Loading...
09/03/1992 CITY COMMISSION MEETING September 3, 1992 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, September 3, 1992 at 6:00 p.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Lee Regulski Commissioner Sue Berfield Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II 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 Mary K. Diana Assistant City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #3 - Service Awards 2 service awards were presented to City employees. The Employee of the Month for August 1992 is Al Hinson, Parks and Recreation Department. ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards - None. ITEM #5 - Presentations - None. ITEM #6 - Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 13, 1992 It was pointed out that reference to "East End" on page 32 should be "East Avenue". Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 13, 1992, as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda David Abelson, representing the North Area Council of the Chamber of Commerce, thanked the Commission for the decision to review the need for the Countryside Community Center in the coming year. He invited all to attend Countryside Community Center Day on September 27, 1992, Noon to 4:00 p.m. at Misty Springs Park. John Crawford requested the Commission consider allowing street vendors. Mitch Harder reported on the Clearwater Bombers accomplishments in 1992. He requested consideration of $50,000 funding for next year. Terry Sharp requested the beach area be designated as a recreational area in order to allow skating on the streets. Jay Elliot questioned why the alleged wrongdoing of city employees in connection with his rehabilitation loan has been disregarded. It was stated the City has been working with the Elliots. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM #8 - Public Hearing & First Reading of: (AS) a. Ord. #5280-92 - millage rate for FY92/93 b. Ord. #5281-92 - operating budget for FY92/93 c. Ord. #5282-92 - capital improvement program budget for FY92/93 Proposed revisions to the City Manager's 1992/93 Operating Budget are reflected in the budget ordinances as follows: General Fund Revenues: adjustments reflect increases in Sales Tax revenue of $220,220 and Cigarette Tax of $10,800, and a decrease in State Revenue Sharing of $89,020. These changes are based on revenue estimates provided by the State of Florida Department of Revenue which were not available until after the City Manager's Recommended Budget was released. General Fund Expenditures: adjustments include $130,000 to fund the Summer Youth Program for the fiscal year 1992/93 and a decrease of $15,000 to Professional Services correcting an error discovered by staff in which the services of the Employee Assistance Referral Program were included in both the Operating budgets of the Human Resources Department and the Non-Departmental division. Also included are increases of $13,000 to fund the Midnight Basketball Program and $14,000 for the Holt Avenue Pool Program to continue for the summer months of FY 1992/93. Water and Sewer Fund Expenditures: adjustment reflects the $611,000 increase to Water Inventory Purchases from the County due to increases in consumption. Solid Waste Fund Revenues: adjustment reflects an increase of $1,707,900 in Solid Waste Operating Revenues recognizing the increase in Solid Waste rates. Parking Fund Revenues: adjustment recognizes the interest earnings on the unspent funds in the East End Land Acquisition project that were originally contributed from the Parking Fund. The City Manager reported that the Commission and staff have been through a series of worksessions and a town meeting to discuss the budget. The recommendation is that the millage rate remain the same as the current fiscal year's rate although values have decreased and in order to bring in the same amount of revenue through taxes would have required an increase in the millage rate. He reported the City is in the second year of a three year contract with the four employee unions which results in a cost of living increase of 3% and an average merit increase of 1.2% He stated he has added 4.7 positions while eliminating 4.7 positions in the general fund while eliminating 13 across all funds. He stated due to the solvency of the Pension Fund, the contribution to that fund has been reduced. A $3 million transfer to the CIP for City Hall still leaves the 10% reserve required by City Commission policy. He also reported that the previously adopted water and sewer rate increases can be reduced due to a successful six months of operation. He reviewed the changes that are being recommended. Bob Wright, representing the Coalition of Homeowners, stated there is no problem with this year's budget but there are concerns regarding anticipated shortfalls in subsequent years. In response to a question, the City Manager indicated the City is fully funding its obligation in the Pension Fund and the Commission policy of establishing an insurance reserve has resulted in enough funds in that reserve and therefore contribution is unnecessary. He indicated he felt confident the gap can be closed in next year's budget. Barbara Green, representing the Homeless Emergency Shelter, indicated they had applied for $6,000 to fund utilities for those shelters and requested if the Commission could find the money, this be funded. The City Manager reported that due to an anticipated surplus at the end of the 1991/92 fiscal year, he is recommending these monies be used to fund several social service requests at third quarter. Representatives of the social service agencies thanked the City Manager for his recommendation. Six citizens spoke expressing concerns regarding the reduced funding for the Community Relations Division indicating that due to changes in the law, there will be an increase in the number of cases handled by this division. The City Manager explained that the Clearwater Community Relations Division handles all cases from Ulmerton Road to the Pasco County line and Clearwater subsidizes this program. He indicated the Deputy City Manager has been directed to obtain contract help in order to reduce the back log of cases. He emphasized he is not reducing the program. One citizen spoke stating this is a budget issue and that the citizens of Clearwater want to pay their fair share and perhaps a fee tied to populations of the different communities should be considered. Discussion ensued regarding the Community Relations Division budget with the City Manager explaining he would closely monitor the program and if he saw any lapses, he would address it. He indicated his hopes are that by implementing most of the recommendations contained in a consultant report that the division can address the back log of cases without increasing personnel. There was also concern that the position Community Relations Specialist, which has been funded through the federal government, may need some subsidy from the City. The City Manager indicated staff feels this position will be fully funded through the federal government again for the next year however, if it is not, monies will be transferred in order to cover payment for this position. It was also stated that some of the reduction in the budget is due to the reduced Pension Fund and insurance reserve contributions. Concerns were expressed regarding the amount of overtime which has been budgeted and a request was made that periodic reports regarding the overtime be submitted to the Commission. This report is to contain not only the amount spent but why the overtime was necessary. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5280-92 for first reading and read it in full. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass Ordinance #5280-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5281-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5281-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5282-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass Ordinance #5282-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. The meeting recessed from 8:00 p.m. to 8:10 p.m. ITEM #9 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5257-92 - Relating to LDC, amending Ch. 134, regarding signs and sign regulations; amending Sec. 137.005 (PLD) The City's existing Sign Regulations have been in effect since October, 1985. They are now proposed to be updated to eliminate some inconsistencies with Pinellas County's recently adopted sign code. Despite the number of changes being made, this is not a "new" sign code. Most of the signs that were made nonconforming when the code was adopted in 1985 will continue to be nonconforming. Unless these changes "legalize" a nonconforming sign, the changes will not extend the deadline (10/13/92) to bring nonconforming signs into compliance with the sign code. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed and recommended approval subject to three modifications: 1) political signs be allowed to address any political issue, whether the issue is the subject of a referendum or not, 2) flags on multi-family zoned property be restricted to one flag per unit, rather than one flag per property; and 3) the sign size increase that is allowed for buildings set back from rights of way be measured from the new right of way line where there exists an approved road widening project. Staff concurs with Board recommendation #1 and has included it in the ordinance. Staff also concurs with recommendation #3 and recommends it too be included in the ordinance. Other changes requested by citizens at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting were: 1), 2), 3) & 4) by Bill Jonson: 1) Include the first amendment protection clause that is part of the Countywide Code, thereby allowing any lawful noncommercial message on any sign allowed under the sign regulations; 2) Prohibit neon lighting which is not an integral part of the architecture; 3) Do not allow sandwich board signs in downtown; 4) Lessen the amount of additional sign size given to buildings that are positioned distant from rights of way; 5) & 6) by Paul Taylor: 5) Allow attached signs on the basis of 10% of the building facade and 6) Adopt Countywide Code as written, with the "10% rule" described in #5. Staff concurs with citizen requests numbered 1 and 4 and recommends they be included in the ordinance. The Development Code Adjustment Board reviewed and recommended approval of the regulations subject to four conditions: 1) ensure major tenants in shopping centers located in Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial zoning districts are not adversely impacted by the size limitations on attached signs; 2) the maximum sign size for projecting signs in the Urban Center be increased above 8 square feet; 3) the maximum allowable sign size in the Urban Center be 64 square feet in all subdistricts; and 4) a table be included in the ordinance to identify sign sizes for attached and freestanding signs and include a reference to the sign bonus provisions. Staff has reviewed major tenants in shopping centers located in Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial zones, and has determined that such occupancies will not be adversely impacted by the sign sizes specified in the ordinance. Staff agrees to prepare a sign size table as requested by the Board upon approval of the ordinance by the Commission. Finally, staff concurs with Board recommendation #2 and recommends it be included in the ordinance. One letter has been submitted to the City requesting a change to the draft ordinance regarding the Clearwater Jaycees request that bus shelter signs and bench signs be allowed upon the written approval of the Commission. Staff does not concur with this request. In addition to the changes discussed above, staff recommends the following: 1) the Development Code Administrator have the option of appointing a designee to the downtown sign review committee; 2) the off-premise sign prohibition be deleted; 3) an allowance for temporary signs in the event of public works projects or major storm events be included in accordance with recently adopted Ordinance #5224-92; 4) no sign area bonus can be applied that would cause the area of a sign to exceed the area specified in Sec. 134.011(c)(1)a; 5) signs 24 sq.ft. in size be allowed for nonconforming uses located in residential zones; 6) the banner exemption that was allowed in Sec. 134.009(7) be deleted; 7) any sign placed over a sidewalk or other pedestrian access area be required to maintain a clear distance above grade in accordance with the building code; 8) in addition to the attached signs otherwise allowed in the North Greenwood Commercial District, Beach Commercial District and Urban Center Bayfront and Core Districts, permanent window signs be allowed to occupy up to 20% of the window area; 9) additional attached signs be allowed in the Urban Center Core and Bayfront subdistricts, and the Beach Commercial District, for buildings which front on two or more rights of way; 10) freestanding signs in the Limited Office District be limited to 8 feet in height; and 11) the second of the two paragraphs lettered (c) in Sec. 134.011 be relettered to (d). John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the sign code allows businesses to identify themselves while at the same time safeguarding the visual character of the City. He reiterated the sign amortization period is still in effect and nonconforming signs must be in compliance by October 13, 1992. He stated there have been a number of changes since the amendments were first introduced in July. Two significant ones being the bonus for attached signs due to large setbacks has been capped based on the width of the building and that the sign bonus overall has been decreased. In response to a question, the Planning and Development Director indicated there are no radical changes to the existing code and that the Countywide Code is generally more liberal than the City's code. In response to a question regarding what is being found most burdensome, it was indicated most concern has to do with the five foot setback requirement but that this has been a part of the code since 1985. Discussion ensued regarding the need to grandfather any signs that complied with the 1985 code. Consensus was for staff to address this by second reading. Jean Maguire, representing South Clearwater Beach Business Owners, located in the Beach Commercial district, spoke requesting a lifting of the prohibition of pole signs in that zoning category. She indicated these businesses are treated unfairly as establishments across the street in Resort Commercial are allowed to have pole signs. It was reiterated that this was a change to the 1985 code and not a part of the current amendments. Paul Taylor, representing Thomas Sign Company, requested the Commission adopt the Countywide Sign Ordinance as it is written in order to have equal treatment throughout the County. He stated there are some incidences in the proposal that there would be a reduction of one-half under the current proposal. Two citizens spoke in support of eliminating the prohibition of pole signs in the Beach Commercial district. One citizen spoke requesting all businesses be notified by certified mail of the impact of the ordinance. Kelly Blackburn, representing Shell Oil, requested clarification of the code. Bill Jonson, representing the Coalition of Homeowners, spoke in favor of the amendments stating the chart which indicates the substantial difference for attached signs does not make it clear that the increase in attached signage is allowed only if a pole sign is not used by the business. He expressed concerns regarding the bonus for the large setbacks and the allowance of sandwich signs in downtown. One citizen spoke stating he wanted to conform to the 1985 code but he was unaware of the new proposals. He also questioned the allowance of window signs and it was indicated that 20% of the window can be used for signage. Discussion ensued regarding window signs with it being indicated that merchandise displayed in windows is not regulated by the sign code. Discussion ensued regarding the prohibition of pole signs in the Beach Commercial district with staff being directed to bring forward recommendations regarding whether or not an amendment should be made. Discussion ensued regarding the differences between the current code and the proposal and it was requested the Commission be provided with a clear understanding of what the comparison chart is explaining. Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Ordinance #5257-92 on first reading on page 11 by amending Section 134.010 by deleting the prohibition against off-premises signs. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to amend Ordinance #5257-92 on page 26 by amending subsection 134.011(d)(8)b.2 to read: However, no individual projecting sign shall exceed 16 square feet in area, nor shall such signs project more than 42 inches from the facade of the building to which they are attached. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Ordinance #5257-92 on first reading on page 28 to amend the table in subsection 134.012(a)(1) to read: Setback Allowable additional area bonus Less than 100 feet Not available 100 to 199.99 feet 0.25 200 to 300 feet 0.75 Greater than 300 feet 1.25 The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed amendment which would limit the sign bonus to major tenants in a shopping center. Consensus was that this was not equitable and this amendment was not to be made. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not to amend the section to address the bonus from proposed right-of-way on approved widening projects and it was requested this be brought back at second reading. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5257-92 as amended for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5257-92 as amended on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. It was stated amendments regarding pole signs in Beach Commercial, grandfathering of signs in compliance with the 1985 code and at what time construction signs are to be removed will be considered at second reading. ITEM #10 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5266-92 - Vacating Fifth Avenue South and portions of Main Street and Fourth Avenue South, lying within Sec. 32-28-16 (City/Dimmitt V92-13)(PW) The Commission approved an agreement with Dimmitt Chevrolet, Inc., Larry Dimmitt Cadillac, Inc. and Richard R. Dimmitt on June 4, 1992 relating to new road construction and street vacations. Dimmitt representatives offered a proposed redesign of the immediate neighborhood involving not only building Third Avenue South between US19 and Chautauqua Avenue, but a new street layout in the area. To accomplish the new plan, a new configuration of streets involving dedications and vacations is necessary. This request has been reviewed by the various City Departments and Divisions concerned. The Planning Department is recommending limited access with no driveways off residential streets/no commercial traffic directly into residential neighborhoods, provided single family neighborhoods have access and are buffered by the commercial site. The other departments have no objections. Florida Power has no objection provided a 20 foot utility easement is granted over their existing facilities. GTE has no objection provided a 10 foot utility easement is granted for their facilities. Vision Cable has no objection provided they are granted a 5 foot utility easement across Chautauqua Avenue from the Florida Power Corporation pole line established on the north side of Fourth Avenue South. Vision Cable has no objection to the proposed vacation of Fifth Avenue South. The County is currently reviewing a vacation request for right-of-way of Fourth Avenue South. The Public Works Director recommends approval of this request subject to the County's approval of the vacation of Fourth Avenue South. Commissioner Regulski moved to approve the vacation of the rights-of-way of Chautauqua Avenue (formerly Main Street) lying between the south right-of-way line of Fourth Avenue South and the south right-of-way line of Third Avenue South, and Fifth Avenue South lying between the east right-of-way line of previously vacated Main Street and the west right-of-way line of Lake Shore Drive, subject to complying with the conditions in the agreement and retaining easements for the utility companies. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5266-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass Ordinance #5266-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #11 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5268-92 - Vacating S 1' of the 10' drainage and utility easement lying along the N side of Lot 78, Clubhouse Estates of Countryside Unit 2, less the E 5' and the W 5', located at 2670 St. Andrews Dr. (Burr V92-16)(PW) The applicant has a pool structure which encroaches approximately 0.81 feet and the decking another 3.12 feet. The City has no existing utilities within this easement. The Building Inspector's office reports "the house was permitted and built in 1976 and the pool was permitted and built in 1982". This pool was constructed prior to the recently instigated process whereby impending encroachments are more readily discovered and precluded. The various City Departments and Divisions concerned and the three utility companies reviewed this request and have no objections. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the vacation of the south 1.0 foot of the 10 foot drainage and utility easement lying within Lot 78, Clubhouse Estates of Countryside Unit Two less the easterly 5 feet and the westerly 5 feet. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5268-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5268-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #12 - (Cont. from 8/13/92) Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Carillon Rug Cleaners, Inc.) located at 1107 N Ft. Harrison Ave., Palm Bluff First Add., Lots 4, 5, 13 & part of 3 (Rice SV92-10)(PLD) This item was continued from the August 13, 1992 Commission meeting to permit the applicant to research a "ground sign" option. Under the current sign regulations, ground signs erected as property identification signs in Neighborhood Commercial districts are permitted to be up to 8 feet in height and to contain up to 56 sq.ft. in area. The applicant is requesting a sign variance to permit modification of an existing pole sign to allow that sign to serve as the only sign identifying the business. The Carillon Rug Company's signage includes: a pole sign containing two panels, totalling 104 square feet in area, the same pole sign exceeds 20 feet in height and is within the required setback from the property line and multiple business identification signs (attached signs), considerably larger than the 15 square feet allowed. The applicant is proposing to modify the existing 104 square foot pole sign to delete the bottom panel (reducing the total area of the sign to 72 square feet), lowering the height of the sign to 20 feet and moving the sign structure to no closer than 5 feet from any property line. As modified, the sign would conform with the height and setback requirements but would not meet the 56 square feet area limitation. The applicant proposes to eliminate all attached signage as a condition of obtaining a variance for the larger pole sign area. Under the current regulations, the attached signage could not exceed 15 square feet in area. Under the current sign regulations, a pole sign in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district could contain 56 sq.ft. of sign area. Under the proposed sign regulations and the Countywide Sign Regulations, a pole sign in the CN district could contain a maximum of 50 sq.ft. in area. If the applicant reduces the pole sign to 56 sq.ft., no further changes to the sign area would be required under the new regulations, since signs brought into compliance with the current (1985) code are not subject to further amortization requirements. In effect, if the applicant complies with the current regulations now, the sign will contain 6 sq.ft. in area more than it would be allowed to have under the proposed regulations. Also under the proposed regulations, the applicant would be allowed to have a 48 sq.ft. attached sign. This signage would be allowed in addition to any allowable pole sign. Despite the applicant's offer to bring the existing sign into compliance with setback and height regulations, as well as eliminate all attached signage, staff feels the request is primarily based on economic matters, rather than some unique condition associated with the property. The applicant is proposing to modify an existing sign structure to minimize the cost of sign code compliance. Consequently, staff feels the applicant is not in compliance with the required standards for approval for the granting of variances. Tyler Rice, representing the applicant, stated most of the property surrounding this business is vacant and it is a hardship to run a business in this area. He stated the Commission suggested a ground sign at its meeting of August 13, 1992 and they have found that no visual obstruction would occur from a ground sign on the south side of the property. In response to a question, he indicated the sign would be 8 feet or less in height. It was indicated that if the Commission wished to approve the variance, it would require the same square footage variance as is being requested. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not this was a unique situation that would call for the variance to be approved. Commissioner Regulski moved to approve a variance of 16 square feet to permit a property identification sign containing 72 square feet provided the sign is a ground sign and the top of which is not more than 8 feet above the ground. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Deegan voted "Aye", Mayor Garvey voted "Nay". Motion carried. ITEM #13 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Grand Prix Car Wash) located at 1880 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Sec. 13-29-15, M&B 23.07 and Skycrest Unit D, Blk A, part of Lot 5 and strip 27.5' m.o.l. W of Lot 5 (Grand Prix, Ltd SV92-15)(PLD) This request is to permit a new freestanding sign to be located zero feet from the east side property line. The current and proposed sign codes, require a five foot setback from all property lines for freestanding signs. The existing freestanding sign on the east side of the site is to be removed and replaced by a new sign that complies with sign height and area requirements but requires a five foot side setback variance. Meeting the setback requirements on the east side of the site would require modifications to the applicant's entrance driveway, including coordination of any changes with the FDOT. The applicant states the placement of the sign in a conforming location on the west part of the property causes confusion for motorists looking for the entrance. Given the site design and the need to identify the entrance to the site, staff feels the applicant's purpose can be accomplished through granting a variance to allow a directional sign adjacent to the east property line. The main property identification sign could then be located in the center of the site in a conforming location. This would reduce the visual impact of a large freestanding sign located directly on the property line. Any variance approvals should include a condition that the sign design and location be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer for compliance with sight distance requirements. Nelson Hendry, owner/operator of Grand Prix Car Wash, stated they would like to meet the requirements of the code for the 64 square feet and 20 feet height but that it not be required to be placed in the middle of the property. He stated they can not place it in the middle of the property for safety reasons, as when coming out of the car wash, it is sometimes necessary to make a sharp left turn to get back to the wax area. In response to a question, it was indicated the proposal by the applicant does bring the sign into compliance with the sign code except for the five foot setback and staff recommends an additional directional sign on the east portion of the property. Mr. Hendry indicated they wished to leave the sign in its current location but to comply in all other respects. In response to a question, it was indicated staff believed all other signs were in conformance with the sign code. Commissioner Regulski moved to approve a variance of five feet from the East side setback to permit a sign to be located with a zero foot side setback for property located in Skycrest Unit D, Block A, part of Lot 5. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #14 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 655 S. Belcher Rd., Turner's Professional Park, Lot 2 (Fortune Bank SV92-12)(PLD) The applicant is requesting two variances which address separate signage issues. The first request is for a variance of 4.6 feet to allow an addition to an existing 64 square foot property identification "pole" sign. The second request is for a variance of six signs with a cumulative area of 48 square feet to allow signage on four sides of a proposed automatic teller machine (ATM). Regarding the first request, the applicant is requesting an additional allocation of signage to a relatively new freestanding sign. While the circumstances for the bank may have changed due to the ATM construction, staff feels ATM's are such a fixture at banks that no additional advertising is necessary. The existing sign complies with the sign regulations and therefore should not be modified to increase its area. Concerning the second request, the applicant is seeking permission to allow a bank identification sign on each of the four sides of the ATM and a message displaying which credit cards will be accepted by the ATM on two sides. Under the current regulations, the applicant is eligible for a single 15 square foot business identification sign. The applicant has already installed signage consistent with this requirement on the main building. No signage could be installed on the ATM under the current regulations. Under the proposed sign code, the applicant would be eligible for up to three attached signs containing a maximum cumulative area of 64 square feet. Such signage would be further restricted by the linear width of the building to which the sign was attached (1.5 sq.ft. of signage for each one foot of building width). Applying this formula to the ATM, the maximum sign area for signs attached to the ATM would be 12 sq.ft. since the ATM "building" is only 8 feet wide. Attached signage would be limited to the faces of the building oriented to the street and the parking lot. Staff recommends the following approach. Because the ATM could be considered an integral part of the operation of the bank, it should be considered an extension of the building, and therefore eligible for additional attached signage as allowed under the proposed code. Under the proposed code, the credit cards that are accepted by the ATM could be indicated as an incidental sign (not to exceed 2 sq.ft.) on the face of the ATM which accepts the cards. This sign would be in addition to the two 12 sq.ft. attached signs that would be allowed. This signage allocation would appear to be sufficient to properly identify the ATM and allow customers to know which cards are accepted. Under the proposed code, the applicant would also be allowed to increase the area of the existing freestanding sign on the building. If a total of 24 sq.ft. was allocated for the attached signage on the ATM, and there is a 15 sq.ft. attached sign on the building, the applicant could add up to 25 additional sq.ft. of signage to the attached sign on the building, since a total of 64 sq.ft. of attached signage is permitted under the proposed code. This additional signage could be utilized to advertise the ATM and the cards it would accept. Under the proposed code, the incidental sign area is not calculated in the total sign area allowed. Catherine Dixon, representing the bank, stated they are requesting to place an identification on the existing pylon sign to let customers know an ATM is available. Discussion ensued regarding why the sign could not be placed on the existing Fortune Bank portion of the pylon sign. Chris Steinocher, of Fortune Bank, indicated the bank does not want to clutter the image of their sign and they are attempting to let people know of the services available. In response to a question, Ms. Dixon indicated the signs on the ATM are lit for safety and illumination purposes. Commissioner Regulski moved to deny the request for a variance of 4.6 square feet to permit a second message panel on the property identification sign to allow a total surface area of 68.6 square feet and to approve a variance of three signs for a freestanding automatic teller machine with a total sign area of 26 square feet for Lot 2, Turner Professional Park, subject to the following conditions: 1) Signage shall be limited to a maximum of two bank identification signs containing a maximum of 12 square feet each with the signs to be located on the east and west sides of the ATM and a maximum of one incidental sign listing credit cards which are accepted to be located on the face of the ATM where the cards are inserted and which contains a maximum area of 2 square feet; and 2) All requisite permits shall be obtained by October 13, 1992. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Regulski, Fitzgerald and Berfield and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye", Commissioner Deegan voted "Nay". Motion carried. ITEM #15 - (Cont. from 8/13/92) Alcoholic Beverage Distance Separation Variances for property (Ocean Garden Rest) located at 470 Mandalay Ave., Clearwater Beach Park, Lots 43-48, part of 64 and 65-71 (Pelican Two, Inc. AB92-12)(PLD) The applicant is requesting a continuance of this item. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to the scheduled meeting of October 1, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #16 - Alcoholic Beverage Distance Separation Variance for property (Monty's Pizza) located at 2170-2172 Nursery Rd., Sec. 24-29-15, M&B 41.02, 41.03, 41.04 & 41.05 (Loken AB92-14)(PLD) The applicant is requesting the variance to allow expansion of an existing 2-COP licensed establishment known as "Monty's Pizza". The variance is required because the subject property is located closer than 300 feet to RM-20 and RM-28 zoning districts. The applicant is proposing to increase the interior floor area from 1,350 sq.ft. to 2,000 sq.ft. which will mean an increase in the number of seats from the existing 54 to a total of 79 seats. The property is within an area currently zoned Commercial Center (CC) and General Commercial (CG). There will be no outdoor seating and no entertainment. No additional parking facilities will be required because the applicant will continue to share the existing 293 parking spaces at Imperial Square Shopping Center. Within the vicinity (300 feet) of the use, only the Rite Aid #2021 establishment with a 2-APS alcoholic beverage license has been approved to sell beer and wine. On August 18, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the associated conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1) This conditional use is based on the application for a conditional use and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this conditional use permit being null and of no effect; 2) The requisite occupational license shall be obtained within 6 months; 3) The sales of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to consumption on premises with no package sales; 4) There shall be no outdoor seating; 5) The applicant shall obtain approval from the City Commission for any requisite separation variance; and 6) The sale of beer and wine for on premises consumption shall be prohibited after the hours of 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Regulski moved to approve a variance of 250 feet to permit an alcoholic beverage sales establishment 50 feet from a residential zone for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #17 - (Cont. from 8/13/92) Second Reading Ord. #5181-92 - Amending comprehensive plan as adopted on 11/15/89, including amendments to future land use, coastal zone management and capital improvements elements (PLD) Several text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan have been proposed to reflect changes which have occurred over the past year. First, increased development densities on Clearwater Beach have been recommended for consideration as an incentive for redevelopment by the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force. Second, the Downtown Development Plan has been moved up in schedule due to recent, unforeseen property acquisitions; this necessitates adjusting several project schedules within the Plan, as well as making some amendments associated with the Downtown Development District Comprehensive Plan classification. Third, clarification of the intent behind Policy 19.1.1 (relating to the Coastal Construction Control Line) has been developed by staff. Fourth, adjustments to the Capital Improvements Element are necessary to reflect the current City Capital Improvement Program. At their meeting on February 18, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the proposed amendments. The Commission passed Ordinance #5181-92 on first reading on March 5, 1992. Subregional, regional and State reviewing agencies have completed their reviews and have indicated concerns with two of the proposed changes. The proposed amendments and related concerns are: A. Amendments to Objective 1.4 concerning population density in the coastal zone Proposed amendments address the recommendations of the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force concerning density incentives for bringing structures into conformity with FEMA standards, City and State building codes and local land development regulations. The DCA raised concerns about the proposed policy. This policy was intended to allow the initiation of a study that would permit increased densities for redeveloped projects on Clearwater Beach. Despite discussions with DCA staff, including concessions as a means of mitigation, DCA staff remains firmly opposed to any increase in density in the coastal high hazard area. DCA staff did indicate, however, that the City could make provisions in the land development code and comprehensive plan to grandfather existing densities. To address the requirement for no net increase in density, existing densities on the beach could be downzoned to reflect as built development densities and then allow for some increase in densities in other areas where redevelopment is more desirable. Adjustments could also be made to the comprehensive plan and the land development code which would grandfather existing densities. To accommodate these concerns, staff suggests the following phrase be added to the end of policy 1.4.2 - "No redevelopment incentive shall be adopted which will result in net increase in the densities established under Objective 1.4". B. Amendment to Objective 2.1 concerning new community redevelopment districts This amendment is made to provide an additional year to consider other areas of the city as community redevelopment districts. The scheduling of the Downtown Development Plan has necessitated this change. C. Amendments to Policies 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 concerning the downtown development district and an economic development strategy These amendments are proposed to adjust the timing of the Downtown Clearwater Community Redevelopment District changes and an overall economic development strategy consistent with the scheduling of the Downtown Development Plan. D. Amendments to Policy 3.2.1. concerning interpretation of the land use map The amendment to the Downtown Development District plan classification reflects changes to downtown zoning associated with the Downtown Development Plan. Action on this item should be postponed due to postponement of the Downtown Plan. The amendment to the Conservation plan classification is intended to clarify current zoning districts and regulations included in the Conservation classification. The DCA has expressed a concern about the fact that no density or intensity standards are established for the Conservation category. This problem can be rectified by applying the proposed density/intensity standards developed for these districts as part of the Pinellas Planning Council Consistency Program. Staff would propose establishing a maximum floor area ratio of 0.1 in the AL districts and 0.25 in the OS/R district. E. Amendment to Policy 19.1.1. concerning development seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL) This amendment is intended to clarify the intent to insure that development does not occur seaward of the CCCL except for public purposes or in the case of unique circumstances. Reference to development densities is deleted since the CCCL is a structure placement guideline, not a determinant of intensity of development. F. Amendment to Objective 19.7 concerning redevelopment strategies on Clearwater Beach This amendment is intended to bring the timing of the actions associated with this objective into conformance with the changes proposed for objective 2.1 above. G. Amendments to the Capital Improvement Element concerning projects, timing and funding The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) is reviewed and adopted annually prior to or concurrently with the review and adopting of the City's Capital Improvements Program. The purpose of the CIE is to help plan for and better manage growth. State law requires local governments insure their comprehensive plans are consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit A to the ordinance has been changed to include staff's recommendation regarding Policy 1.4.2 to address the State's policy of no increase in densities and to address the floor area ratios in the Conservation zone. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the text amendments for the comprehensive plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Ordinance #5181-92 by substituting a revised Exhibit A. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5181-92 as amended for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5181-92 as amended on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #18 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5263-92 - IPD Zoning for property located at 22067 US19N, Clearwater 19 Commerce Park, Lot 1 (Kunnen Z92-07)(PLD) The applicant has requested this item be continued to September 17, 1992. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of September 17, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #19 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5264-92 - relating to height limitations, amending Sec. 136.004 & 137.005 (LDCA92-12)(PLD) Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of September 17, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting recessed from 10:45 p.m. to 10:55 p.m. Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances ITEM #20 - (Cont. from 8/13/92) Ord. #5138-91 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Public/Semi-Public for property located on W side of McMullen-Booth Rd., N of Countryside Sports Complex, Sec. 21-28-16, M&B 23.09 less the E 50', 3.8 acres (Bethel Lutheran Church LUP91-11) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5138-91 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5138-91 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #21 - (Cont. from 8/13/92) Ord. #5139-91 - P/SP Zoning for property located on W side of McMullen-Booth Rd., N of Countryside Sports Complex, Sec. 21-28-16, M&B 23.09 less the E 50', 3.8 acres (Bethel Lutheran Church A91-20) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5139-91 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5139-91 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #22 - (Cont. from 8/13/92) Ord. #5169-92 - Annexation for property located at SE corner of intersection of Drew St. and Hampton Rd., known as Island in the Sun Mobile Home Park, Sec. 17-29-16, M&B 12.01, 41.0 acres (Kennedy/Roberts/Brown A91-14) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5169-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5169-92 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #23 - (Cont. from 8/13/92) Ord. #5170-92 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential for property located at SE corner of intersection of Drew St. and Hampton Rd., known as Island in the Sun Mobile Home Park, Sec. 17-29-16, M&B 12.01, 41.0 acres (Kennedy/Roberts/Brown LUP91-15) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5170-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5170-92 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #24 - (Cont. from 8/13/92) Ord. #5171-92 - RPD-10 Zoning for property located at SE corner of intersection of Drew St. and Hampton Rd., known as Island in the Sun Mobile Home Park, Sec. 17-29-16, M&B 12.01, 41.0 acres (Kennedy/Roberts/Brown A91-14) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5171-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5171-92 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #25 - Ord. #5236-92 - LDCA deleting "cut-off" provisions for sign variances, amending Sec.134.015 (LDCA 92-08) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5236-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5236-92 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #26 - Ord. #5251-92 - Annexation for property located at 1716 Ragland Ave., Clearwater Manor, Lot 61, 0.14 acres (Wrobel A91-03) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5251-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5251-92 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #27 - Ord. #5252-92 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential for property located at 1716 Ragland Ave., Clearwater Manor, Lot 61, 0.14 acres (Wrobel LUP91-03) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5252-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5252-92 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #28 - Ord. #5253-92 - RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1716 Ragland Ave., Clearwater Manor, Lot 61, 0.14 acres (Wrobel A91-03) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5253-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5253-92 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #29 - Ord. #5254-92 - Amending Secs. 135.150, 135.1524 & 136.025 to allow child day care as a conditional use in the IL and RDOP districts (LDCA 92-10) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5254-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5254-92 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #30 - Ord. #5255-92 - Vacation of Pine Street r-o-w (formerly Grove St.) lying S of Starr and Savery's Add., Blk 3 Lots 3 & 4 and N of Blk 5, Lots 1 & 2 (Church of the Ascension, Inc. V92-02) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5255-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5255-92 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. CITY MANAGER REPORTS CONSENT AGENDA (Items #31-67) - Approved as submitted less Item #67. Agreements - Approved. ITEM #31 - Agreement with Pinellas County Sheriff to provide latent fingerprint services for the period 1/1/92-12/31/92, for $34,837.57 (PD) ITEM #32 - Three Year Agreement with Ervin's All American Youth Club, Inc., for the Club's continuing use and supervision of the Holt Avenue Youth Center, for the period 9/1/92-8/31/95, with an associated cost of approx. $13,200 per year (PR) Bids & Contracts - Awarded. ITEM #33 - Renewal of property and casualty insurance coverage for FY93 through A.J. Gallagher, City's Insurance Broker, from 10/1/92-10/1/93 in the total amount of $140,515 (AS) ITEM #34 - Renewal of excess workers' compensation coverage for FY92/93 through the Florida League of Cities, authorize payment of $56,747 (AS) ITEM #35 - Renewal of flood insurance coverage for FY92/93 for specific city-owned property, authorize payments not to exceed $35,000 (AS) ITEM #36 - Addendum One to extend contract for claims services with Gallagher Bassett Claims Services, Inc., for fiscal year 10/1/92-9/30/93, for handling "run-out" liability and workers' compensation claims in the amount of $26,589 (AS) ITEM #37 - Purchase of claims service (liability & workers' compensation) from Johns Eastern Co., Inc., for FY92/93, at an est. $72,944 with a deposit of $44,387 as provided for in the 3 year contract (AS) ITEM #38 - Renew contract for hardware and operating system software support for the DEC VAX 4000 computer with Network Computing Corp., Charlotte, NC, for the period 10/1/92-9/30/93, at an est. $25,080 (AS) ITEM #39 - Extension of contract for A-4 computer maintenance with Unisys Corp., Tampa, FL, for the period 10/1/92-9/30/93, at an est. $31,350 (AS) ITEM #40 - Extension of contract with North Hercules Cleaners, Clearwater, FL, for dry cleaning, laundry and alteration service, for the period 10/15/92-10/14/93, at an est. $17,840 (AS) ITEM #41 - Purchase of water treating chemical chlorine from Allied Universal Corp., Inc., Miami, FL, for the period 9/4/92-2/28/93, for an est. $30,817.50 (AS) ITEM #42 - Extension of contract for purchase and installation of carpet with Towne Carpets, Clearwater, FL, for the period 10/8/92-10/7/93, for an est. total $33,250 (AS) ITEM #43 - Purchase of 3 personal computers and associated peripherals from National Data Products, Inc., Clearwater, FL, at an est. $17,262; authorize cash purchase of appropriate software to provide office automation for $3,272 (AS) ITEM #44 - Contract for installation of 5/8", 1", 2" & 4" P.E. mains and service lines to Visk Construction, Inc., Riverview, FL, for the period 10/1/92-9/30/93, at an est. $375,850 (GAS) ITEM #45 - Contract for installation, rental and service of ice machines at 9 City facilities to Guy's Ice Machine, Clearwater, FL, for the period 10/1/92-9/30/93, at an est. $10,800 (GS) ITEM #46 - Contract for vehicle lubrication services to Oil Can Henry's, Clearwater, FL, for the period 10/1/92-9/30/93, at an est. $23,477.60 (GS) ITEM #47 - Contract for continuation of CentraNet services to GTE South, for the period 8/28/92-8/27/97, for an est. annual cost of $213,933 (GS) ITEM #48 - Contract for purchase of tire services and new and recap tires to Smith Bandag, Inc., Clearwater, FL, for the period 10/1/92-9/30/95, at est. $223,336.75 (GS) ITEM #49 - Extension of contract with CLSI, Inc., Newtonville, MA, for maintenance of the Clearwater Public Library LIBS100 system, for the period 10/1/92-12/31/92, at a cost of $17,927.94 (LIB) ITEM #50 - Purchase of automated library system including hardware & software from Gaylord Systems, Syracuse, NY, for $286,252; authorize 5 year lease/purchase thru AT&T Credit Corp. for the hardware/software totalling $249,275; authorize $36,977 of additional associated expenditures (LIB) ITEM #51 - Purchase 3 pre-owned vehicles at the Orlando Auto Auction by Al Davenport, Inc., at a cost not to exceed $33,000 (PD) ITEM #52 - Purchase of microcomputers & printers for desktop publishing from National Data Products for $29,258.91; authorize 5 year lease/purchase thru AT&T Credit Corp. (PIO) ITEM #53 - Amendment, adding a "Hold Harmless" provision for the City's protection, to existing contract for sludge disposal with Davis Water and Waste Industries, Tallevast, FL, wherein Davis agrees to accept and properly dispose of wastewater residuals in accordance with Ch. 17-640 F.A.C. (PW) ITEM #54 - Continuation of Clearwater Pass Bridge monitoring program with Kisinger Campo and Associates Corp., for the period 10/1/92-9/30/93, for $99,500 (PW) ITEM #55 - Extension of contract to purchase Liquid Alum for the Water Pollution Control Division with General Chemical Co., Parsippany, NJ, for the period 10/1/92-9/30/93, at an est. $140,000 (PW) ITEM #56 - Purchase of Polymer from Rhone Poulenc Inc., Parsippany, NJ, for the period 9/15/92-9/14/95, at an est. $606,000 (PW) ITEM #57 - Contract for parking attendant services at Pier 60 & S. Gulfview parking lots to Republic Parking Systems, Chattanooga, TN, for $230,829.83 (PW) ITEM #58 - Contract for structural reinforcement of the North Sanitary Sewer Interceptor at the EAWPCF to Insituform Southeast, Inc., Jacksonville, FL, for $23,155 (PW) ITEM #59 - Extension of contract for micrographic services with Micro Image, Inc., Tampa, FL, for the period 10/1/92-9/30/93, at an est. total $15,000 (CLK) Citizens & Staff Requests - Approved. ITEM #60 - Designating recent transfer of the "School Board Property" site as a contribution from the Garage Fund to the General Fund; said property to be used for future airpark development (AS) ITEM #61 - Request to waive approx. $14,480 in City fees and charges for the 1992 Jazz Holiday Festival; authorize Clearwater Jazz Holiday Foundation, Inc. to approve all vendors and concessionaires (PR) ITEM #62 - Funding for Phases I & II of a Hydrogeological Evaluation of the Potential for Development of a Brackish Groundwater Supply in the Clearwater Area to an upper limit of $86,395 (PW) ITEM #63 - Authority to bring suit for quiet title action for city truck (CA) ITEM #64 - Authorization to file mortgage foreclosure action on 1012 N. Madison Ave. (Alfred McCloud)(CA) Change Orders - Approved. ITEM #65 - C.O.#1 to contract with CenTech Utility Corp. for the Potable Water Well Restoration Project, increasing the scope of work and value of contract by $20,680 for a new total of $360,073 (PW) ITEM #66 - C.O.#1 to the 1992 Subdrain Contract to Keystone Excavators, Inc., increasing the amount by $16,750 for a new total of $189,113 (PW) Plans & Plats - Approved. ITEM #67 - See Page 24 Items approving substantial purchases were noted for the public. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted less Item #67 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #67 - Amended Site Plan for Clipper Cove II (aka Bayview Towers, Islander) located at the NW corner of Dory Passage Way and Island Way (Chase/Dore)(PLD) Receive the amended site plan and authorize the Development Review Committee (D.R.C.) to approve the final site plan subject to the following conditions: 1) Signs and fencing/walls are subject to separate review and permitting processes and 2) The requisite building permits must be procured within 1 year from the date of certification of the final site plan and all requisite certificates of occupancy must be obtained within 3 years of the date of certification of the site plan. The Commission reviewed a preliminary site plan for a ten-story, 69 unit, multi-family structure on October 1, 1987 and authorized the Development Review Committee (DRC) to review the final site plan. Since the initial review by the DRC on October 22, 1987, the certified final site plan has been revalidated with no improvements to the site. The applicant has prepared a new site plan consisting of 53 condominium/townhouse units and is requesting approval of the amended site plan. The primary difference between the two plans is the proposed new plan contains six buildings with 53 condominium/townhouse dwelling units with parking on the ground floor under each building whereas the original plan was a ten-story building with 69 multi-family dwelling units. The applicant has not proposed to use the residual 16 dwelling units. The proposed project will be issued an extended certificate of capacity for concurrency purposes that may be extended to remain in effect for the life of each subsequent development order for the same parcel as long as the applicant obtains a subsequent development order prior to the expiration of the earlier order. A question was raised regarding the rights of the people in Clipper Cove I to approve any changes to the Clipper Cove II plans. The Planning and Development Director indicated he was unaware of any review by Clipper Cove I. Bruce Dore, indicated they have a letter from Clipper Cove I or their attorney approving this plan. A copy of the letter was requested. Commissioner Deegan moved to receive the amended site plan for Clipper Cove II and authorize the Development Review Committee to approve the final site plan subject to: 1) Signs and fencing/walls are subject to separate review and permitting processes and 2) The requisite building permits must be procured within 1 year from the date of certification of the final site plan and all requisite certificates of occupancy must be obtained within 3 years of the date of certification of the site plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT ITEM #68 - Approve New City Hall site and give direction to staff regarding design procedure At the August 31, 1992 worksession, the Commission was presented with 8 conceptual site layouts as alternatives for construction of the new City Hall. The majority of the Commission favored developing this project on the current City Hall site and directed an item be brought forth at this meeting to formally authorize staff to proceed. It is staff's recommendation that the "Design-Build" methodology be incorporated in the accomplishment of the project. This methodology would include the following structure and sequence: 1) A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) will go out to the design and construction community describing our project and inviting design-build firms or temporary partnerships to submit material identifying themselves and their experience, both as to the construction of similar facilities and their experience in design-build scenarios (Time frame - 3-5 months); 2) A short list will be prepared and four selected firms will, upon examination of our comprehensive project description, make individual presentations adequate for the City to fully know what the building will look like, what the site plan will look like, and what the building will cost. Renderings and models will be included in these presentations (Time frame - 2-4 months); and 3) One of the presenting firms will be selected, a contract will be awarded, and work will begin on the project. The project will, in effect, be designed by the builder and built by the designer, with various detailed construction drawings prepared in sequence as needed to accommodate the actual work. The contractor and architect are compensated on a lump-sum basis, and the building costs are agreed upon by contract. The project can not exceed the contract figure (Time frame - 18-30 months). Opposition to building a new City Hall on the current site was expressed with it being indicated it was felt the City should at least enter into negotiations regarding the Sun Bank building. In response to a question, Darlene Barteleto, representing Oxford Property Management, stated they are willing to re-enter negotiations regarding the City purchase of the building due to the estimates for building a City Hall coming in higher than the building was being offered and they needed to do this prior to finalizing negotiations with two significant tenants. Questions were raised regarding the building's ability to weather a storm, leaks being caused around the windows, electrical problems and the climate control with there being areas of hot and cold in the building. Ms. Barteleto explained the leaks caused by the April 1991 storm had been fixed, the electrical problem had been caused by a Florida Power problem which has also been corrected and that the climate control has had significant improvements made to it. It was suggested these problems are problems of any building and will occur even in a brand new one. Also in response to a question, it was indicated CitiCorp approached the City, the City did not approach them regarding reopening negotiations. Further discussion ensued regarding whether or not negotiations should be reopened on the Sun Bank building. One citizen spoke recommending a design competition for a new City Hall and recommended that if the Commission wished to reopen negotiations for the Sun Bank building, they offer $4 to 5 million as a one-time offer. Len Vinty, a general contractor for Oxford Property Management, stated he has done work in the building and it would cost less than $15 per square foot to finish out the building. He felt the Sun Bank building was a tremendous value. It was stated the downside to purchasing the Sun Bank building would be that the property would be removed from the tax roll and they would be eliminating the possibility of adding 250 people to the downtown area. A citizen spoke questioning the cost to move in to the Sun Bank building and the air conditioning costs stating that this type of building is hard to heat and cool. One citizen spoke stating it would be difficult to construct underground parking on the current site and would make the cost differential between the Sun Bank building and a newly constructed City Hall more than anticipated. He indicated it makes sense to buy an existing building. Further discussion ensued regarding underground parking with it being indicated that de-watering the excavation will be difficult. Commissioner Deegan moved to authorize staff to proceed with plans for locating a new City Hall on the current City Hall site and to advertise the RFQ for a design-build contract for construction. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued regarding the design-build concept and it was indicated that no one on staff had been involved in the design and construction of a large office building and that the design-build process would give the City more control. Opinions were expressed that not allowing negotiation for the Sun Bank building would be a disservice to the taxpayers. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Regulski, Berfield and Deegan voted "Aye", Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay". Motion carried. Discussion ensued regarding the detail that needed to be in the initial RFQ and whether or not the exact site for the new building had to be designated. It was indicated that for the RFQ there could be more general information but that after the short list has been developed, specific information regarding whether or not building would be considered below the 28 foot line and whether or not there will be underground parking will need to be determined. The majority of the Commission felt that the site to be considered would be the city-owned property above and below the bluff, from the relocated tennis courts south across Pierce Street. It is understood that more detail regarding the site will be provided after the short list is produced from the responses to the RFQ. ITEM #69 - First Reading Ord. #5283-92 - Florida Gulf Coast Art Center leasing Maas site, and establishing a ballot question The City has been working for several weeks to develop an ordinance placing a question on the November election to allow the Art Center to purchase the property as well as develop an agreement regarding the Art Center's use of that property. The City Attorney indicated that since Monday's worksession, the Art Center has requested a time extension for delay in beginning construction for reasons not within the control of the Art Center but there would be no extension to the condition for obtaining a certificate of occupancy within five years. Discussion ensued regarding on what the extension should be allowed. Tim Mariani, Vice-President of the Florida Gulf Coast Art Center, stated they are requesting this in case something should happen out of the control of the Art Center which causes delay; however, he said the deadlines need to remain in place regarding closing and obtaining building permits but that the extension should be for the obtaining of the certificate of occupancy. Consensus was to move the extension from paragraph 4 and make it a part of paragraph 3 to deal only with completion of the project. The Art Center has also submitted a proposal as an alternate to payment in lieu of taxes. Mr. Mariani indicated he has met with the Board of Trustees and they hope there will not be a payment in lieu of taxes provision adopted as it would kill the project. He stated what they are suggesting is they pay $1,500 per month, beginning January of 1993, and this be paid until the building is demolished. That way if nothing happens in the two years, the City has not lost their out-of-pocket expenses for the maintenance of the Maas Brothers property. He also was opposed to any restrictions on assignability of the agreement. Discussion ensued regarding the proposal with some concerns being expressed that the City must be protected regarding the assignability and that this property could be used in a way to produce revenue for the City. Concerns were expressed regarding the payments stopping once the City demolishes the building. Mr. Mariani expressed concerns regarding the restrictions being placed on the Art Center. He indicated the payments being proposed are a fair value for what the Art Center is being asked to do. Concerns were expressed regarding the City having to assume demolition costs. Concerns were expressed regarding demolishing the building and leaving the excavation. Also concerns were expressed regarding proposals for downtown development and the shortage of time in which the City has had to prepare this. Questions were raised regarding whether or not there could be multiple choices on the ballot so citizens could express their preferences for use of the property. Commissioner Deegan moved to amend Ordinance #5283-92 on page 5 by inserting a new subsection (g) to read as follows: Beginning with the month of January, 1993 and ending on the month prior to closing, the Center shall pay to the City the sum of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) on or before the 15th day of each month during such term. The monthly payments from the Center to the City shall be nonrefundable and shall be paid as additional consideration over and above the Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000.00) purchase price for the purpose of defraying the out-of-pocket costs incurred by the City when maintaining the Maas Brothers building. The Center shall be relieved of its obligation to continue payments under this sub-section after (1) the City exercises its rights of reverter; or (2) the Center notifies the City of its inability to close the purchase of the Property thereby terminating the contract. In no event shall the sum of all payments made under this sub-section exceed Thirty-Three Thousand Dollars ($33,000.00). The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Regulski, Berfield and Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye", Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay". Motion carried. Commissioner Deegan moved to amend Ordinance #5283-92 on page 4 to insert a new subsection (f) to read as follows: The Center may not assign, convey, transfer or encumber any of its rights under this ordinance, or the contract for purchase and sale of the Property or any of its rights thereunder, or the Property or any rights therein, without the express prior consent of the City. The conversion of the corporate status of the Center from a corporation not for profit to a corporation for profit, or from a nonstock nonprofit corporation to a stock share nonprofit corporation, shall require notice to and the approval of the City prior to such conversion. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5283-92 for first reading as amended and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5283-92 on first reading as amended. The motion was duly seconded. Concerns were expressed that this decision needed to be delayed. A citizen spoke requesting that the referendum language be clear and understandable including that there will be no tax revenue and what the demolition costs will be. He also expressed concerns that there needed to be more questions on the ballot to get input from the public regarding what is wanted on this site. Further discussion ensued regarding whether or not additional questions should be placed on the ballot and it was indicated questions are limited by State law to 75 words. Concerns were also expressed regarding the ballot needing to be submitted to the Supervisor of Elections Office by September 18, 1992. Consensus of the Commission was for the City Attorney to attempt to produce a multiple choice ballot question that could be placed on the ballot and would include such options as parkland, open space, the Art Center and commercial development. One citizen spoke suggesting a survey be done through the utility bills. Upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": Fitzgerald. Motion carried. ITEM #70 - First Reading Ord. #5265-92 - amending Ch. 146 regarding flood protection, redefining time limit of cumulative total for definition of substantial improvement to Clearwater Beach and Sand Key (PLD) A change is being proposed to change the one year time limit in the definition of "substantial improvement" to five years for Clearwater Beach and Sand Key only, to conform with the revisions of State Statute 161.54. During the last legislative session, the State of Florida passed a bill specifying a five year time limit for determining the cumulative cost of improvement in determining what constitutes substantial improvement. The new law applies only to barrier islands. A structure which has reached substantial improvement can not be further improved unless it is brought into compliance with all other parts of Chapter 146, including raising the lowest habitable residential floor above base flood elevation. The owner's other option is to wait until the expiration of the time limit specified in the definition of "substantial improvement". This proposed change would use a 5 year period for all applicable construction costs to determine when the substantial improvement is reached. The value of the structure at the time of the permit request is used as the baseline for determining substantial improvement. The amendment proposes to change the time limit for Clearwater Beach and Sand Key and leave the other special flood hazard areas in the City at a 1 year time period. At their August 18, 1992 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the proposed ordinance. An opinion was expressed that the ordinance should include all flood prone areas. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5265-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass Ordinance #5265-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Deegan. "Nays": Garvey. Motion carried. ITEM #71 - (Cont. from 8/13/92) First Reading Ord. #5219-92 - Roll-Off Container ordinance revision, amending Secs. 54.20 thru 54.22 and 54.24 thru 54.26, repealing Sec. 54.23 (PW) Clearwater has in force an ordinance governing the policies and procedures for permitting private hauling companies to provide roll-off service within the city limits of Clearwater. The code governs application procedures, fees, liability insurance and penalties for failure to comply. The ordinance, in its present form, has been misinterpreted by many of the permittees who have not been paying the 15% fee for open top construction roll-off containers placed in Clearwater. As a result, the City has been losing revenue. In the past, the Solid Waste Division has been limited in its ability to maintain adequate surveillance over the construction roll-off portion of the permit due to the highly transient nature of the business and has not been able to effectively enforce the ordinance. Now that all Solid Waste vehicles have radios and a more responsive permitting procedure through the Planning Department's central counter, the City has a means for maintaining better surveillance over the placement of construction roll-offs within the City and will be in a much better enforcement posture. The ordinance revisions recommended tighten the language governing all roll-off operations within the City, specifically including construction roll-offs, eliminate the need for surety bonds and eliminates areas for misinterpretation of fee requirements. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5219-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass Ordinance #5219-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #72 - Parks & Recreation Board - 2 appointments (CLK) Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #73 - Clearwater Housing Authority - 1 appointment (CLK) Commissioner Berfield moved to reappoint Katharine Griffith. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #74 - Other Pending Matters - None. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS First Reading Ordinances ITEM #75 - Ord. #5267-92 - Relating to finance and taxation, amending Sec. 44.21 regarding exemptions from public service tax The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5267-92 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5267-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #76 - Other City Attorney Items - None. ITEM #77 - City Manager Verbal Reports - None. ITEM #78 - Other Commission Action a. Discussion regarding replacement of Commissioner Regulski Mayor Garvey indicated a desire to appoint someone now in order to start to include them in the cycle of information. She has suggested Reverend Campbell. Discussion ensued regarding how to handle filling Commissioner Regulski's vacancy. It was indicated additional people will be submitting their names to the City Clerk for consideration. In response to a question, it was indicated the Commission has, in the past, appointed people that have previous experience on the City Commission. In response to a question, Commissioner Regulski stated that he would only consider being reappointed to his seat if no one else is found and he would require a unanimous vote. The Mayor requested this be scheduled for the meeting of September 17, 1992. The Mayor questioned what process the Commission wished to follow in the City Manager and City Attorney evaluations. Consensus was for it to be done as in the past with the evaluations being held at a worksession and the City Manager and City Attorney providing any information they wished to the Commission. It was the consensus to schedule this for the worksession of September 14, 1992, with the understanding that if time does not allow them to be discussed at that time, they will be scheduled for the worksession of September 28, 1992. ITEM #79 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 1:50 a.m.