01/19/2006
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
January 19, 2006
Present: Frank V. Hibbard Mayor
William C. Jonson Vice-Mayor
Hoyt P. Hamilton Councilmember
Carlen A. Petersen Councilmember
John Doran Councilmember
Also present: William B. Horne II City Manager
Garry Brumback Assistant City Manager
Rod Irwin Assistant City Manager
Pamela K. Akin City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk
Brenda Moses Board Reporter
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. The invocation was
offered by Reverend Jay Sloan from Central Church of the Nazarene. The Mayor led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
4 Introductions and Awards
– None.
5 Presentations:
5.1 Home and Neighborhood of the Quarter presentation
The Neighborhood of the Quarter Award for Winter 2005 was presented to Spring Lake
of Clearwater, Inc.
The Homes of the Quarter Awards for Winter 2005 were presented to Eric and Jennifer
Spaulding of 1116 Sedeeva Street, Joe and Anne Quinn of 225 Hamden Drive, Mark Mandus of
3315 Gabriel Street, and Patrick and Nancy Kaylor of 2813 Marrie Court.
5.2 Business of the Quarter Award
The Business of the Quarter Award was presented to the Offices of Louis Paolillo,
M.D.P.A.
5.3 Turkey Trot Department Awards and Gifts
6 Approval of Minutes
:
6.1 December 15, 2005
Councilmember Hamilton moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of
motion
December 15, 2005, as submitted in written summation by the City Clerk. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously.
Council 2006-01-19 1
Citizens to be Heard re Items Not on the Agenda
7
John Wiser thanked staff for help in securing bicycles for Hurricane Katrina victims and
requested donated scoreboards at Countryside Recreation Center be lighted.
Nick Fritsch suggested opening a dialog with school officials to replace Clearwater High
School, which has inadequate security, technology, and infrastructure.
Matthew Lee, street artist, requested that Council consider licensing artists.
Sean Lawnsdale believed failure to disclose conflict by former Mayor Aungst was not
intentional; questioned when Scientology Building would be completed; and asked the make-up
of the Clearwater Downtown Partnership.
Paul Clayman spoke in support of former Mayor Aungst and expressed concern
regarding higher property taxes associated with increasing assessed values.
Public Hearings
8 Administrative public hearings
8.1 Approve a Settlement Agreement regarding National Advertising Company v. City of
Clearwater, Circuit Court Case #00-003844-CI-011, consolidated with Lamar Whiteco Outdoor
Corporation v. City of Clearwater, Consolidated Circuit Court Case #00-001939-CI-020, and
Pass Ordinance #7568-05 on first reading.
During the 1985 to 1993 timeframe, the City adopted several ordinances regulating
signs, including billboards. These included amortization provisions requiring removal of certain
billboards, including those located on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Belcher Road. The
amortization provisions were carried over into the 1999 Community Development Code.
Notices of Violation pursuant to the Ordinances were issued to National Advertising Company
and Lamar Whiteco Outdoor Corporation regarding certain signs owned by them. The MCEB
(Municipal Code Enforcement Board) found the billboards in violation; however, all code
enforcement fines have been stayed pending the outcome of Circuit Court litigation.
In 2000, National Advertising Company filed suit against the City of Clearwater,
challenging the adoption and effectiveness of the ordinances, asserting vested rights and rights
to the continuance of allegedly lawful nonconforming uses, challenging the City’s actions on
state and federal constitutional grounds and as impairment of contract, alleging inverse
condemnation, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Lamar Whiteco
Outdoor Corporation filed suit with similar allegations, and during the pendency of the litigation
the one billboard owned by Lamar was acquired by National or its parent company, Viacom
Outdoor, Inc., and the suits were consolidated. National and the City entered into mediation
discussions in the course of the litigation, the result of which is the proposed settlement
agreement.
The agreement provides for phased removal of the five remaining billboards as follows:
1 in Year 1, 1 in Year 7, 1 in Year 8, 1 in Year 9, and 1 in Year 10. Certain maintenance and
repair is allowed pending removal. If redevelopment occurs on any of the parcels necessitating
relocation of the billboard pending removal, that is provided for. Enforcement of the agreement,
Council 2006-01-19 2
including fines for noncompliance, are set forth. National agrees to a stipulation ending the
litigation. The settlement agreement is being read as a text amendment to the Community
Development Code because certain provisions such as the one on relocation might be
considered to essentially permit billboards, which the Code does not allow. Pinellas County
followed a similar approach with its Ordinance #03-19.
One person spoke in favor of the ordinance.
It was remarked the billboards should have been removed within 7 years, per the City’s
initiative in 1988, but never happened.
Councilmember Jonson moved to approve a Settlement Agreement regarding National
Advertising Company v. City of Clearwater, Circuit Court Case #00-003844-CI-011,
consolidated with Lamar Whiteco Outdoor Corporation v. City of Clearwater, Consolidated
motioncarried
Circuit Court Case #00-001939-CI-020. The was duly seconded and
unanimously.
Ordinance #7568-06 was presented for first reading and read by title only.
motion
Councilmember Petersen moved to pass Ordinance #7568-06 on first reading. The
was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
8.2 Approve amendments to the Community Development Code to implement revisions to
the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach and pass Ordinance #7576-06 on first reading.
(TA2005-11004)
The Planning Department began a study of the Old Florida District in 2005 as directed
by the City Council in order to address the discrepancy between the area’s zoning and land use
patterns and that which was recommended for development in BBD.
Subsequent to the ideas generated by four public meetings in the Old Florida District
and Council members’ comments at the City Council Work Session on August 29, 2005,
recommendations were developed that included changes to the Code, as set forth in these
amendments, as well as a zoning and future land use map change and changes to BBD.
The Code amendments are as follows:
Amendment to the Zoning District Regulations, Tables 2-802 and 2-803 to amend use,
maximum height and minimum setback requirements to clarify that standards pertaining to the
Old Florida District are set forth in BBD; and Amendment to Section 3-1202.D to clarify that
landscaping requirements for the Old Florida District are set forth in BBD.
The Planning Department determined that the Code text amendments are 1) consistent
with and further the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and 2) further the
purposes of the Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
The Community Development Board reviewed the proposed amendment at its regularly
scheduled meeting on December 20, 2005 and recommended approval.
Council 2006-01-19 3
Councilmember Hamilton declared a conflict and recused himself.
Councilmember Doran moved to approve amendments to the Community Development
motion
Code to implement revisions to the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach. The was
duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Councilmembers Jonson, Petersen, Doran, and
carried.
Mayor Hibbard voted “Aye”; Councilmember Hamilton abstained. Motion
Ordinance #7576-06 was presented for first reading and read by title only.
motion
Councilmember Jonson moved to pass Ordinance #7576-06 on first reading. The was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
“Abstain”: Hamilton
8.3 Approve an amendment to the Development Agreement between Crystal Beach Capital,
LLC (the property owner,) and the City of Clearwater (previously approved DVA2004-00002 by
City Council on December 2, 2004) for the development of the Hyatt (aka Aqualea) and adopt
Resolution #06-06.
The subject properties total 1.63 acres and are located between South Gulfview
Boulevard and Coronado Drive at Third Street. They are located within an area identified for a
catalytic project by Beach by Design and is a priority candidate for redevelopment on
Clearwater Beach.
The applicant has been approved under FLD2004-07052 (approved by the CDB on
November 16, 2004) to construct a hotel of 250 rooms (153.37 rooms/acre on total site), 18
attached dwellings (11.04 units/acre on total site) and a maximum of 70,000 square-feet (0.98
FAR on total site) of amenities accessory to the hotel, at a height of 150 feet (to roof deck). This
project has been approved to utilize 207 rooms from the density pool created in Beach by
Design.
The vacation of Third Street and the east ½ of South Gulfview Boulevard was approved
by City Council on March 1, 2001, but is not effective until actual construction of the hotel
begins.
The City Council originally approved a Development Agreement for this property on
March 1, 2001 (DA 01-01-01), which was amended on December 2, 2004 (DVA2004-00002).
The applicant is proposing the following revisions to the approved development
agreement:
- Adds a definition for “operator,” “hotel operator” or “single hotel operator” to indicate
who is responsible for the daily operation of the hotel, provision of hotel services and the
maintenance of the hotel amenities and hotel units. (Section 1.01)
- Amends the scope of the project to account for projected vacancy rates and enable the
hotel unit owners greater flexibility to use the hotel units when the hotel units might otherwise be
Council 2006-01-19 4
vacant, leading to greater use of the hotel amenities and facilities. (Section 2.03 and Section 2
of Exhibit F)
- Modifies the construction start date so that it is the same as the outside date for
commencement of construction under the vacating ordinances for Third Street and S. Gulfview
Boulevard. (Various Sections)
- Amends the terms and provisions for the operation of concessions on City property
west of S. Gulfview Boulevard, as part of the beach landing portion of the pedestrian overpass.
(Section 5.04, paragraph 7)
- Amends the City’s obligation regarding the construction of South Gulfview Boulevard
and Beach Walk improvements based on the 100% drawings by Post Buckley. (Section 5.04,
paragraph 1)
- Amends the developer’s obligation regarding the payment of the pro rata share of the
costs of the South Gulfview Boulevard and Beach Walk improvements. (Section 5.05,
paragraph 5b)
- Provides for a public pedestrian access easement 10 feet in width within the northern-
most bay of the project from Coronado Drive to South Gulfview Boulevard.
·
The proposal is in compliance with the standards for development agreements and is
consistent with Beach by Design.·
The CDB recommended approval at their January 17, 2006, meeting.
Discussion ensued and it was felt the City should be getting more for concessions being
given to the developer. Concern was expressed public parking spaces remain public and loss
of transient rooms.
Neil Rauenhorst, applicant, said he has worked diligently with staff over the last 11
months to resolve issues. He said the development agreement incorporates attractive elements
to the area as is preferred in Beach by Design guidelines. He said the rooms will be rented
approximately 70% of the time. Owner use will be during low peak periods putting more people
on the beach during this time making the units more marketable. He said the developer is going
to great expense to create more parking than needed to service the hotel.
City Attorney Pam Akin said adding a provision to the development agreement that
public spaces must be available on a first-come, first-serve basis and cannot be reserved for
hotel events has been discussed, but is currently not in the development agreement. Mr.
Rauenhorst said he would need to investigate the implications of that provision. He expressed
his willingness to address the parking concern. He said the hotel’s meeting and ballrooms are
not large enough to require use of the entire 750-space parking garage.
Discussion ensued and it was indicated not all hotel guests will have their own cars and
90% of large events are at night when there is no parking issue on the beach.
In response to a question, Ms. Akin said staff is currently reviewing the parking layout to
ensure the public parking will function correctly. Public Works Administrator Mashid Arasteh
Council 2006-01-19 5
said the parking spaces have been reviewed with respect to how they function in relation to the
support columns, maneuverability, location of public parking and access to it.
In response to a question, Ms. Akin said the developer will establish the parking rates
based on comparables. The agreement includes a buyout provision for the public spaces.
Councilmember Hamilton moved to approve an amendment to the Development
Agreement between Crystal Beach Capital, LLC (the property owner,) and the City of
Clearwater (previously approved DVA2004-00002 by City Council on December 2, 2004) for the
motion
development of the Hyatt (aka Aqualea). The was duly seconded. Upon the vote being
taken, Members Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, and Doran voted “Aye”; Mayor Hibbard voted
carried
“Nay”. Motion .
Resolution #06-06 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Jonson moved
to pass and adopt Resolution #06-06 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same.
motion
The was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, and Doran.
"Nays": Hibbard.
carried
Motion .
9 Quasi-judicial public hearings
9.1 Approve the Annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the County
Commercial General (CG) Category to the City Institutional (I) Category and Zoning Atlas
Amendment from the County C-2, General Retail Commercial and Limited Services District to
the City Institutional (I) District for 2190 NE Coachman Road (Lot 16, Pinellas Groves,
Southeast ¼, Section 12-29-15); and Pass Ordinances #7575-06, #7577-06 & #7578-06 on first
reading. (ANX2005-09033-LUZ2005-09011)
The subject property is located on the north side of NE Coachman Road, approximately
240 feet west of North Belcher Road. The property is an enclave and is contiguous to existing
City boundaries; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County
requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in
order to build a 7,200 square-foot religious / educational facility. The subject site is
approximately 1.95 acres in area and is vacant.
A companion application to change the Future Land Use Plan category of this site from
Commercial General (CG) to Institutional (I), and to rezone it from C-2, General Retail,
Commercial and Limited Services District (County) to the (I), Institutional District is being
processed concurrently with this annexation request in LUZ2005-09011.
The Planning Department determined that the proposed annexation is consistent with
the following standards specified in the Community Development Code:
The proposed annexation will not have an adverse impact on public facilities and their
level of service; it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan and
the Community Development Code; and the property is located within an enclave and its
annexation will reduce such enclave.
Council 2006-01-19 6
This annexation has been reviewed by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) County staff
accordance with the provisions of Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63, Section 7(1-3), and no
objections have been raised.
Councilmember Petersen moved to approve the Annexation, Future Land Use Plan
Amendment from the County Commercial General (CG) Category to the City Institutional (I)
Category and Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County C-2, General Retail Commercial and
Limited Services District to the City Institutional (I) District for 2190 NE Coachman Road (Lot 16,
motioncarried
Pinellas Groves, Southeast ¼, Section 12-29-15). The was duly seconded and
unanimously.
Ordinance #7575-06 was presented for first reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Doran moved to pass Ordinance #7575-06 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Ordinance #7577-06 was presented for first reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Hamilton moved to pass Ordinance #7577-06 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Ordinance #7578-06 was presented for first reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Jonson moved to pass Ordinance #7578-06 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
9.2 Approve the Annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment from County Residential
Suburban (RS) Category to City Residential Low Medium (RLM) Category and Zoning Atlas
Amendment from County Single-Family Residential District (R-1) and County Agricultural Estate
Residential (A-E) District to City Medium Density Residential (MDR) District for 1551, 1555 and
1559 Union Street (Metes and Bounds 21/01, 21/03 and 21/02 in Section 2-29-15); and PASS
Ordinance #7579-06 to annex this property on first reading and PASS Ordinances #7580-06 &
#7581-06 to amend the Future Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Atlas for this property on first
reading. (ANX2005-09034 and LUZ2005-09012)
The subject site is comprised of three parcels of land totaling 7.01 acres in size. It is
located on the south side of Union Street between Highland Avenue and Powderhorn Drive
approximately 615 feet east of Highland Avenue. The applicant is requesting this annexation in
order to receive sanitary sewer, water and solid waste service, and intends to develop two
parcels of the site in townhomes at a density of ten dwelling units per acre. The required impact
fees will be paid at the time building permits are issued. The property is contiguous to existing
Council 2006-01-19 7
City boundaries on the east, south and west; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent
with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation.
The Planning Department determined that the proposed annexation is consistent with
the following standards specified in the Community Development Code:
The proposed annexation will not have an adverse impact on public facilities and their
level of service; is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan and the
Community Development Code; and is contiguous to the existing City boundaries on three
sides.
This annexation has been reviewed by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) County staff
in accordance with the provisions of Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63, Section 7(1-3), and no
objections have been raised.
The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Plan Map designation for this
7.01-acres site of three parcels, each occupied by an existing single-family detached dwelling.
Approval of this request would allow the property to be consolidated with a Future Land Use
Plan designation of Residential Low Medium (RLM) and a zoning category of Medium Density
Residential (MDR). (See LUZ2005-09012.)
The Planning Department determined that the proposed future land use plan
amendment and rezoning applications are consistent with the following standards specified in
the Community Development Code:
The proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning application are consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. Sufficient
public facilities are available to serve the property. The applications will not have an adverse
impact on the natural environment.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject
to the approval of the Pinellas Planning Council and the Board of County Commissioners acting
as the Countywide Planning Authority. Review and approval by the Florida Department of
Community affairs is not required.
The Community Development Board reviewed these applications at its public hearing on
December 20, 2005, and unanimously recommended approval of both applications.
Councilmember Petersen moved to approve the Annexation, Future Land Use Plan
Amendment from County Residential Suburban (RS) Category to City Residential Low Medium
(RLM) Category and Zoning Atlas Amendment from County Single-Family Residential District
(R-1) and County Agricultural Estate Residential (A-E) District to City Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District for 1551, 1555 and 1559 Union Street (Metes and Bounds 21/01,
motioncarried
21/03 and 21/02 in Section 2-29-15). The was duly seconded and
unanimously.
Ordinance #7579-06 was presented for first reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Doran moved to pass Ordinance #7579-06 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
Council 2006-01-19 8
"Nays": None.
Ordinance #7580-06 was presented for first reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Hamilton moved to pass Ordinance #7580-06 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Ordinance #7581-06 was presented for first reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Jonson moved to pass Ordinance #7581-06 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
9.3 Approve the Petition for Annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the County
Commercial General (CG) Category to the City Commercial General (CG) Category and Zoning
Atlas Amendment from the County C-2, General Retail Commercial and Limited Services
District to the City Commercial (C) District for 2380 Northeast Coachman Road (located on the
north side of Northeast Coachman Road and on the west side of Old Coachman Road, at the
Northeast Coachman Road and ld Coachman Road intersection, consisting of metes and
bounds 24/01 and 24/02, a portion of Section 7-29-16); and Pass Ordinances #7565-06, #7566-
06 & #7567-06 on first reading. (ATA2005-10001)
The subject property is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Northeast
Coachman Road and Old Coachman Road. The property is located in an enclave and is
contiguous to existing City boundaries to the north and south. On December 1, 1999, George V.
Tagaras, the property owner, signed an Agreement to Annex (ATA), which is considered an
application to annex. The subject site is approximately 1.283 acres in area and is occupied by
an existing fruit stand. The fruit stand comprises a new permanent building and a dirt parking
area. A concrete pad was constructed to support a handicap parking space. It is proposed that
the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Commercial General (CG) and
a zoning category of Commercial (C).
The Planning Department determined that the proposed annexation is consistent with
the following standards specified in the Community Development Code:
The proposed annexation will not have an adverse impact on public facilities and their
level of service; is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan and the
Community Development Code; and is located within an enclave and its annexation will reduce
such enclave.
This annexation has been reviewed by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) County staff
accordance with the provisions of Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63, Section 7(1-3), and no
objections have been raised.
Council 2006-01-19 9
The Community Development Board reviewed this proposed annexation at its regularly
scheduled meeting on December 20, 2005 and unanimously recommended approval.
Elihu Berman, representative, said the applicant does not want to annex. He said the
Coachman family, who originally owned much of this property, had a verbal agreement with the
City this property would never be annexed. He felt the City should honor the commitment made
with the Coachman family. He said he does not understand why the City wants to annex the
property at this time, as it is bounded on the west by properties that are not being annexed that
are comparable.
Ms. Akin said the current owner signed an agreement for sewer services.
Robert Gregg, owner’s architect, said he has four other clients in the same position that
required sewer service, however, none of them have been annexed. Referring to an aerial
photograph of City and County boundaries, he said there is nothing adjacent to this property
except for railroad tracks on the opposite side of the road, a racquetball court, a City park and a
house in the middle of that City park that never has been annexed. This property is tied in to
the sewer through a forced main in front of the house. He said the new division in the area tore
up the sewer system but never annexed anyone in that area. He said further down the same
road there are six or more homes that have not been annexed. He said he felt the City was
selectively annexing this property.
Councilmember Petersen moved to approve the Petition for Annexation, Future Land
Use Plan Amendment from the County Commercial General (CG) Category to the City
Commercial General (CG) Category and Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County C-2,
General Retail Commercial and Limited Services District to the City Commercial (C) District for
2380 Northeast Coachman Road (located on the north side of Northeast Coachman Road and
on the west side of Old Coachman Road, at the Northeast Coachman Road and ld Coachman
Road intersection, consisting of metes and bounds 24/01 and 24/02, a portion of Section 7-29-
motioncarried
16). The was duly seconded and unanimously.
Ordinance #7565-06 was presented for first reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Doran moved to pass Ordinance #7565-06 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Ordinance #7566-06 was presented for first reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Hamilton moved to pass Ordinance #7566-06 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, and Doran.
"Nays": None.
Absent: Hibbard.
Council 2006-01-19 10
Ordinance #7567-06 was presented for first reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Petersen moved to pass Ordinance #7567-06 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, and Doran.
"Nays": None.
Absent: Hibbard.
9.4 Continue passage of Ordinance #7546-06 on first reading, making amendments to
Beach By Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines to March
2, 2006.
Councilmember Hamilton moved to continue passage of Ordinance #7546-06 on first
reading, making amendments to Beach By Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach
and Design Guidelines to March 2, 2006. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
9.5 Continue passage of Ordinances #7547-06 and #7548-06 on first reading, amending the
Future Land Use Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City and rezone property
generally located on Clearwater Beach between Mandalay Avenue and the Gulf of Mexico
between Kendall and the north side of Somerset Street east of Mandalay Avenue in the Old
Florida District as designated by Beach by Design, to March 2, 2006.
Councilmember Petersen moved to continue passage of Ordinances #7547-06 and
#7548-06 on first reading, amending the Future Land Use Plan element of the Comprehensive
Plan of the City and rezone property generally located on Clearwater Beach between Mandalay
Avenue and the Gulf of Mexico between Kendall and the north side of Somerset Street east of
Mandalay Avenue in the Old Florida District as designated by Beach by Design, to March 2,
2006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
10 Second Readings - public hearing
10.1 Adopt Ordinance #7569-06 on second reading, amending the Pooled Cash Investment
Policy.
Ordinance #7569-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Hamilton moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7569-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Council 2006-01-19 11
10.2 Adopt Ordinance #7549-06 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose
post office address is 1304 Springdale Street, into the corporate limits of the city and redefining
the boundary lines of the city to include said addition.
Ordinance #7549-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Petersen moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7549-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
10.3 Adopt Ordinance #7550-06 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 1304 Springdale Street, upon annexation into the City of
Clearwater, as Residential Low.
Ordinance #7550-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Doran moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7550-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
10.4 Adopt Ordinance #7551-06 on second reading, amending the zoning atlas of the City by
zoning certain real property whose post office address is 1304 Springdale Street, as Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
Ordinance #7551-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Hamilton moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7551-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
10.5 Adopt Ordinance #7552-06 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose
post office address is 1321 Lynn Avenue, into the corporate limits of the city and redefining the
boundary lines of the city to include said addition.
Ordinance #7552-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Jonson moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7552-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Absent: Hamilton.
Council 2006-01-19 12
10.6 Adopt Ordinance #7553-06 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 1321 Lynn Avenue, as Residential Low.
Ordinance #7553-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Petersen moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7553-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Absent: Hamilton.
10.7 Adopt Ordinance #7554-06 on second reading, amending the zoning atlas of the City by
zoning certain real property whose post office address is 1321 Lynn Avenue, as Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR)
Ordinance #7554-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Doran moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7554-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Absent: Hamilton.
10.8 Adopt Ordinance #7561-06 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose
address is 1842 Carlton Drive, into the corporate limits of the City and redefining the boundary
lines of the City to include said addition.
Ordinance #7561-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Jonson moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7561-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
10.9 Adopt Ordinance #7562-06 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 1842 Carlton Drive, upon annexation in the City of Clearwater as
Residential Low.
Ordinance #7562-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Petersen moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7562-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
Council 2006-01-19 13
"Nays": None.
10.10 Adopt Ordinance #7563-06 on second reading, amending the zoning atlas of the city by
zoning certain real property whose post office address is 1842 Carlton Drive, upon annexation
into the City of Clearwater, as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
Ordinance #7563-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Doran moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7563-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
10.11 Adopt Ordinance #7555-06 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose
post office address is 1830 Carlton Drive, into the corporate limits of the City and redefining the
boundary lines of the City to include said addition.
Ordinance #7555-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Hamilton moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7555-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
10.12 Adopt Ordinance #7556-06 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 1830 Carlton Terrace, into the City of Clearwater, as
Residential Low.
Ordinance #7556-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Jonson moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7556-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
10.13 Adopt Ordinance #7557-06 on second reading, amending the zoning atlas of the City by
zoning certain real property, whose post office address is 1830 Carlton Drive, into the City of
Clearwater, as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
Ordinance #7557-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Petersen moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7557-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Council 2006-01-19 14
10.14 Adopt Ordinance #7558-06 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose
post office address is 1836 Carlton Drive, into the corporate limits of the City and redefining the
boundary lines of the City to include said addition.
Ordinance #7558-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Doran moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7558-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
10.15 Adopt Ordinance #7559-06 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 1836 Carlton Drive, as Residential Low.
Ordinance #7559-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Hamilton moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7559-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Absent: Doran.
10.16 Adopt Ordinance #7560-06 on second reading, amending the zoning atlas of the City by
zoning certain real property whose post office address is 1836 Carlton Drive, into the City of
Clearwater as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
Ordinance #7560-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Jonson moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7560-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Absent: Doran.
10.17 Adopt Ordinance #7572-06 on second reading, vacating the storm sewer easement
described as a 15-foot easement beginning at a point approximately 686' south of the centerline
of Harn Boulevard and 500' west of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 19 North.
Ordinance #7572-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Petersen moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7572-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Council 2006-01-19 15
Absent: Doran.
10.18 Adopt Ordinance #7574-06 on second reading, vacating a portion of the 60' right-of-way
of Second Ave. South and a portion of the 60' right-of-way of Third Ave. South, subject to a
drainage and utility easement which is retained over the full width thereof.
Ordinance #7574-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Hamilton moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7574-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
10.19 Adopt Ordinance #7573-06 on second reading, relating to water and wastewater
collection and amending Code of Ordinances, Sections 32.095, 32.132, 32.138, 32.140, 32.181-
185, 32.187 and 32.198, and, Appendix A, XXIV, amending water services deposits and
Appendix A, XXV, amending water, reclaimed water impact fees and wastewater connection fee
criteria and charges.
Ordinance #7573-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Jonson moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7573-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
10.20 Adopt Ordinance #7564-05 on second reading, amending Ordinance 7515-05, which
established the Clearwater Cay Community Development District pursuant to Chapter 190,
Florida Statutes, to correct Exhibit A, the Legal Description.
Ordinance #7564-06 was presented for second reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Petersen moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #7564-06 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
City Manager Reports
11 Consent Agenda– Approved as submitted.
-
11.1 Approve the re-appropriation of $75,000 from retained earnings in the General Fund to
the Development and Neighborhood Services Department operating budget in order to provide
funding for outside contract services for Plans Review.
11.2 Declare the list of vehicles and equipment surplus to the needs of the City and authorize
disposal through sale to the highest bidder at the Tampa Machinery Auction, Tampa, Florida.
Council 2006-01-19 16
11.3 Establish a scholarship for the Clearwater Nagano High School Exchange Program;
approve funding of $5,000; and transfer funds from retained earnings to the Nagano Project
Code #0181-99928 at mid-year.
11.4 Approve a one-year extension agreement from February 1, 2006 through January 31,
2007, between the City of Clearwater and The Winning Inning Inc., for the use and operation of
the Jack Russell Memorial Stadium and Complex and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same.
11.5 Award a contract for one (1) 600kw Caterpillar Generator and 1000 amp ASCO Transfer
Switch to Ring Power of Riverview, FL for the sum of $103,840 based on GSA Contract #GS-
07F-5666R and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
11.6 Award a contract to Ring Power of Riverview, FL for the purchase of one (1) Caterpillar
P6000-D fork lift, one (1) Caterpillar C-5000-LP fork lift, one (1) Manitou 8000# fork lift and one
(1) Manitou 6000# fork lift at a total cost of $144,823.60 and that the appropriate officials be
authorized to execute same.
11.7 Award a contract for the purchase of two 2006 Kenworth T800 Truck Chassis with
Galbreath U5-0R-174 Roll Off Hoist to Kenworth of Central Florida for the sum of $259,115.14
through the Florida Sheriffs Association Contract #05-13-0822 and authorize the lease purchase
of both vehicles and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
11.8 Approve the final plat for “SUNSET POINT TOWNHOMES” located approximately 250
feet West of U.S. 19 and 1000 feet north of Sunset Point Road.
11.9 Accept a Fire Hydrant and Utility Easement containing 715 square feet, more or less,
over and across a portion of Lot 1, block 1, J. J. MUGGS SUBDIVISION, conveyed by K B
Investments Holdings, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, in consideration of receipt of $1 and
the benefits to be derived therefrom.
11.10 Approve an extension to the work order for PBS&J, an Engineer of Record, of Tampa,
Florida for the Myrtle Avenue Roadway and Drainage Improvements Project in the amount of
$98,054.73 for Construction Engineering and Inspection services for the duration of
construction.
11.11 Approve the 2006 Federal Legislative Package.
11.12 Ratify and confirm the addendum to the contract with Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell
& Dunbar, P.A. to allocate fees in order to meet new reporting requirements.
Councilmember Jonson moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted and that
motion
the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The was duly seconded and
carried
unanimously.
Council 2006-01-19 17
12 Other items on City Manager Reports
12.1 Pass Ordinance #7584-06 on first reading, changing the date for the special election for
the Employees Pension Plan to November 7, 2006.
Ordinance #7466-05 established a special election on March 14, 2006, for the purpose
of voting on changes to the investment provisions of the Employees Pension Plan. At the time
this date was set it was anticipated additional ballot questions would also be prepared to go to
referendum on the same date. This has not happened.
Because of the high cost involved with a special election it is preferable to combine this
special election with other elections. For that purpose staff is recommending the special
election be moved to November 7, 2006.
Councilmember Doran moved to approve changing the date for the special election for
motion
the Employees Pension Plan to November 7, 2006. The was duly seconded and
carried
unanimously.
Ordinance #7484-06 was presented for first reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Hamilton moved to pass Ordinance #7484-06 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Ordinance #7466-05 was presented for first reading and read by title only.
Councilmember Hamilton moved to pass Ordinance #7466-05 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Ms. Akin said Ordinance #7466-05 did not require a vote.
Councilmember Jonson moved to rescind the action on Ordinance #7466-05. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
12.2 Adopt Resolution #06-03 approving a Utility Work By Highway Contractor Agreement
with the State of Florida’s Department of Transportation to install natural gas mains during
improvement project, FPN: 256890-1-56-02/Pinellas County, SR55 (US 19) from Sunset Point
to Countryside Blvd., at an estimated cost of $400,000 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same.
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has a project to widen/improve SR55
(US 19) from Sunset Point to Countryside Blvd. including roadway, sidewalk, other
improvements, and utilities to include those existing Clearwater Gas facilities which conflict with
the design.
Council 2006-01-19 18
Under the Utility Work By Highway Contractor Agreement (UWBHC), the State of
Florida’s Department of Transportation general contractor will perform the relocation of existing
natural gas mains.
Having the State of Florida’s Department of Transportation general contractor install the
natural gas mains allows for work to be done in a timely manner and releases Clearwater Gas
System from penalty payments.
Funding for this agreement is available in capital project 315-96365-546800-532-000-
0000.
Councilmember Petersen moved to approve a Utility Work By Highway Contractor
Agreement with the State of Florida’s Department of Transportation to install natural gas mains
during improvement project, FPN: 256890-1-56-02/Pinellas County, SR55 (US 19) from Sunset
Point to Countryside Blvd., at an estimated cost of $400,000 and authorize the appropriate
motioncarried
officials to execute same. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
Resolution #06-03 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Doran moved
to pass and adopt Resolution #06-03 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
12.3 Adopt Resolution #05-49, changing the rate of dock fees charged yacht repair facilities
located at Island Estates.
Boat repair/brokers in Clearwater, operating out of waterfront facilities, are struggling to
remain in business because of significantly increased taxes due to marinas and boatyards
consistently being assessed at a best use of residential/condominium. At the same time,
marina tenants and local boaters are calling for the city to do something to keep boat storage
and repair facilities in business.
With the recent trend of boat storage and repair facilities being sold for condo
development, both the County and cities are being asked to implement certain policy decisions
to try to prevent further losses of and encourage the development or retention of public boat
access and yacht repair facilities.
City Council approved the five-year Marine & Aviation business plan at the September
19, 2003 Council meeting. Included in that plan were 5% rate increases for commercial and
recreational boat dockage fees every other year through 2008. Except for a 40% rate increase
applied to non-Clearwater recreational boaters on October 1, 2004, with 10% increases each of
the remaining years of the business plan, the rate structure has remained as originally approved
by Council.
It is proposed the commercial resident rate charged for yacht repairs at Island Estates
be reduced from $234.83 to $176.14, and for commercial non-resident yacht repairs from
$271.53 to $205.49. There are seven (7) slips that would be affected by this rate change, which
would decrease revenues to the Marina fund by $4,929.96 per year. No budget adjustment is
needed due to this change.
Council 2006-01-19 19
Two persons spoke regarding the change.
Councilmember Doran moved to approve changing the rate of dock fees charged yacht
motioncarried
repair facilities located at Island Estates. The was duly seconded and
unanimously.
Resolution #05-49 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Hamilton
moved to pass and adopt Resolution #05-49 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
12.4 Adopt Resolution #06-01 and authorize appropriate City officials to execute
Subordination of Utility Interests agreements regarding Florida Department of Transportation
("FDOT") parcels 102.04 and 700.04, WPI/SEG 4149981 as same may be respectively
encumbered by easement conveyed to the City by WAL-MART STORES, INC. as recorded in
O. R. Book 8406, Pages 939-942, and beneficial City interests in easements described in the
plat of SAM'S CLUB CLEARWATER, as recorded in Plat Book 116, Pages 80-81, Pinellas
County public records.
The FDOT continues its multi-year work program to create a 30-mile, six-lane,
continuous controlled access road with overpasses at major intersections and parallel frontage
roads between Gandy Boulevard and the Pasco County line.
During final quarter of 2006 FDOT will commence an interim intersection project at S. R.
60 and U. S. 19. It will include dual left turn lanes both eastbound and westbound S. R. 60 and
an exclusive right turn lane for eastbound traffic. S. R. 60 medians will be modified from Old
Coachman Road to Park Place Boulevard, and frontage roads will be reconstructed to allow
northbound and southbound traffic through the intersection.
The City has a blanket water main and ingress/egress easement for refuse and garbage
collections and City utility vehicles over all of lands within the plat of SAM'S CLUB
CLEARWATER at the southwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and U. S. 19. The plat
dedicates various additional utility easements as well.
In order to facilitate the intersection improvements, FDOT has requested the City
subordinate its easement rights to FDOT with respect to project parcel 102.04, Parts A and B,
containing a combined area of 1.203 acres, more or less, and project parcel 700.04, a
temporary construction easement (TCE) containing 2800 square feet, more or less. City
subordination to FDOT with regard to this parcel will terminate coincident with the TCE.
Upon subordinating City easements rights to FDOT, the City agrees to accept FDOT
control over the subordinated portions of the easements, and comply with FDOT standards
established in its Utility Accommodation Manual for any present or future transportation facility
project. FDOT covenants to bear any excess costs the City may incur to maintain or relocate its
facilities as a result of subordinating its rights for the subject project and future FDOT projects.
The City and FDOT will determine and establish such excess costs for each specific project by
separate agreement.
Council 2006-01-19 20
In response to a question, Engineering Manager Mike Quillen indicated construction
should begin by the end of the calendar year.
Councilmember Jonson moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute
Subordination of Utility Interests agreements Councilmember Jonson moved to approve
regarding Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") parcels 102.04 and 700.04, WPI/SEG
4149981 as same may be respectively encumbered by easement conveyed to the City by WAL-
MART STORES, INC. as recorded in O. R. Book 8406, Pages 939-942, and beneficial City
interests in easements described in the plat of SAM'S CLUB CLEARWATER, as recorded in
motion
Plat Book 116, Pages 80-81, Pinellas County public records. The was duly seconded
carried
and unanimously.
Resolution #06-01 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Petersen
moved to pass and adopt Resolution #06-01 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
12.5 Adopt Resolution #06-05 authorizing the City to support initiatives identified by the
Florida League of Cities during the 2006 Legislative Session.
The Florida League of Cities Board of Directors has adopted a new initiative to enhance
the Legislature’s awareness of the League’s priority issues. This plan calls on each of Florida’s
cities to adopt a resolution that supports the League’s key priority issues.
These key issues were adopted by the League membership during the 2005 Legislative
Conference, held this past November: growth management, affordable housing, worker’s
compensation system, and DUI fine distributions.
Councilmember Doran moved to approve authorizing the City to support initiatives
motion
identified by the Florida League of Cities during the 2006 Legislative Session. The was
carried
duly seconded and unanimously.
Resolution #06-05 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Hamilton
moved to pass and adopt Resolution #06-05 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
Councilmember Hibbard reported he was on the Florida League of Cities (FLC) Board of
Directors as representative of the Mayor’s Council.
Council 2006-01-19 21
13 City Attorney Reports
13.1 Adopt Resolution #06-10, supporting the current makeup of the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council.
The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) was
required by last year's growth management legislation to report on realigning the boundaries of
various districts. OPPAGA has completed its report and has suggested Manatee County be
moved from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) to the Southwest Florida
Planning Council.
Manatee County and TBRPC are opposed to this change due to Manatee County having
more in common with the Tampa Bay area in the areas of tourism and economic development
than the agricultural interests of the counties comprising the Southwest Planning Council.
Manatee County also shares environmental and water issues with the Tampa Bay area.
Councilmember Jonson moved to support the current makeup of the Tampa Bay
motioncarried
Regional Planning Council. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
Resolution #06-10 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Petersen
moved to pass and adopt Resolution #06-10 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
13.2 Adopt Resolution #06-12, regarding outdoor advertising and highway beautification;
urging the Pinellas delegation to oppose legislation that further impairs the authority of local
governments to regulate billboards and undertake highway beautification projects and creates a
new statutory cause of action against local governments, garden clubs and others for highway
beautification.
House Bill 273 and Senate Bill 566, filed for consideration in the 2006 State Legislative
Session, contain language, which would restrict the ability of local governments and community
organizations to undertake highway beautification projects by creating view zones larger than
those currently mandated. These bills also create a new statutory cause of action for damages
should a beautification project screen a billboard; mandate a local government to permit
increased height of billboards where noise-attenuation barriers are erected or compensate the
sign owner, even if the Florida Department of Transportation is the agency erecting the barrier.
The City of Clearwater has a long and successful history of improving the aesthetics of
the community, including the control of the visual impact of oversize signs. The resolution urges
the Pinellas County Legislative Delegation to work against these bills.
Councilmember Doran moved to oppose legislation that further impairs the authority of
local governments to regulate billboards and undertake highway beautification projects and
creates a new statutory cause of action against local governments, garden clubs and others for
motioncarried
highway beautification. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
Council 2006-01-19 22
Resolution #06-12 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Hamilton
moved to pass and adopt Resolution #06-12 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Jonson, Hamilton, Petersen, Doran, and Hibbard.
"Nays": None.
14 City Manager Verbal Reports
14.1 Update on Pinellas County Space Needs Study
Economic Development and Housing Director Geri Campos gave a brief summary of
Pinellas County’s space needs over the next 15 years. She said the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) approved a contract for real estate financial consulting and conceptual
campus planning services with Equis Corporation in June 2005. Over the last several months,
Equis has been reviewing the County’s space needs for the next 15 years and potential
locations for consolidation of their operations. As part of their research and evaluation, Equis
has met with City staff to review plans for downtown, current and upcoming projects, land
values, as well as opportunities for partnerships with the City and the County.
Equis and County staff recently updated City staff on the status of their study. In
summary, Equis has evaluated four options: 1) status quo—County continues to lease space; 2)
build a County campus in Downtown Clearwater; 3) move their operations to the vacant Eckerd
Corporation building on Ulmerton Road (in Pinellas Park); and 4) build a campus near the St.
Pete/Clearwater Airport.
Equis is finalizing their report and will present their findings and recommendations to the
Board towards the end of January/early February. From our discussions with Equis, the two
most viable options for the County are 1) to build a campus in downtown Clearwater or 2) move
all their operations except the courts to the former Eckerd building. In terms of cost, building a
campus downtown is slightly less expensive than moving to Eckerd (roughly 3%).
This study clearly presents the City with an opportunity to begin serious discussions with
the County regarding joint opportunities for building location and parking in downtown
Clearwater.
In conclusion, it is believed having the County in downtown Clearwater is vital to the
success of downtown. Staff has begun developing options to assist in the County’s decision
and commitment to remaining Downtown.
It was noted there is currently a contract pending on the Eckerd Building. On February
15, the County plans continued discussions regarding this issue. Ms. Campos said staff plans
to continue to work with the County regarding keeping them in Downtown Clearwater.
Discussion ensued with comments the County is an important factor in Downtown
Clearwater, the economic development impact would be significant, and a co-location between
City Hall and the County would be useful to citizens.
Consensus was to draft a resolution in support of keeping County operations in
Downtown.
Council 2006-01-19 23
15 Council Discussion Items
Mandalay Wake Zone
The City Manager reported the earliest this issue could be scheduled before Council was
February 13, 2006.
15.1 Old Florida District
Councilmember Hamilton declared a conflict and recused himself from the vote.
Planning Director Michael Delk said an ordinance has been drafted to bring forward
requested changes in the Old Florida District. The purpose of tonight’s discussion is to get
direction from Council regarding the provisions they would like in the ordinance. He said it is
important to maintain a balance and a performance-based system without over-regulating
development. Mr. Delk felt the proposed ordinance, which is attached as Exhibit A to the
minutes, is consistent with the current environment and implementable. He said two properties
on the north side of Somerset have received CDB (Community Development Board) approval
against staff’s recommendation to exceed 35 feet in height.
Discussion ensued regarding maximum building heights in this district and it was felt the
CDB (Community Development Board) needs stronger guidance regarding Council’s
development pattern for this area.
Councilmember Petersen moved to include Section A.1.a. in the ordinance as drafted.
motion
The was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Councilmembers Jonson,
Petersen, Doran, and Mayor Hibbard voted “Aye”; and Councilmember Hamilton abstained.
carried.
Motion
A question was raised if the transfer of density rights (TDRs) are allowed for overnight
accommodations and Mr. Delk said this issue is being reviewed. He indicated the next phase
would address incentives for overnight accommodations.
Discussion ensued regarding required building stepbacks or alternative increased
setbacks for buildings exceeding 35 feet in height. Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton
said setbacks on all four sides of a development in this district would prohibit properties from
being developed. She said developers will have the flexibility to incorporate a combination of
stepbacks and setbacks into their designs to help developments work.
Discussion ensued in regard to view corridors and it was felt more value should be given
to setbacks and that space between buildings is important to provide unobstructed access along
the sides and rear of the property.
In response to a question, Mr. Delk said unobstructed access means a structurally clear
setback area. It was noted the Old Florida District has varied lot sizes, shapes, etc. and each
development should be based on individual merits.
Discussion ensued in regard to the lack of parking in the Old Florida District and
pursuing a shared parking strategy to assist in development efforts. It was questioned how
shared parking would be enforced.
Council 2006-01-19 24
Councilmember Petersen moved to include Section A.1.b. in the ordinance as drafted.
motion
The was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Councilmembers Jonson,
Petersen, Doran, and Mayor Hibbard voted “Aye”; and Councilmember Hamilton abstained.
carried.
Motion
Discussion ensued in regard to allowing a height of 65 feet for the remainder of the
property in the Old Florida District and it was felt this height should be earned with setbacks and
stepbacks. It was suggested that staff bring back incentives for hotels that would allow a height
bonus.
Councilmember Doran moved to include Section A.1.c. in the ordinance as drafted. The
motion
was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Councilmembers Jonson, Petersen,
Doran, and Mayor Hibbard voted “Aye”; and Councilmember Hamilton abstained. Motion
carried.
Councilmember Petersen moved to include Section A.2.a.&b. in the ordinance as
motion
drafted. The was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Councilmembers
Jonson, Petersen, Doran, and Mayor Hibbard voted “Aye”; and Councilmember Hamilton
carried.
abstained. Motion
Councilmember Petersen moved to include Section A.3.a.-f. in the ordinance as drafted.
motion
The was duly seconded.
It was felt more value should be given to setbacks than stepbacks and that ratios be
modified to permit two setbacks for every one stepback. Disagreement was expressed, as it
was felt the proposed the ratios are too restrictive. Mr. Delk said stepbacks are more expensive
to incorporate into a development. Most developers try to make projects work with setbacks.
Upon the vote being taken, Councilmembers Petersen, Doran, and Mayor Hibbard voted
“Aye”; Councilmember Jonson voted “Nay”; and Councilmember Hamilton abstained. Motion
carried.
In response to a question, Mr. Delk said the criteria for an improved site plan is
upgraded landscaping and improved building design. It was felt setbacks are critical to retaining
views through properties and tradeoffs should not be permitted. It was remarked the CDB has
requested additional guidance from Council and clarifying the Code would make it easier for
staff and the CDB to interpret.
Councilmember Doran moved to include Section A.4.a. in the ordinance as drafted. The
motion
was duly seconded.
Concern was expressed regarding the lack of unobstructed view to the water along
Mandalay Avenue provided in Section A.4.a.(2) and a side setback of 3-6 feet was requested.
Mr. Delk expressed concern regarding staff’s ability to implement that restriction.
It was reiterated more value should be given to a setback than a stepback.
Councilmember Jonson moved to amend Section A.4.a.(3) as follows: Setbacks can be
decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required setback per one (1) foot two (2) feet in additional
motion
required stepback, if desired. The was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken,
Council 2006-01-19 25
Councilmembers Jonson, Petersen, Doran, and Mayor Hibbard voted “Aye”; and
carried.
Councilmember Hamilton abstained. Motion
Upon the vote being taken on the amended motion, Councilmembers Petersen, Doran,
and Mayor Hibbard voted “Aye”; Councilmember Jonson voted “Nay”; Councilmember Hamilton
carried.
abstained. Motion
Mr. Delk said this change will not preclude the developer from achieving a design.
moved
Councilmember Doran to include Section A.4.b. in the ordinance as drafted.
motion
The was duly seconded.
moved
Councilmember Jonson to amend Section 4.b.(2) as follows: Building stepbacks
can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot two (2) feet in stepback per one (1) foot in additional
motion
required setback, if desired. The was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken,
Councilmembers Jonson, Petersen, and Mayor Hibbard voted “Aye”; Councilmember Doran
carried.
voted “Nay”; and Councilmember Hamilton abstained. Motion
Upon the vote being taken on the amended motion, Councilmembers Jonson, Petersen,
and Mayor Hibbard voted “Aye”; Councilmember Doran voted “Nay”; and Councilmember
carried.
Hamilton abstained. Motion
Councilmember Jonson moved to include Section A.5.a.&b. in the ordinance as drafted.
The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Councilmembers Jonson
Petersen, Doran, and Mayor Hibbard voted “Aye”; and Councilmember Hamilton abstained.
carried.
Motion
Councilmember Doran moved to include Section A.6.a.&b. in the ordinance as drafted.
The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Councilmembers
Jonson, Petersen, Doran, and Mayor Hibbard voted “Aye”; and Councilmember Hamilton
carried.
abstained. Motion
Councilmember Petersen moved to include Section A.7. in the ordinance as drafted.
The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Councilmembers Jonson,
Petersen, Doran, and Mayor Hibbard voted “Aye”; and Councilmember Hamilton abstained.
carried.
Motion
Discussion ensued regarding TDRs (Transfer of Development Rights), with comments
that receiving properties must be able to accommodate additional density, transient units cannot
be converted to condominiums, hotel projects did not have to use TDRs as they had the density
pool, and that TDRs would provide an incentive to increase the number of hotel rooms on the
beach.
Councilmember Petersen moved to include Section A.Density in the ordinance as
drafted. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Councilmembers
Jonson, Petersen, Doran, and Mayor Hibbard voted “Aye”; and Councilmember Hamilton
carried.
abstained. Motion
Council 2006-01-19 26
15.2 State Attorney's report re former Mayor Aungst conflict - Hibbard
The Mayor reported the State Attorney’s Report regarding former Mayor Brian Aungst’s
conflict of interest has been received and it was determined there was no violation of state law.
He referred to a letter from Mr. Aungst offering to pay the maximum fine of $5,000 for failure to
disclose the conflict and requesting the money be directed to local charities.
Discussion ensued and it was indicated accepting the former mayor’s offer would save
the City money if litigation is pursued. It was noted the vote had been described by the state
attorney as ministerial in nature.
One person spoke in favor of accepting Mr. Aungst’s offer.
An opinion was expressed the former mayor made an honest mistake.
motion
Councilmember Hamilton moved to accept a check in the amount of $1,000. The
died due to the lack of a second.
Councilmember Doran moved to accept Mr. Aungst’s offer of $5,000 to address non-
disclosure of a conflict in approving the final plat for Belle Harbor and to direct the proceeds to
motion
Clearwater for Youth. The was duly seconded.
Councilmember Hamilton recused himself because he is on the Board for Clearwater for
Youth.
Upon the vote being taken, Councilmembers Jonson, Petersen, Doran, and Mayor
carried.
Hibbard voted “Aye”; and Councilmember Hamilton abstained. Motion
16 Other Council Action
Councilmembers reported on events in which they recently participated and reviewed
upcoming events.
Councilmember Jonson complimented staff regarding Council meeting video streaming
and reported the Courtney Campbell Scenic Highway Committee is pursuing enhancement
funding for a walkway.
Councilmember Petersen reported she and Councilmember Doran would need to meet
to prepare a presentation regarding the Homeless Task Force Report to Council. A
subcommittee meeting will be scheduled.
Councilmember Doran thanked all for concern regarding his father.
Council 2006-01-19 27
. Mavor Hibbard thanked Clearwater High principal Nick Grasso for his leadership;
reported Decoraz Interiors is opening tomorrow; congratulated new Mr. Clearwater; and thanked
Pat Lokey for the years she provided Downtown retail.
17 Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 10:58 p.m.
4~~
~yor
City of Clearwater
Attest.
~t~ ~ JL.~.
City Cle
.
.
Council 2006-01-19
28
.
.
.
(EXHIBIT A to 01-19-2006 minutes)
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VEIWORK
PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY
CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the economic vitality of Clearwater Beach is a major contributor to the
economic health of the City overall; and
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) need further clarification in
Beach by Design; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Council 2006-01-19
29
.
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) for the City of Clearwater held a duly
noticed public hearing and found that amendments to Beach by Design are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, BBD was originally adopted on February 15, 2001 and subsequently
amended on December 13, 2001, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
. The Old Florida District. which is the area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street.
is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. Existing usos 3re generally tho
same 3S tho balance of tho Beach. HO'Never, tho scale and intonsity of tho area, with
relatively faw exceptions, is substantially loss than comparable areas to the south.
The mix of uses primarilv includes residential. recreational. overniaht accommodations
and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns.
this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end. Beach bv Desian
supports the development of new overniaht accommodations and attached dwellinas
throuahout the District with limited retail/commercial development frontina Mandalav
Avenue between Bav Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued
use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuahout the
District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the desired
transition between the adjacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site design performance
is a priority. Beach by Design contemplates greater setbacks and/or building stepbacks and
enhanced landscaping for buildings exceeding 35 feet in height. The following requirements
shall apply to development in the Old Florida District and shall supercede any conflicting
statements in Section VII. Design Guidelines or the Community Development Code:
1. Maximum Building Heights.
.
a. Buildinas located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
Council 2006-01-19
30
.
.
.
a maximum buildinQ heiQht of 35 feet:
b. Buildinas located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet of the
southerlv riaht-of-wav line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a maximum
buildina heiaht of 50 feet: and
c. Property throuQhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinQ heiQht of 65 feet.
2. Minimum Required Setbacks.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be reQuired for all properties throuQhout the
district. except for properties frontinQ on Mandalay Avenue. which may
have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property line: and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be reQuired for all properties
throuQhout the district. except for properties frontinQ on Mandalay Avenue.
which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. ReQuired BuildinQ Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for BuildinQs
ExceedinQ 35 Feet in HeiQht.
a. BuildinQ stepback means a horizontal shiftinQ of the buildinQ massinQ
towards the center of the buildinQ.
b. Any development exceedinQ 35 feet in heiQht shall be reQuired to
incorporate a buildinQ stepback on at least one side of the buildinQ (at a
point of 35 feet) or provide an increased setback on at least one side of
the buildinQ in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
c. All properties (except those frontinQ on Mandalay Avenue) which have
their front on a road that runs east and west. shall provide a buildinQ
stepback on the front side of the buildinQ or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
d. All properties (except for properties frontinQ on Mandalay Avenue) which
have their front on a road that runs north and south. shall provide a
buildinQ stepback on the side of the buildinQ or an increased side setback
in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
e. Properties frontinQ on Mandalay Avenue must provide a buildinQ stepback
on the front side of the buildinQ or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
Council 2006-01-19
31
.
.
.
f. Stepback Ratios
(1) For properties fronting on streets that have a right-of-way width
less than 46 feet. the stepback or setback/height ratio is one (1)
foot for every two (2) feet in building height above 35 feet:
(2) For properties fronting on streets that have a right-of-way width
between 46 and 66 feet. the stepback or setback/height ratio is one
(1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in building height
above 35 feet: and
(3) For properties fronting on streets that have a right-of-way width of
greater than 66 feet. the stepback or setback/height ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in building height above 35 feet.
4. Flexibility of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Buildings in Excess of 35 Feet in Height.
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue. a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan.
landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desiQn and appearance: and
(2) In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided along the sides and rear of properties. except on the
sides of properties along Mandalay Avenue where a zero foot
setback is permissible: and
(3) Setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required
setback per one (1) foot in additional required stepback. if
desired: and
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from anv required building
stepback may be possible if the decreased building stepback
results in an improved site plan. landscaping areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved design and appearance.
(2) Building stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback. if
desired.
Council 2006-01-19
32
. 5. Flexibilitv of Setbacks for Buildinas 35 Feet and Below in Heiaht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any reauired front or rear
setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback
may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan.
landscapina areas in excess of the minimum reauired and/or improved
desian and appearance: and
b. In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alona the sides and rear of properties. except on the sides of
properties alona Mandalav Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is
permissible.
6. Landscape Buffers
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is reauired alona the street frontaae of all
properties. except for that portion of a property frontina on Mandalav
Avenue: and
.
b. For that portion of a property frontina on Mandalav Avenue. a zero (0) foot
setback may be permissible for 80% of the property frontaae. The
remainina 20% property frontaae is reauired to have a landscaped area
for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20% may be located in
several different locations on the property frontaae. rather than placed in
onlv one location on the property frontaae.
7. ParkinaNehicular Access
Lack of parkina in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkina strateav should be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment efforts.
For those properties frontina on Mandalav Avenue. off-street parkina access is
reauired from a side street or allev and not from Mandalav Avenue.
.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential more than other parts of
Clearwater Beach and retail uses are primarily neighborhood-serving uses.
Given the area's location and existing conditions, Beach by Design contemplates
the renovation and revitalization of existing improvements with limited new
construction where renovation is not practical. New single-family dwellings and
townhouses are the preferred form of development. Densities in the area should
be generally limited to the density of existing improvements and building height
should be low to mid-rise in accordance with the Community Development Code.
lack of parking in this area may hinder revitalization of existing improvements
particularly on Bay Esplanade. A shared parking strategy should be pursued in
order to assist revitalizations efforts.
Council 2006-01-19
33
~
.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. An additional story could be gained in this area if the
property was developed as a liveN/ork product.
******
. Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community
Redevelopment District Designation, is amended as follows:
******
Beach by Design recommends that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Clearwater be amended to designate central Clearwater Beach (from Acacia Street
to the Sand Key Bridge, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive) as a
Community Redevelopment District and that this Chapter of Beach by Design be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and submitted for approval to the Pinellas
County Planning Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Commissioners sitting as
the Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that
the use of Transfer of Development Riahts {TDRs) under the provisions of the
Desion Guidelines contained in Section VIII of this Plan and the City's land
development regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment
District to achieve the objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC Designation.
.
Section 4. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows:
Council 2006-01-19
34
.
.
.
A. Density
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per
acre, unless additional density is transferred from other property locations located on
Clearwater Beach and aoverned by Beach by Desian. The maximum permitted
development potential of residential proiects which use transfer of development
rights (TDRs) shall not be exceeded by more than 20 percent. Ordinarily, resort
density will be limited to 40 units per acre. However, additional density can be
added to a resort either by transferred development rights TDRs or if by way of the
provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD) designation. There shall
be no limit on the amount of density that can be received throuah TDRs for resort
and/or overniaht accommodation uses provided such proiects demonstrate
compliance with the provisions of this Plan. the Community Development Code and
concurrency reauirements. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County
Planning Council intensity standards.
Section 5. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 6. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 7. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; and the invalidity of any section
or provision of this ordinance shall not affect the validity of any other provision of this
ordinance and plan; and
Section 8. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Council 2006-01-19
35
.
.
.
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Council 2006-01-19
36
H
MAILING ADDRESS
2410 Parkstream Avenue
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
Clea C'
THE BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
~TY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER lOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
City of Clearwater
MY POSITION IS: . .".
r ELECTIVE 0 APPOINTIVE
CITY
Clearwater, FL
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
January 19, 2006
COUNTY
Pinellas
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
'nures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers <?f independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
*
*
*
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*
*
*
*
*
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
F YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
~
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, Hoyt Hamil ton
, hereby disclose that on T>'tnl1>'try 1 q
,2006--:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
~ inured to the special gain or loss of
whomlamretained;or ml/l184'L (JJ &I1LO OF TU.STE~
, by
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
, which
#15.2 State Attorney's report ~e former Mayor Aungst conflict ~
Accept Aungst's offer of $5,000.00 to address non-disclosure
of conflict in approving plat of Belle Harbor and approve,l
proceeds be directed to Clearwater for Youth.
nt?:mt5 U
B()Mj) (j;:
O~ {}L~1f7L~
H,e
YatA..TH
T f:t1..5 rr E S
2-/0 - ()~
]If ~^-
Signature
Date Filed
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
.~
MAILING ADDRESS
2410 Parkstream Avenue
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
Cle rw
THE BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
~TY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER lOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
City of Clearwater
MY POSITION IS: . /
r ELECTIVE 0 APPOINTIVE
CITY
Clearwater, FL
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
January 19, 2006
COUNTY
Pinellas
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
'nures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
*
*
*
*
*
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
F YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
-,-
.
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, Hoyt Hamil ton
, hereby disclose that on January 19
,20~:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
-A inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of
whom I am retained; or
, by
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
,which
#15.1 Old Florida District - Ordinance 7546-06
Approve changes to proposed ordinance making changes to the Old
Florida District and Beach by Design.
(' tlbrJlL '1 - () tJNE-/) j?LtJjJE~7lf
c5tt8/fEeT lhed/
IA!
:J ~ /t -O~
Date Filed
~..JiI
~ ~
Sig ature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
'I
...
H
MAILING ADDRESS
2410 Parkstream Avenue
FORM 8B M'EMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
Cle rwa
THE BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
ikiTY Cl COUNTY Cl OTHER lOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
City of Clearwater
MY POSITION IS: . ./
r ELECTIVE Cl APPOINTIVE
CITY
Clearwater, FL
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
Januar 19, 2006
COUNTY
Pine lIas
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
'nures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
*
*
*
*
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
: YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I,
Hoyt Hamilton
, hereby disclose that on January 19.
,20~:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
J( inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
, by
, which
#8.2 Approve amendments to the Community Development Code to implement
revisions to the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach and pass
Ordinance #7576-06 on first reading. (TA2005-11004)
('"/f?1/L-'"/ -OW~[,l> jJbJf>&€r Y IAI
SU8iTCC-T ,#:LA-
;2 -ILl -O&;
~ -,/ j
~f
$;gnature :i....
Date Filed
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2