF, BEGlNNlNG O.R. = OFF1ClAL RECORD BQOK F.P.C. = FLORlDA POtNER CQRP. D.&U. = DRAINAGE & . UilL17Y PAGE 2 OF 2 LEGAL/SKETCN ON1Y -rNrs �s nror a aaunroaar suRV�r- ✓t��S(//ZVi�YlJ1/GpF�LA1T1D,� 1�/C. LB/VO. T<C?5 29340 1?HQ�lN PLACE � NESYEY CH.4PEL, FLORlDA� 33545 aH. (ara) 9�a-2osz EAlml: alexQsxtreme—survsyrng.com'*,.,„., r AC SVRVfYJNG AND MAAPMG si/�9 � � City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Approve a contract (purchase order) with Extensys, Inc., Palm Harbor, Florida, in the amount of $247,478.77 for the acquisition of network storage, network backup and archiving management application and a disc-to-disc backup and recovery appliance, in accordance with Sec. 2.564(1)(d), Code of Ordinances — Florida State Contract; authorize lease purchase under the City's Master Lease Purchase Agreement and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) SUMMARY: The continued growth of systems and business related data storage demand necessitates increasing our storage capability and review of our backup and disaster preparedness tools. Data storage requirements for City operations are currently in excess of 60TB, anticipated growth of video archives will require additional storage separate from the storage of daily system and document activities. The City has used Symantec's Net Backup product since 2002, changes in backup and archiving systems technology as well as changes in pricing strategies have prompted and change in tool sets. The City's disaster preparedness plan includes protection of systems and application data for all City operations. Technology advances have been trending away from tape systems to disc-to-disc backup tools. New systems are faster, make more efficient use of storage and are easier to deploy and maintain at off-site locations. All items will be funded from existing CIP project 316-94814, Network Infrastructure Refresh and Replacement. Type: Purchase Current Year Budget?: Yes Budget Adjustment Comments: None Current Year Cost: Not to Exceed: For Fiscal Year: Appropriation Code 316-94814 Bid Required?: Other Bid / Contract: Review Approval: $247,478.77 to Amount $247,478.77 No Florida State Contract Budget Adjustment: Annual Operating Cost: Total Cost: No Appropriation Comment Network Infrastructure R-and-R Bid Number: Bid Exceptions: #250-000- 09-1 Other Government Bid Cover Memo I[�ii�:�iC! 11 t 1'/ %"A� t i�,t.:. :�;y„'y";�tl3 r.'u,iRY'� Part Number Description ' CAP-NC-CCELL SB-C-ADM-CELL SB-C-DP-ADM-1 T- B SB-C-ADM-FS S-Premium Quote � ��e � ` t� ��i 253 pine Ave;-N; Bidg B Oldsmar, FL 34677 Office:813-855-3909 Fax: 813-855-3922 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 Commvault Application Data Management Bundle No charge option. Use this item to request number of required CommCell licenses per CLA Customer. Account team must direct allocation of total capacity to each Cell in the CLA; a unique CommCell ID key will be awarded based on this count. SMB Data Management starter bundle for new ADM customer. This bundle provides 3TB ADM capacity, 3TB of DAE capacity and 150 User CALs to a new CommCell site configuration. Additional SB-C-DP-ADM-1T (TB) protection capacity or SB-C-DAE-1T can be purchased normally to scale-out the environment. (Sold as fixed set of capacity, no Tiering, limit 1 per customer) Application Data Mgmt (ADM) capacity bundle used in a Dedicated CommCell for new CLA customers. This provides 1TB (FET) of the ADM Protection-Enterprise capacity for a new CommCell which is restricted to Window FS, Linux FS, MAC FS, ActiveDirectory, Exchange, MS-SQL, MySQL, SharePoint, or VSA clients only with a limited set of Enterprise class infrstucture features; purchase additional TB quantity to meet your Cell needs. The client feature set can be e�ended with the purchase of add-on feature packs which apply to a single CommCell only. This bundle cannot be directly combined with any other Data Protection edition in the same Cell. This edition can be upgraded to the full edition DP Enterprise capacity capacity by purchasing the upgrade option. It can be combined with additional purchases of Data Archive or Search capacity. (Sold per Terabyte of Front-End Protection Size, Tiered Volume price) Client Extension pack allows the addition of one File System client type to be included in the ADM CommCell for unlimited CLA use. Choices include - Unix OS types, Image level options, Cluster FS client or NDMP/NAS client. A pack is exclusively added to a CommCell ID. A maximum of two (2) FS packs can be purchased/applied per CommCell ID. (Sold per client type, one unit per cell) Software SubTotal Support Support and Maintenance Subscription 12 Month SubTotal Less Extensys Savings Commvault SubTotal $0.00 $25,000.00 $6,000.00 $3,000.00 $19,740.00 $0.00 $25,000.00 $66,000.00 $3,000.00 $94,000.00 $19,740.00 $113,740.00 -$42,857.23 $70,882.77 This quote is Proprietary of ExtenSys, Inc. and shall not be shared outside the party for which the quote was prepared without prior permission. EXTQ4689-02 Page 1 of 2 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 snSb7l �x v4}��'? fyt.t , ty �F!lugtdlleiP,ar+�^g� ' Part Number Description Implementation Services IC-CONSDEP-EXT Consulting on and core product configuration for MSFT $6,750.00 $6,750.00 databases and applications, file systems, deduplication, replication. Includes Expenses. Total 77 632.77 NOTES: 1. Pricing is exclusive of Freight charges and Taxes. 2. Prices reflect standard manufacturers warranty unless otherwise noted. 3. All equipment orders require a Purchase Order. A Purchase Order constitutes acceptance of these terms. 4. All trade in prices are subject to verification and approval by the manufacturer. 5. Services require a signed statement of work. Pricing includes pre-sales design consulting services. 6. Prices are valid for 5 days from the quote date and are subject to the manufacturer's special pricing not changing. 7. Product specs, performance or suitability are per manufacturer's published literature only. No RMA's beyond warranty. 8. Overdue invoice's are subject to $100 late fee and 1.5% interest charged on the outstanding balance. An additional 1.5% will be added to the outstanding balance on the first of each month past due. Invoices that are 90 days past due are subject to collection fees, late fees, and interest. 9. Extensys, Inc. Invoices on products shipped. The manufacturer and/or distributor may ship partial orders, in these situations customers will receive partial shipments and agree to pay partial invoices. We recommend partial orders not be opened until you have your entire order and have verified the part numbers and quantities, opened products can not be returned. In any case products can only be returned if the manufacturer or supplier provides Extensys, Inc. an RMA. In the unlikely event that equipment is DOA, replacement product will be shipped these items are managed as warranty issues so they are not refunded they are replaced. Contact us immediately if you receive incorrect parts or quantities. lO.Payment terms unless otherwise noted are Net15. This quote is Proprietary of ExtenSys, Inc. and shall not be shared outside the party for which the quote was prepared without prior permission. EXTQ4689-02 Page 2 of 2 �1� � ;,� „ �,,, ��,.t s��r��,,, Part Number Description E5310-CFG E5310 E5000-SAS24-QPC P E602-120/2 CTR-6GSASPCIE 1 OSE-E5310 OSE-E5300-128 IS-PS1 Quote � ��awr . ° � tt �6.��ai� 253 �Pine Avei N, `�idg B Oldsmar, FL 34677 Office:813-855-3909 Fax: 813-855-3922 Nexsan E5310 NAS Solution Nexsan E5310 120TB System Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 NST5310 - DUAL CONTROLLER, ONE QUAD-CORE PROCESSOR, 24GB RAM, FOUR 8GB/S FC PORTS, TWO GIGE PORTS PER CONTROLLER. INCLUDES CORE OPERATING SYSTEM, NAS SERVICES AND E-CENTRE MANAGEMENT PLATFORM SOFTWARE LICENSES. SUPPORTS UP TO TWO EXTERNAL STORAGE UNITS (E18/E60) PLUS UP TO TWO EXPANSION UNITS (E18X/E60X) SAS QUAD-PORT CONNECTIVITY PACK - INCLUDES FOUR 24GB/S SASX4 PORTS PER CONTROLLER FOR CONNECTION TO ONE OR TWO NST224X SAS-CONNECTED STORAGE UNITS. INCLUDES LICENSE TO USE. 120TB SYSTEM (2TB DISKS / 7200 RPM), DUAL CONTROLLER SYSTEMYSTEM (2) SINGLE 6GB SAS PCIE DUAL PORT ADD-ON CARD (INCLUDES 2 SAS CABLE 2M, REQUIRES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO UPGRADE IN THE FIELD) 1 Years of Enterprise Support ENTERPRISE SUPPORT, ANNUAL - TIER 4 LICENSE (64TB - 128TB) Nexsan Professional Services FIRST DAY OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUDING TRAVEL AND EXPENSES SubTotal $86,091.00 $5,370.00 $4,385.00 $86,091.00 $5,370.00 $4,385.00 $95,846.00 NOTES: 1. Pricing is exclusive of Freight charges and Taxes. 2. Prices reflect standard manufacturers warranty unless otherwise noted. 3. All equipment orders require a Purchase Order. A Purchase Order constitutes acceptance of these terms. 4. All trade in prices are subject to verification and approval by the manufacturer. 5. Services require a signed statement of work. Pricing includes pre-sales design consulting services. 6. Prices are valid for 5 days from the quote date and are subject to the manufacturer's special pricing not changing. 7. Product specs, performance or suitability are per manufacturer's published literature only. No RMA's beyond warranty. 8. Overdue invoice's are subject to $100 late fee and 1.5% interest charged on the outstanding balance. An additional 1.5% will be added to the outstanding balance on the first of each month past due. Invoices that are 90 days past due are subject to collection fees, late fees, and interest. 9. Extensys, Inc. Invoices on products shipped. The manufacturer and/or distributor may ship partial orders, in these situations customers will receive partial shipments and agree to pay partial invoices. We recommend partial orders not be opened until you have your entire order and have verified the part numbers and quantities, opened products can not be returned. In any case products can only be returned if the manufacturer or supplier provides Extensys, Inc. an RN In the unlikely event that equipment is DOA, replacement product will be shipped these items are managed as warranty issues so they are not refunded they ; replaced. Contact us immediately if you receive incorrect parts or quantities. lO.Payment terms unless otherwise noted are Net15. „ „,, This quote is Proprietary of ExtenSys, Inc. and shall not be shared outside the party for which the quote was prepared without prior EXTQ4778-03 Page 1 of 1 , ,�.,,�� a�� ' Part Number ' Description Exagrid EX13000E Quote i ��e ' � " t� ��e�t 253 pine Ave;-N; Bidg B Oldsmar, FL 34677 Office:813-855-3909 Fax: 813-855-3922 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 EX-32TB-DB EX13000E - Disk Capacity: Raw: 32 TB, Useable: 26 TB. 13 TB Full Backup. EX-32TB-3YR-8X5 SUPPORT FOR EX7000: 3YR 8X5 SubTotal Exagrid EX7000 EX-16TB-DB EX7000 - Disk Capacity: Raw: 16 TB, Useable: 13.0 TB. 6.5 TB Full Backup. EX-16TB-3YR-8X5 SUPPORT FOR EX3000: 3YR 8X5 SubTotal Running SubTotal Less Extensys Savings $69,900.00 $28,659.00 $40,000.00 $16,400.00 $69,900.00 $28,659.00 $98,559.00 $40,000.00 $16,400.00 $56,400.00 $154,959.00 -$80,959.00 Total ` $74 000.00 NOTES: 1. Pricing is exclusive of Freight charges and Taxes. 2. Prices reflect standard manufacturers warranty unless otherwise noted. 3. All equipment orders require a Purchase Order. A Purchase Order constitutes acceptance of these terms. 4. All trade in prices are subject to verification and approval by the manufacturer. 5. Services require a signed statement of work. Pricing includes pre-sales design consulting services. 6. Prices are valid for 5 days from the quote date and are subject to the manufacturer's special pricing not changing. 7. Product specs, performance or suitability are per manufacturer's published literature only. No RMA's beyond warranty. 8. Overdue invoice's are subject to $100 late fee and 1.5% interest charged on the outstanding balance. An additional 1.5% will be added to the outstanding balance on the first of each month past due. Invoices that are 90 days past due are subject to collection fees, late fees, and interest. 9. Extensys, Inc. Invoices on products shipped. The manufacturer and/or distributor may ship partial orders, in these situations customers will receive partial shipments and agree to pay partial invoices. We recommend partial orders not be opened until you have your entire order and have verified the part numbers and quantities, opened products can not be returned. In any case products can only be returned if the manufacturer or supplier provides Extensys, Inc. an RMA. In the unlikely event that equipment is DOA, replacement product will be shipped these items are managed as warranty issues so they are not refunded they are replaced. Contact us immediately if you receive incorrect parts or quantities. lO.Payment terms unless otherwise noted are Net15. This quote is Proprietary of ExtenSys, Inc. and shall not be shared outside the party for which the quote was prepared without prior permission. EXTQ5011 Page 1 of 1 City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:8/2/2012 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Accept a Drainage and Utility Easement granted to the City from Cay 1475, LLC located southwest of the corner of Sunset Point Road and North Highland Avenue contingent upon Council adoption of Ordinance 8350-12. (consent) SUMMARY: Cay 1475, LLC (Property Owner) owns fee title to the property containing the proposed easement (Easement). The Property Owner has submitted an application to the City for the vacation of a portion of an existing City drainage and utility easement for the purpose of redeveloping the property. Ordinance 8350-12 has been drafted to accommodate the vacation and contains a condition requiring the Property Owner to grant the Easement as an alternative corridor to be available for City use. Council approved the ordinance on first reading on July 19, 2012 and second reading will occur on August 2, 2012. City staff has reviewed the proposal and determined that the proposed easement is an adequate substitute for the easement proposed for vacation. Utilities currently located within the easement area to be vacated will be relocated to the new easement at the sole cost of the Property Owner. Review Approval: Cover Memo ��II�:�N� F��t�t,�..� �t�. �f��ack L�;�� Ea"t�Ir1E�r�� i�s�I 1��?�;rctrt�� i��. i.:ity' �f �s�=�i ;�r��c F� i�. �4��i`�t� C�I��v�z�c, FI �"��:�3 �i{��' �'��I R �. f'�� '��?�-'i �-��t��-��'!�-i��}Cl . �aa � �� 3�°�I�� ° � :: �._ ._� � a� � �� h�� 3 ��J�6��a�l��' �� t�°i� ��rrr� �� rt� L��II�r (�� 7� ir� h�r�� a�€�C, ��-r� r�c��=ira� caf �rvP�i�P�3 i� I7�r��y� �c,�r.�v��d ��id tl�� ;r��t� �� d�r�v��3 t��:��fr��r�, ��" 1�7�a �L�} � �it�ri�� ..,�r��i Lp�h��li�% �'�r��r,y� ��.�E��s� �ris��sp:�l �� i� ��a�� r�, ��L�� l�r�P�, 1�-"�r��l�� sF�, �I��a ."s�7�� ,;�r�€��'} c�� I��r��l�y� �s��ea� ��c� ��a�°r�+��' t� t��e ��"� �'� ��"��p �C�C��l��, � �I�ri�� c��i�� p�,i��tF�� " ��nt��' �, � i��-r�xclt��tv� �3r��r�� €�� t�l�� G-r��i ��r �r�+��t �r�� u�rr�� t� ��r�l�a��in� ��:rit�� n�l ��ir�g �n� �a�in� �Pt�x�a� �� khe ��rca�� a� ��r��E€��, �t�t� �f �I�ri�� i° �^ -. i"E�� s��r��r�� i� f�r �r�� & �11 ��i�c �at�ms`t�� 'l'�11�t��a� ��d rs��in��r��1�� c�r�l�, Tlt� ��'� t�F� ��.�ea ��..��a��r �a��c"3�i �`Ec�tF�' i��4� ii4��"i� �� E��G�' �d��?f� ��1� c'��¢7il�-i��.�`a[.`,({�� d�l�{..4� �f�k?11�� C� ��lr��t Gr��t�ll �t�� r��ir�� h�s��ir� �:�r�y� �r�� k1 ��,�rii� �aCilr��=� ��c�vi�� k��^ �r�t��, ��i �a irs��t ��ra ��t�;� ��c�°� 13�i�lif�� 1`�€�"ti �If11�' �(� �II"E"?�, �t3��'�c`'f 'at�1��i a'�,�� i��?��1P��11c"P�1�'�� Ni��`��. �1"�ft�� 1c�� :�1 �Q�� C��iC"�I��f� s*�('�� k��,ic�� 1� ��v�rn��r�ta� a�r�9 r��l�tc�� rr��i#� r��rir�� t� �x�r�� i�� r��t� ��r�i�c� h��is�. �i"k�" ��T� �� a�il��"��°z�, �L��,�L�a� C�?11�i4�fi�� c�f��'� ��°�� M1t4��'I �a'�"�'€�� `Yc°�� fi ��l��I iTC€`�i€1�e331� r�� t�� +r �r��o-�� r�r�ic��'s ir��E�� r��f �f�� s�r�l ��u�ii� C� �r�r�t�f`'� ��i��t�� ! �is�� d�r�r�� t� ex��i�� af r€��s �s�� h��i€-�, �n� fi��f tt �}��II ��n�p�ly r��E4�i�� ic� ��s��r�t �`r��ai's�� r�ci �r�sy�� f��:� �r�� u�r��r�dri�s� ih� ��ri�r�'t �r�r�a�� t��s�� a��pl�ti�?n e�f ��y� ��i°a;�� n��i�� Gs� �i�� r�.i�e �f �;h��: !'9�t"E�� C� �� `a� ��`9"c� ��'7l� ��Ld�� f' �Y� �i�¢'7��IC71`1 i�s"3i �7�"I��c'�� c8� �J� �il":� {�+�i�' �E`c3�`#�� II".�'-�� 1Gi��;� c'�f"t�" Lk� [a5 C6G,��"$�� t?�E;��l{�c��r. tt��nt�� Fu€�I7�r r��r�s�r�ts �r�� r��r�'�� I��t 1� �h��IC �iiic��;nt9y �tir��i� t�� rr��l��i�a� �a� ��4 ��v��W, �r•�iv��ic:� �t� � ti�� rvc�rkrr��r�iik� r`��r�r��. �r�€�€�� s��r�r�� r�� rsr��°i�r�t� vvit�� r�r�t�� 7�� Ei is i€�� a�+ri�r �r� f�� a1� �� t��!�� F��°��rs c��s�r�k��s��3 ��'��1€��1� �{��1�.��`��r �iIC� �.�"1c3� �aC`eaYi��3a i1�� 1�� 1"9C,�� I� I"�1#�t`�4lC ��d��pC��'€1'� ��7 i�3`c�f�€ r�l"tC� �t��t'J�`�' ��1f;S �e3��6"9��%€�� J l�it�r'��°4t��. �1"1C� ��r'�� I"�3s�� Sic'§�� 1,��' ��'i� f3�C'I°�'?;C�li�lt��'� �li�"&6�t'�,�i' �7k�P"�7�� C�t11�f r"�?"i� ��'�U� �?�?��i�l�bl�, if�t; �4i,i�' ��r��r��t� �� th�� rfi�t��, k� �� x��s�%� t�r�e��r�k��4 t�7�� r��t�r r��v�� C� ri�ht� c�� uvG��r� c�i �� r��nt �'rer��s ��c�t �n��a��t�r�� vv�tt� th� e��rr��t ri�1�� gr��-�� h��r�. �r�r��r , ��5 �h� ��nt ��`r��itt�Ci �� Ic�r�� L��i�; ��f'.�� t� snc��ra��y �r�a� P��sl�� f��t�r�al�� t�r�r�t�� f��rr� ��t�i ��ir�s� �I�irr��, ��ra��r�3�i�. �s�fi�s�€��, �Uid��r�t� €��aG�e°��, ��°��, ��sf� �r�d ��.��r�� i��Eu�;r�� it�+r`�r��`� fe��, a��t��Ei€�g f�a� �r r�i�t��t C� �€��a��'� �r �i°a��t��`� ��c��ra��, a��x�t� ��t�,� ��v�t�� t�� c��. c�r��ti�� af �i�� €�t ��G°��ri��. ��a��°, r��t��ir�� -��i�,�d h�r�� k� k�� r.�n�tr�r�� (� �v�iv� �ar ��s��di�� t�� c�v��i�� f �is�r�� z��d�� e'��i �� ar tt�� r9ract�ir�� r� ��r��€� ir��r��r�i�� r�y p�� h��°��c� Ir� �d�i{t�e�r�, r�at�in� �r��it�ir�e� 9��°�ir� shaf� bc c�rE�tr��i �s rc��7sr��fi �ay� �h� �r�r�t�� t�+ �c� ��a�� by �`h�i��°� ��r�� irE ��?y ��€�rar��7��' �r��i�� f��r� tP�is �r�� ra� ��eri�, +�r �� iv�r taf �r��r�r'��r� �r;i��7�ar�i�y. It� tl�� r':f ��°��rr i�s ��,t��s�� ?r a��r�s, sE�t��l� ��+�� r��°1�r�i�� r��-{.��r ic� e�;1�c�� r�t��'� ��If�i�� t�r7,ir�e�� rr��h!x� il�� €��t��ri l��r��€s�� t� ��ci�it�t� f��a°i��ss� ci��el��arr�cnt �r ��1��rrs��i r�f il'ic� �;r��t°�� -��.��€��`�c� ¢��ti�� h�� €`�tt'�r�r �tw �glr��s��i�� G' �U�ir�r��, i�� :��3t�ti�r� v�r�t�t �r�� i.g��r� ��rc�v�� i �e��t�� I��1� ��i�� f��r��t� ��n��r�t �� }��a ��il�� ia�:��i�i�� c�r��a�t�� +�i��ie� t1°r� ��ser��¢�t I�r��r�F��, �ncJ ��°�� t��tc�� l� co�t �;s��3 �x��r�� r��;rr��tr�� tf�� t�l�fv ��e�lE�i�� ,��h�r� �1�� =i��i��t� ��r��€�� °� c��`�;�I�fi�s��i ��f t�� il�i�� tt�lcrc�atic�r� �r�r;t�� 'i�l� ��,� �h�i,s ��E�€ t�a �� v�c�� r°s� ��i�3��s�� af v��`�i��r� !��.aly� i,°�c�rs�� F�� a��1i� r��es��i� ��i F�i��,� C,"��m��,t�, �l�rit��. ��1l� �v�c�5�f1��'li i� i�iCt(�6"�"I�� °t]�+.�i"t ��.�' &.�i�i"E�C3�', ��1�? �Is�C'B$�� ;G'k�" �.='ll`:i,. ��iC.0 �`� ��'t€?� fi�t� '�?��9�'1""s� �h�� fi9t��l�.�i c��Y��; i��i�� 3��1 �.�� r�r��t�a�€ �r�sd irr��1� �� s��l r��r v�txt��i t�,� I�ar�� tc::��.,t l�y' ��t� t��r3tt�s� ��i��l �c�r��°r��t� �s� �a��l� ��s, ��E° �y� ��r�c��s�lrr�r�r�t �f t�t� ��e�t k`��r��i�� k�s�' �r��$�� x, �� 'tl"�� 4�F��, �I°i� �pr��r��i��°t�� r�� ,�� c��9 th�� ,r��r�1.� t,:� t�� c9�_�� ;€�t��9 �I�� dv, �f ; wT" ' � �{�� _.r �� w_� � � �i�r�� I�� i�t�i' t��a�� , ��, ��tc�r N � ie� �� r�� c�f: ,. � �, s �� : , , � a � .� __..._ ��'�� t�r��t�ss�� ..� ; , , �_ � , = w , ,� G� � � � � w_. Prir�� '��'��r��s i��€�� — e� ,��°�� _ , ,, , , , �,��.�.� ,. — - "�l�"1'�� s€�i�s��"r� ,. =��t., ,�. F�c��t 1�'it�� l�� u �T�+"�� F F'��i�, ��k�� F �"I��L�� ¢��c�r� rr��, t�¢� ��`�c��grs�� a�l��t�i9 I��'r��G9� ;�� ' .' �� t ;.<; � �° t �_.`� ww� �., �� .� �� „� � � �n. �: cr� ��r �A � �, L.�.C:=, � 1=1�ri�� L�n�mt�t� �i��lit� �,c��rry, v�h�€�r� ��'�� 3�1�? ��a��rs�� rs��°��i� ��t��u��.�� t�3� fr3r�c�c��i�� e��`�ir��nt s�r� l��h��f �a� ��i� LLC' �a�°� tf�� it��€�c��r7t��r-,��,� �3�i�� r�d �� ;��^�� 1�� wx��G�� ti�� t� k�+� k�iis fr�;� ��t �r�� 8 ��a� t�� sf�s� par��c��c� i��r�i� �� i'�ei�;, �� 1�� t� ��r�rs�,i��l�� €�r�c�� n�, esr v,r��a � � �sci �,��vt�� _—.�� _��. �� 3��t��f��r�. � { �.� f. � �� ` � c . � ro� , ��. �:�:;�. � �„r � , �<, ��t�r'�r , �8�� - �t��.,� ��i��e�� ... �x..t� � � �k.� `�� ', ' ,.k � � ,r �"��.�.,n ��"'��i"36'1� 1`�c�C�l�, _ " ._ t�iy �t�€°��c�s�i��icar� �;�pi��' � � �F�� t � , � �. ��i �: �; ��Y Cdn�'a��14��+��W �i €i'� � rs'��i �: �.�` ��P�� i��x�;l� � �'�'i4 �t�,P� �.,��i`r�r�sl��I�ip��a�6�;iJrr��r�,�� 7"1�� s��o- �'"��3��P� ?d� �z��T'�. �� r'��7' � I �� tr ��`L �� `"t�4��°�i . ��.��,�. L�"�=�� ;�t�C��, r� i�,�`t�^t"4;r �. t�)r` �„�ir`rfE:� �_ r'��'v+; f��d s�f;,��s'=1P+� �, F��''l�a�P�l�i-!�F' ,�`� `�`��.f7mf-#, fs"�",�d.r'r� r_> r'4`;7", ��!°�f�� .��.� r•�'s�+Jt'� t'i'; �� GfF;7�J'r�, .�f�� r_.ff��, � �"lw?f�I`tC�t'�a+ t�,"-" �_�"7" v� ��'�rJ73�'�''��C1 �,��g�� ,, .�,�,, i�L�`'�1;�'?�:8;;! thJ �''�.:,fiT" �if��?�;' �`�, e"r'tC�� :'�`� �.:,�� 7�-€� F'�..?L�'r'�l�" �c�.��:�1 �`ir-` m�s�sf[�' 1�!{��.� �'t��''tJ7`t; �"'7_r;}�`�'J�� `a�fC i �t,��,�t_ �`��ft�:t� t�9�?(.�e'° {°;,�'�f?1f��r'��r`��Y ��"�i:;�=,'�f-�t��J �� "t'�±�tt��": ��'4�+��t�'t:'C° .�,T �`fi�c ��aF7f�`�4.�T ru'.�F�}V�t�� t��'r° �'�-iti r'+t�;�i�'�H4ti?L'�7 1�'`� r�� rf-ttm ��)t�7'rt;�v'��._,'7" T�r'� t.+� .��1(� .�;Fth�1��'�^J �y, �t:�b�,�f�h'9�' �� t,��..r`r''"Fa, �� ;.� Er�"T; Tt��l�:� ��t��C:' �P�c i�r�;`�` ��!1� tu;� �r��'a`� Cw'C.��`7"t;Vt��7` d,r'? �t� T'r�� T%€'��'">� F��'��„ � (�at1°:��?•�,�`�"' �„, `�at:�.�1� �"�`�"�: tFi�:"��'� �-'�',f��i.1 �� 7�i i;�� A�"�7� �"�'�.w3� �:.�CJ'�`r`�' G,a'�'fF� C�f� `� �itC�+ ,��r��Tt€�,"J �?, ��v� F�� t�', 4�'� ,'"7(�..t"�i�j' I`�;�"7" �"(` :�' lw'tu'fr,""�I" CJt'� !r I� 6�t� ktF t°'tt.=�"1�7 i.'r b1'�r�r� L/f�� e{�.d` i"if�:i"P�;1a'J?; �VFCJx.TF", 2i-tL�a'�� ;LC:rF�C` ��tf'� %�r�� x'9�;f-r`� �t' ��4`r` ��PJ�� ,�, a;?��" i �'y i`° �, �'.w�t�i,'�f,� F 1 � 7, �'Fr"�fV'C:� d.:!E�`n�'Tt,�7'� :;`a�id�7 4?V"�:i�"' fi'��;�-�'i fii� i�,��Y � X�'v'�u Pv �',��`�.� ��`'' l�,', 7:�"<"r.Cl� } f��T Tr'�� 't �'�tf�� fi� Tf-i� �A�T �Jt�� " �t�r � (��" �AI�� ',�'�`��?'�`�'r��f� �u1`�:�a��, r�� '��'u�¢�`�€�C� rN �t �T ��?��%r�' ,��, F'�f:f� ��s ��° .�..1-�� ?��'t_l�'��!` �E� C�r�'L�:� ��fi� F�t��.��t��" �� iP�PJ7�'; €-L�f-�±L7.t1; �'f-�� h!�;c ,�;�.v�iJ�� i�i-�L �¢� �7' �.tt"��` �'�F W ��f� j_t_?Z ��", ��1 tJ i ° � {� `� y 'i �i'„ � ti , ; � i ��' F!J ��°4� I�d�t�f�dt"{Im,pi�5i 4r��'i�i�r", i,�� A�i�} 1_�{ �F ��'f�!`J�..r`R t�1' „'�i,(`t�a�r��i� trs� rT.a�"� !'�`�l:,� �t� i}'��L �ft[I"'�i� ��°' ��i�r�;�r��t� �,�?� T�-�� r°P��FV t��`��,�� :��n�E�,�T ��L 7`t�f`�"J�,� �u'C;�i"i"��t.rE f�t �7° t?,� °�;� `` 6�A� �?�..� T �"��T ��? 4 ��lr�� v y rr�� ; t:�, ��,�� '�T� :� ��1��+-� �� f�f�;� "�l;�fi� �"�i f.��J� t�� .,�� ,'r.�`' ��i'� w^r�dl��M% ��P°',��"��4�t�`�I,�t_'�i ��`�%�fw.��.`'..,' ��i�i'V�t„s.�... r*;�..{�f�� d� ��r� �Lwi.�f� 7"i„,�,�':� ,'J��t�l�� J� ,+'�tr�°�ti� �{dl�r�Li E(u �VJ�f°t ��t` 14+C�?'r*'TN °�dl�t� ,�7� ,a�+t� i_t:�T c;�r �' �,,r�"� �� "�`�." �k � ;�. �au� � � �P�; i`�-dF�Cw,��:� C��'7�d"P�� ,�7�=� � d1�11�`. � �%`"+�� "�� , ��-�.��i�3 ("`� 7't� .�; �'i�)il�'�' �''r'i�,f� f �.i��t r �w� i ��:.;�.s !i� T�-li ��f 1_,P�'1� �` �,�f� ?w��? � �„ �;�#�l�i'� �L�tVr; ,+� t�t?�'� ? �,?_+�� '�'�� {1�: �ht(? �=r5i"i'�.� �,�.9�.. 4'VtT,'-i T?mi� ��,� aT �� :;17= ��tt"? (_� f" ��. `°� ��fJ°C,£�', %s? "° �?+^`, � �.�. f `�? F"�`�"� �'t�`� if�r� �"�,+�a�" +��P=" E��'�PRFl�11��, �;�It,� r'�('�CrEi_ s`u4�P�1T.�tf�Jlr�a`�` t�$�#� `�P ..� �"., #vf�`��'�:" ��' d:1=��. �;�`r�t �. i `— ��, L("�?z�, 4�'��t � �" " .��? (;��^`� ��. i t i� �— t ra�a ��;' ��:�. �'��'�, d i � i ° � O�.s' ,. P�� .... ,� : � �.� i �#��,� �� {�� I �tC;� a�'r` .��, f'`,��i_, � � � N � f�'fi(.��' t� ;s'r� . ��.�GAL r'�.ti`�TL'N t�CdL.}'. m., t'r#fi� d`. 7�Gi}7' A��° t�a�1."'i�a�+f$" �i..ta�?i`�'�'— t�� tiC./�$*i�}'.�".�YJ�:. t��"�"�t�'i°�i��'. �.�G:; <° � ,�s+ raw � 2�,�S+fC# RN°.J'LriPd #'d A4.0 � �k SlrcS`a�£r' ,�"',.t�,�€��f, f'f G''�?dt,1� T e,s�;.a �:.,�x,;r- �r-� (�r�,? .�.'.3-maaJ �.� "AAa=� uFe.x�xtr�^.r,a� �arra�y�to� um �L �L�'�"4'�4'a�ti.� ,�.i+F�" �4�!"P'd7V€a ��f�R�'ta;�?> �� ?"'��7i� �� 7°�3 �t�lT� � � ��'l-�P �.��a�� r� �.�� `�� ,� t�t,`�t�� ; F`�c,7�l��i _ . ,.�� . _�� i G - �, -�1'. �.'_�`r��t�s.r�",��. t�k� �.�'L�,,�d'�i'� � � '�� v:y I � ��1�V�" �:��` �"��T��t��J7"k riTe� r r��°'1!J��i � af�= �t-t�-' `° , � . � � , ,.�.,, � . �. , .�. �._- , �^d. 2� . 1 �r � �,�?�f � �'�=� 7`�u r�—.��' a� �� . �� . � . �—� . �k �_ r ��° � � �``"a�aI�1F,. nlp. 7'°'�;; �'=.�c. r"��i=�. ��t;C" ��9., ° � +°�.47"t`�£ i; r ; � ��"]F �rt`��,� ��: �a ;, i''z,a k c�.� r �,��,,�,� � � �� r— ��i � � i ��i t= ,'� tit c. '��d��1� t`a`- � '� �' i: � " t �� i � F , � � ue " fi '�" �t lM,ti � 6u�r �tT ,F-'C t;` �7 i 7„'j� r � �r4f f � af __ �.w ,. `� � � � r � 1._t.�Gi — _. _.T � � �_ _ � _.m �_ � � ,4 —i • � � �..� e ,.� . ..._ . �s.,� — — -- � . � � . � � Y� _.� j � ' � f'' 'r l�F.� ��F�P�+F�' ..f" L�� 1 _ _ .v � . — n_ _�� u� � �w ,�r —�.M.,, � r- F' F c,E ��'�N r F'�r� �� ` 1r W m � I � !�' �e � �; � � �� . �^, r_v_ _._. � a-`" �'� ii t�r��,��,� ��' � � <�� __ �.M a� _ F l�T t, r� ! ( � r' ,� � � I ( � � �.�� 3' !wa�� I i k -.� ( (� � `l�t [ t4�: �k � � �t �� .�'� �w9 i�r'� �� ... .. f x, .: � rs� ay,� � L,9 �� , § �. �,t��. �.@ � .� �J' ,�.. (.�. �.. --- 7 � F .4,A �'`7, �, u �� i � � � ,. �J.� ;:,Ci%i'1�'r� ,�E- � :aT ,��" �°'"` i � � " � ,�t- �� k� k ' � �y{ ��.� .,.� � .�e�.� I. ( � ,S t �`�k f'L,'�i��7 T t:'� C�n'�.t�fP£'`� ��;' t.1 f'�1 t'!'l �'`J=�'vf�(V� �:��-°"_3"".�.�' er.. �� 1��°� �'s��°� �, �� C°i � °=� �� i , ,_ � � �� ,t,. � �} �-a t ��. t�"� . � q="� ��, , F�5 �i , v`;� �. e � ��.� 7} 1'� fil� d.� (�s?�:}7 .� �?f��R"�?�)r�t`iY a�1t�''G'd.7. t!_tl.� tv; 1� LF�:.,?nL +�l�li� �'�t� f`C ; t �:��JL"t`. �� :�,�i,'�J�:`:' ��'��'�'�.� �"� �1-t� �i�t,l��r' I_�� t;#` ��.1f�+5�� ts��tt�'i �;��tf�:�7 r"�.� t��a{^�!`V" �� '��?'�� i-`�t� C>�F �a ,�,�� t',�t1 ��s ��i T`r-(P�. 6 r:tdr�f c'3.,�.��a'.ra �1�i�f'r� � df i,.£:fi �f�y�f°��.+fi,�r ��t��`;�E"t' �'F�t P��t�2i�yfi� r��'Y .F.�-ft`:> �(h'P�t i�1 �t�? 1 't . �! ��`��- f.�`�� 'a '�` {�d�i� v','�.�ii,� S+"�`E��"t.�l�,''� �i'iL ��z,��{:��1��..� ��`'�!�7 �i-�� t.�f;?1f2�,�"�'.Ji`�e s�� J v �'� � R�� r t�l�'1 �� " �a�(� d.��'tt`� r°tr'r'� �7� � �;�ftY� � d�e � �� `%"�'�{��_ ��t�t� ��`�r-,� u. �„,,�#�,�� w, M ..... ._. _ `"` �i1�x f�'. T;'�c�rr;°a;�?s�,rr �rt-,� ��'`.�.,� a�r.S�'�' .7� �7?�.'ri",�;� r''�c��. ��.`' �i t`? F?�� t�r'��:� L�a��,:� ��.!r^v�}�{:ir r�r;c� ��t�{��f° .�Pi-t"��G,� i —'°t�,�m �. Cxf��"A4'v';$,,t �°�r� �,-� ( �� `` °�� .'+'�+a-'��. ,�+�"�f;'. F�lt+, P tL".�t-tC;C�- t�4@ ` '�� 1ft�`�e:x�f i'k;; �; �za'r�t?� ,�t('`��t'r�"} �"i�f1;1. PJr�, P !l.�� J�%f�—t�� i __ _ �: �.:, �,_ � �;, �� . �s c � � �- � aq �.�J� � � � t�� _ *k �' � �_., . ��-�. � ia r � �• � t�_ � �s +Tj �IPJ� ��.�'ar�9h��,� �tii�it�f�C;F_ �, �_� _. �, � t.1 �7�'�� ' G �,�, �� ` L"� �v ��1`�� 1 �,� ��`��y �t� L� u +�L�'1"1 �� - _�� ;��,{:7i�` � L�r ��I �`�'r�� 1 �':'��,t�J , z �i�.(��' � L*�� f�� `1:1 �J ��:P ,�J � `�i. ti f' L�3 ��! �s } `��'r �.=i� �� §'�s� ° i .u{i _�,.._..�.,� ___ _�..,,m... !i' P�, 5f"�J; r,?y�^ �4,�' '-}�.'7 . _. � yy ,��,w, ' i� � �",�'�� i` F � +` �4.S,r �__� � � �, � t4�� ' � � ��3 t�� .—�� ' M„a� � �Jt�3 :�r� ,til" ��`�. �. ,��_r�J'nw �`,U. — �i�r4',� �°. �, — ��A i fi�� !�" !°'.�'=,?.t}. _ �EJF1'wt G't= i�i�+�!.9bfF�d�=�d��f�r"u`i F'.�:�?,t`� — f�'4�d(li� �?� PF-C��to?PtlivF CJ.n. - t��-'�ti��r=a� ''ct C!�a�J �r;tG�( ��GC c:r' � L�.�:.4t,✓a�i:`�"Cl�, �PN�'P �Td�-,r5 r�; e�Eri�Y' n, �'�?��1n�C).�ray at�lr��t,�_. #� �� "�%�" Y '�£r a"��' �;� t?la ✓'��. T,�r"� : �r� �� z�r�� tie��h �s�� "�. p�F'st r 1"r�ArE'�. �"rGt�:'t�.� .3as��.�,:. '��;��,se- � ,�s.r r,�r„�+ � s-�� "�y� iAa�r.i; ,�r-� rr�mae-�rr�a,rA^�� ,m, tt b�'3�4f��^rnJ�,�ttl�t�t�#�Sd'r`Fa�tt� ��:dt��fiC�� J�� .I�� "�;�� t�� F�.��i�� , : �� °� �� I��.�� 1�a tY�e: ��r��cr�€�r��f ��it,r, �a��ry�F��ll� ��r�� t` �,;°s° t. ;. r' �� k „ ,, k. �:. �f ��y ��. l.m�.�, ��r,�:,rr�, t��r�t� c�u1� �t..€tl��i��r ��z �ia�y4a�� n� ��': T�"t�� ;� 1�1f� �,��4., 15 �I"�� ?�k�,r�"4�1' �3 I�€�c�� I"�C� ��kY�sk7R� 1��1�; �� le ��f3�a'ivifli� r,��1"3�+{�(� � � �i°��i�t�� irr F��i��Il�� y� �[rai'��, t� �it *k � �� sr� ��€��r�� b�d �� i��d�t��i �Q� ��iE�1T` at�"' ��ra�3�d ��r�t�s � ��9 by tl�� r�� a�#� � ��t ��r�� W��;�i ��€� �,�s��ri�' �s €��av+a' ir� t�� .��i�`r� vf' �k�� r��:,�r� e��6��e. :� ��f��t �h�r� �� 9:�� n� f�� rfc��r�� c�r ��°��e;ri�� °€°��N�;�e� �� i� �:��c��h�� a� ��l��a��°� tr��r� �r� ?a��i�� kaF�l� �c�r I�l��c t�r ��s�r��ls �c��i�R�� s�irf �r��y, �a��7�;� t�� tg�c�� t�ch� �r��l �a ��c� ��i��s� th� ��i�r°��I �.��ar�� f��a��r�,��„ ��:��. �6��r �� if R�s�s��;, i��r� `'�l��"'. �3 r�� r�try, �f �r�l� �� i��r�� 6�� "��" h�� 5�� r��r��.� F a.,.� �� °� =�._ � `i�...�� iE�� ; l�,�r�� c�r er��-�ar��r�r-�c�� ' �� n��t��r� �f��far�� ti°�� iit�� at ts�� }��t��i�r��? ��i� cE�s�i°��a��, �xc�� #��l��lc� t�€��r�i��, ��r�� €�� a��tr��i��'�� r��rr�, �n';� �r��h�r�°s�r,��, �v��l��;� �i° €�tE�� r��l�t� �i ��c� �?�c�l�� f��h �r��ca�ai� �:r� ��v�r°s %y � e�arr�r�i ��a��y, ,�u��g�P �Ii��, c�r s� r�rsra�, i�� :��'°. �� a ��t�f �� t��1� b� �'��t� ih�t "``C��P��" �� t��N�a €�s�#��c�.� �°4..� ��, � � �� `��t r°i�� °�`tt�n �:�� ..�� €��:� F�sr �r�y ��u�[e� ��'��`�� i�� 7�r�� fcar irr��av��r��c�ts �� a�iy c��r��r��r��, �r�•� �I��°�:: �r� r�� ic� ��rrl�r�t� ��r��;4 t�� r� �l��cr�� r��+��#� ��r ai��sr�v�rr�� r�ic= I�y �r-�°� ��avr��i��r��it, �v��k��r �� r��t ��c� ��r7��r�t� �� Ec;��r�. � �"}��t E��r��'� �r'� r�r.� c�ta��'t�i�� =�a'�,r ��r�'I�.� �.h��t�� t` ��5��r��t�i`5 ��y�k;�� i'r�e �rt}� r��v��c�� "l��t fh� r��ar��;�r��i�n� ��71�r��i kR�r�an Im�v� ��:�ri ��s�� t�7� �d;°�1' t�� L��,�l��r �ts �e��r��, qs��sar� ��rJ ��i�� tr� r�.l� %F��rc.�� n ��r�r��ti�r� +;vi�l� t�ya� �C�� t?'� ��k��.�t I�� 1�,41 �i..�4,�Iei�� L.��`41��! I��.F✓�� V 4..� I�si.i�i I�..?4.-1 �k�� i��kf��u."�.kLr3�C ��L,� �f'wt��. ��M1�. �F�rs��3. ��=�I�t� �r�� .��6��c�' Ir7 t�� ar°��+� �af: �� Pr ;�� _�,� 1 �� Ka. F �,_ � �,Y. �u�� I��I1��1C� r �.`"- �y � �,� °�. �-� �:�` � t�� ` � �`E' �11 �. �u's��s I'��rtl� ,,. �_ ��. v v- � � . � �, <� , r �, � �o� , � W� m ��"�i�� r��:��r� �'��t�t �6'�i�� ar�s� t�"« �t'�€ �N��., A��. 8.., L T$.. � ' "��`�� iv�,rw � <'��'i� �ti�r��rs°r l�a �€�� t�k,��ri�k�a�i t� n��'�€� r�°�� tr��^� " ��yr �� ._w__. �� . f � �, �. ,� � � � a� � ° 'b � r � �e =.,� .. � �;� d ��--- ��___ �ci��y �'�i�;��- �:i�t� ��-ir�� t� . y,r� � , � f � �— � �� '�; °�� "��14��ir�t �3��r� _.� �.. E��6�yF �c��-r�n°ii��o�s� �� i°��: �; ° ,; �E � � �.,_< < ,. �„ .w t� ..,.�.a � � � � N � ��C4.�� d��t��. � F'.°",'�'f�,"�t� �� _A�VC� t_;°��a�� tt�P :��7-tC�Cu! �', ��:��^A��J�F.t�� .� ,:�t�f_�rt-i, h,�if��;�em �� r.�q.;i, �ti�?��.tr1�+ �CJt1ts?T�", ,�t'_�t�it'Ct�1, ��JL1 ��t'P+ii: n F''t:�C�''7�t;hf�t ��+�° � l}7 �#, �'i��°f�T4�1�?��C� F:=�T�7-��a �;`u;; �"� � i ��,�3�+� L"r !;'� �'I .4 7� t��!!�"�f�' � a�, ,�A�� : � �7�„- ; r°tE �'t t��..Ff, r°��` �_�f �?:�`� f.°�" �,�tC•' �'=+*�C��:� i;�7'��P+/�r", i-� 1�i't�'„�i„ �rr°�ft�� d�i�t�iJ�� th�t�" h��`J��` �"t��if UL.�I�,'a',.."t t?�e�L`.(��f�tLm�� ,u� ��iC.CtJ,t4"J:t:. �,;.'L�f�9@;��r*IE�`n ,�t7 ��t� ?tC�r;?'Th'`��G�;T �;��'�J��°'�i €;��-" 71mr��" �`,?i�!r�7S�t�'�:-'�:� 7t�� t;�� 7"t-�� i�+d7TfiV�f��"� �,t�''�: �r ��?tt� ��i�TP��r�r' � T��'i'1��-ftt'� ;"�� r,�Tt-7, ��?,�f�� i'�F �.��'a�°. �,'��1`vr�:� ��='7�dC� �tt� ��"�:�� uwtfi�Jl� ��1r= �,�f� t�+i��n7`r'-d�'�.>�" r;r'� �,��" Tk�r� �a:�tl7i�tt+lL°:�� ,f�t :� �CJ"r��:�'.�,,�, �,., if.,'et��,`� ��, rt—�� ,r�:?t_f �� iz� ��t� ��r ��;� ��t��r�� r�� t�r� �r�,�� 'i��.t�� a��, r� ��"� � `4 � "` ��r`, ;�C1. r'�,� �'� fw'�7 t`�J r� �'�'�9t�� "�f�J �t-t� 9?«!�ST �dPt�t��T ��,� tit:�`; d'.ur`iit��R �?� ��'Jt��-��a,t°�? 4a�'r� �di�+�; F��lC�dt? e-� ,�t� �;�P'� �I�dp� s�V,'�`� T �;Pi:,f-� a" t:iFm �`,�'��. � rf�'�, ._� E=:�� ° t �; ��3 % , �?�ai7. u'(W� � ��'r , 7��`EdY�� J�s��i,thl�; .�Ai�rr �sit�F��'" !�'�d;��ti`� +`�� b��Y' e 1P1�, fV ��'�5��,�,� b�`, �.�'?�,�� ;�� f` ��w? .��, t�-t`�td"a�T '��? fid�� +,,�7` ir�fi�iF� f�?�"" �.�� i t"�F" �t"�f�r �-a�'��`,�T��r�� ?�AT��, �� i-'�t�;)t��t"� 1f+P �d��7` i�it��lki ��„ �'At.�.. ,�� ,�. ,�.,f-I� iat,�ti�_d�m �� tn%��i�' �r� ��l�1�L�,A� C°�.a�i�'JI7', F �m��ir�:��+,. ii-f�"JL E r^,�t��^d� �f-}� �� T t �t��t� (.,f"' ��"4tt.� � r�;�7 �, +'1 �t i � � �'�7� " V'r`„ f �. 7 f i i� � � t`tw" 7 r�9� !°9t�h;�'-1�€��:7 i a`)�c'�t��' t�l� ��I��' L�`.�� f�; �`��tcd�If�"�` t��f :ir"'��`��,` Y�', p�.�� T �G� 3"r�f� a-��t��,'1r �w`+F" �'�%��tr"'Jt�ti'�;` C�� t-€E W1x��f�"� ;'��u�l"d�2�±�i��i7 ��4�'��' F��'6=�''�� 7�i�"Ei^J�"�" =�v�37'�TP�J>�� +�' iN �r" i��,}��,A V�, �4,,�� E� 7`� A�`�;1Ff'dT L`('t!`i�� 1�,C�+.� f-?��7� ..��£?��-f t;�F� Tf�� l+��l�'iF� � 11`�� i° ��§T � �i� �.47G� �r�'�t�J7i�s��r��3 E�T�7��; T�°9t�?Vt�"�, ��d_�7?`VC� �•� �t�r� 7i�!,:�'�'�; ,��i �'t�taTt� i�(� �'�1�'� �'�',;�r'.,�L� �:`� 4�4't i i-� ''��-#� IV`�i'F��i-7 � lC�t'E C�F` g �"tt£`t ��?� �, � �`�'`�".2� �'�;� `" �, � "r�.4[:� � Fn�'��„ Tl�i�"P+I�,E U�l�r'��1;"J� :��t?�.`? �tt�',�..r ��` .i:x°�J4°,��#�,� f_, 4�-�,�� rF�` ±t:� � �+:�(l�tT t.��t�+�;` �t;r,t�:�) i�� ,� �t''�°�t '�� il�t� �,�:�.;F twa�J� �fA ��P�� d_��7 �� 'i?ti�f'J��' F'�t�?r�J�° ,� L�f'�!� 1 �.�u`�� `��`�' tiY��`i� tl�° ��?�� ;��F�'�LL�%: b�?r'Ti°t T.�i� u�;u7- L�P`v?'� C:�� .�t�7 �� "?, M� t"��1'G��,�x�r, �'�`, �'3.i�-�' t��t�T �� {F-�� l�+rt�?t�� "�� t��.�J,�r�tfi�f��, �,4�f'"� k`�,�ii�.�L ��l7",�sft`�f�?f� � ��'.�'.� �,,�,„ F�C✓%F=��` z�,�' �,c'�;��. ��,.��«: i mm��n ��'i'J�R'"k'��t E�`� �fj`� iai't�r�, P�t� �}?�a t fi`)i f—i`t�Fj !"-'t� �,.i, P�c�. i� t� t— 7�.��J—'�_ . i ��_.I�'��=�� n i--��`�-��,��r�� i �. � � N � �',�f�� 1 c � ? �c�,�t,F�;�`ET�'r't t�+dt�7 ..=.T# !� r��",". rt'{"i7' R �;'�'�,thl�a�.ftY," Si,17"d'k"F°f- �� ¢i �;'�`"�,�i�'��✓�d.-��.��i.3�,T��..�a .o�.r��.� +�.e� fkkr ?'� "�.� �'"_'�,�4 ,� `adil Rii�i1� r=°?�t».r � '.,,. b� C+ s ,�.�4r Ft r�,c�"rt3A .�'.��,;� ��r� ��37�� dw��g �1�,�?n�i�'�rrzu��—�ur'w��.�r�.�c�rrr � �� . �"�� f�tt�' i�� ,^�°"�a �Cw� t� �.� �7" " ��,�.�.a� i;�� . �"�.�� . .� _.,�.� . � � pF { � ��r� �" —frti. � �Pv�1�f�'f 'PJ� �� iT?�.��d �� --'i `�' t�°a � F��1 �7' ��' t s��•# �.��ti� � �� i�J 7`�, � ��. ��;,�� a r�Sfi?{��r*' f'�f �'ta{� '�G �l. �V � .Pj� J`'` �,'�v.,� +,% � �.._ �„�. . --.�, ��t.. ,: -�"v� x`� ,� ~�`r �=_ , _� � . � . -_ ��t`��h�1�.�a1 �'�%' i�,i�°. �c7�'�, rrriG� ?�i � � ~'�� °3��rT�C� ii� �"�,r'a`�dr"x�� `�`fLl7Y �,�,",��h�r,"�F 1 r�!� ,�.._'t_� � � �diFl,t ( ["'`i r.� G��ILP-t� !" �'a� i � f�ul�� !'�S! j�q � � , (� �' c��.1 F�� 7�, i4�$`.�"t� i �'�t�� i �� 7 .;t i p Pr�t �' �' '�.;;. ` � �.. � � � _....�,s _ �,. . . _. ..��, _ � �`rf. .— �.. �,e.... .e.�f ��4� � . �._ � _ .-- � -- —_ _ _ � _ _ _ � � � r r w �� r°` � � � . �:��r�� t �t�;� r r� � � mm. .0 --- — — � r — __. a � �.� �, � . _ �w ��u � , .�. , � `� 7 � �t --�_Ls � ( � 7^�'�4... !�'i��e �'�jyi�' .rv"'��",` �–` t � � i rr. t*.. � f. �.'°.tf:,� �' 1'i �i .. �-r�`.�,>�.7,,,,._ .. � �,"3 �''J � t �t..�%��V�.�d�:�. �..�..1� f �r u,...., .,_ . �. .._...,, .,.,._ L4.t � d iJ! i ....��:a� I I „ .__ .. w,; I ( 3 ( (, 4% ' � � �� r� � � I � . � —.� �__ , , � ��, :� ��g��gry� �� py ��. � �; a-� �f 8 .�, �g�'�a ! ��,.3� .�i£ f .�.�.,�. •—_.r"' ..J'... ( �.,,� Np �t �. 6A�.�� E.� �y„• � �.7� ��l k t"3';'.. JV,�, t�t'.at��' �:'� �dar .r �' �ri ( � � I � � � [� ��' �.� �, , �.�. � � � E,� �" ��. �, _�; t � � � �<: _. �'t'�'"i�r�f.j ii`�1 fJi�fi,JC�t;:s� � ��7�t£.1'� Et��t�P�F�t��r" {'�_Y-'..i ��..��1f'�7�'� �t�T'��; �"'�� r- ,r=4, �. � � �� :�_ i_� �. °� =. � � �� t,� �; � � �� `�a �� __ �a.. �,� 7F�ft� �� -�iYa� ,� �=?r'��1tVG�:�"t�'rtk �t`_!f�'i•F�.�', T�-�t'} ta" �, � �C��. .�1}`J�'� �"� � i�;P.i ��P�,�w'7. ;',} ��=��l�Jr;� ��'�k��?�"t��s�'L:� 7�' ;,�� .��"�.��r°� LitV� r,� .�t:��F f�tlj�I� �?.��ad"i' �t�: t��l�l ; °� �3�7..'��"d`�� . �'��`s` ��. ;?�t ��A�L.rv �'?f�J �,'-a?,.+ ��'�x-si. �r�`�.=�Jv.' t+�"��.?��! �`iF'L�i �,�i}��?,��'r' �=?r�'ar�� 'r�� ,F�f��d�� `r' 7�-�i`� �i��f ?f'v :Fr::�' �. �� '� �t 1;'�r"r t��'i� tit'��ul.�"� ��y�r� ��'�.�i �d-P� �j��U�"��1�v'� �fl,S �rfa� %��'a�?;3+�tL �r,?_�,�,�? ��'� ��t �F" .� �Lf�F2�� r~ � � � �+J�e"�� r'�'�F� ,4,�t�? F��.��'�-'c �'.. �_"`�? �-�.�v--� -- � �_.. +"��°'��_—`��-�� 'e�f�u `ki��r��: --- ' � `` .�� . Tta,�€t"r;� =��r w?�` ��, ;,�r�t�� t P° f�i7'"! a'.3 i'��$�:r, <'� � i��2 f,'r��ityP�r-�5� =w��rc': �t1��y,,;�;r .�r��w� �.��`��r � i �L';�._ ? _ ; s.� . . �fi`fi��'f'v' Ca't r;Ea' — �`d,`�a. �i!t r t if — �t+,k—�"eL� t��"+��,!J. t"l�.�'G? t�'L�e��ix� �' '��%��'' �'��"��< t;"� �!"� r7� a i r'^ p � i r� �'` �._,"` L v' C.�e i� i�_� ��.,J �,.i1-41 '� i? � F'J � � E`'1 °ris- ii � � �� , �� .� ��-� � �,� � y--� � � _ � � L`§t�� G�; �'{��it: �PSTA��k€�Gp --- � � � �� t��[�'�� " � F ��b_�f�� '� I�:7 � (� Ga`,°„`d -� � Vv' ,�; f�r�p� (_� �X 4npYy� � � � . u� r -�� r`".��":� � �� ''� <,�7 ✓ �3 �.&t `fY � � I a lt,� A�n �` � � ��d f� l 1 � � 1 '�G'� � 1 ��, 7 7'�� "� � �'�I � r u%;i � � i , " V�t' � 1 1 . �? � � � ��.. � c�.�J� �`�`�" ''lv' � a.�,�:'� � __�t�� ___ _ rty i��`L4''�"�" � � ��,�� ? ��d. _ � .�� `" ��r°f�1� "��; � ,�`� �� L�i� � ��"��?�.�� s � �� ' ''� ,��£w ��,r;�P� � f� __ �'L,4� Li`:?��i� �. i a{, m ;= t f�t�� i(�� w#�t�#'�� t�?r,�."�,?t tJ7 t�' d�.�� = �»afPd� �=fi F��'Jhw'�� u'�.1T. � iJr (�J� F�^�,� ick.��;,��'r,� e�f�t.l.�i °,;r9u � Y?F � r,�t`�,?ktmf',�l�r`:?'e�'r� �;?f�li.Y t"f�ir_ .s h+iai fic J:it_aPV�Jtf?}' �rt�ryr�'y'.w. la��.� �`�"�+�w"€'; ��,��d`x,�wf1"�sT. CN6° �.�. x ��sr�� ,�a�r r�..ac�e � � � sc�FS� k �?tAr�'El r�cfFfl"ik .��a"Q.� r �' �..r,` �- � ;��N,t ��q �� t �Ae;yrdt �ta,m��'esxf,'e✓rre �a r�.�s�rn�,.u�tr� Cy � Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 � Cl�arwater u Prepared by: Engineering Department Geographic Technology Division 100 S. Myrtle Ave, pearwater, PL 33756 Ph:(727)562-4750,Fax:(727)526-4755 www. My C I e arw at e r. c o m DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT SUNSET & HIGHLAND Cay 1475, LLC Map Gen By: CRM I Reviewed By: TM I Date: 7/11/2012 I Grid #: 261A I S-T-R: 02-29S-15E N W E i#1 Scale: N.T.S. Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 S�CT1 �N v1, T�INNSFf1P 29 SOVTI-t, 1ZANG� �s �AST PIN�LLAS C�VNTY, FLORIDA L�GAt L�SCRiPT1c�N: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING A PORTION OF LOT 9, BRENTWOOD ESTATES, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 59, PAGE 28 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SAID PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, S 00°07'42" E„ 50.00 FEET,• THENCE PARALLEL TO THE EAST—WEST CENTER LINE OF SAID SECTION 2, N 89°29'42" W, 50.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF W,4Y LINE, S 00°10'33" E, 250.00 FEET,• THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST RIGHT OF W,4Y LINE, N 89°29'42" W, 170.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF LOT 8 OF SAID BRENTWOOD ESTATES, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 59, PAGE 28 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 8, N 01 ° 19'04" W, 15.17 FEET TD THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE N 57°04'S8" W, 11.89 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED EASEMENT PARCEL; THENCE CONTINUE N 57° 04'S8" W, 94.37 FEET TO A POINT LYING 10.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 9 OF SAID BRENTWOOD ESTATES; THENCE ALONG A LINE 10.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 9, S 89°24'23" E, 37.40 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID LINE, S 57°04'S8" E, 49.88 FEET TO A POINT LYING 10.00 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 9; THENCE ALONG A LINE 10.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 9, S 00°OS'30" W, 23.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 1442.5 S.F., MORE OR LESS. SCALE: 1 "=40' DRAWN BY: ABT DWG. No.1101-100-048 PROJ. No.1101-100-04 £t VTl L1TY �SMT. SUNSET &� HIGHLAND PAGE 1 OF 2 LEGAL/SKETCH ONLY —THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY— �X7Rr.N�Slf?Y�Y/NG c?ir�OR1DA, 1NC. LB NO. T425 29340 RH00/N PLACE WESLEY CHAPEL, FLORIDA 33�� m# 1 PH. (813) 973-2092 EMo1L• o%x�xtreme—surveying.co PRJPESSIJNALSVRVFYINGANDMAPI'INGSERVICfS .i S�CT10N v2, TOWNSk1P 29 SOVTFf, RANG£ �S �AST w P1N�LLAS c�VNTY, �LORIDA _ , _ , _ , ,i► � E.-W. CENTERLINE OF SECTION 2 Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 POINT O� COM1�f�NC�M�NT N_E, CORNER OF THE � �N.W. 1%4 OF S.W. 9�d�—�—'— SEC. 2-29-15 ' ;� . r��J� F. P. C. • EASEMENT PER O. R. 1654, PAGE 331 I � PLATTED 10' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT I I r I � 1•0' D&U._EASEMENT PER O.R_1807 PAGE 236 _ L I � 10.0' � — � • � — — — � � —� _ — N.E. CORNER OF LOT 9�� _� �g � F. P. C. EASEMENT PER , � � � 0_R_1654 PAGE 331_ _ W LOT j � RNER OF � �9 I — �— � � <� I I i � tOT 9 � � � I J I � !z BR£NTWDOD ESTAT�S <6 � N� I� P.L�. Lc�T tv � 2s P.D.B. I w w I\ N.E. CORNER OF LOT � i c�n �� a _ L4 I� i �— J i � I o� � � I i � �� PLATTED 10' DRAINAGE & UTIUTY EASEMENT C� � � �I 0 JI � oiw z JI �i svnv�vvn s NoT�s: �� O� �w �� zw w� wW �� U �� o� 1) THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. THIS IS A LEGAL AND SKETCH ONLY. 2) BEARINGS REFERENCED TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SUNSET POINT ROAD AS BEING S 89°29'42" E, PER DEED. ALL CALLS ON THIS LEGAL BASED UPON FIELD BDUNDARY SURVEY PREPARED BY THIS FIRM IN 2011. 3) THIS S RV NOT V,4LID WI OU THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED S F A FLORID D SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. / Date Signed: �f �'J-l2 Alex 8. Thompson Jr., State of Florida No. 5318 Registered Land Surveyor and Mapper SCALE: 1 "=40' DRAWN BY: ABT DWG. No.1101-100-04B PROJ. No.1101-100-04 fr VTlL1TY£SMT. SUNSET &� HIGHLAND � z3 � d� z° ..�.I = 2 � � � � °o �, LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S 00'07'42" E 50.00' L2 N 89°29'42" W 50.00' L3 S 00°10'33" E 250.00' L4 N 89°29'42" W 170.02' L5 N 01 ° 19'04" W 15.17' L6 N 57'04'58" W 11.89' L7 N 57°04'58" W 94.37' L8 S 89°24'23" E 37.40' L9 S 57°04'58" E 49.88' L10 S 00°08'30" W 23.79' L�GEND � � � 0 \ � z � O w Z J w PG. = PAGE P.B. = PLAT BOOK P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.0.8. = POINT OF BEGINNING O.R. = OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK PAGE 2 OF 2 LEGAL/SKEfCH ONLY —THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY— N F S(/R 1� Y/N G O� fl c� R>D, 41 N C. LBNa. 7425 29340 RHDDIN PLAC£ WESL£Y CHAP£L, FLORIDA 33545 E'�iE PH. (813) 973-2092 �� m # 1 EMoIL olexA�xtreme—surveying. City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:8/2/2012 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Work Order to Engineer of Record Jones Edmunds and Associates, Inc. for Engineering Services for the Northeast Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) Internal Recycle Pump Station Upgrade (12-0017-UT) in the amount of $118,800.00, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) SUMMARY: The requested $118,800.00 authorization under ihis Work Order is for professional engineering services for Design, Permitting,and Bidding of the Northeast WRF Internal Recycle Pump Station Upgrade Project. The existing Internal Recycle Pump Station consists of iive Archimedes screw pumps with 32-MGD capacity each and three submersible pumps with 14.4-MGD capacity each. The submersible pump station was added in 2001 to supplement the aging screw pump station. The submersible pump station was designed and built to include the option for fut�re expansion. The Archimedes screw pump station has reached the end of its useful life; three of the screw pumps are no longer in operation. The goal of ihis project is to provide a reliable pumping station that will pump the plant design capacity flows (96 MGD) and meet Class I reliability as required by our PDEP Operating Permit. The scope of services includes design to abandon the screw pump station and upgrade the existing submersible pump station by adding additional submersible pumps in the existing wet well. The design will also include electrical and mechanical upgrades to the submersible pump station. The Northeast WRF is located at 3290 State Road 580 Safety Harbor, Plorida, and is owned and operated by Public Utilities Department. Sufficient funding is available in Capital Improvement Program project 0327-96202, WWTP Screw Pump Replacement, to fund the work order. Type: Capital expenditure Current Year Budget?: Yes Budget Adjustment Comments: See summary Current Year Cost: Not to Exceed: For Fiscal Year: Appropriation Code 03 27-96202-5 613 00-5 3 5-000- 0000 Review Approval: $118, 800.00 $118, 800.00 2011 to 2012 Amount $118, 800.00 Budget Adjustment: Annual Operating Cost: Total Cost: Appropriation Comment See summary No $118, 800.00 Cover Memo I[�ii�:�il� � � I�1�; WIZF Interna� I2�cyc1� I'urn� Station ri � 1��, �� . � r ► , � ;r � � 1� f , . � � � ,, , + • e #`. � � � R� � PROJEC'T 'TI'I'LE: Northeast WRF Internal Recycle Pump Station Upgrade Design SCOPE OF SERVICES: Jones Edmunds � Associates, Inc. is pBeased to provide the City of Clearwater with this proposal for the design and bid phase services for the Internal Recycle Pump Station Upgrade at the Nartheast Water Reclamation �acility (WRF). The existing Internal Recycle Pump Station consists of five screw pumps with 32-MGD capacity each and three subrnersible pumps with 14.4-MGD capacity eacta (one constant-speed and two variable-speed). Jones Edmunds prepared a screw pump evaluation report for City's three water reclamation facilities in April, 2009. In this report Jones Edmunds included a design capacity analysis, evaluation of pump station condition, discussion of five alternatives and a cosfis analysis including a no action alternative for the Northeast WRF. The lowest cost alternative in the report addressed the rehabilitation of screw pumps. The screw pumps have reached the end of their design service life, and the ability to maintain the equipment continues to be problematic and costly. Three of the screw pumps are no longer in operation. Under normal operation, two of the screw pumps and the constant- speed submersible pumps are used. The City desires tn upgrade the Internal Recycle Pump Station to provide reliable operation and meet the permit, biological nutrient removal, and Class I Reliability requirements. The City has subsequently decided to mave ahead with the addition of five submersible pumps to the existing wetwell and decommission all screw pumps. WO Initiation Form.dcacx 1 O$ 8 form revised: 10/14/2011 � � � N � . , Task 1.1 — Kickoff Meeting and Site Visit Attend a kickoff ineeting af the City's office to review the project scope, objective, deliverables, and schedule. Discuss project comrnunication plan and provide a list of required data ta be provided by the City. After the kickoff ineetir�g, Jones Edmunds will tour the Northeast WR� with City to gather field inforr�ation. Me2ting minutes will be prepared and distributed by �-mail ta meeting a�tendees. , Task 2.1 — BODR/30% Design Submittal � � � Jones Edmunds will incorporate al) relevant data and analysis from our April 2009 report � including the following evaluation steps for the BODR d�velopment and 30% plans: � a. Analyze the hydraulics of the submersible pump station including the existing 48-inch pipe connecting the screw pump wet well to the submersible pump station, the proposed discharge piping to the oxidation ditch influent channel, and pump system curves. Based on the analyses, recommend needed improvements and select proposed pumping units. b. Evaluate up to three combinations of constant speed and variable speed submersible pumping units to establish the rrrost energy efficient and suitabl� pump combination to meet current flows, design filows, and Class I reliability requirements. Pump control strategies will also be outlined for biolagical nutrient removal (BNR) optimization and energy savings. c. Evaluate the internal recycle (IR) flow control valves, IR flow meter, IR and raw activated sludge (RAS) weir mechanisms and settings at the Oxidation Ditch. Based on ihe evaluation, recommend needed improvements and/or removal af components to aptimize plant operations. d. Evaluate the existing electrical system including the emergency generators and Motor Control Centers (MCCs) to determine the feasibility of reusing the screw pump electrical panel at MCC-7001 in the MCC/Generator Building and splitting the electrical load of the new submersible pumps between MCC-7001 and MCC-7101 (in the Oxidation Cantrol Buiiding) for Class I Reliability. e. Evaluate the existing infrastructure induding the influent channel and sluice gates to the screw pump wet well and submersible pump discharge pipe supports. Based on the evaluation, recammend components to the reused, needed improvements, components to be demolished (e.g. Screw pump supports, motors, and gear boxes, etc.). f. Evaluate the feasibility of a phased approach to upgrade the pump station. g. Develop the sequence af construction to minimize interruption of the plant operation and maintain discharge permit limits. h. Prepare a basis of design report (BODR) and 30% plans for the proposed pump station. WO I€�it�ataora Forrn.docx 2 of 8 form revised: 10/14J2011 i. Prepare and submit 4 sets of BODR and 30% preliminary plans for the City review and comrnents. j. Prepare a list of technical specificatians for the City`s review and comments. k. Prepare and submit an opinion of probable cost of canstruction for the City's review and comments. I. Attend a review meeting at the City's office to obtain and discuss the City's comments and to finalize the basis af design. Prepare and submi� meeting minutes ta attendees by e-mail. Task 2.2 — 60%a [�esign Submittal a. Prepare and submit 4 sets of 60% design plans for the City review and comment. The design plans will incnrporate the City previous review comments. � b. Prepare and submit technical specifications for the City review and camment. � � c. Prepare and submit an updaied opinion of probable cost of construction far the Ci�y � review and camment. d. Atiend a review meeting at the City's office to obtain and discuss the City's corrimen�s. Prepare and submit meeting minutes to attendees by e-mail. Task 2.3 — 90% Design Submittai a. Prepare and submit 4 sets of 90% design plans for the City review and comments. The design plans will incorporate the City previous review comments. b. Prepare and submit updated technical specificaiions and the City's frant-end documents and bid tabulation for the City review and comment. c. Update the opinion of probable cost of construction and constructian schedule and submit for the City review and comment. d. Attend a review meeting at the City's office to obtain and discuss the City°s comments. Prepare and submit meeting minutes to attendees by e-mail. Ill��(�I:��N7�.y[CI�1�:I�6'l� Task 3.1 — 100% Design Submitta) a. Prepare and submit 4 sets af 100% d�sign plans and specifications for the City review and comments. The design plans will incorporate the City previous review comments. b. Wrepare eight copies of full-size signed and sealed plans and submit for �uiiding Permit applicatian. c. Prepare and submit the final opinion of probable cost of construction. d. Attend a review meeting with the City to discuss bidding and construction schedule. Prepare and submit meeting minutes to attendees by e-maiB. WO dnitiation Form.docx 3 of 8 form revised: 10/14{2031 i��' ��' i� Task 4.1— Bid-Phase Services a. Prepare and submit the bid documents to the City in pdf format. b. Prepare pre-bid meeting agenda, attend a pre-bid meeting with the City's operatians and engineering staffs, and pr�pare pre-bid rneeting minutes to be distributed by the City to all potential bidders. c. Review Requests far infnrmatian (RFI) from bidders and issue addendum if necessary. d. Evaluate the bidders' bid prop�sals and provide the City with a recommendation for award. �. ��toJ��r �o�L�a The goal is to provide the City with an Internal Recycle Pump 5tation that will meet the needs of the Northeast WRF to pump the plant influent, RAS, and IR ranging from �-00% to 600% of influent AADF flow, at current and design peak and minimum flows and provide Ciass I reliability. 4. �3UDGE°I': Our fee includes all labor and expenses expected to be incurred by Jones Edmunds to complete the design Task No. 1 through 4 for a Bump sum fee of $11�,�00 f�r a total fe� of ��Ilars ($is�, so�). 5a SCHEDULE: The project is to be completed 6,5 months from issuance of notice-to-proceed. ihe project deliverables are to be phased as follows: ��rt• �, r- , « ��A`w ��" • 90% Design Submittal 100% I�esi�n Submittal :.• 2 morrths 1 month 1 month 1 rnar�th S.5 rnonths 6a S"TAFF t�SSIGNiVIENT (Consuitant): Citv Staff: Kelly O'Brien Project Manager Jeff �orden Northeast WRF Lead Operator David Porter, PE Wastewater Environmental Technologies fVlanager Kathryn McGrath Wastewater Environmental Technologies Coordinator WO lnitiation �orm.docx 4 of 8 form revised: 10/14/2011 � � � � a� � Q Jones Edmunds Staff: Tom Friedrich, PE Chris Baggett, PE Dinesh Kamath, PE Tak I<ai Pang, PhD, PE Steve Y@ats, PE Don �ee, PhD, PE Mike Clark, PE Richard Chruszcz, PE Client Services Manager Technical Manager/ Lead Hydraulics Engineer Project Manager �a/QC Chief Engineer — QA/QC �Nl� f3esign/BioWin Modeling Engineer Instrumentation and Contral Engineer Electrical Engineer Anand dVlody, PE Prc�ject Engineer Gre�g Fruecht Construction Administrator Bilgin Erel, PE Structura) (E/i Eng Technologies, Inc.) CORI2ESi'ON�ENCE/I2EI'ORTING F'i20CE�i1R��: ENGINEER's project correspondence shall be directed to Project Manager— Dinesh Kamath, PE and Technical Manager/�ead Hydraulics Engineer—Chris Baggett, PE with copy to Tom Friedrich, PE. All City proaect carrespondence shall be directed to Kelly Q'Brien with copies to others as may be appropriate. �a INVOICING/FUNDING F'ROCEDU�tESe Invoices shall be submitted monthly to the City of Clearwater, Attn: Veronica Josef, Senior Staff Assistant, Engineering, P. O. Box 4748, Clearwater, �lorida 33758-4748, for work performed. Invoices will be prepared monthly based on a percent cornplete far each lump sum task on the project. �ontingency services will be billed as incurred only after written authorization provided by the City to proceed with those services. � •� � •�� "� •._ ! .�� f� �:: �1�1 11t��: INVOICING PROCEEDUIZES At a minimum, in addition to the invoice amount(s) the following information shall be provided on all invoices submitted on the Work Order: A. Pu�chase Order Number and Contract Amaunt. B. The time period (begin and end date) covered by the invoice. C. A short narrative summary of activities completed in the time period. D. Contract billing method — l�ump Sum or Cost Times Multiplier. E. If Lump Sum — the percent completion, amount due, previous amount earned and total earned to date for all tasks (direct costs, if any, shall be included in lump sum amount). F. If Cost Times Multiplier — hours, hourly rates, names of individuals being billed, amount due, previous amount earned, totai earned to date for each task and nther direct costs (receipts WO Initiation Form.docx 5 Of 8 forrr� revised: 10/14/2G11 � � � � N � will be required for any single item with a cost of $50 or greater or cumulative monthly expenses greater than $100). G. If the Work Order is funded by multiple funding codes — an itemizati�n of tasks and invoice amounts by funding code. � �. 1. The City will provide record drawings far the submersible pump station. "'� ' � � � � APPROVED �Ys � � N � �ouglas M. T°oth, PhD, PE Michael D. Quillen, PE Senior Vice Pr�sid�nt �° Operations City Engineer Jon�s, Edrrrunds �a Ass�ciates, Inc. City �f Cle�rwater � �� WO Initaation Fcrrn.docx 6 of 8 form revised: 10/14/2021 Attachment "A" uu�� ' � i � ' (q � � i Ifll i� � I��j�i i��l��II ��II��II�j��l��- -. � � � �� «; �' . � � � �a 1a F012MA'T The design plans shall be compiled using the following methods: 1. City of Clearwater CAD standards. 2. Datum: Norizontal and Vertical datum snall be referenced ta North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (vertical) and North American Datum of 19�3/90 (horizontal). The unit of measurement shall be the United States Foot. Any deviation from this datum will not be accepted unless reviewed by City of Clearwater Engiraeering/Geographic Technalogy Division. � • . ; �r The design plans shall be produced on bond material, 24" x 36" af a scale of 1" = 20` unless approved otherwise. Upon campletion, the consultant shall deliver all drawing files in digital format with ail project data in Autodesk Civil 3D file format. If not available l.and Desktap files are still acceptable, however the City or Clearwater is currently phasing out Land Desktop. NOTE: If approved deviation from Clearwater CAD standards are used the Consultant shall include all necessary information to aid in manipu►ating the drawings including either PCP, CTB file or pen schedule for plotting. The drawing file shall include only authorized fonts, shapes, line types or other attributes contained in the standard AutoDesk, Inc. release. All block references and references contained within the drawing file shall be included. Please address any questions regarding format to Mr. iom Mahony, at (727) 562 4762 or email address Tom.Mahony@myClearwater.com. All electronic files (CAD and Specification files) must be delivered upon completion of project ar with 100% plan submittal to City of Clearwater. WO initiation �orm.docx 7 of 8 form rev�sed: 10/14/201? � � � � � � Attachment "B" Northe�st �VRF I�ternal Recycle P�amp 5iatio� lJp�rade Design Jones Edr�unds Vilf1RI{ ORDER IiVITIATION FORM ��oJEC°r �u�GE�r iask Descri�ation Subconsult�nt Labor ' iotal Services 1.� � Pre� Desi n �hase 1.1 h' Kickoff Meetin & Site Visit $3,400 $3,40Q 1.2 Task Allowance (10%) $0 $0 $3,4�0 2.0 Desi n Phase 2.1 �ODR J 30%a Desi n Submittal $44,70Q $44,i00 2.2 60% Desi n Submittal $26,i00 $26,700 2.3 90% Desi n Submitta) $24,200 $24,200 2.4 TaSk lalloW�tlC2 (10%) $0 $0 $95,600 3.0 Final �esi n Phase 3.1 100%o Desi n Submittal $14,400 $14,400 3.2 Task Allowance 10% $0 $0 $14,400 4.0 Biddir� Phase 4.1 Bid Phase Services $5,400 $5,400 4.2 iask Allowance (10%j $0 $0 $5,400 Subtotal Labor and Subcontractors 11� 800 Permit Review Fees $0 Other Direct Casts (prints, photocopies, postage, etc.) $0 (Not appticable to lump sum Work Orders) Grand °ioial $11�,800 WO Ic�itiat�on Form.docx 8 Of 8 farm revised: 10/14/2011 � � � � N � Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 � Clearwater u Prepared by: Engineering Department Geographic Technology Division 100 S. Myrtle Ave, pearwater, PL 33756 Ph:(727)562-4750,Fax:(727)526-4755 www.Mypearwater.com Northeast WRF Internal Recycle Pump Station Upgrade Map Gen By: CRM I Reviewed By: K_O I Date: 07/13/2012 I Grid #: 2016 I S-T-R: 21-28S-16E N W E i#1 Scale: N.T.S. City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:8/2/2012 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Request for authority to institute a civil action on behalf of the City against Suncoast Development of Pinellas County, Inc., to recover $1,658.99 for damages to City property. (consent) SUMMARY: On October 20, 2009, employees of Suncoast Development of Pinellas County, Inc., while using a backhoe, punctured a City gas line at the intersection of Flamingo and Fairfold Drives, New Port Richey, Florida. Repairs to the gas line totaled $1,658.99. Several letters sent to Suncoast Development of Pinellas County, Inc., have received no acknowledgment. The costs relative to each of these actions will include a$300.00 filing fee and fees for service of process of approximately $65.00. Type: Operating Expenditure Current Year Budget?: Yes Budget Adjustment Comments: Current Year Cost: Not to Exceed: For Fiscal Year: Appropriation Code 010-09600548000-514-000- 0000 Bid Required?: Other Bid / Contract: Review Approval: $365.00 10/O1/2011 to 09/30/2012 Amount $365.00 No Budget Adjustment: Annual Operating Cost: Total Cost: Appropriation Comment Bid Number: Bid Exceptions: None $365.00 Sole Source Cover Memo i�:�r� City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Approve funding from the City General Fund Reserves in the amount of $188,291 to undertake fencing and related improvements at the Main Library to define pedestrian patterns and create a public arts area. SUMMARY: On April 16, 2012, the Library Department presented Council with a request to initiate improvements in the Main Library front Courtyard, West Terrace and the pump house area. These improvements would include a fence, an art element, improved landscaping and other elements. The Council requested staff to take another look at the plan and modify it to enhance the appearance of this signature downtown building. The new plan includes a new entryway with the fencing in the recommended teal color, creating a much more welcoming entry. Although the drawing shows the name of the library, which would not be allowed under the sign ordinance, staff will substitute a literary quote. Staff has provided two choices for the northeast wall of the library, a planter element and an art element, although the art element shown is just an example, not a specific choice. The proposal also includes replacing the cement pavement with a paving stone equivalent to what is used in the Cleveland Street renovations. Staff is requesting Council direction regarding the revised project, choice between the art wall and the planter element, and the use of paving stones in the proj ect. This element was strongly suggested by the Library Foundation. The library advocacy groups have all reviewed and approved the new fence design. The art element is preferred over the planter because it requires less ongoing maintenance and fits in with the feel of the courtyard staff is trying to create. If approved, a third quarter budget amendment will establish capital project 315-93529, Main Library Entryway Improvements, with a transfer of $188,291 from General Fund unappropriated retained earnings. General Fund reserves are currently $20.8 million, exceeding the reserve policy by approximately $10.6 million. Type: Capital expenditure Current Year Budget?: No Budget Adjustment Comments: Budget Adjustment: Money for this project would come from General Reserve funds. Current Year Cost: $188,291 Annual Operating Cost: Not to Exceed: For Fiscal Year: Appropriation Code 315-93529 2011 to 2012 Amount $188,291 Total Cost: Appropriation Comment Yes $18 8.291 Cover Memo Review Approval: Item # 18 � � 1�!1 �� .._. ' � �� LIFTSTATION FENCE PLAN �` ,t" NOT TO SCALE +r a ■ ,.� _�. ,1 ( , NEiV� AT OI LANI TCiP 8�_i��, NEV� EXI� LAN I TOP 8'-0�, r�t��ri� �� i NORTHWEST FENCE PLAN �� SOUTHEAST FENCE PLAN � �� NOT TO SCALE t, ,� NOT TO SCALE TAL FENCE :ISTING LOW APE WALL FENCE DING �ATE iIGH TAL FENCE :ISTING LOW APE WALL FENCE CLEARWATER PUBLIC LIBRARY FENCE jUNE 12, 2012 � � 1�!1 �� .._. ' � �� LIFTSTATION FENCE PLAN �` ,t" NOT TO SCALE +r a ■ ,.� _�. ,1 ( , NEiV� AT OI LANI TCiP 8�_i��, NEV� EXI� LAN I TOP 8'-0�, r�t��ri� �� i NORTHWEST FENCE PLAN �� SOUTHEAST FENCE PLAN � �� NOT TO SCALE t, ,� NOT TO SCALE TAL FENCE :ISTING LOW APE WALL FENCE DING �ATE iIGH TAL FENCE :ISTING LOW APE WALL FENCE CLEARWATER PUBLIC LIBRARY FENCE jUNE 12, 2012 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 ��II�:�Eij Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 ��II�:�Eij Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 ��II�:�Eij Estimate � � � � u a � o � � s CLEARWATER PUBLIC LIBRARY UNITAREA N/A Fencing and Hardscape CLEARWATER, FLORIDA REPORT DATED: 12Jun-12 BUILDINGCOMPONENT Ufll� Ufll� QUANTITY UNIT COST COST TOTAL without GC and 1 fee $22,827.15 $22,827 Tenmic Paint 1 $10,000.00 $10,000 Fence at Main Entrance $47,297 Fence 232 If $104.00 $119.60 $27,747 Gates 2 ea $3,500.00 $4,025.00 $8,050 Decorativesignage 1 allow $10,000.00 $11,500.00 $11,500 Fence at West of Library $27,628 Fence 231 If $104.00 $119.60 $27,628 Gates 0 ea $3,500.00 $4,025.00 $0 Decorativesignage 0 allow $10,000.00 $11,500.00 $0 Fence at Liftstation $14,738 Fence 104 If $104.00 $119.60 $12,438 Gates 1 ea $2,000.00 $2,300.00 $2,300 Decorativesignage 0 allow $10,000.00 $11,500.00 $0 Knee wall at Main Entrance $11,426 Low wall 96 If $24.50 $28.18 $2,705 Footing 96 If $7.00 $8.05 $773 Wall cap 96 If $12.00 $13.80 $1,325 Cladding both sides 384 sf $15.00 $17.25 $6,624 Patio Stone $49,674 Patio Stone 3,015 sf $13.00 $14.95 $45,074 Demo exisiting concrete 1 Is $4,000.00 $4,600.00 $4,600 Benches and Pots $3,393 Benches 4 ea $300.00 $345.00 $1,380 Plant Pots 5 ea $350.00 $402.50 $2,013 Planter $2,706 Low wall 28 If $24.50 $28.18 $789 Footing 28 If $7.00 $8.05 $225 Wall cap 28 If $12.00 $13.80 $386 Cladding one side 56 sf $15.00 $17.25 $966 Waterproofing inside 118 sf $2.50 $2.88 $339 Landscape and Irrigation $12,500 Landscaping 1 allow $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000 Irrigation mdifications 1 allow $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500 Bike Rack Slabs by City 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000 Architect/EngineerFee 5% $6,350 Submtal $171,173 10% Owner's Contingency $17,117 TOTAL $188,291 � � Notes: 1 Fenceandgatesarealuminumwithl0yrwarranty-70%PVDFpowdercoat(Kynarequivalent) � 2 HardscapeispricedasCityofClearwaterstandard � 3 Irrigation and Landscape are included as owners allowances 7 � N � N Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 From: Alexander P. Lamis [mailto:a.lamis@RAMSA.COM] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 5:30 PM To: Pickell, Barbara Cc: Peter Morris Dixon; Robert Stern; Salvador Pena Subject: Clearwater Public Library Dear Ms. Pickell, I am writing you as a partner of Robert A.M. Stern and the architect in charge of the Clearwater Public Library project. We were recently sent an article from the Clearwater Patch regarding a gate and fence proposed to be placed in front of the main entrance of the Library. This was the first we had heard about this project—which evidently has been under discussion for some time. Further, the article said that Robert A.M. Stern "has not been consulted because of costs for his services." This statement is inaccurate, and I believe it is misleading. We invested a great deal of effort to make the Public Library a building that would be an object of civic pride for the people of Clearwater, and are disappointed that we were not given the courtesy of being informed that a major change was being considered at the front door of the building. From what can be seen in the rendering that was shown in the article, the proposed fence significantly detracts from the Library design, creating a cage-like appearance for what was and should be an open and welcoming entrance. Sincerely, Alexander Lamis, AIA Alexander P. Lamis, Partner Robert A.M Stern Architects, LLP 460 West 34th Street, New York, New York 10001 212 967 5100 Fax: 212 967 5588 a.lamis =xamsa.com www. ramsa. com The information contained in this communication and any enclosures or attachments may be confidential and/or proprietary. It is intended only for the recipient or recipients named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or its contents or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately advise the sender and delete the original and any copies from your computer system. I[�ii�:�iE:3 City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:8/2/2012 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Award a Contract (purchase order) to Waterfront Engineering Inc., of Tampa, FL., in an amount not to exceed $400,000 to fund City owned seawall upgrades and/or replacement, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. SUMMARY: A Request for Proposals (RFP 30-12) was advertised seeking qualified contractors to upgrade and/or replace city owned seawalls that are at or nearing the end of their usefullife. Waterfront Engineering Inc., of Tampa Florida, was selected as result of the RFP rating and ranking process. The Engineering Department has performed visual inspections of all city owned seawalls to develop a schedule of which seawalls to address first. The attached map shows the first three locations that will be addressed under this contract. Sufficient budget and revenue is available in Capital Improvement Program project 0315-93412, City-wide Seawall Replacement to fund this contract. Type: Capital expenditure Current Year Budget?: Yes Budget Adjustment Comments: See Summary Current Year Cost: Not to Exceed: For Fiscal Year: Appropriation Code 0315-93412-563 800-539-000- 0000 Review Approval: $400,000.00 $400,000.00 2011 to 2012 Amount $400,000.00 Budget Adjustment: Annual Operating Cost: Total Cost: Appropriation Comment See summary No $400,000.00 Cover Memo ��II�:�E%� BOND NUMBER: CONTRACT BOND STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That we WATERFRONT ENGINEERING INC. as Contractor and (Surety) whose home address is HEREINAFTER CALLED THE "Surety", are held and firmly bound into the City of Clearwater, Florida (hereinafter called the "Owner") in the penal sum of: Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($ 400,000.00 )for the payment of which we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns for the faithful performance of a certain written contract, dated the day of , 20 , entered into between the Contractor and the City of Clearwater for: CITY OWNED SEAWALL CONTRACT PROJECT # 11-0063-EN a copy of which said contract is incorporated herein by reference and is made a part hereof as if fully copied herein. NOW THEREFORE, THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH, that if the Contractor shall in all respects comply with the terms and conditions of said contract, including the one-year guarantee of material and labor, and his obligations thereunder, including the contract documents (which include the Advertisement for Bids, Form of Proposal, Form of Contract, Form of Surety Bond, Instructions to Bidders, General Conditions and Technical Specifications) and the Plans and Specifications therein referred to and made a part thereof, and such alterations as may be made in said Plans and Specifications as therein provided for, and shall indemnify and save harmless the said Owner against and from all costs, expenses, damages, injury or conduct, want of care or skill, negligence or default, including patent infringements on the part of the said Contractor agents or employees, in the execution or performance of said contract, including errors in the plans furnished by the Contractor, and further, if such "Contractor" or "Contractors" shall promptly make payments to all persons supplying him, them or it, labor, material, and supplies used directly or indirectly by said Contractor, Contractors, Sub-Contractor, or Sub-Contractors, in the prosecution of the work provided for in said Contract, this obligation shall be void, otherwise, the Contractor and Surety j ointly and severally agree to pay to the Owner any difference between the sum to which the said Contractor would be entitled on the completion of the Contract, and that which the Owner may be obliged to pay for the completion of said work by contract or otherwise, & any damages, direct or indirect, or consequential, which said Owner may sustain on account of such work, or on account of the failure of the said Contractor to properly and in all things, keep and execute all the provisions of said contract. PDFConvert.170501.contract Page 1 of 5 ��g'�}2�Oj1� Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 CONTRACT BOND (2) And the said Contractor and Surety hereby further bind themselves, their successors, executors, administrators, and assigns, jointly and severally, that they will amply and fully protect the said Owner against, and will pay any and all amounts, damages, costs and judgments which may be recovered against or which the Owner may be called upon to pay to any person or corporation by reason of any damages arising from the performance of said work, or of the repair or maintenance thereof, or the manner of doing the same or the neglect of the said Contractor or his agents or servants or the improper performance of the said work by the Contractor or his agents or servants, or the infringements of any patent rights by reason of the use of any material furnished or work done; as aforesaid, or otherwise. And the said Contractor and Surety hereby further bind themselves, their successors, heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, jointly and severally, to repay the owner any sum which the Owner may be compelled to pay because of any lien for labor material furnished for the work, embraced by said Contract. And the said Surety, for the value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work or to the specifications. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness the hands and seals of the parties hereto this _ day of , 20 Waterfront En in� eerin� Inc. CONTRACTOR ATTEST: WITNESS: COUNTERSIGNED: I� SURETY By: ATTORNEY-IN-FACT Item # 19 PDFConvert.170501.contract Page 2 of 5 7/12/2012 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 CONTRACT This CONTRACT made and entered into this day of , 20 by and between the City of Clearwater, Florida, a municipal corporation, hereinafter designated as the "City", and Waterfront Engineering Inc., of the City of County of and State of Florida, hereinafter designated as the "Contractor". WITNESSETH: That the parties to this contract each in consideration of the undertakings, promises and agreements on the part of the other herein contained, do hereby undertake, promise and agree as follows: The Contractor, and his or its successors, assigns, executors or administrators, in consideration of the sums of money as herein after set forth to be paid by the City and to the Contractor, shall and will at their own cost and expense perform all labor, furnish all materials, tools and equipment for the following: CITY OWNED SEAWALL CONTRACT 11-0063-EN in the amount of $400,000.00 In accordance with such proposal and technical supplemental specifications and such other special provisions and drawings, if any, which will be submitted by the City, together with any advertisement, instructions to bidders, general conditions, proposal and bond, which may be hereto attached, and any drawings if any, which may be herein referred to, are hereby made a part of this contract, and all of said work to be performed and completed by the contractor and its successors and assigns shall be fully completed in a good and workmanlike manner to the satisfaction of the City. If the Contractor should fail to comply with any of the terms, conditions, provisions or stipulations as contained herein within the time specified for completion of the work to be performed by the Contractor, then the City, may at its option, avail itself of any or all remedies provided on its behalf and shall have the right to proceed to complete such work as Contractor is obligated to perform in accordance with the provisions as contained herein. THE CONTRACTOR AND HIS OR ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS DOES HEREBY AGREE TO ASSUME THE DEFENSE OF ANY LEGAL ACTION WHICH MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE CITY AS A RESULT OF THE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES ARISING OUT OF THIS CONTRACT AND FURTHERMORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE TERMS, STIPULATIONS AND CONDITIONS AS CONTAINED HEREIN, AGREES TO HOLD THE CITY FREE AND HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES, COSTS OF SUITS, JUDGMENTS OR DECREES RESULTING FROM ANY CLAIMS MADE UNDER THIS CONTRACT AGAINST THE CITY OR THE CONTRACTOR OR THE CONTRACTOR'S SUB-CONTRACTORS, AGENTS, SERVANTS OR EMPLOYEES RESULTING FROM ACTIVITIES BY THE AFOREMENTIONED CONTRACTOR, SUB-CONTRACTOR, AGENT SERVANTS OR EMPLOYEES. Item # 19 PDFConvert.170501.contract Page 3 of 5 7/12/2012 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 CONTRACT (2) In addition to the foregoing provisions, the Contractor agrees to conform to the following requirements: In connection with the performance of work under this contract, the Contractor agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, sex, religion, color, or national origin. The aforesaid provision shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; lay-off or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training including apprenticeship. The Contractor agrees to post hereafter in conspicuous places, available for employees or applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of the non-discrimination clause. The Contractor further agrees to insert the foregoing provisions in all contracts hereunder, including contracts or agreements with labor unions and/or worker's representatives, except sub-contractors for standard commercial supplies or raw materials. It is mutually agreed between the parties hereto that time is of the essence of this contract, and in the event that the work to be performed by the Contractor is not completed within the time stipulated herein, it is then further agreed that the City may deduct from such sums or compensation as may be due to the Contractor the sum of $1,000.00 per dav for each day that the work to be performed by the Contractor remains incomplete beyond the time limit specified herein, which sum of $1,000.00 per d� shall only and solely represent damages which the City has sustained by reason of the failure of the Contractor to complete the work within the time stipulated, it being further agreed that this sum is not to be construed as a penalty but is only to be construed as liquidated damages for failure of the Contractor to complete and perform all work within the time period as specified in this contract. It is further mutually agreed between the City and the Contractor that if, any time after the execution of this contract and the surety bond which is attached hereto for the faithful performance of the terms and conditions as contained herein by the Contractor, that the City shall at any time deem the surety or sureties upon such performance bond to be unsatisfactory or if, for any reason, the said bond ceases to be adequate in amount to cover the performance of the work the Contractor shall, at his or its own expense, within ten (10) days after receipt of written notice from the City to do so, furnish an additional bond or bonds in such term and amounts and with such surety or sureties as shall be satisfactory to the City. If such an event occurs, no further payment shall be made to the Contractor under the terms and provisions of this contract until such new or additional security bond guaranteeing the faithful performance of the work under the terms hereof shall be completed and furnished to the City in a form satisfactory to it. Item # 19 PDFConvert.170501.contract Page 4 of 5 7/12/2012 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 CONTRACT (3) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to the agreement have hereunto set their hands and seals and have executed this Agreement, in duplicate, the day and year first above written. CITY OF CLEARWATER IN PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA By: William B. Horne, II City Manager Countersigned: By: George N. Cretekos, Mayor-Councilmember (Contractor must indicate whether Corporation, Partnership, Company or Individual.) (The person signing shall, in his own handwriting sign the Principal's name, his own name, and his title; where the person is signing for a Corporation, he must, by Affidavit, show his authority to bind the Corporation). (Seal) Attest: Rosemarie Call City Clerk Approved as to form: Camilo Soto Assistant City Attorney (Contractor) By. (SEAL� Item # 19 PDFConvert.170501.contract Page 5 of 5 7/12/2012 RFP 30-12: CITY OWNED SEAWALL CONTRACT SUBMISSION REVIEW AND RANHING Rugers s�reet, ' l�evicw and Ra�nki�� IYI�m1aers �om an PrQjeCt `Pur�er strcet, � � T[ital se�nuaole Biw�t Rarr�, ' ° ��;str�rea�own M�na��men� Engineering Expert Tc�tals Castco Rogers: $21,725.00 Construction, $281,352.50 Turner: $35,640.00 %Q $Q (Q 21Q ��, Seminole: $223,987.50 Enterprise Marine Rogers: $20,377.50 contractors, $161,882.60 Turner: �2�,63s.3o 35 69 84 188 Seminole: $113,869.80 Inc. Tampa Bay Rogers: $20,212.50 Marine, Inc. $162,432.60 Turner: �24,035.00 93 83 87 263 Seminole: $118,185.10 Waterfront Rogers: $12,980.00 Engineering, $152,807.00 Turner: $22,308.00 95 $$ iQQ 2$Q ��, Seminole: $117,519.00 5 v v � m Seminole Boat Ramp �� ca � � U Rogers Street End L � � � 2 BLUFF '�"-1 ,,! � �`� p t� �� 1� ��. �SPRING � tt .�� CEDAR �ST �� 1��j� �� t . . ......: 7:jNICHOLSON ST ....��.... � tjj" j� � —, i � t �� tl � � � :t, Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 f � � LA r ¢ ST J z a PALM BLUFF ST > rn } �F � JURGENS 5T z f : 7 � � w i f: M� S� a � —J MARGO ❑ � � NICHOLSON ST � �� w�% �� I� 'jo t� �� —� � ❑ I�� ' w ELDRIDGE ST _� � _ � � = rr w � � � t� �fj Q � MAPLE �l MAPLE � l is t�� —� a "f ir � a PLAZA ' GEORGIA �r ` ^"� � f� �� `1�I 1 HART ST HART +� . �� J ��J j � JONES ST �� –� � � t� ! � IJ W � � ;�,/`� DREW ST SR-590 : �f`! > ❑a o�>� ..'�+f � O� �� a aGR t w K HENDRICKS � � � ...� i�+ a a- � \ �� 1 �� U�A❑�� 1 � \'.�, CLEVELAND ST \�o,� g o � � ❑ �(� �-.__ 0 u �.�9� U � Z PARK } ...�"� PIERCE o ST � � � � � � a .. ��I� � PI�E � N FR4NKLIN ST � I F U � �`�y CAURT ST � � ❑ I ( w -.. a � I--J � .. C�,y� w � '".�"_ SR-60 COURT a s"`,,. T\ �tS��, a MAoEY�� ¢ � ❑ [� G� ST CHESTNUT ST � --�^ SR-60 ROGERS ST W� � � a � � al I ROGERS i� � � � r � J a � � �� i-� �. w ( � z 1 �a,o�d . �,f � sQo� Pea�n � � � ,� i Turner Street End w d ,. o PINE PINE ST + � t,i PINE �r�:-% ; I� a o�e�t ( k i � N�,� a��o � ZI � DRUID RD � W DRUID RD � r— --� �! fr �f i r' " } i t� JASMINE �-- � -[� �' I� �A-� � C�earwater �. Prepared by: Engineering Department Geographic Technology Division 100 S. Myrtle Ave, qearwater, PL 33756 Ph:(727)562-4750,Fax:(727)526-4755 www.Myqearwater.com City Owned Seawall Contract (Initial Sites) Map Gen By: DD I Reviewed By: TM I Date: 7/10/2012 I Grid #: 2866 I S-T-R: XX-XXs-XXe TURNER � N W E # 19S Scale: N.T.S. Map Document: (V:\GIS\_Staff�David\ChesneyWnnualSeawallRepair.mxd) City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: City Manager Verbal Reports SUMMARY: Review Approval: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Cover Memo �[i�'ii�:3�•T1] City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Other Council Action SUMMARY: Review Approval: Meeting Date:8/2/2012 Cover Memo ��11�:��)