12/03/1992 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
December 3, 1992
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, December 3, 1992 at 6:02 p.m., with the following members present:
Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner
Richard Fitzgerald Vice-Mayor/Commissioner
Sue Berfield Commissioner
Arthur X. Deegan, II Commissioner
Also present:
Kathy S. Rice Deputy 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. The Cub Scout Pledge of Honor was given by Pact #77.
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
John Lee of the Fire Department was presented The Employee of the Month Award for November, 1992.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards - None.
ITEM #5 - Presentations
a) Commissioner Regulski Farewell
Gifts in appreciation for his service to the City were presented to Commissioner Regulski.
The meeting recessed from 6:25 to 6:32 p.m.
ITEM #6 - Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 5, 1992
Commissioner Deegan stated the minutes should be amended on page 25 to add the
City Attorney's suggestion that a provision to allow return of utility deposits to multi-family buildings with master meters be done as a separate ordinance rather than an amendment
to Ordinance #5314-92.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 5, 1992, as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda
Dennis Henniger expressed concern everything regarding downtown development is happening from Myrtle Avenue to Osceola Avenue when it should go all the way to Missouri Avenue. He stated
he has paid taxes during the entire time of the downtown development district and nothing has been done for the properties in the area east of Myrtle Avenue. He requested the remainder
of the downtown development district receive equal treatment.
Muhammad Abdur-Rahim expressed concern regarding Infill Housing being proposed for property on Myrtle Avenue. He felt this area was not appropriate for residential development.
David Abelson, representing the North Area Council of the Chamber of Commerce, requested the Countryside area's request for a Community Center not be forgotten. He complimented staff
for its efforts in working with the Countryside community regarding this proposal. He stated a proposal will be ready for Commission consideration at mid-year budget review.
John Meek stated the City is in violation of its sign ordinance and he requested all signs legally erected be grandfathered in.
Brian Morris, Treasurer of Business Involved in Government, stated the citizens' survey did not indicate the citizens placed much importance on the sign issue. He stated they are proposing
an ordinance which will grandfather existing legally erected signs.
ITEM #8 - Purchase 3.8 acres of land on Sand Key, Sec. 19-29-15, M&B 43.01, for $1,200,000 and related property survey and closing costs of $15,000 for a total of $1,215,000 (PR)
Staff has met with representatives of the Sand Key Civic Association to discuss priority needs of the Association. The representatives indicated their number one priority is beach
renourishment and, as a part of this renourishment effort, they are recommending the purchase of the subject site. Although there are no plans at the present time, the property could
be developed as a park and, in the event of a beach renourishment project, a portion of the property would have value for parking to accommodate public access. The site is on the bay
side of Gulf Boulevard and is located east of the Ultimar Condominiums within short walking distance of two beach access points.
A recommendation to purchase this site was previously presented to the Commission on
May 17, 1990. At that time, the asking price was $1.9 million and staff recommended an offer of $1.6 million. An MAI appraisal in 1990 had the site valued at $1.4 million. During
Commission discussions, residents of Sand Key opposed the purchase and it was rejected by the Commission. However, as mentioned above, residents of Sand Key now list the acquisition
of this site as a top priority.
The City has been receiving Open Space and Recreation Land impact fees from Sand Key for several years and these monies can not be expended for any purpose other than the acquisition
of land. Although the asking price of the site is expensive, the cost per square foot is similar to, or less than, the square foot values that served as the basis for calculating the
impact fees that were collected on Sand Key.
Regarding funding, staff recommends the following sources:
Open Space Fees collected from Sand Key $ 486,494
Recreation Land Fees collected from Sand Key $ 358,137
Future Open Space Fees from Sand Key $ 102,841
Future Recreation Land Impact Fees from Sand Key $ 153,870
City-wide Open Space Interest $ 113,658
$1,215,000
At such time as the property may be developed, 59% of it must be treated as Open Space or passive park since 59% of the purchase price is being funded with Open Space impact fees.
Also, as a part of future development costs, an estimated $60,000 will be needed to remove concrete pilings located on the property.
The first quarter budget review will include an amendment to transfer the appropriate impact fees into project 315-1-3123, Sand Key property, to provide funds for the purchase and survey
of this site.
Ream Wilson, Parks and Recreation Director, indicated this property is being proposed for purchase in order to provide the parking that will be required in order to qualify for beach
renourishment funds. He stated it is proposed to construct approximately 75 parking spaces and perhaps tennis courts on this property. If this item and the next item for purchase of
property on Drew Street are approved, all impact fees that have been collected for the purchase of Open Space will be expended.
The Deputy City Manager indicated the contract for purchase indicates the property will be conveyed to the City free and clear of any and all encumbrances.
Jim Terry, Pinellas County, indicated beach renourishment projects are funded: the Federal Government provides one-half, the State provides 75% of the remaining one-half and the County
provides the remaining portion. The State requires public accesses to a renourished beach every 1/2 mile with parking convenient to the accesses. He stated providing parking on this
site will go a long way toward meeting that requirement. In order to have this beach renourishment project considered for 1995 appropriations, the application must be to the
State in January, 1993. He stated it is hoped this project could be done in conjunction with a maintenance project and thereby lower the cost.
In response to a question, it was indicated if Sand Key residents wish to fund the project, it could be done without the public access requirement.
In response to questions, Mr. Terry indicated the County acts as agent for the State, in coordinating beach renourishment projects but would not tell the City it has to do a renourishment
project.
A question was raised regarding the ownership of the renourished beach. Mr. Terry indicated if public monies are used, it would be a public beach seaward of the established erosion
control line.
A question was also asked whether or not the parking at Sand Key Park would count. Mr. Terry indicated the whole package of parking and accesses on Sand Key will be evaluated. He
stated there is a proposal to count hotels as public access.
Michael Nardi, attorney representing the Sand Key Civic Association, stated the purchase of this property is essential to beach renourishment. Beach renourishment is needed in order
to preserve the quality of life and values of those properties on Sand Key. She stated the Association formed a task force to study this issue and the task force was cognizant of the
City's support of the project. She stated this property is needed to provide some parking and 25 spaces should be constructed on the lot next to the Coast Guard Station. She also requested
the Jolly Trolley be used to meet the requirements of public access. She stated there is urgency in approving this as the application must be submitted in January in order to have funds
for 1995.
Tim Johnson, attorney representing P&C Realty Holding Company, stated they are prepared to deliver clear title for this property to the City. He warned there may be some that would
suggest that this could not be done and if they do, they would be held responsible for slander of title.
Fred Thomas, representing Clearwater Beach Association, stated they support the purchase of this property. He requested research and development be done in order to protect the beach
once it is in place.
Otto Schlack, Vice-President of the Sand Key Civic Association, submitted a petition signed by 613 people.
Two citizens spoke in favor of the property purchase and one citizen spoke in support providing it increases the tax base.
Two citizens spoke in opposition to the purchase stating it will not guarantee beach renourishment and there is a need to increase the tax base.
One citizen questioned the ability of the property owner to sell this parcel separate from the adjacent common area for condominium development and one citizen said that while he was
not opposed to the purchase, he felt the government did not have the money to provide for the beach renourishment project.
In response to a question, Mr. Terry indicated the parking spaces for the public accesses do not have to be on the water but in near proximity to the accesses.
Discussion ensued regarding the public accesses available and concern was expressed regarding some having been lost. It was indicated there is only the one at Dan's Island that may
have been lost due to a clause that said if the beach ceases to exist, the access also ceases. A representative of Dan's Island stated the Board of Directors agreed that if the access
is needed, it will be given.
Discussion ensued regarding loss of the beach would result in loss of revenue to the City.
A question was raised regarding any restrictions that may be on this property. Tim Johnson stated there are some things that affect the title such as oil and gas leases but the City
will be able to do what it proposes.
Concern was expressed regarding the common area and Mr. Johnson indicated there had been a settlement in a lawsuit that stated the 1551 property, which is proposed to be purchased by
the City, as well as the 53% of the common area, are not subject to the Declaration of Condominium unless a condominium is developed on the 1551 property.
It was stated purchase of this property would not only benefit Sand Key but would benefit the entire City as it would provide public access to a public beach.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the contract to purchase 3.8 acres of land on Sand Key, described as Section 19-29-15, M&B 43.01, for $1,200,000 and related property survey
and closing costs of $15,000 for a total cost of $1,215,000. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 8:05 p.m. to 8:20 p.m.
ITEM # 9 - Purchase 31.4 acres of land on Drew Street, Sec. 8-29-16, M&B 44.01 and portion of 43.01 for $1,500,000 ($1,375,000 in cash from City and $125,000 in the form of a 501-C3
IRS gift to the City) and related survey, engineering and closing costs of $50,000 for a total dollar cost to the City of $1,425,000 (PR)
At the Commission worksession of November 2, 1992, staff proposed the purchase of the subject property for $1,500,000 plus $50,000 for survey, closing costs and engineering for a total
cost of $1,550,000. Following discussions, the Commission denied the proposal and directed staff to go back to the owners with an offer of $1,250,000. In accord with this direction,
staff so informed the owners and the owners, in a letter dated November 11, 1992 from Mr.
John Gerlach, reconfirmed their bottom line at $1,500,000. However, as a result of continued discussions between staff and the owners, Mr. Gerlach, in a letter dated November 18, 1992,
proposes to convey the subject 31.40 acres of land to the City for the original price of $1,500,000, except that the City would pay only $1,375,000 in cash while the remaining $125,000
would be gifted to the City as provided for under the 501-C3 IRS code. The dollar cost of $1,375,000 is intended to meet the City half-way between the original price of $1,500,000 and
the Commission's latest offer of $1,250,000.
The subject property is located west of the Eddie C. Moore Recreation Complex. Approximately 11 acres are proposed to be reserved for 3 regulation softball fields, a parking lot and
other ancillary facilities. Additionally, a 50 foot wide strip along the north property line will join the subject property to Eisenhower School and will allow for the connection of
the City's east-west bicycle path. Of the remaining 20 acres, approximately 9.2 are considered environmentally sensitive while the other 10.8 may be used for passive or open space recreation.
The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies a need for 2 additional adult softball diamonds by 1995 and a third diamond by the year 2,000. Vacant property of sufficient size is rapidly
disappearing and staff feels it important this subject site be acquired while it is still available.
The property owners actually own 57.36 acres located between the Eddie C. Moore Complex and Eisenhower School, but this proposal covers only the east 31.4 acres. Negotiations to purchase
this site have been ongoing since October of 1991. Because of unusual site characteristics and other considerations, numerous studies, environmental audits, reviews and appraisals have
been conducted.
Staff recommends the following funding sources:
Open Space Impact Fees $ 931,010
Open Space Interest $ 55,220
Recreation Land Impact Fees $ 272,206
Infrastructure Tax/existing CIP Project 315-3119 $ 166,564
$1,425,000
Since softball fields are considered to be of City-wide significance, impact fees collected throughout Clearwater are eligible. The first quarter budget review will include an amendment
to transfer the impact fees into project 315-3119, Softball Complex Land, to provide funds for the purchase, engineering and survey of this property.
Although impact fees directed toward this purchase have been collected City-wide, no impact fees collected on Sand Key have been included. The reason for this is that the Sand Key
fees are being recommended to purchase property on Sand Key which is the subject of a separate agenda item. However, in the event the Sand Key property is not approved or cannot be
closed, staff will recommend those impact fees be used for the Drew Street property and that they be replaced on Sand Key, dollar for dollar, with infrastructure tax dollars. This would
allow the more restrictive funds (impact fees) to be expended for an eligible City-wide
acquisition while providing funds on Sand Key that have more flexibility for various types of public projects.
The Deputy City Manager reported on a request from the Wilder Corporation to postpone action on this item as they are proposing to donate 22 acres of property to the City. She reported
she has met with individuals from the corporation and the parcel is actually 15.5 acres and is the site of an old landfill located within the City limits of Dunedin. She stated excess
naphthalene, benzene and lead exist on the property. She also reported Dunedin was offered the land but they did not accept it. They now have a notice of violation from the Department
of Environmental Regulation regarding this property.
In response to a question as to why Dunedin received the notice of violation, it was indicated it was assumed they were involved with the landfill.
An opinion was expressed this offer should not delay action on this item however, they did not wish to completely rule out looking at the proposed gift.
Ream Wilson, Parks and Recreation Director, reviewed the proposal and stated the three ballfields would not disrupt adjacent property owners, the property could be incorporated with
the existing park and also allow enhancement of the linear ("bike trail") park system. He stated there are few pieces of property of this size still available in the City of Clearwater.
Concerns were expressed regarding the effect of using impact fees from different areas of the City would have on those areas. Mr. Wilson indicated there is very little property available
in the other areas which the City could buy and put to good use.
In response to a question regarding the Countryside Community Center, Mr. Wilson indicated this would have no affect on the ability to construct that facility.
A question was raised regarding whether or not the City was expected to help document the gift portion to the Internal Revenue Service. It was indicated the City would only have to
verify the City accepted the property.
In response to a question regarding whether or not Eisenhower Elementary School would have any concerns about the bike trail running behind the school, Art Kader, Assistant Parks and
Recreation Director, indicated he has not spoken with the school recently, but has been working with them for a long time and they are very supportive of the bike trail to assist children
in getting to the school.
Concerns were expressed the owners are unwilling to sell the property to the City for the City's counter offer of $1.25 million. It was stated that in the proposal, the City is being
forced to buy land it really does not need as only 11 acres are needed for the ballfields and 9 acres of the property are unusable because they are environmentally sensitive wetlands.
Mr. Wilson indicated the owners are unwilling to sell just the front portion because the back portion would no longer be attractive to another potential purchaser.
Commissioner Berfield moved to ask staff to renegotiate the price for the 31.4 acres for $1.25 million or to see if the owners are willing to just sell the 11 acres that are needed
for the ballfields. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #10 - Alcoholic Beverage Distance Separation Variance for property (Johnny's Italian Restaurant) located at 2907 S.R.590, #1, Sec. 8-29-16, M&B 11.01 (Queen/Nadeau AB92-17)(PLD)
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow expansion of the floor area of the existing alcoholic beverage sales (2-COP) licensed establishment. The distance separation variance
is required because the subject property is located closer than 300 feet to a RS-8 zoning district.
The applicant is proposing to increase the interior floor area from 2,400 sq.ft. to 3,280 sq.ft. and the number of seats from 76 to 130.
The property is within the area currently zoned CN (Neighborhood Commercial) District. No additional parking facilities will be required because the applicant will continue to share
the existing 110 parking spaces at Mission Hills Plaza. The police department comments on this use indicate no problems are anticipated.
On November 3, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the associated conditional use permit for this request subject to the following conditions: 1) The requisite occupational
license shall be obtained within 6 months from the date of this public hearing; 2) The applicant shall obtain from the City Commission the requisite separation variance; 3) There shall
be no entertainment, outdoor seating or speakers; 4) The sales of beer and wine for on premises consumption shall be prohibited after 12:00 midnight; and 5) There shall be no customer
accessible display areas for package sales.
The applicant appears to be requesting a minimum variance to overcome the hardship of the site design relative to surrounding residential areas. Staff perceives no negative impacts
with regard to traffic generation, lighting or similar problems associated with residential uses due to the residential uses being separated from the establishment by a street right-of-way
and fence.
A concern was expressed regarding the condition regarding customer accessible package sales and whether or not package sales were allowed. It was indicated the customer currently has
package sales and the conditional use allows for that but rather than having them openly displayed and making it a convenience sort of item, there is a condition there be no display
of the package sales.
A concern was also raised regarding staff's statement that the hardship is due to the proximity to the residential zone and that could apply to almost all alcoholic beverage variance
requests. Jim Polatty, Planning and Development Director, indicated it was felt this was a
hardship because there is a lack of on-site impacts. It was requested that staff, for future application, investigate further, the existing hardships.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve a variance of 205 feet to permit alcoholic beverage sales 95 feet from a residential zone. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #11 - Public Hearing - Vacating 15' N/S r-o-w lying along E side of Premier Village, Lots 11-16 (Licavoli/Hochevar V92-19)(PW)
The applicants are requesting the vacation of the 15 foot right-of-way lying East of Lots 15 and 16, Premier Village in order to increase their back yards and for landscaping.
This request has been reviewed by the various City Departments and Divisions concerned and the Engineering Department is requesting the remaining right-of-way lying East of Lots 11
thru 14 also be vacated and retained full width as a Drainage and Utility Easement. The City has an existing storm main that crosses this right-of-way. The Transportation Group agrees
with the comments from Engineering. The Planning Department reports that the property is zoned RS-8; any proposed construction must meet required setbacks as follows: 25 feet street
setback, 6 foot side, 10 foot rear for principal and accessory structures; for swimming pools/screened pool enclosures: 25 feet street setback, 6 foot side and 8 foot rear. The Parks
Department has no objections to the vacation provided the easterly 5 feet be retained as a sidewalk easement for a future bicycle trail. All other departments and the three utility
companies along with Pinellas County Water have no objections. The Public Works Director recommends the request be denied due to the possible future use as a bike trail.
In response to a question regarding why the City could not vacate 10 feet as the Parks and Recreation Department has indicated they need only 5 feet for the bike trail, William C. Baker,
Parks and Recreation Director, indicated he did not feel the bike trail could be built within 5 feet.
Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the vacation of the 15 foot right-of-way lying East of Lots 11 thru 16, Premier Village Subdivision. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Later in the meeting Commissioner Deegan moved to reconsider this item. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Deegan indicated he was told during a break that the applicant for this vacation request was not aware of the recommendation to deny it. Mr. Baker indicated that it is
standard practice to inform them but it may have been overlooked in this instance. He stated this is not the case of an easement as the City owns the right-of-way. He said he has no
problem with the vacation except Parks and Recreation might want to use it in the future for a bike trail.
Mr. Licavoli indicated the easement dead ends at the beginning of the Morningside
Subdivision and he did not understand how it could be used as a bike trail. He suggested it would be more practical to use the Florida Power right-of-way for such purpose.
Mr. Baker indicated the City would not use the Florida Power right-of-way when the City already has property.
Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the vacation of the 15 foot right-of-way lying East of Lots 11 thru 16, Premier Village Subdivision. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #12 - (Cont. from 11/5/92) Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Stewart Title of Clwr) located at 1290-92-94 Court St., Hibiscus Gardens Sub., Blk O, Lots 35A and 36 and vacated
street on east (Smoyer SV92-28)(PLD)
The applicant, by letter, requested this item be continued to December 17, 1992.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to December 17, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #13 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property located at 406 S. Arcturas Ave., Skycrest Sub., Unit D, Blk A, part of Lot 5 (Tetreault SV92-22)(PLD)
The subject property is an interior lot located at 406 South Arcturas Avenue. The applicant is requesting a variance for an existing sign.
The applicant claims relocation of the subject sign is not feasible. Upon visiting the site, staff observed the freestanding sign is located adjacent to the Burger King driveway and
Arcturas Avenue. The positioning of this sign is dictated by the parking lot light pole location and the bush/landscaping line for this site. The sign can not be moved back to meet
the five foot setback because such repositioning would locate the sign in the parking lot and/or require the relocation of landscaping and a light pole.
Staff feels to reposition the sign would create undue hardship on the applicant because of the existing site design. The applicant is requesting a minimum variance and it appears to
be justified on the basis of unique circumstances associated with the property.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a variance of 3 feet to permit a freestanding sign to be located 2 feet from the front and side property lines for the subject property, since the
applicant has met all standards for variance approval, subject to the condition there shall be no modifications to the sign to increase its area or height. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
ITEM #14 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Hose & Hydraulics, Inc.) located at 504 S. Myrtle Ave., Magnolia Park, Blk 18, part of Lots 3 , 4 & 5 (Frontier Properties SV92-23)(PLD)
The subject property is a double frontage lot located at 504 Myrtle Avenue. The applicant is requesting a variance for new signs. The request was received prior to the adoption of
the revised sign regulations so the requested variances on the application are not expressed in terms of the current Code.
The existing signage on this property is comprised of three wall signs painted on each side of the building containing a total area of approximately 50 square feet for each set of signs.
This proposal consolidates the signs into one new sign on each wall with the same approximate area to be maintained.
Staff finds no conditions that are unique to this property in the UC(C) district that qualify it for the variances requested. There appears to be no hardships created for the applicant
by meeting the sign regulations.
Under the new sign ordinance, this site would be allowed up to 48 square feet of attached signage on the north wall of the existing structure and 38 square feet of attached signage
on the facade parallel to Myrtle Avenue or alternately on the south wall perpendicular to Myrtle. This appears to be adequate signage to identify the property. This property is also
eligible for a sign area bonus of up to 50 percent if judged to qualify with certain standards established by the Commission as determined by a downtown sign review committee. However,
the signs, as proposed, would not be eligible for consideration due to their design; should the applicant produce an alternate design, an increase in sign area could be obtained under
current code requirements.
Staff finds this request does not meet the following standards for approval: 1) The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither
ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the
execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular
physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary
hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable use of the land; 4)
The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; 6) The granting of the variance will not impair
an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate
the general spirit and intent of this development code.
Norman Beach, owner of the property, indicated his hardship is that the front of the building has a zero setback and signs on the front cannot be seen from the street. He stated in
trying to work with staff to determine what he could do, he was given five or six suggestions.
A question was raised regarding whether or not Mr. Beach thought he was following staff's recommendation and he indicated that he was.
Concerns were expressed regarding staff not being clear regarding what Mr. Beach could do and it was suggested that the provisions of the Code will allow him adequate signage. It was
also suggested that Mr. Beach withdraw his application and his fee be refunded. It was clearly stated that if there is no variance given, Mr. Beach would still have a right to place
signs on the north and south sides of the property with no variance.
Mr. Beach withdrew his application.
Regarding Items #15, #16 and #17, Harry Cline, attorney, indicated he was representing all three owners and the characteristics of these three cases are the same. He stated all three
represent new and used car dealerships with service departments. They are all large parcels in mid-block with no traffic signals and they are well east of the downtown area. He stated
all three are long time business operations in the area with regional clientele and uniqueness exists for all three to justify the granting of the variances. He stated the car dealerships
have been at these locations for decades and they are located on a high speed arterial roadway.
ITEM #15 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Dayton Andrews, Inc.) located at 2388 Gulf-to-Bay, Sec. 18-29-16, M&B 24.05 & 24.06, and Gulf to Bay Estates, Unit 3, Lots 594-597
(Massey Motors, Inc. SV92-26)(PLD)
The subject property is a corner lot located at 2388 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The applicant is requesting variances for new, replacement freestanding signs and for an existing attached
sign.
The current sign regulations provide special allowance for larger parcels such as the subject property. Properties with exceptional street frontage (500 or more feet) are allowed an
auxiliary freestanding sign. The subject property is not eligible for a sign bonus for attached signage since the building does not meet the setback requirements for such signage.
Staff feels that the amount of signage allowed by the current code is sufficient to adequately identify the property.
The subject property is a relatively large parcel for the General Commercial zoning district, containing 7.55 acres. Despite its size, there is nothing unique about the subject property
that relates to the variance request for freestanding signs. There is also nothing unique about the property or the building which should require the continuance of the existing 120
square foot attached sign. Staff feels the applicant has not met the following standards for approval: 1) The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property
in question and is neither ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant.
Any mistake made in the execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance;
2) The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and
the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the
unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to
secure a greater financial return from the property; 6) The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the
appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish
or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code.
Mr. Cline reviewed the request stating that for the pole sign, they are requesting a 17.1 sq.ft. variance to allow a 81.1 sq.ft. sign where 64 sq.ft. is allowed. He stated this is
a reduction from the existing 210 sq.ft. sign, a 66% reduction. He stated that for the auxiliary sign, they are requesting a 24 sq.ft. variance to allow a 56 sq.ft. sign where 32 sq.ft.
is allowed. Again, this is a reduction of 144 sq.ft. or 68%. He stated the attached sign is an existing sign and they are requesting a variance of 56 sq.ft. to allow a 128 sq.ft. sign
where 56 sq.ft. is allowed.
He further reported the conditions for the property are unique and this is an historic operation. There are three businesses controlled by single ownership and property signage is
more important for the car dealership than it is for other retail as individuals come to the site on a sporadic basis and come from the region, not just the local area.
He re-emphasized they are significantly reducing the signs and stated they will not be detrimental to the neighborhood and will not violate the spirit of the Code.
In response to a question as to why they could not meet the Code requirements, Mr. Cline indicated the pole signs come from the manufacturer in standard sizes and he felt they were
bringing the signs generally into compliance with the Code as applied to those dealerships on US19 and that larger signs are needed due to their location as they are a large property
with one access point.
In response to a question regarding the attached sign, Mr. Cline indicated this is a symbol of the business and they are trying to save it.
James Polatty, Planning and Development Director, indicated people do come to car dealerships because they know where they are and they are easier to find. He stated he does appreciate
the proposed reduction in signs but still felt the request is significantly over the Code allowances.
Mr. Cline indicated he felt they were trying to accomplish what was intended in the Code and that large parcels should be given greater signage.
A question was raised regarding how standard #6 was not met and it was indicated staff felt the signs detracted from the appearance of the community. There were concerns regarding
how this is defined.
Dayton Andrews, owner of the property, stated he is at the corner of Fernwood and Gulf-to-Bay with the main entrance to the facility off of Fernwood. He stated the service department
entrance can not be seen until you are right in front of it. He stated he
is in competition with the car businesses on US19 and he felt it would be a hazard if the signs were reduced further.
Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the requested variances for new, replacement freestanding signs, and an existing attached sign for the subject property on the grounds the application
does not meet standards 1, 3, 4 and 8 for approval. The motion was duly seconded.
A concern was expressed regarding standard sign sizes from the manufacturer and it was questioned whether there was some way for them to come within the framework of the Code.
Upon the vote being taken: Commissioners Fitzgerald, Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye"; Commissioner Berfield voted "Nay". Motion carried.
Later in the meeting Commissioner Deegan moved to reconsider Item #15. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
It was stated that Mr. Andrews has the same problem with his signs as the Carlisle dealership in that the manufacturers provide standard size signs.
Commissioner Deegan moved to grant the square footage variance for the main freestanding sign with all other requests being withdrawn. The motion was duly seconded.
It was stated that the motion was being made not as a argument for changing the Code but as it was felt there was a good reason for the variance.
Upon the vote being taken: Commissioners Deegan and Berfield voted "Aye"; Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay". A tie vote continues this item to the next meeting
of December 17, 1992.
ITEM #16 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Carlisle Lincoln Mercury) located at 2085 Gulf-to-Bay, Sec. 13-29-15, M&B 41.04 & 42.01, Bamboo Sub., Lots 2, 3 and 9-11, less
street, and Bamboo Sub. Replat, Lot 1 less E 10' for street and Lot 2 (SDS Investments, Inc. SV92-27)(PLD)
The subject property is an interior lot located at 2085 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The applicant is requesting variances for new and existing signs.
The subject property is a large (10.32 acre) parcel used as an automobile sales and service establishment. The applicant is proposing to replace most of the existing freestanding signage
on the site with signs which conform to a greater extent to the current sign regulations.
The applicant proposes to: replace an existing 38 foot tall, 155 sq.ft. freestanding sign with a 25.7 foot tall, 73 sq.ft. sign; replace an existing 20 foot tall, 73 sq.ft. freestanding
sign with a 12.6 foot tall, 32 sq.ft. freestanding sign as the proposed auxiliary freestanding signage; a "leasing" freestanding sign retain two existing 9 foot tall, 20 sq.ft. "entrance"
signs; and remove one existing "Carlisle" attached sign, leaving 3 "Carlisle" attached signs containing 50 sq.ft. each and one "Service" attached sign containing 12 sq.ft.
Staff review of the business licenses associated with this site indicates attached signs containing up to 64 sq.ft. each are permitted for two businesses on the site; one attached sign
allocation for the dealership and one for the parts sales building. The total attached signage requested by the applicant is 162 sq.ft. which is considerably over the maximum of 128
sq.ft. allowed by Code. While the property consists of several separate buildings, there are no exceptional setbacks for the main buildings to warrant granting the request; in fact,
one building is closer to Gulf-to-Bay than is currently permitted. Staff feels the site can be adequately identified with conforming signage.
While the applicant's proposal would bring signage on this site into substantially greater compliance than is currently the case, there is nothing unique about the property to warrant
granting the requested variances. The subject property is indeed a relatively large parcel for the General Commercial zoning district, however, the sign regulations take into account
the existence of such large parcels through the allowance of auxiliary freestanding signs. Staff also feels the entrance to the property can be adequately identified with conforming
4 sq.ft. directional signs.
Staff feels the applicant has not met the following standards for approval: 1) The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither
ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the
execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular
physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary
hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable use of the land; 4)
The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; 6) The granting of the variance will not impair
an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate
the general spirit and intent of this development code.
Mr. Cline indicated this property has 950 feet of frontage on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and only one advertised entryway. He stated they are requesting to allow a sign of 73 sq.ft. which
is reduced from 155 sq.ft. and will result in a variance of only 9 sq.ft. He stated they are also
asking for a 5.7 foot height variance. He stated they are requesting the height variance for the auxiliary sign because if it is lower, it will not be seen over cars that are parked
for display. He stated all criteria are met to justify this variance.
Mr. Carlisle indicated that under his franchise agreement with Ford Motor Company, he must install signs in accordance with their standards. He stated he cannot get a smaller sign.
He also questioned where in the Code directional signs are addressed. It was indicated these signs are addressed in Code Section 134.009.
In response to questions, Mr. Carlisle indicated he is limited by the franchise for all pole signs but he would investigate whether or not he could comply in regard to the attached
signs. He felt the directional signs would enhance safety.
In response to a question regarding how many directional signs are allowed, the Planning and Development Director indicated they are not limited in number except by the number of entrances
and roadways for the facility. In response to a question, he also indicated the allowance of the business logo is a part of the 4 sq.ft. allowed for directional signs.
It was pointed out the auxiliary sign is of less square footage than could be allowed by the Code.
Commissioner Berfield moved to deny all variances except the 9 square foot variance for the main freestanding sign to allow a 73 square foot sign where 64 square feet is allowed. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 10:36 p.m. to 10:46 p.m.
ITEM #17 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc.) located at 2339 Gulf-to-Bay, Sec. 18-29-16, M&B 31.05, and Lokey F.B.C., Lot 2 (Lokey, McFarland, Flaws
& Barnett Banks Trust Co. SV92-44)(PLD)
The subject property is a large car dealership, containing over three acres, located on an interior lot at 2339 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The applicant is requesting variances for new
and replacement signs.
In addition to requests regarding a freestanding sign and attached sign, the applicant wishes a variance to allow three new directional signs containing 10 sq.ft. apiece. The Code
allows a maximum area of 4 sq.ft. for directional signs.
The applicant states the proposed freestanding sign will replace an existing sign which is currently 42' tall and contains 225 sq.ft. The applicant also indicates he would like to
erect new attached and directional signage.
Despite the reduction in area proposed for the freestanding sign, and the relatively large size of the subject property, staff finds nothing about the property which creates a unique,
hardship situation which would warrant granting the variance. The building is not setback far
enough from Gulf-to-Bay to qualify for a sign bonus for the attached signage, nor is there anything unusual about the driveway design that requires larger directional signs.
Staff finds the following standards for variance approval do not appear to be met: 1) The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and
is neither ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made
in the execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular
physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary
hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable use of the land; 4)
The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; 6) The granting of the variance will not impair
an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate
the general spirit and intent of this development code.
Mr. Cline indicated they would not object to the denial of the variances except for the square footage of the main sign.
In response to a question, Mr. Lokey indicated this was the smallest sign he could get. There was concern this was a significant variance allowing a 128 sq.ft. sign where 64 sq.ft.
is allowed. There was also concern regarding the motor companies dictating the size of signs in a community.
Opinions were expressed there was a hardship caused for this applicant based on the manufacturer's standard signs. It was asked if staff could verify this was the smallest sign available.
Commissioner Deegan moved if the applicant was willing to withdraw all other variance requests except for the square footage for the main sign, the variance for the main freestanding
sign be allowed. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken: Commissioners Berfield and Deegan voted "Aye"; Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay". Due
to a tie vote, this item will be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting of December 17, 1992.
One citizen spoke stating he was not opposed to the variance as much as the franchises imposing upon the City.
Two citizens spoke in support of the request stating these people are providing jobs and that there are no studies that indicate the reduced signage would increase business.
ITEM #18 - Revised Downtown Development Plan - First Reading Ords. #5297-92, #5298-92, #5299-92, #5300-92 & #5302-92 to expand Downtown Development District Land Use Plan classification;
First Reading Ords. #5301-92, #5303-92, #5304-92, #5305-92 establishing Urban Center (Eastern Corridor, Core or Bayfront) zoning; First Reading Ord. #5235-92 revising Urban Center zoning
district requirements and Res. #92-73 - accepting Downtown Development Plan and expanding the Community Redevelopment Agency area (PLD)
Staff has held numerous public hearings and meetings on the proposed Downtown Development Plan. The Commission held several worksessions to provide staff with direction concerning
the plan. As a result of this input, staff revised the original draft of the plan to: 1) revise the purpose statement and establish measures of success; 2) restrict expansion of the
CRA to two areas in the north and south portions of the Urban Center (Eastern Corridor) district; 3) establish Downtown Development District land use plan classification for areas external
to the existing Downtown Development District, including two areas formally referred to as the North/South Core Expansion Areas where zoning will not immediately be changed; and 4) revise
the allowable uses for the downtown in order to minimize nonconformities, while expanding the City's ability to control the more intense allowable uses.
On November 17, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the revised plan subject to the adoption of a Code amendment that would allow nonconforming single family
residences to be replaced if damaged or destroyed in excess of 50% of their value.
The Deputy City Manager indicated the proposal includes expansion of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) district. She also reported the plan meets the intent and objectives of
the law.
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager, stated staff has been working on the plan for almost a year. The Planning and Zoning Board has recommended approval with the condition that an amendment
to the Land Development Code be provided to allow nonconforming single family structures to be allowed to be rebuilt if damaged or destroyed.
Mr. Shuford reviewed the goals and measures of success included in the plan. He stated the current plan has been in effect since 1977. The new plan is market driven and recognizes
the strengths of the downtown area. He stated there will be two areas added to the CRA district and there will be two areas that had originally been proposed to be added which will
not be included in the CRA district but will have the downtown land use plan classification attached to them. It is the proposal in these areas to promote high density, residential
and mixed uses.
In response to a question from a citizen, Mr. Shuford indicated the area to be included in the downtown plan, the former Northern Core expansion, ended at Nicholson Street as the area
south of Nicholson Street has nine different zoning districts. He stated to the north of Nicholson is predominately commercial.
Seven citizens spoke in opposition to expanding the CRA district stating there has been
little success in the current district and there is a need to address management issues in the CRA. One citizen was also opposed to the provision in the downtown plan which would allow
alcoholic beverage by right rather than conditional use.
One citizen spoke stating there is a need to do something about downtown and one questioned whether the placement of the area along S. Ft. Harrison under the downtown land use plan
was a step toward placing it in the CRA. It was stated the Commission was uncomfortable with this area being in the CRA but they wished to provide some incentive for development.
A question was raised by the Commission regarding manufacturing, research and development being allowed in the Eastern Corridor and why daycare centers were not allowed in all the districts.
Mr. Shuford indicated these provisions will be addressed at second reading.
A question was also raised regarding the wording on page 7 regarding parking. Mr. Shuford indicated this language is trying to encourage people to construct parking or set parking
lots back from the street in Bayfront districts. Concern was expressed the language was confusing and staff will reword the provision.
The Deputy City Manager indicated there have been people approaching the City regarding development in downtown and what tools are available for them to use in order to assist that
development.
A question was raised regarding whether or not there had been a presentation to the Downtown Development Board (DDB). Mr. Shuford indicated that early in the process the DDB was given
a presentation regarding the downtown plan.
Concerns were expressed the DDB was to be more active in helping to formulate the plan. There was a question whether or not the Commission was comfortable with the process.
A concern was expressed regarding expanding the CRA district to include that portion commonly called the East End project.
It was questioned whether or not approval of the downtown plan could be separated from approval of the expansion.
A question was raised regarding language that called for retaining the existing government floor area at 1992 levels and how this would impact the construction of a new City Hall.
It was stated that this is to retain the levels but not limit them to those that currently exist. It was also indicated the plan and the land use plan changes must go to the County
and State and second reading would not be back before the Commission until the spring. During that time there will be additional opportunity for discussion with the DDB.
An opinion was expressed the CRA has worked and it can be even more successful if
given the opportunity. It was felt the CRA district should be expanded to the East End area.
Commissioner Deegan moved to separate the expansion of the CRA district from the Downtown Plan. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken: Commissioners Berfield and
Deegan voted "Aye"; Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay".
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the expansion of the CRA district with the Downtown Plan. The motion died for a lack of a second.
Due to the tie vote on the previous motion, this item is continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting of December 17, 1992.
ITEM #19 - Public Hearing - North Ft. Harrison/North Myrtle Avenue Zoning Study (PLD)
In response to concerns by both commercial and residential property owners within the North Fort Harrison/North Myrtle Avenue area, staff has prepared a neighborhood zoning study designed
to promote commercial redevelopment and enhance neighborhood stability in that area. On November 17, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the study and continued the public
hearing and board discussion to December 1, 1992.
Since the P&Z's recommendation was not available for consideration at worksession, staff recommends holding the scheduled public hearing on this item and then continuing any action
until December 17, 1992. Holding the public hearing as scheduled will allow the Commission an opportunity to consider public comments at two meetings.
Staff has also presented the study to the North Greenwood Design Review Committee, Board of Directors of North Ft. Harrison Business Association, Old Clearwater Bay Homeowners Association
and North Greenwood Association. A second meeting with the Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services is anticipated.
Input from these groups has revealed widespread support for various aspects of the plan. Commercial revitalization of the existing neighborhood commercial strips along North Fort Harrison
and North Myrtle Avenues was considered extremely important. There is also strong support for the "downzoning" of existing RM-8 areas to a RS-8 classification to promote neighborhood
stability.
There is a concern that commercial conversion of the RM-8 area, sandwiched between two commercial strips, will result in reducing the amount of land available for affordable housing
in this area of Clearwater as well as creating a "barrier" between the North Greenwood and Old Clearwater Bay neighborhoods.
Staff recognizes these concerns and, in the plan, proposed addressing the affordable housing issue through the commitment of the construction of a minimum of 50 multiple family housing
units within the area by 1995. Construction of these units will replace the housing units that might be removed from this area as redevelopment occurs.
Regarding the "barrier" issue, staff recognizes the potential for a larger commercial area to impede access from both a physical and psychological standpoint between the two neighborhoods.
However, the area proposed for the rezoning does not constitute a stable residential area due to the existing land use patterns which have been established in this area. The subject
property is sandwiched between two commercial areas and will continually face land use conflicts due to this existing land use pattern. Attempting to create an expanded residential
zoning pattern to minimize these conflicts is not likely to succeed since there will be a continued incentive for commercial property owners to retain their property, even in an nonconforming
status, in commercial uses.
Curt Kiser, representing Boat Manufacturing Company on Myrtle Avenue, was supportive of the rezoning but requested the zoning applied to the corner of Myrtle and Seminole be extended
to cover the whole block.
One citizen spoke stating the area should all be the same so that businesses and residential areas do not have to fight each other.
One citizen spoke expressing concern regarding one parcel remaining as a RM-20 zoning and questioned why that zoning could not be expanded.
Mr. Shuford indicated the proposed RM-20 zoning location is to legitimize the existing apartment complex on the property.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the RM-20 zoning should be limited to the one parcel and it was the consensus of the Commission to include all properties to Ft. Harrison
Avenue.
One citizen spoke in opposition to the rezoning of properties along Osceola to single family stating that area is primarily multi-family.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue action on this item until the meeting of December 17, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #20 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5295-92 - Amending Sec. 134.015 relating to nonconforming signs and the standards and factors to be considered in granting variances from
the provisions thereof (LDCA 92-20)(PLD)
This item was withdrawn.
ITEM #21 - (Cont. from 11/5/92) Public Hearing - Declare property located at the SE corner of Franklin St. and East Ave., Magnolia Park Sub., Blk 12, Lot 8, as surplus for purpose of
leasing to the IAFF (AS)
ITEM #22 - Public Hearing - Vacating 7' x 36' portion of Dempsey Street lying adjacent to Lake Belleview Addn, Blk 2, Lots 21 & 22 (Rehm V92-20)(PW)
ITEM #23 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5319-92 - Vacating easterly 3' of westerly 5' utility easement lying in Mandalay Sub., Blk 57, Lot 8 (Davis V92-22)(PW)
ITEM #24 - (Cont. from 11/5/92) Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5296-92 & #5312-92 - Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments - amending Objection 3.2.1. of the
Future Land Use Element revising the number of land use plan categories from 10 to 22 and modifying densities and FAR's and establishing ISR's and Res. #92-69 - authorizing the PPC to
request amendments to the Countywide Plan for properties located within City limits (PPC Consistency Program)(PLD)
ITEM #25 - (Cont. from 11/5/92) Public Hearing - Uphold decision of Building Official by Res. #92-66 - to demolish property located at 905-907 Hart Street (a/k/a Plaza Park Sub., Blk
C, Lots 15 & 16) if owner fails to repair or demolish structures within 30 days (PLD)
Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances
ITEM #26 - Ord. #5286-92 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial Tourist Facilities for property located at 2201 Sunset Point Rd., Sec. 6-29-16, M&B 32.01 and portion of vacated Pinellas
Groves easement in Sec. 1-29-15 (Sun Bank of Tampa Bay LUP92-14)
ITEM #27 - Ord. #5287-92 - CPD Zoning for property located at 2201 Sunset Point Rd., Sec. 6-29-16, M&B 32.01 and portion of vacated Pinellas Groves easement in Sec. 1-29-15 (Sun Bank
of Tampa Bay Z92-08)
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue items 21-27. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 1:29 a.m. to 1:37 a.m.
ITEM #28 - Ord. #5288-92 - Annexation for property located at 2975 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Bay Breeze Trailer Park, William Brown's Sub. of Bayview, Lot 17 and part of Lot 2, approx. 2.4
acres (Kirkpatrick A92-11)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5288-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5288-92 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #29 - Ord. #5289-92 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Medium Density Residential and for property located at 2975 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Bay Breeze Trailer Park, William Brown's Sub. of
Bayview, Lot 17 & part of Lot 2, approx. 2.4 acres(Kirkpatrick LUP92-18)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5289-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5289-92 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #30 - Ord. #5290-92 - RMH Zoning for property located at 2975 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Bay Breeze Trailer Park, William Brown's Sub. of Bayview, Lot 17 and part of Lot 2, approx. 2.4
acres (Kirkpatrick A92-11)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5290-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5290-92 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #31 - Ord. #5292-92 - Annexation for property located at 1867 East Dr., Clearwater Highlands Unit A, Blk A, Lot 2 (Lee A91-11)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5292-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5292-92 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #32 - Ord. #5293-92 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential for property located at 1867 East Dr., Clearwater Highlands Unit A, Blk A, Lot 2 (Lee LUP91-12)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5293-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5293-92 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #33 - Ord. #5294-92 - RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1867 East Dr., Clearwater Highlands Unit A, Blk A, Lot 2 (Lee A91-11)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5294-92 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5294-92 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #34 - Ord. #5313-92 - Relating to discrimination, amending Secs. 99.02, 99.20, 99.21, 99.22 & 99.23 as created or amended by Ord. #5200-92 relating to housing discrimination practices
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to amend Ordinance #5313-92 on page 10, delete the proposed new subsection (4) and substitute the following in its place: (4) Judicial Review - Any party
to the complaint shall have the right to petition for judicial review of the final order of the Community Relations Board in a court of competent jurisdiction. Such review shall be
limited to a review of the final order and the record of the proceedings conducted by the Community Relations Board under this section. A reviewing court may modify, revoke or remand
the final order only upon a finding that such order is not supported by substantial competent evidence or that the proceedings did not comply with the essential requirements of law.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5313-92 as amended for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5313-92 as amended
on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #35 - Ord. #5314-92 - Amending Ch. 50 regarding method of calculating deposits for new residential addresses with no prior service record and interest on utility deposits
Commissioner Berfield moved to amend Ordinance #5314-92 on page 6, in Section 2, insert the following: Provided, however, that the entitlement to interest pursuant to this ordinance
shall not extend to any utility system customer who elects to be excluded from participation in the settlement of said case. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5314-92 as amended for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5314-92 as amended on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #36-50) - Approved as submitted less 37 & 49.
Agreements - Approved less 37.
ITEM #36 - Joint Project Agreement with Pinellas County to relocate natural gas mains during improvements to Wyatt Street Target Area Phase IIA, at an est. labor cost of $30,173.09 (GAS)
ITEM #37 - See page 27
Leases - Approved.
ITEM #38 - Pier 60 FDNR Lease Documents - Lease issued by the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida for a parcel of sovereign submerged land in Secs. 7-29-15 & 8-29-15,
in Gulf of Mexico, Pinellas County, containing 14,450 sq.ft.m.o.l. ($3,651.52)(PW)
Bids & Contracts - Awarded.
ITEM #39 - Contract for non-exclusive services to Doctor's Walk-In Clinic for worker's compensation medical services during the period 1/1/93-12/31/93, at an est. $35,000 (AS)
ITEM #40 - Contract for roof replacement at Fire Station No. 5 (49) to The Dean Company, Clearwater, FL, for $32,514 (GS)
ITEM #41 - Extension of contract for basic life insurance for SAMP employees with Prudential Insurance Company of America, Tampa, FL, for the period 1/1/93-12/31/93, at an est. $52,000
(HR)
ITEM #42 - Extension of contract for non-contributory life insurance plan for full-time City employees and eligible retirees with Prudential Insurance Company of America, Tampa, FL,
for the period 1/1/93-12/31/93, at an est. $22,000 (HR)
ITEM #43 - Extension of contract for temporary employment services with Kelly Temporary Services, Clearwater, FL, for the period 12/4/92-11/30/93, at an est. $60,000 (HR)
ITEM #44 - Contract for physical examinations and other medical services to HCA Family Care Centers Walk-In Clinics, Largo, FL, for the period 1/1/93-12/31/93, at an est. $40,666.25
(HR)
ITEM #45 - Purchase of irrigation parts from Coast Pump and Supply Co., Inc., at an est.
$45,998.12; Century Rain Aid, Inc., est. $19,899.54 and D&S Industrial Plastics, est. $4,560.70, for the period 12/4/92-12/3/93 for a total est. $70,458.36 (PR)
ITEM #46 - Purchase 4 additional remote telemetry units and spare parts from Data Flow Systems, Inc., Melbourne, FL, for $29,384 (PW)
ITEM #47 - Purchase one Electronic Total Station and one Electronic Data Recorder for the Engineering Division from Earl Dudley Associates, Inc., Birmingham, AL, for $15,399 (PW)
Citizens & Staff Requests - Approved less Item #49.
ITEM #48 - Metropolitan Planning Organization - appointment of Mayor Garvey (CLK)
ITEM #49 - See page 27
Agreements, Deeds & Easements - Accepted.
ITEM #50 - Humane Society of North Pinellas, Inc. - Agreement renewal
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted less Items 37 and 49 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
ITEM #37 - Fourth amendment to paragraph 3 of Lease Agreement with Bikini Buttons, Inc., dated 6/12/90, allowing sale of charts, maps, personalized license plates, fruit shipping service
(produce not allowed in store), key duplicating service and sale of greeting cards (MR)
Mr. Eric Peterson, current lessee of room 8 in the marina building and owner of Bikini Buttons, Inc., d/b/a One-Hour Photo and Dive Shop, requests that paragraph 3 of his lease agreement
be amended to include the sale of charts, maps, personalized license plates, fruit shipping service only (produce not allowed in the store), key duplicating service and sale of greeting
cards.
The lease agreement with Bikini Buttons, Inc. expires on November 30, 1994. All other conditions, limitations, restrictions and obligations of the current lease agreement will remain
in effect throughout the term of the lease.
A citizen spoke requesting the Commission remove permission to sell postcards from the lease. Sample postcards were distributed and it was stated these are not family oriented and
should not be sold on City property. It was stated the Harbormaster has spoken to the lessee and asked them to keep these postcards in the back of the store.
Mr. Peterson indicated he was not selling pornography and these postcards are sold in many shops on Clearwater Beach. He stated the ability to sell postcards is already in his lease
and this is not the appropriate time to address this issue.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not it was appropriate for the Commission to address this issue. It was stated as Landlord, they do have the ability to address this. Mr. Peterson
indicated he wanted the ability to sell the postcards as well as the five items and requested the item be continued to allow him time to address this.
Commissioner Deegan moved to continue this item to the meeting of December 17, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #49 - Pinellas Sports Authority - appointment of Commissioner Deegan (CLK)
Lee Regulski is the City representative on this board. He resigned from the City Commission effective November 17, 1992 and has informed the City Manager he will be resigning from
the PSA as well.
The person appointed will fill the unexpired term to July 1, 1995. Regular terms are four years.
This board meets the fourth Wednesday of each month at 10:00 a.m. at the Florida Suncoast Dome, 1 Stadium Drive, St. Petersburg. Their next meeting will be January 27, 1993.
The Sports Authority does not require the City's representative to be a Commissioner. However, when Mr. Allen Lewis's last term expired, the Commission determined they would prefer
a Commission member be on this Authority and appointed Mr. Regulski.
Commissioner Deegan indicated that since worksession, he has had three or four calls requesting that Mr. Lewis be appointed to the Pinellas Sports Authority (PSA) again. He also indicated
he had spoken to Mr. Lewis and that he is retired and not interested in the appointment.
Commissioner Berfield moved to appoint Commissioner Deegan as the City representative to the PSA. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
ITEM #51a. - Resolution of Housing Rehabilitation Cases
Several Community Development rehabilitation projects have been identified which have construction related problems.
The City may have responsibility or liability in cases where construction monitoring has been inadequate. Grant funds will be provided to fund corrections in these cases in an amount
not to exceed $5,000.
Any additional funds necessary to correct construction related problems will be provided in the form of a Deferred Convertible Loan, which will be forgiven over a five year period
provided the owner remains in residence and the property remains code-compliant.
The City Manager will have the authority to increase the grant portion of any necessary funding on a case by case basis, provided that the total provided in any one case does not exceed
$20,000.
Concerns were expressed regarding requiring a loan to be taken out if the problems are due to mis-monitoring by city staff. Concerns were also expressed regarding the City Manager
having the ability to increase the funds available and not keeping the Commission informed.
It was indicated that staff also wished to have approved a provision for an emergency loan.
An alternative was suggested that the City assume responsibility for fixing problems and a separate item be brought forward to approve convertible loans.
Commissioner Deegan moved to authorize the use of CDBG funds to correct construction problems in CDBG rehabilitation projects, providing no more than $5,000 as a grant in any single
case and authorize the City Manager to increase the grant amount to a total not to exceed $20,000 in any single case, for a total amount not to exceed $100,000 in the current fiscal
year and that the City Commission be advised of every single incident. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #51b. - Resolution of rehabilitation construction problems in the cases of the Shuman, Watson and Elliott projects
The above homeowners have received funds for repair work through the Community Development Rehabilitation Program. Work performed was not satisfactory and has resulted in consequential
damages, due to improperly monitored construction. Staff efforts have been unsuccessful in resolving these issues with the contractors involved, and legal action is contemplated to
recover damages.
In order to rectify the housing situation for the three families, the Community Development Division will fund the needed repairs directly.
Competitive bids have been received for the work required to correct the problems at the Shuman house. The three qualified bids are for $12,255, $12,265 and $18,720. An additional
bid was offered by a contractor which has not met City Rehabilitation Program qualifications in an amount of $18,740. The City will provide funding plus any necessary contingency and
future change orders, in an amount not to exceed $20,000. Work is to be performed by the contractor approved and agreed to by the City Manager and the Shumans.
The work required to correct the construction problems at the Watson home has not been bid, but is expected to be under $5,000.
Work remaining in the Elliott home is expected to cost no more than $1,000.
The Deputy City Manager indicated the contractor in the Watson case has come forward and offered to fix any problems but it is understood that Ms. Watson may want to address that.
Mr. Polatty indicated inspectors have been out to the Watson home on several occasions and there are a number of items in dispute which staff does not feel was covered by the scope
of work. He indicated the Elliotts' problem was resolved with a hearing before the Neighborhood Advisory Committee. The Shumans have not had a hearing before the Neighborhood Advisory
Committee but it was found that flashing was not connected by the roofer and there has been additional damage to the home.
Mr. Polatty also indicated that the procedure which allowed an agent to pull a license under a contractor's name will no longer be allowed for the CDBG program.
A question was raised regarding why the City has not gone back to the contractor for whom Owen Heard was an agent. The Deputy City Manager indicated this would be a legal question.
Commissioner Deegan moved to authorize the use of CDBG funds to be provided as a grant to correct construction related problems encountered in the cases of the Watson, Shuman and Elliott
rehabilitation projects in an amount not to exceed $30,000 in total. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #52 - Citizen Request to address Housing Rehabilitation Program
The Shumans, Ms. Watson and Elliotts all were present to address the Commission regarding their rehabilitation projects.
The Shumans spoke regarding their proposal for fixing their problems stating they want to hire Taylor, who holds the contractor's license. They stated they wished to go with this company
as minimum housing code contractors use cheaper materials and they want to make sure the job is done properly. They stated if the codes were brought up a little and there was more monitoring
of the program, it was felt the problems could be solved.
In response to a question, it was indicated that everything on the list that has been provided to the Shumans will satisfy them regarding the rehabilitation project. Ms. Shuman indicated
she is depending on the City Attorney to proceed to obtain legal retribution from the original contractor.
Ms. Joann Watson reviewed the history of her rehabilitation project stating Owen Heard breached the contract and there were interoffice memos to that effect. She stated she called
the Clearwater Police Department after having trouble being released from the contract by the Community Development Division. She questioned if the City Manager was aware of what was
going on, and it was indicated that memos were sent to him indicating things were being taken care of and that was what he believed.
She stated the police investigation was stopped by Mike Wright. She indicated she had met with State Attorney Ferguson who said that the statute of limitations had run out. She alleged
harassment by the Planning and Development Director and indicated an inspection of December, 1990, done by the Planning and Development Director and B. McClullen included photographs
but the photographs cannot be found. She stated it took until April of 1991 for the problems to be fixed. She complained the job was still not done right and termites were found.
This was done after the flooring was installed and in order to treat the termites, holes would have had to have been drilled into the floor.
She stated she was denied contingency funds to replace a rusted sink and a roach infested cabinet. She stated she lived in these conditions for ten months after Owen Heard had not
done the job properly. She stated she had a termite problem again in March of 1992 and again, the termite treatment was improper as they had to drill holes in the floor. She stated
Design Wise was asked if the home was done but the homeowners were not asked.
She questioned why Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM) are not looking at the Watson, Shuman and Elliott homes. She alleged there was a memo stating this not be mentioned. She alleged that
Mayor Garvey and City Attorney Galbraith had ordinances repealed that left the program with less protection.
She stated she is waiting for the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development to look at her home prior to allowing anyone to correct the problems.
Mr. Polatty responded to some of Ms. Watson's allegations, indicating they had fired the contractor, which they had the right to do, but problems were encountered in obtaining a new
contractor for their home. He stated he did not remember pictures being taken in the December inspection referenced by Ms. Watson. He stated he was told that all the issues had been
resolved. He also stated that there are some things that the Watsons requested be done that are considered home improvement and not covered by the scope of work of the rehabilitation
project. He stated he believed the case was being handled properly. He stated staff has been asked to review current cases and CDM has been assigned closed out or old cases.
He indicated that for the Shumans and the Watsons their homes were expanded. There is now a policy that this will not be done. He stated as to the repeal of certain ordinances, this
was coincidental and the Building Official had been revising the entire building code and had been working on that for several years. The sections referenced were repealed due to duplication
with State law.
The City Attorney confirmed Mr. Polatty's statement that the repeal of Chapter 74 was a result of some questions raised by the Municipal Code Corporation during a republication of the
City Code.
In response to a question regarding the current status of the Watson house, Mr. Polatty indicated they have asked the Watsons if they will allow someone to fix the problems. Ms. Watson
indicated she is waiting on HUD and did not want anyone to work on the house prior to
their review of the home.
Ms. Watson was asked what she would agree to in order to resolve the problem. Ms. Watson indicated she did not want Design Wise to do the work. Mr. Polatty indicated if the Watsons
found a contractor they would be happy with, the Planning and Development Department would try to get them qualified for the CDBG project. Ms. Watson indicated she wanted HUD to review
the home first.
Diane Elliott reviewed the history of her case stating originally she was told she would qualify for a deferred payment loan and then later was told she did not qualify and would have
to pay 6% She stated she was victimized by an unlicensed, unscrupulous contractor. She alleged there was some relationship between Owen Heard and Michael Hughes of the Community Development
Division. She stated actions of these two individuals should have made her suspicious. When she complained to Mr. Hughes regarding the contractor, she was told this was a problem between
the contractor and the customer and that all issues would be resolved at the end of the job.
She stated there was only one inspection when she was asked to sign papers which she was told were progress payments. She thought this was reasonable and signed. She later found out
that final payment was made. She stated they want the home finally finished and want the warranties or guarantees required. She stated she has talked to Steve Watry regarding having
the loan changed to a deferred payment loan.
She wants to make sure this can not happen again and there needs to be clear procedure for arbitration.
Jay Elliott alleged that what the City Attorney has said regarding the ordinances was incorrect. He stated they were defrauded two years ago and would like that in the current police
investigation report. He stated Owen Heard signed as a contractor when he was not and that Charles Wolfesburger did not identify himself as the contractor until late in the job. He
stated that two thirds of the way through the job, his wife was scammed of $10,000 saying they were progress payments.
He stated Hughes had the check made out to Owen Heard. He reported that James Ferguson, State Attorney's Office, indicated prosecution would have been possible two years ago but the
statute of limitations has run out.
He stated he had been told the police investigation of two years ago had been stopped when Michael Hughes left City employment but he said that investigation had been started by Ms.
Watson and should not have been concluded.
In response to a question regarding what the Mayor had done regarding the documents provided to her, she indicated she had left it to the City Manager and his decision.
The Deputy City Manager indicated that the City Manager does not have the authority to stop a criminal investigation.
Mr. Elliott questioned who asked for the repeal of Chapter 74 and at the time that it was repealed, were they aware that these codes had been violated. He stated he would be back with
evidence regarding the inaccuracy of Mr. Galbraith's statement regarding the repeal of Chapter 74.
ITEM #53 - First Reading Ord. #5321-92 - Amending Ch. 54 re: solid waste (PW)
Articles I and III of Chapter 54 regarding Solid Waste Management have been revised to conform to the new requirements imposed by Recycling and the Solid Waste Management Act of 1988.
The ordinance has been rewritten to define Solid Waste, Recycling and Recyclables. The revision also encompasses the changes necessary to control the flow of solid waste and recyclables
within the City limits of Clearwater. It unifies the total Solid Waste Management effort to include recycling and states that all Solid Waste Management within Clearwater will be accomplished
by the City except for cases where the City does not choose to provide the service, such as, roll-off containers and certain types of compactors. The revised ordinance delineates pre-collection
practices, types of containers, container placement for collection, prohibits littering, prohibits new incinerators and denies access to the solid waste stream by outside companies except
by permit. The City Manager is designated as the approval authority for these permits.
The purpose of the revised ordinance is to retain unto the City, total control of the solid waste stream. It enables the City to either provide all of the services required for sound
Solid Waste Management or to franchise or permit all or a portion without the interference of outside waste haulers or recycling companies syphoning off the valuable recyclables and,
thereby, passing on the costs of the Infrastructure to the citizens of Clearwater. This approach to solid waste management enables the City to operate the solid waste system at the
lowest possible cost to our customers.
The adoption of this ordinance, at this time, is requested in order to have it in place before the next state legislative session. Efforts are being made to enact into state law statute
revisions limiting the power of local governments to regulate the flow of recyclables or the operation of private recycling companies. It is hoped this ordinance will be "grandfathered
in" and if so, will protect the City's waste stream from having its valuable recyclables syphoned off for profit. It will allow the City to market valuable recyclables and return the
income to system support in order to defray a portion of operating costs.
In response to a question, it was indicated that plastic bags would qualify as a container for yard waste.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the amendments to Chapter 54. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5321-92 for first reading and read it by title
only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5321-92 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #54 - Res. #92-75 - to enable the Clearwater Gas System to participate with the Municipal Gas Association of Florida (MGAF) through an Interlocal Agreement to purchase natural gas
as a joint agency (GAS)
Clearwater Gas System has been a leader in forming the Florida Municipal Natural Gas Association (FMNGA). This group represents all the municipally owned Local Distributing Companies
(LDCs) and Gas Districts within the State of Florida on issues such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Rate and Restructuring hearings concerning Order No. 636. This
group also represented the membership on a tax assessment hearing in front of the Florida Public Service Commission in Tallahassee.
The FMNGA group is now forming a joint action gas buying entity using Interlocal Agreements. Potential membership would be the 25 municipal/public LDCs served by Florida Gas Transmission
Company (FGT). So far, five have joined this association, those being: City of Leesburg, City of Madison, City of Perry, Okaloosa Gas District and Lake Apopka Gas District. The advantages
of participating in this joint action are the ability to buy larger quantities of gas at a potential greater savings and to shift excess gas not being used each month to other LDCs within
the group or to market it to direct customers along the FGT pipeline. It should be noted that actual purchase of gas by MGAF will not commence until after FERC Order No. 636 is initiated
for FGT, probably between October to December 1993.
This group will be controlled by a Board of Directors. Each member company will have one member on the Board. The proposed resolution includes the appointment of Chuck Warrington
as the City of Clearwater's Director of the MGAF and Terry Neenan as alternate.
Staff is confident the advantages of a joint action buying group will benefit Clearwater in the future particularly in light of the deregulation brought about by FERC Order No. 636.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #92-75 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #92-75 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #55 - Declare as surplus for subordination to the FDOT the City's easement rights and interest in 11 parcels of land lying along S.R.580, between Countryside Blvd. and McMullen-Booth
Rd.; Res. #92-74 - authorizing City Officials to execute subordination of utility
interests documents with FDOT (PW)
The FDOT is proposing to widen S.R.580 between Countryside Boulevard and Kendale Drive. They propose to start construction in fiscal year 1993/94. Inasmuch as they propose to widen
the road to six lanes, they will need to obtain additional right-of-way from several property owners along S.R.580. The City has various easements on part of the parcels of land needed
by the FDOT.
In order to facilitate this project, the FDOT is requesting the City subordinate our easement rights and interest in these parcels. The Commission approved City subordinations of easements
on six other parcels to the FDOT for this same road improvement project April 2, 1992 and an additional six parcels on November 5, 1992.
The subordinations contain provisions for the FDOT to pay to have the City's facilities relocated if necessary to prevent construction conflicts.
Commissioner Berfield moved to declare as surplus for subordination to the FDOT the City's easement rights and interest in eleven parcels of land (113.04, 117.03, 119.03, 123.03, 124.04,
125.04, 126.03, 127.04, 128.03, 129.03 and 130.05) lying along S.R.580, between Countryside Boulevard and McMullen Booth Road and to adopt Resolution #92-74 authorizing City Officials
to execute subordination of utility interests documents with the FDOT. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #92-74 and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #92-74 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #56 - Parks & Recreation Board - 3 appointments (CLK)
Commissioner Berfield moved to reappoint Henry Cruise. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Deegan moved to appoint Michael Stafford. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Berfield moved to appoint Stephan Guss. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #57 - Library Board - 1 appointment (CLK)
Commissioner Deegan moved to appoint Estelle Dunn. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
ITEM #58 - Environmental Advisory Committee - 1 appointment (CLK)
Commissioner Deegan moved to appoint Ina Sharpe. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #59 - Other Pending Matters - None.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
Resolutions
ITEM #60 - Res. #92-71 - Naming unnamed street which extends from Bay Esplanade westerly to Narcissus Ave., in Mandalay Sub. on Clearwater Beach, as Guava Street
The City Attorney presented Resolution #92-71 and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Resolution #92-71 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #61 - Res. #92-72 - Assessing property owners the costs of mowing or clearing owners' lots
The City Attorney presented Resolution #92-72 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #92-72 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #62 - Res. #92-76 - Requesting Pinellas County to cancel and discharge tax liens upon municipal property acquired for public purposes and to grant tax exemptions
The City Attorney presented Resolution #92-76 and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #92-76 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #63 - Other City Attorney Items - None.
ITEM #64 - City Manager Verbal Reports - None.
ITEM #65 - Other Commission Action
a. Regulski Replacement - resumes received thus far are: Rev. Walter Campbell, Mayme Hodges, Lee Savage, Marvin Moore, Bill Stephan, Helen "Jinny" Robinson, William Justice, C. David
Carley, Jr., Anne Garris and Jay Keyes
It was the consensus this item be continued to December 17, 1992.
Consensus was to cancel the December 4, 1992 Goal Setting Meeting and reschedule it for December 15, 1992 at 1:00 p.m.
ITEM #66 - Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:04 a.m. (12/4/92)