Loading...
05/16/1991 CITY COMMISSION MEETING May 16, 1991 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, May 16, 1991 at 6:00 p.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Sue Berfield Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Lee Regulski Commissioner William Nunamaker Commissioner (Arrived 6:05 p.m.) Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney William C. Baker Public Works Director James Polatty, Jr. Planning and Development Director Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was offered by Father Edward J. Mulligan of the St. Brendan's Catholic Church. In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. III - Service Pin Awards. - None. IV - Introductions and Awards. Proclamations: Safe Boating Week 6/2-8/91 Correct Posture Month 5/91 V - Presentations Linda Perry, representing the Chamber of Commerce and the Tourist Industry presented invitations to "Celebrate Tourism" at the Sheraton Sand Key on June 10, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. VI - Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 2, 1991 and Special Meetings of April 18, 1991. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 2, 1991, and the special meetings of April 18, 1991, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Commissioner. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. VII - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda. Bill Stephan encouraged the Commission to enter into the bidding process for the Maas Brothers site. He stated it should be indicated that zoning changes will be difficult. He felt the property should be used for City activities. VIII - PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM # 9 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ordinance #5095-91 - Wellhead Protection Ordinance (PLD) The wellhead protection ordinance was developed as a means by which the City can protect its existing wells from pollution and sources of pollution. The adoption of such an ordinance is a public safety concern and a Comprehensive Plan requirement. The Commission reviewed an earlier version of this ordinance in the fall of 1990. That ordinance contained specific protection guidelines that the City now anticipates including in an administrative technical manual. Essentially, the ordinance will regulate uses having the potential for contaminating City wells which are within 200 feet of the wells. As of July 1, 1991, new operations will have to obtain required permits before beginning operation. Existing operations will have to apply for permits by December 31, 1991. At its meeting of April 30, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the code amendment subject to three changes: 1) in Section 102.03(a), revise the first sentence to read "As of ..."; delete "Not later than,"; 2) in Section 102.03(a), provide for a new permit when change of property ownership or business ownership occurs; and 3) in Section 102.03(b), require permits to be obtained within 60 days of application date. Staff finds this ordinance to be in compliance with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. William C. Baker, Public Works Director, indicated our current wells are not close to any hazards. A question was raised regarding how purchasers of property would know of this requirement. It was indicated it would be the purchaser's responsibility to inquire regarding all requirements for the property. It was stated these requirements are no more stringent then those of the Department of Envrionmental Regulation and the Department of Natural Resources. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the Wellhead Protection amendment to the Land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5095-91 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5095-91 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #10 - (Cont. from 5/2/91) Variances to Sign Regulations; for property located in Lokey Sub., Blk A, Lots 1 and 2 and Sever Park Sub., part of Lot 1 (Lokey Motor Co., Inc., SV91-07)(PLD) The applicant is requesting a sign variance in order to permit increased identification of an auto dealership located on the west side of US19N between Druid Road and Harn Boulevard. The applicant has decided to take advantage of Commission direction which allows auto dealerships to be treated as commercial complexes when specific conditions are met. Under this interpretation, each separate business establishment is permitted up to 48 sq.ft. of attached (wall) signage depending on building length (1.5 sq.ft. of sign area per each linear foot). The applicant has four separate buildings on the subject property. He claims he will operate a separate business in each of the four buildings: 1) Infiniti; 2) Mercedes; 3) Sterling; and 4) Pre-owned (used). Each of these businesses will be identified by separate business identification wall signage. These business identification signs will be in addition to the two existing property identification pole signs. Existing wall signage will be removed and replaced with conforming signage, except for two business identification signs on the southernmost building. These signs are the Infiniti logo (63 sq.ft.) and the word "INFINITI" (15.5 sq.ft.). The code allows one business identification sign per freestanding business establishment with a maximum of 48 sq.ft. of signage being permitted. The applicant indicates that a total of 192 sq.ft. of business identification signage is permitted, once occupational licenses are obtained for each business. He is willing to reduce the business identification signage allowed for one or more of the other businesses in order to allow more signage for the Infiniti business, thereby keeping the total business identification signage on the property at or below the 192 sq.ft. figure. Although the applicant has significantly reduced the original variance request, staff still finds that no evidence has been provided that an unnecessary hardship exists or that the request is a minimal one. Jim Polatty, Planning and Development Director, reported signage for the total site includes two property identification signs which have been approved. These are existing, freestanding signs for the Mercedes and Sterling dealerships. The applicant has indicated the messages and locations of these two signs will likely change. In addition to these two signs, the applicant is proposing five business identification signs attached to four buildings, two of which are the subject of this variance request. Steve Seibert, attorney representing the applicant, stated they have substantially changed this request from its original submission. He stated the variance is to put extra signage on the Infiniti business building and reduce the signage on the others. He stated the Infiniti sign and logo are important because Infiniti is a new product and this will be the only signage for this business. He stated the development is bound by an Unity of Title and they are requesting flexibility regarding the allocation of the signs. They will stay within the total square footage allowed by the code. In response to a question, it was indicated that 113.5 square feet of signage will remain to be allocated to the other three buildings. The Lokey Motor Cars sign will be revised. Commissioner Regulski moved to approve a variance to allow 78.5 square feet of business identification sign on the building known as the Infiniti building with the condition that 113.5 square feet of business identification sign be the maximum signage to be allowed on the balance of the buildings on the property and that the Infiniti 78.5 square feet of signage be allowed in two signs in lieu of one with the condition that no more than two property identification signs shall be permitted (the existing Mercedes and Sterling signs), no more than five business identification signs shall be permitted with a maximum cumulative area of 192 square feet and all required sign permits and occupational licenses shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #11 - Variance to Sign Regulations; for property located at 21684 US19N, Clearwater Collection First Replat, Lot 3 (Clearwater Collection, Ltd., SV91-09)(PLD) Panache Hair, the applicant's business, is located on the back corner of a commercial building running parallel to U.S. 19. The property is zoned Commercial Planned Development District (CPD). The applicant presently has a wall sign (business identification) on the west side of the establishment which faces the interior parking lot of the shopping complex. This sign can be seen from Drew Street, but is not particularly prominent. The applicant wishes to install a second wall sign on the south side, facing the drive between this building and Kane's Furniture. This sign, too, will be able to be seen from Drew, as well as from U.S. 19, but will be noticeable primarily from the side drive into the shopping development and from the southern area of the interior parking lot. The combined area of these two signs is just under 48 sq.ft., which is the maximum surface area allowed by the code for a single business identification sign for a minor tenant in a commercial complex. The area of each sign is less than permitted by the restriction of maximum sign surface area for their respective frontage widths. In this case, the use of two signs rather than one, appears to improve the aesthetics. The size of the two signs is appropriate to the wall area over the applicant's window, and the additional sign on the south side of the building balances with present and possible future signage. The proposed signage also permits the applicant to designate/advertise his establishment on both frontages of his establishment in a matter consistent with the intent of the sign regulations and the signage in the area. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant stated the same amount of signage would appear on the building, it was just a question of in what form. He further stated the signs would actually be below the total square footage allowed. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the variance request to permit two business identification signs where one sign is permitted subject to the following conditions: 1) no more than two business identification signs shall be permitted; 2) no more than 48 sq.ft. of business identification signage shall be permitted; and 3) the requisite sign permit shall be obtained within six months of the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #12 - Alcoholic Beverage Distance Separation Variance for property (Countryside Cuisine) located at 2541 Countryside Blvd., Suite 1, Countryside Village Square, Lots 5, 7 and 8 (Countryside Village Ltd., AB91-08)(PLD) The applicant is requesting an alcoholic beverage separation distance variance for a new 2-APS alcoholic beverage license designation which permits package sales of beer and wine. The proposed establishment will be located at 2541 Countryside Boulevard and will be named "Countryside Cuisine". It is located on the same property as Albertsons grocery store which has a 2-APS license. "Beer and wine package sales" is a use that is common to many shopping centers. The proposed 2-APS facility which is now undergoing remodeling is located in an existing shopping center. There are no additional parking requirements for 2-APS use beyond that required for the Countryside Village Square shopping center. At its meeting of May 14, 1991 the Planning and Zoning Board approved a conditional use permit for alcoholic beverage sales (beer and wine) subject to the following conditions: 1) the requisite occupational license shall be obtained within six months of the date of this public hearing; 2) the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be restricted to package sales only; and 3) the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Commission for a zero feet variance to the 200 feet separation distance from another 2-APS package sales establishment similarly located in the vicinity. Napoleao Malta, business owner, stated this will be a delicatessen and they would like to sell beer and wine to compliment the food. Commissioner Regulski moved to approve a variance of 200 feet to allow alcoholic beverage sales within 0 feet from a similarly licensed establishment. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #13 - Alcoholic Beverage Distance Separation Variance for property (Lucia by the "C") located at 423 Poinsettia Ave., Barbour Morrow Sub., Blk B, Lots 5 and 6 (Caraco, Linares and Iocolano AB91-09)(PLD) The applicant requests approval of an alcoholic beverage separation distance variance to allow alcoholic beverage sales (2-COP license) in an existing restaurant (Lucia by the "C") located at 423 Poinsettia Avenue on Clearwater Beach. On the adjacent property to the south, there is a restaurant (Frenchy's Saltwater Cafe) which has a conditional use for serving alcoholic beverages on premise (2-COP). Across the street and to the north, JBS Family Restaurant is located on a parcel that is just over 200 feet from the applicant's structure. JBS Family Restaurant has a conditional use for the sale of alcoholic beverages on premise consumption (2-COP). Section 136.024(d)(1) states: "No alcoholic beverage establishment licensed by the state for on premise consumption or package sales .... shall be permitted within 200 feet of another alcoholic beverage establishment similarly licensed ... ". A variance to the separation distance from Frenchy"s Saltwater Cafe must be obtained from the Commission, but no variance is needed from JBS Family Restaurant. As the area caters primarily to the recreational needs of the community and tourists, there does not appear to be an over-concentration of establishments with on premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Police reports regarding the applicant and address have indicated no problems associated with the operation of the existing restaurant. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the conditional use permit associated with this request on April 30, 1991, subject to the following conditions: 1) obtain the variance to the parking requirements from the DCAB; 2) obtain a variance to the separation requirement from the Commission; 3) all necessary licenses, permits, and variances shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; 4) alcoholic beverage sales shall be limited to on premise consumption only, with no package sales; and 5) closing time shall be no later than 12:00 midnight. At its meeting of May 9, 1991 the Development Code Adjustment Board approved a variance of 14 parking spaces for the Lucia's by the "C" restaurant to permit 10 parking spaces where 24 are required, subject to the following conditions: 1) the restaurant shall remain strictly a sit down restaurant and shall meet the 51 percent food sales provision; 2) alcoholic beverage sales shall only be allowed from 5:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. (midnight); 3) the area leased to McDonald's shall not be used for the restaurant use; 4) the restrictions set by the Planning and Zoning Board at their April 30, 1991 meeting shall be met; and 5) any requisite permits shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. Harry Klein, attorney representing the applicant, stated when the restaurant opened four years ago they were unable to sell alcoholic beverages. He reported they have worked to get to this point and are agreeable to the requirement that sales be limited to on premises consumption and the requirement for 51% food sales. In response to questions, he indicated they will try to meet all the conditions placed on this establishment. Commissioner Nunamaker moved to approve a variance of 197 feet to allow alcoholic beverage sales within 3 feet from a similarly licensed establishment. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #14 - Alcoholic Beverage Distance Separation Variance for property (Big Easy Cajun) located at 20505 US19N, Suite 150, Clearwater Mall, Sec. 17-29-16, M&Bs 32.01 and 32.02 (Trizec Properties, Inc. AB91-10)(PLD) To be Cont. to 6/6/91 Due to incorrect information included in the application, this item was improperly advertised. The item will be readvertised. Commissioner Nunamaker moved to continue this item until the next regularly scheduled meeting of June 6, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances ITEM #15 - Ordinance #5096-91 - Vacating drainage and utility easement in Sec. 11-29-15, Pinellas County, Florida (UPARC Apartments, Inc. V91-02) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5096-91 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Nunamaker moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5096-91 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded. Upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #16 - Ordinance #5097-91 - Amending Secs. 22.80, 22.81, 22.85 and 137.005, Code of Ordinances, to change name of Clearwater Executive Airport a/k/a Clearwater Executive Air Park to Clearwater Airpark; amending Sec. 22.82 relating to method of appointment of Clearwater Airport Authority; amending Sec. 22.83 relating to powers and duties of Clearwater Airport Authority The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5097-91 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5097-91 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded. Upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #17 - Ordinance #5098-91 - Relating to vehicular traffic; restricting practice of "cruising" or unnecessary repetitive driving on designated streets; providing for fines, effective date and automatic repeal of ordinance as of 10/1/91 Nigel Watson, Chapter Vice-President of the Pinellas County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union read a letter into the record opposing the ordinance stating it is overly broad in scope; vague; unconstitutional; the reliance on police interpretation gives them the ability to make up the law; that a citizen has the constitutional right to know exactly under what conditions he would be in violation of the law; that the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment guarantees all citizens shall receive equal treatment under the law and this law is targeted at "spring breakers"; and citizens should not have to choose between giving up their fifth amendment right to explain why they are there. He stated there were other flaws but that they hoped the Commission would reconsider the ordinance. Bob Bickerstaffe stated that the purpose of the ordinance was to try and correct a problem and if we do not pass the ordinance, we will not have an opportunity to try to correct this problem. The City Attorney responded to the ACLU's concern stating that the current draft is valid, that it is not overly broad or vague, that the police interpretation clause comes out of the statutes regarding loitering and therefore, protects the ordinance from being overly broad and that the right to travel does not say that reasonable time, place and manner restrictions can not be placed on that travel. It was stated that the ordinance is not aimed at spring breakers and that it will only go into effect when a gridlock situation occurs. Some reservations were expressed regarding the ordinance but it was felt that a trial period was needed. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5098-91 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Nunamaker moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5098-91 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded. Upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey. "Nays": None. CITY MANAGER REPORTS IX - CONSENT AGENDA (Items #18-33) - Approved as submitted less #28. Agreements - Accepted. ITEM #18 - Amendment to paragraph 18, (b) and (c) to the Clearwater Ferry Service License and Agreement (MR) ITEM #19 - Amendment to paragraph 3, of the Bikini Buttons, Inc. Lease Agreement dated June 12, 1990 (MR) ITEM #20 - Agreement for consulting services for the development of hardware and software specifications for the adaptation of the Police Department's laptop computers as mobile data terminals with Ward Montgomery & Associates, Minnetonka, MN, for $20,250.00 (PD) Leases - Approved. ITEM #21 - Sub-lease of a portion of the Curtis Fundamental Clearwater Comprehensive School Complex located on the east side of Holt Ave. to the Emergency Housing Program of Religious Community Services, Inc. from 5/17/91 to 4/30/92 (PLD) Bids & Contracts - Awarded. ITEM #22 - Contract for the design and installation of an automatic sprinkler system for Fire Station #45 to Gulf Fire Sprinkler, Inc., for $15,786 (GS) ITEM #23 - Contract for purchase of two Cargo Vans with 34' Aerial Buckets to Walker Ford, Inc., Clearwater, FL, for $62,719.00; financing to be provided under the City's Master Lease Purchase Agreement with AT&T Credit Corp. (GS) ITEM #24 - Purchase of approx. 2.02 acres of land for park purposes from the Babcock Company for $2.10 sq.ft. (approx. $185,000) to be funded from available Open Space/Recreation Land Impact Fees and an expenditure of approx. $5,000 from the same funding source for an appraisal and survey (PR) ITEM #25 - 1991 Street Resurfacing Contract to Ajax Paving Industries, Inc., Palmetto, FL, for $1,195,962.50 (PW) ITEM #26 - Purchase of Sodium Hypochlorite Bleach 10% for the period 6/1/91 to 5/31/92 to Clearwater Chemical Corp., Clearwater, FL, for $0.409 per gallon with an annual estimated cost of $22,495.00 (PW) Citizens & Staff Requests - Approved less #28. ITEM #27 - Accept $30,000 LSCA Grant Award for second year Family Resource and Opportunity Guide (FROG) (LIB) ITEM #28 - See page 9 Change Orders - Approved. ITEM #29 - C.O.#7 to the contract for the Northeast Advanced Pollution Control Facility, increasing the amount by $24,073 for a new total of $19,067,853 (PW) Plans & Plats - Approved. ITEM #30 - Preliminary Site Plan for Woodlawn Church of God, located at 845 Woodlawn St. between Tilley and Prospect Avenues (PLD) Authorize review of a final site plan with final action by the Development Review Committee (D.R.C.) subject to the following conditions: 1) A Unity of Title for the entire church property, including the noncommercial parking lot, shall be recorded prior to certification of the site plan; 2) The applicant shall obtain conditional use and variance approval prior to submittal of the final site plan; 3) The requisite tree survey for all trees four inches in diameter or greater measured at breast height shall be submitted to Environmental Management prior to submittal of the final site plan; and 4) Signs and fencing/walls shall be subject to separate review and permitting processes. CITY ATTORNEY Agreements, Deeds & Easements - Accepted. ITEM #31 - Agreement for Lien - sanitary sewer service (Johnson) ITEM #32 - Drainage easement - Sec. 11-29-15 (UPARC Apartments, Inc.) ITEM #33 - (Cont. from 5/2/91) First amendment of easements from Florida Power Corp. to City of Clearwater for water supply wells-Sec.18-29-16-Cont.to 6/6/91 Commissioner Regulski moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted less Item #28 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #28 - Land Development Code Amendments suggested by public (PLD) Pursuant to City Commission policy, staff is bringing forward two land development code amendments which have been requested by the public. The first of these items is a request to permit filling stations in the Limited Industrial district as a conditional use. The other is to permit family care or group care facilities in the Resort Commercial districts. At the worksession, Commission direction was for neither one of these amendments to be pursued. Some concern was expressed regarding shelving the ideas entirely and that additional areas should be considered for location of group homes. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not group and family care facilities were allowed in enough areas throughout the City. Commissioner Regulski moved to authorize staff not to prepare a land development code amendment to permit gasoline stations as a conditional use in the Limited Industrial district and to not prepare a land development code amendment to permit family or group care facilities in the Resort Commercial districts. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Regulski, Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye", Commissioners Nunamaker and Berfield voted "Nay", motion carried. X - OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT ITEM #34 - Resolution #91-19 regarding loan guarantees for "Challenge 2000" new housing and rehabilitation program (PLD) The Clearwater City Commission approved the Housing Issue Paper in January 1990 and authorized staff to create a program to rebuild new owner occupied housing units in the North Greenwood neighborhood and to leverage funds available for housing rehabilitation. This program was approved by the Commission in January 1991. Staff enlisted the cooperation of area banks, builders, Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, and landowners to participate in this new program. Previous status reports have updated the Commission on progress toward this goal. Staff and Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services expect to formally enroll clients before June 1 who have been pre-screened for acceptance into the new housing component program. In order to make application for the clients' loans with the lending institutions, the City must agree to guarantee the clients' loans against default for a period of five years. Guarantees will also be sought for home improvement loans to middle income homeowners in qualified areas. Revenues pledged for this purpose are not derived from ad valorem sources. The first level of guarantee will be Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. An additional source of non-ad valorem revenues exists in fund 181-1-9599 should CDBG funds be eliminated. All clients accepted into the homeownership program must meet criteria established by lending institutions which include examination of previous use of credit, employment history, debt-to-income ratios, rental history, and references. All clients must participate in homeownership counseling and put at least $1,000 of their own savings into the house. The City Attorney presented Resolution #91-19 and read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass and adopt Resolution #91-19 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded, upon roll call the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #35 - Resolution #91-20 - Countywide sign regulations (PLD) The Pinellas County Board of Commissioners assigned the development of a countywide sign code to a task force of the Pinellas County Council of Mayors. The purpose of this assignment was to develop a sign code which would be generally acceptable to all Pinellas County municipalities and Pinellas County itself. The intention is to standardize local sign regulations so as to reduce signage conflicts between local governments and improve the overall appearance of Pinellas County. The Countywide Sign Regulation Task Force met frequently to discuss sign issues. On major issues, subcommittees were formed and assignments were made to address all components of those special issues. Support from Pinellas County Planning Department and City of Clearwater Planning and Development Department was provided. The countywide sign code is intended to apply to all local governments within Pinellas County. If a local government adopts an ordinance which is more restrictive than the countywide code, then that local government ordinance will not be considered in conflict with the countywide ordinance. The countywide ordinance does allow local governments to adopt different or no amortization schedules. Regarding freestanding and attached signs, in some cases the countywide code has more stringent requirements than the City of Clearwater code; in particular, sign height requirements are more stringent for some zones in the countywide code. The Commission should be aware that a new amortization period will be required for currently conforming signs that do not meet the countywide requirements if these more stringent code requirements are adopted by the City. Currently nonconforming signs which are affected by these countywide regulations will not be subject to a new amortization period if City sign regulations are changed prior to October 13, 1992. The countywide sign code provides for an annual report to be submitted from each local government to the Pinellas County Council of Mayors. According to the code, this report "shall be a summary of sign permits issued, variances requested and variances granted, and problems which may have arisen from administering the sign regulations." This provision appears to have been established to allow the Council of Mayors to review local government compliance with the countywide sign code. Questions were raised regarding the time frame for County action on the proposal. It was indicated that the Mayor's Council will review City comments at their next meeting and then send the ordinance forward to the County. Concerns were expressed regarding jeopardizing the City of Clearwater's Sign Code Ordinance and it was stated that the task force was very careful not to hamper any current effective sign codes. The City Attorney indicated that while the City could opt out of the County ordinance, it was not felt that we would to do so. In response to a question, it was indicated that two ordinances could be in effect at the same time. The Planning Director indicated the intent was to have only one sign code in effect, either the County's or a more stringent City one. A concern was expressed regarding Clearwater citizens having gone through an amortization period already and having to go through another one should this code be adopted. It was stated the Countywide code is not that dissimilar from the current Clearwater code. The City Attorney presented Resolution #91-20 and read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass and adopt Resolution #91-20 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded, upon roll call the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey. "Nays": None. XI - Other Pending Matters - None. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS XII - Resolutions ITEM #36 - Resolution #91-18 - Dedicating drainage and utility easement lying across city-owned parcel of property located at SE corner of Lot 10, Clearwater Industrial Park The City Attorney presented Resolution #91-18 and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #91-18 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded, upon roll call the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey. "Nays": None. XIII - Other City Attorney Items - None. XIV - City Manager Verbal Reports - None. XV - Other Commission Action - None. XVI - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m.