05/06/1993 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
May 6, 1993
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, May 6, 1993 at 6:00 p.m., with the following members present:
Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner
Arthur X. Deegan, II Vice-Mayor/Commissioner
Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner
Sue A. Berfield Commissioner
Fred A. Thomas Commissioner
Also present:
Michael J. Wright City Manager
M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney
William C. Baker Public Works Director
James Polatty, Jr. Planning and Development Director
Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk
Mary K. Diana Assistant City Clerk
The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was offered by Bill Baker, Public Works Director.
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 - none.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards
Proclamations:
A. Girls Incorporated Week - May 9-15, 1993.
B. Girls Speak Out Against Discrimination Day - May 14, 1993. C. Nursing Home Week - May 9-15, 1993.
ITEM #5 - Presentations - None.
ITEM #6 - Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 15, 1993 and Special Meetings of January 14, 1993 and February 23, 1993
Commissioner Fitzgerald requested the April 15, 1993 minutes be amended on page 12, paragraph 3, add the words "state or" before the word "federal" in regard to support for Dunedin
Pass; at the end of the same paragraph, after the word "process" add the words "by improving
traffic flow." He pointed out a typographical error on page 19, the last sentence, after the word "baithouse" change the word "if" to "is."
Commissioner Deegan questioned the syntax of the motion on page 23, in the last paragraph of the April 15, 1993 minutes. The City Clerk indicated beginning with City Manager to the
end of the sentence should be in quotes. He requested on page 20, third paragraph from the bottom, his comments were to point out the five alternatives were part of the original design;
and if they are considered separately for financial purposes, were still integral to the overall project.
The April 15, 1993 minutes will be amended to reflect the requested changes.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 15, 1993, as amended, and special meetings of January 14, 1993 and February 23, 1993, as recorded
and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Commissioner. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda
John Hogden and Mike Furnice requested item #28 regarding City-wide recycling services be taken off the consent agenda.
John Ciokon expressed concern regarding the location of the proposed Countryside Community Center; trees that have been blown down on that property not being replaced; and traffic concerns
on Sable Drive. He complained regarding not being able to get in touch with Commissioners. Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas requested their numbers be given out.
Dan Moran complained that derelicts at the Main Library are causing problems and asked that something be done to deal with this.
Richard Newell, General Manager of Celebration Station, indicated they are working with the neighboring residents to address their concerns. A meeting has been scheduled for August
to address all issues.
William Sterrett recommended the Corps of Engineers be asked to provide advice regarding Dunedin Pass.
Robert Clarke stated the segregation of government from non-government people is demoralizing.
Ed Hooper recommended the Commission increase their pay scale.
Paul Polgar suggested Prospect Avenue be temporarily designated as a bike trail to keep cyclists off Myrtle Street and Fort Harrison Avenue citing safety concerns.
Steve Saliga supported a pay increase for the Commission. He complained regarding "bad press" on the new Commissioner and commended Commissioner Thomas for saving money by questioning
items.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #8 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5367-93 - Vacating 30' wide portion of Allen Avenue, lying S of Blk 1, Acker's Subdivision, between S.R.580 and Daniel St. (City V92-15)(PW)
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is proposing to open bids for the widening of State Road 580 (SR580), between Countryside Boulevard and Kendale Drive, to six lanes,
on August 25th of this year. The FDOT is proposing to close Allen Avenue between SR580 and Daniel Street. They plan to construct a retention pond in the abandoned Allen Avenue right-of-way,
on the adjoining subdivision lots North of Allen Avenue, and on the 30 foot wide tract adjoining Allen Avenue to the South.
In order to facilitate this project, the FDOT is requesting the City vacate the platted portion of Allen Avenue and quitclaim the adjoining 30 foot parcel of land to the FDOT.
The City wishes to assist in the facilitation of this project which will greatly enhance a major thoroughfare in Clearwater. The continuation of Allen Avenue in its current geometry
is not in keeping with traffic engineering safety principals. Allen Avenue does not now connect with McMullen Booth Road at its east end and would present a safety hazard if its connection
with SR580 is maintained at its west end.
It is believed that should Allen Avenue not be vacated and a connection actually constructed with the DOT SR580 project, that Allen Avenue will eventually be improved and eastbound
traffic on SR580 will exit by way of Allen Avenue, travel Daniel and Charles, and turn south on McMullen Booth Road, and thereby escape lights at SR580 and Charles, and SR580 and McMullen
Booth Road.
Allen Avenue is not connected to McMullen Booth Road. The Vinings development obtained permission to place a private driveway upon the Allen Avenue right-of-way serving their property
only. There are five structures located on the north side of Allen Avenue between Daniel Street and McMullen Booth Road. These property owners have, in the past, been able to access
their property by way of Allen Avenue off SR580, Charles Avenue off SR580, Charles Street off McMullen Booth Road, and Daniel Street off McMullen Booth Road. They will lose access by
way of Allen Avenue off SR580. The DOT must provide stormwater detention and treatment for projects involving new pavement. The acquisition of property for this purpose along already-developed
corridors is extremely difficult and can sometimes affect the success of a widening project. It appears prudent that the City do everything reasonable and appropriate to insure the
success of this much needed improvement.
Public Works Director William Baker said the FDOT, in connection with this project, is required to provide stormwater attenuation and has identified private property, adjacent to Allen
Avenue, to build the required pond.
Jamal Lagamia, FDOT, reported no negative comments have been received from the surrounding property owners at the required public hearings held by his agency.
Mr. Baker indicated the five homes on the north side of Allen Avenue that would be most affected by the project were personally notified by the City and no objections to this project
have been received.
In response to a question, Mr. Lagamia indicated the project would start at the end of the year.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the vacation of the 30 foot platted right-of-way of Allen Avenue lying South of Block 1, Acker's Subdivision, between the southerly right-of-way
line of State Road 580 and the northerly right-of-way line of Daniel Street. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5367-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5367-93 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #9 - Public Hearing - declaring a 30' parcel of city-owned land lying S of the platted right-of-way of Allen Avenue as being surplus to City needs for the purpose of conveying this
parcel to the FDOT (PW)
This 30 foot parcel is needed in connection with the previous item to facilitate the SR580 widening project.
This land was originally obtained from Northwood Estates for right-of-way purposes at the time of development. The dedication contained language limiting the use of the property to
roadway purposes. In order to render this property as simple land and accommodate a quitclaim to DOT, a quitclaim deed from Northwood Estates was obtained on August 30, 1992, which
removed the limitation of its use for roadway purposes only, and altered its status such that it can now be quitclaimed to DOT and not be assigned to an adjacent property owner, as the
City believed would be the case had it remained as right-of-way.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to declare as surplus the 30 foot wide parcel of land lying South of the platted right-of-way of Allen Avenue, between State Road 580 and Daniel Street,
and authorize the signing of a Quitclaim Deed to the Florida Department of
Transportation and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #10 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5368-93, #5369-93, #5370-93, #5371-93, #5372-93 & #5373-93 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential and RS-6
Zoning for property located at 714 & 716 Bayview Ave., part of Sec. 16-29-16, M&B 32.03, 32.04, approx. 0.60 acre (Logemann A93-01; LUP 93-03; Parker A93-04; LUP 93-07)(PLD)
The subject property is located on the west side of Bayview Avenue approximately 1,050 feet south of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The applicants are requesting annexation to obtain City
sewer service.
At their meeting of April 13, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed the proposed annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential (Residential Urban) and
RS-6 Zoning to the Commission.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve annexation, a future land use plan amendment to low density residential and RS-6 zoning for the subject properties. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5368-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5368-93 on first reading. The motion was duly
seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5369-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5369-93 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5370-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5370-93 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5371-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5371-93 on first reading. The motion was duly
seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5372-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5372-93 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5373-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5373-93 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #11 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5379-93, #5380-93 & #5381-93 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential and RS-8 Zoning for property located at
1400 Regal Rd., Solar Crest Sub., Lot 1, approx. 0.20 acre (Forgacs, A93-08; LUP 93-10)(PLD)
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Regal Street and Sunny Park Road, approximately 880 feet north of Belleair Road and 1,280 feet west of Highland Avenue. The
applicant is requesting annexation to obtain City sewer service.
At their meeting of April 13, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed the proposed annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential (Residential Urban) and
RS-8 Zoning to the Commission.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve annexation, a future land use plan amendment to low density residential and RS-8 zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5379-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5379-93 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5380-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5380-93 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5381-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5381-93 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #12 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5364-93, #5365-93 & #5366-93 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential and RS-6 Zoning for property located at
1505 Winchester Rd., Hulett Estates, Lot 1, approx. 0.23 acre (Corkery A93-02, LUP93-04)(PLD)
The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Nursery Road and Winchester Road, approximately 1,320 feet east of Belcher Road. The applicant is requesting annexation to
obtain City sewer service.
At their meeting of April 13, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed the proposed annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential (Residential Urban) and
RS-6 Zoning to the Commission.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve annexation, a future land use plan amendment to low density residential and RS-6 zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5364-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5364-93 on first reading. The motion was duly
seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5365-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5365-93 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5366-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5366-93 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #13 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5361-93, #5362-93 & #5363-93 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential and RS-8 Zoning for property located at
1906 Ashland Dr., Citrus Heights Manor 1st Addition, part of Lots 45 & 46, approx. 0.18 acre (Foderingham A93-03, LUP93-05)(PLD)
The subject property is located on the north side of Ashland Drive, approximately 1,200 feet west of Hercules Avenue and 840 feet north of Union Street. The applicant is requesting
annexation to obtain City sewer service.
At their meeting of April 13, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed the proposed annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential (Residential Urban) and
RS-8 Zoning to the Commission.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve annexation, a future land use plan amendment to low density residential and RS-8 zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5361-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5361-93 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5362-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5362-93 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5363-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5363-93 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #14 - Alcoholic Beverage Distance Separation Variance for property (Shell Oil Co.) located at 2201 Sunset Point Road, Sec. 1-29-15 and Sec. 6-29-16, M&B 32.01 (Sun Bank of Tampa
Bay, AB93-08)(PLD)
The applicant is requesting a variance of 155 feet to permit a 2-APS alcoholic beverage establishment to be located 145 feet from a residential zone. The subject property is a convenience
store that will shortly be under construction. The distance separation variance is required because the subject property is closer than 300 feet to a residential lot on the opposite
(north) side of Sunset Point Road. The subject establishment will have a new alcoholic beverage license.
The property is zoned Commercial Planned Development. The police department has not transmitted comments concerning this request, but no negative comments are anticipated.
The applicant's request for a conditional use permit was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board at their April 13, 1993 meeting subject to the following conditions: 1) the requisite
building permit shall be obtained within one year of the date of this public hearing; 2) the requisite occupational license shall be obtained within 18 months of the date of this public
hearing; and 3) the applicant shall obtain the necessary separation distance variance from the City Commission.
There are no other alcoholic beverage sales establishments within 300 feet of the proposed use. Staff finds that all Standards for Approval of Land Development Code Section 45.24 have
been met.
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager, stated due to the unique shape of the residential lot to the North, the residence is actually further away then 300 feet.
Trish Muscarella, attorney representing the applicant, presented an aerial photograph of the area.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve a variance of 155 feet to allow alcoholic beverage sales within 145 feet of a residential zone for the subject property since the applicant has
met all Standards for Approval of Land Development Code Section 45.24. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #15 - Alcoholic Beverage Distance Separation Variance for property (Deli Restaurants Inc. d/b/a/ TooJays) located at 2566 Countryside Blvd., Sec. 30-28-16, M&B 41.01, 41.02, 42.02
& 42.03 (Bellwether Properties of Florida, Ltd., AB93-07)(PLD)
The applicant is requesting a variance of 200 feet to permit a 2-COP alcoholic beverage establishment to be located zero feet from two similarly licensed business establishments. Although
the restaurant is not physically closer than 200 feet to another similarly licensed establishment, the variance is required because the use is on the same property as two other Countryside
Mall alcoholic beverage sales establishments. In such cases, the subject property is defined as being "within zero feet" of such establishments.
The subject property is a restaurant named "TooJays". It will be open for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The distance separation variance is required because it is closer than 200 feet
to Big Easy Cajun and Schnickel Fritz. The subject establishment is under new ownership and will have a new alcoholic beverage license, if approved.
The property is zoned Commercial Center. No additional parking is needed. The police department has no comments regarding this request.
At their meeting of April 13, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the applicant's request for a conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1) the requisite
occupational license shall be obtained within six months of the date of this public hearing; 2) the operation is limited to consumption on premises only with no package sales; and 3)
the applicant shall obtain the necessary separation distance variance from the City Commission.
Staff finds that all Standards for Approval of Land Development Code Section 45.24 have been met.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve a variance of 200 feet to allow alcoholic beverage sales within zero feet of two similarly licensed business establishments for the subject
property since the applicant has met all Standards for Approval of Land Development Code Section 45.24. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #16 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property located at 648, 652, 654 & 656 S. Gulfview Blvd., Bayside Sub., Blk B, Lots 6, 21 & 22 (Capeluto Family Partnership SV93-09)(PLD)
The applicant is requesting a variance to permit the construction of a new freestanding sign on a property in the Beach Commercial zoning district. Freestanding signs are permitted
in this district only when all principal building setbacks are 15 feet or greater. The building on this property is setback 10 feet. The subject property is located on South Gulfview
Boulevard, approximately 450 feet west of Parkway Drive.
The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. Although the property is irregularly shaped, the building locations are the result of the owner's
site design.
The applicant states the store is located more than 70 feet to the rear of the property facing South Gulfview Boulevard and the visibility is blocked by the adjoining commercial stores
from both directions. The subject property is an irregular L-shaped property that combines Lots 6, 21 and 22. Lot 22 is the site of the existing Wings commercial building with a 10
foot structural setback. The parking lot and the second retail building are located on Lots 6 and 21. The second retail building is setback more than 100 feet from South Gulfview Boulevard.
Both buildings are new and construction was completed in 1992. The property has frontage on both South Gulfview and Bayway Boulevards. Because the building is setback greater than
15 feet from Bayway Boulevard, a freestanding sign is permitted along this street frontage.
The applicant has not provided any evidence this variance request arises from any conditions unique to this property. Staff review indicates there are no particular physical surroundings,
shape or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for this property.
The surrounding land uses to the subject property are motel/apartments to the north; condomimiums to the south; a shopping center to the east; and commercial development to the west.
The sign's proposed location is on South Gulfview Boulevard, a very high exposure corridor with a high volume of tourist traffic. Any hardships that may exist have been created by
the owner through the site plan design. The granting of this variance will detract from the commercial businesses that have conforming signage, create sign/vision clutter of the beach
area, and negatively impact the overall appearance of the community.
Staff finds that of the eight standards for approval, the applicant's request does not meet 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; 5) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; 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.
Ronald Fox, attorney representing the applicant, said the property has been in the the family for 35 years and only recently has the applicant decided to develop it. He submitted photographs
of the property approaching from the south and from the north (exhibit B); a unity of title (exhibit A); and a plat plan (exhibit C). He said the building in the back of the property
is basically blocked by Walgreens and Wings. He felt the property was a difficult site and caused a hardship for the tenants located in the rear portion.
Barry Ullmann, architect, said this is a tight and irregular site with pre-existing buildings and numerous schemes were attempted to achieve a workable layout. He said Walgreens contributed
heavily in the determination of where buildings, parking, pedestrian access, drainage and retention would be located. He said the building meets all the requirements of FEMA.
Mr. Fox said in order to create the entrance to the Wings building there had been a slight jog in the building and this is the only portion of the entire frontage that is in violation
of the setback requirement. He said the "L" shaped lot creates a unique situation for the applicant due to the location of the Wings building. Mr. Fox indicated the back building,
which is on a separate lot, is entitled to its own sign; however, when applying for the certificate of occupancy, the City requested a unity of title which would treat everything as
one parcel. A building permit was obtained for each of the two lots. He felt the applicant was locked into a situation created by the City as it was not known a unity of title would
be required.
In response to whether the developer was aware of the sign code at the time of construction, Mr. Fox indicated he was and there was no problem as the lot was entitled to a sign. He
said a sign is allowed on Bayside Boulevard but felt identification is needed from Gulfview Boulevard.
Planning Manager, Scott Shuford, pointed out the sign code regulations, before being readopted in September of 1992, did not allow freestanding signs in the beach commercial zoning
district. The subject property obtained its building permit prior to this and was not entitled to a freestanding sign. The unity of title was required to link the properties together
due to the fact that parking and open space are shared to meet code.
Nicholas Votzakis, restaurant owner, said he has received complaints his property is difficult to locate due to being blocked by Walgreens.
Mr. Fox said he does not object to a unity of title and felt the tenants required identification in order to be successful.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a variance to permit a freestanding sign in the beach commercial zone without a minimum building setback of 15 feet on the subject property.
In response to a question, Mr. Fox reviewed the plat plan (exhibit C) indicating how the architect calculated the overall frontage. He said a freestanding sign would be allowed for
this property if a unity of title was not requested.
The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if a freestanding sign would be allowed under the current code and Mr. Shuford said it would be allowed on this property if there had not been the jog
in the Wings building. He felt the issue was not a unity of title but whether the structure design creates a unique situation for this property.
Comissioner Thomas felt that with a tourist environment where people do not know where they are going, the only way to locate this building is to have a sign on the street. He felt
with the permits being issued, the building being built and the business currently existing there is a definite hardship on the applicant. He said a sign would be of the utmost importance
to the success of whatever business is located in the rear portion of the property.
Mayor Garvey pointed out the Commission was not here to forgive after mistakes had been made but to determine whether a true hardship exists. She pointed out the sign variance standards
had not been addressed.
Commissioner Berfield said the drawing in her packet listed five or six tenants on the sign, Mr. Fox stated they were changing to a vertical sign with the same square footage as the
horizontal one. In response to a question, he indicated there would be a maximum of four tenants in the back building. In response to whether "Wings" would be included on the sign,
Mr. Fox said this has not been determined.
Commissioner Deegan said he supported the motion to approve the variance since a setback of only approximately 19 percent was being requested, because the particular part of the building
which does not have sufficient setback is a good distance away from where the sign is intended to be placed and there is ample distance between the sign and the building. He felt it
meets all the other standards as set forth in Section 45.24 Standards for Approval of the City code.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
ITEM #17 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Clearwater Bagels Inc.) located at 1871 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Brookside Sub., Lot 34 less rights-of-way (J. C. Weaver SV93-11)(PLD)
The applicant is requesting a setback variance of 4.3 feet from the five foot setback requirement to permit a sign 0.7 feet from the east and west side property lines.
The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Brookside Drive and is in the General Commercial zoning district.
The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard right-of-way takes additional property on both sides of the boulevard
for a drainage structure. The result is 46 feet x 25 feet area that has been removed from Lot #34. The unusual right-of-way configuration along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard has created a
small sliver of property only 2.5 feet in width at the northeast corner of the property along the Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard frontage. This narrow sliver of property is where the sign is proposed to be located. This narrow piece of property is a result of the FDOT right-of-way configuration and
is a condition unique to this property. This condition was not created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant.
Surrounding land uses are: to the north - McDonald's, Captain John's Hair Styles for Men, and Grand Prix Car Wash (across Gulf-to-Bay); to the south - Affordable Plumbing/Thunder Construction
and Single Family Residential; to the east - vacant lot; and to the west - strip commercial shopping center.
The proposed sign is in character with the signage permitted with surrounding commercial area. If the right-of-way was not irregular in shape, a variance for side setbacks would not
be necessary. The granting of this variance will not detract from the surrounding businesses that have conforming signage, nor will it negatively affect the overall appearance of the
community.
Staff finds that all Standards for Approval of Land Development Code Section 45.24 have been met.
Brian Morris, applicant, said he is proposing to erect the sign at this location for safety reasons. In response to a question, Mr. Morris said he had decided not to go with wall signs.
Mayor Garvey said she would be more supportive of wall signs.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a variance of 4.3 feet from the five foot side property line setback to permit a sign 0.7 feet from the east and west property line for the subject
property. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Deegan requested language be added to the motion that the applicant met Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1 through 8.
Commissioner Thomas agreed to the added language and the seconder accepted the amendment. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
ITEM #18 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5374-93 & #5375-93 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial/Tourist Facilities and CG Zoning for property located at 2339 Gulf to Bay
Blvd., part of Sec. 18-29-16, N 280.01' of Hillcrest Mobile Home Park, approx. 0.64 acre (Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc., LUP 93-12, Z93-03)(PLD)
The City Manager said there is a recommendation to continue this item.
In response to a question, it was indicated nothing in regard to this item has gone to the Commission.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to June 3, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #19 - (Cont. from 4/1/93) Major amendments to CPD Certified Final Site Plan for Wal-Mart located on the NW corner of NE Coachman Rd. and US19N, Loehmann's Plaza, part of Lot 1 and
Loehmann's Plaza Replat, Lots 1-3 (Principle Mutual Life Insurance)(PLD)
This item was withdrawn by the applicant.
Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances
ITEM #20 - Ord. #5358-93 - Annexation for property located at 1943 Old Coachman Rd., Sunset Point Estates, Blk A, Lot 8, approx. 0.13 acre (Cissell A92-16)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5358-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5358-93 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #21 - Ord. #5359-93 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential for property located at 1943 Old Coachman Rd., Sunset Point Estates, Blk A, Lot 8, approx. 0.13 acre (Cissell
LUP92-27)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5359-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5359-93 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #22 - Ord. #5360-93 - RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1943 Old Coachman Rd., Sunset Point Estates, Blk A, Lot 8, approx. 0.13 acre (Cissell A92-16)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5360-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5360-93 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #23 - Ord. #5386-93 - Amending Article IV of City Charter, creating Sec. 4.06 to establish a department to be known as the General Accounting Office; providing for a special election
to be held 11/2/93 to submit this proposed charter amendment to the voters
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5386-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5386-93 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Fitzgerald spoke in opposition to this ordinance expressing concern on moving forward with an item that has not been thoroughly reviewed. He felt taking action to recommend
the modification of the City Charter was circumventing the public who will not be involved through the Charter Review Committee process outlined in the Charter. He said even though
the City Commission is empowered to recommend this, he felt the intent and purpose of the procedure outlined in the Charter is to make recommendations through the citizens and to allow
their input. He expressed concern regarding the costs to establish a general accounting office (GOA) and said he could not support this item until he had more definitive information.
Mayor Garvey said this proposal will require a special election which could cost approximately $16,000-$20,000 and expressed concern the Commission is being asked to vote on an issue
with very little information. She indicated this was circumventing the City Manager form of government and felt the City Manager should account to the Commission, not someone outside
his office. Mayor Garvey said she been in touch with employees of the federal government and they felt their GOA Office was a large beauracracy and did not accomplish anything. She
expressed concern in not knowing the goals, policies, procedures, cost, etc. of such an office before asking the citizens to vote on the issue. She said she would vote against it tonight
and would encourage the citizens of Clearwater to do the same.
Commissioner Thomas said he supported such an office and would do his best to encourage the citizens to vote in its favor. He felt the language in the ordinance clearly states the
objective of this office. He said the Commission has no independent means to determine how the City is being managed or governed and this office would provide an opportunity for this.
He felt there is an inherent conflict of interest for this data to come forward to the Commission through the City Manager.
Mayor Garvey asked what the cost would be and Commissioner Thomas said he did not have any specific numbers. He indicated this office would fulfill a need for the City.
Mayor Garvey said she is very cautious when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars and indicated she does not like to commit to an issue until the cost is known. She expressed concern
regarding the cost of this program to the taxpayers.
Commissioner Thomas felt if this department is used correctly, it would be more than self funding.
Bob Bickerstaffe spoke in favor of the ordinance indicating a definite need has been shown for such an office in the past year. He said he would like to see it become activated and
felt it would be a definite checkmate and would take care of itself.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked Mr. Bickerstaffe what specific need for this office was demonstrated in the past year and Mr. Bickerstaffe referred to the Sun Bank Building purchase.
He felt if this office had existed, this issue would have been handled in a more business-like manner.
Brian Morris found that asking the residents to vote on the issue was a reasonable request. He questioned the competitive bid process as he felt the City was paying too much for materials
and services and were not competitively bidding but were merely "rubber stamping" purchases. He referred to the purchase of fire hydrants on tonight's agenda and asked if this was competitively
bid. He said there was no balance of checking and felt the GAO would oversee the process.
The City Manager said there were five bids on the fire hydrants which were very competitive. In response to a question, he said approximately 80 fire hydrants were being replaced and
several hundred miles of water lines.
The City Manager said the City virtually bids everything except sole source items.
Items under $10,000 are sometimes handled through competitive telephone calls. He said the City is constantly searching out new sources and sends out bids to anyone who asks.
Commissioner Deegan assured that of all the procedures in the City, purchasing is one area where there is good control in following the rules. He said reports and backup information
are provided to the Commission regarding purchases. He said the reason these items are on the consent agenda tonight is because reports and backup information have already been reviewed
and discussed at the work session by the Commission.
Commissioner Fitzgerald pointed out information regarding these purchases is available for review.
Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Deegan and Thomas.
"Nays": Fitzgerald and Garvey.
Motion carried.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #24-30) - Approved as submitted less Item #28.
Bids & Contracts - Awarded.
ITEM #24 - Purchase of various sizes of steel gas pipe from L. B. Foster, Maitland, FL, for the period 5/7/93-5/6/94, at an est. $90,480 (GAS)
ITEM #25 - Purchase of two 4-wheel drive tractors with loader & backhoe from ProEquip, Inc., Clearwater, FL, for $27,998 (GS)
ITEM #26 - Purchase of real property appraisal services for right-of-way required for construction of new Clearwater Pass Bridge with approval of purchase requisition for such services
for $10,500 (The Centerline Group, Inc.)(PW)
ITEM #27 - Purchase of fire hydrants from B&H Sales, Sarasota, FL, for the period 5/24/93-5/23/94, at a total est. $40,484.50 (PW)
Citizens & Staff Requests - Approved.
ITEM #28 - See page 18
ITEM #29 - Approval of City Hall renovations to improve access by disabled persons in compliance with requirements of the ADA; provide funding for the est. $13,980 from the unreserved
undesignated balance of the General Fund (CM)
Receipt & Referral - Received and Referred.
ITEM #30 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Industrial and IL Zoning for property located in Sec. 1-29-15, M&B 34.27 & part of 34.35 and Sec. 12-29-15, part of M&B 21.01, 5.75
acres m.o.l. (Instrument Transformers, Inc. A93-06, LUP93-08)(PLD)
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted less Item #28 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
ITEM #28 - Authorize preparation of Request for Proposals inviting private waste haulers & recyclers to quote fees for providing citywide recycling services (PW)
The Solid Waste Management Act enacted by the State Legislature in 1988 requires each county in Florida to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills or incinerators
by 30% before January, 1994. In September, 1989, the City, along with other municipalities in Pinellas County, agreed to develop a recycling program. Since that time the City has initiated
recycling drop-off centers, limited curbside collection, limited collection at multi-family complexes, commercial cardboard collection, office paper collection, glass and aluminum collection
at high-generating establishments, and numerous special efforts. The City has, however, not yet established the full-service citywide curbside collection program which constitutes the
most significant and highest effort toward recycling.
During the period of May 5, 1992, through October 31, 1992, the Solid Waste Division of the Public Works Department conducted a pilot study wherein materials were collected at curbside
from 1,289 homes in a manner duplicating the actual conditions of a permanent application. The pilot program results clearly indicate a citywide recycling program involving a once weekly
curbside pick-up of recyclables, a once weekly pick-up of yard waste, and a twice
weekly pick-up of garbage and trash can be established by the Public Works Department for a monthly fee of $2.00 - $2.50 for recycling, and a $16.60 monthly fee for garbage and trash.
The $16.60 fee is down from its existing $17.05 value due to dump fee savings resulting from recycling.
Staff now wishes to examine the prospect of recycling by private recycling companies. Until a Request for Proposal clearly specifying all that is required of a private hauler is distributed
and returned by the private parties, the City will have no meaningful figure as to the cost of employing that method. It is proposed the City solicit a per-household monthly fee for
the once-weekly curbside recycling pick-up, as well as charges or payments for full-service multi-family and commercial recycling.
The City Manager said the recycling efforts should be continued and possibly expanded. He felt it was in the best interest of the citizens of Clearwater to competitively bid the recycling
services and implement them City-wide for commercial, multi-family and single family pick-up. He felt a January 3rd implementation date could be met and saw no problem in the employees
bidding competitively against the private sector.
John Hogden, president of CWA, said he could only presume that competitively bidding solid waste would soon follow as this was the normal pattern for a take over by an independent contractor.
Concern was expressed to "low ball" bids and making up for losses later by raising rates or reneging on services. He said the larger revenues are in the commercial garbage operations
not the recycling or residential pickups or trash removal. He said there are a lot of questions that require answers before allowing a private corporation to take over City operations.
He said recycling is a relatively new industry and a state mandate was handed down for implementation and enforcement along with some funds. He said there have been no charges to the
customers for the recycling services. He submitted a list of questions to be reviewed.
Commissioner Thomas pointed out the state legislature mandates competition.
The City Manager said there is a law that allows private sectors to do recycling; however, does not mandate it. He said before the City makes a significant capital investment in recycling;
he would like to see what it would cost to go the private sector route. He said the requests for proposals would be very specific and detailed and would require certain financial guarantees.
He indicated a draft has been prepared and many of the questions raised by Mr. Hodgen should be answered in the proposal process. He said he is not suggesting the City not do the
recycling but wants to see if they can match what the private sector is proposing. He said there are millions of dollars invested in the Solid Waste operations and does not see the
City getting out of this business. The City Manager expressed concern if the bill regarding recycling is signed, the private sector can come in and literally take the more profitable
materials.
Commissioner Thomas said he prefers the City to handle its own waste, pickup and recycling. He said our departments are going to have to be more competitive because competition is
moving in. He found the Sanitation Department to be outstanding indicating it has served the City well.
Mayor Garvey said the City is responsible for picking up whatever solid waste is there no matter what happens. She said it is unfortunate the legislative body cannot see what the cities
are trying to do to become more responsible and responsive to the recycling issue. She said it is hoped the City can provide the best service possible for the citizens.
Commissioner Berfield asked if we bid these services out and go with a private firm, would this prevent anyone else from coming in and collecting the "cream of the crop" materials.
The City Manager responded he did not think so; however, thought it might become very competitive for the larger companies bidding for the more lucrative recyclables. He said the biggest
segment of our recycling is going to be in the residential areas and did not feel there would be competition in this area.
Commissioner Thomas felt competition makes for a more efficient business for everybody.
Mike Furnia, expressed concern regarding the price the City would charge per household is part of the public record and the waste haulers would have access to this charge. They would
come in under this figure and would raise rates down the road. He said the City already has the infrastructure to get the job done and felt they were ahead of other cities in the recycling
area. He expressed concern regarding loss of employees' jobs and decreased revenue to the City. He said, realistically, cities who have gone against the private waste haulers came
in lower. He said in the future disposable materials will consist of 50% recyclables and 50% solid waste and the issue will be who is going to control the market. Mr. Furnia found
the City to be doing a good job.
Mike Smutko expressed concern regarding privatization of the sanitation efforts indicating he is very happy with the current service. He said the investment the City has made needs
to be realized. He felt recycling has become an issue of the 90s. He said the City needs to follow through and capitalize on their initial investment. He felt the City would be more
accountable than a private hauler and would expect a private hauler to raise their rates as they are in business to make a profit.
Mr. Furnia expressed concern the private hauler would not promote picking up at every household. The City Manager said the City needs to determine what should go with the private haulers
and what should stay with the City and felt this would be part of the decision making process. He said the RFP he is proposing is a fairly complicated proposal which has been used successfully
in other municipalities.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the City develops a great recycling business, would the City have the right to solicit other cities' business for a profit.
The City Manager said the City subsidizes the recycling because of the lack of markets. He said Clearwater supplies utilities to other municipalities and felt recycling could be considered
a utility.
Commissioner Thomas said if the City is good in specific areas, it should look at going out after business in other cities. The City Manager said he recently discussed with the City
of Dunedin co-oping some solid waste proposals and there have been previous discussions with Safety Harbor. He said this would be considered selling services and felt there are a number
of things the City does on a cooperative basis. Commissioner Thomas asked that this issue be looked at as a possible business venture for the City to truly develop a competitive position
in the marketplace. The City Manager indicated this was a policy issue.
Mr. Furnia said the City can control the quality of material. He also indicated baling the material into a finished product would bring in additional revenue.
The City Manager said there is a collection side and a disposal side and both have their own complications and potentials for making or losing money. He pointed out he is extremely
senstive to the needs of the employees.
Commissioner Berfield questioned whether a time period and all increases coming back to the Commission should be tied into the RFP. The City Manager said the recommendation is that
the services be bid for a fixed period of years. He is considering five years to allow a company to recover its capital investment. He said to make sure the company has resources,
performance bonds will be requested from the bidders in addition to sureties. Renewals and/or increases in rates will come back to the Commission.
In response to a question, the City Manager said the RFP will be available by the end of next week for review.
Commissioner Berfield moved to authorize City staff to prepare a Request for Proposal inviting private waste haulers and recyclers to quote fees for providing City-wide recycling services.
Commissioner Thomas stated he would second the motion if it included renewals and increases coming back before the Commission. Commissioner Berfield agreed to the change. Upon the
vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 8:00 p.m. to 8:14 p.m.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
ITEM #31 - S.R.60 designation relocation (CM)
The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), at its April 19, 1993 meeting, requested the City Commission to formally ask the State of Florida to remove the State Road 60 designation on
Cleveland Street/Gulf to Bay, from Highland Avenue to the Bayfront. The motion further requested that staff begin planning to redesign Cleveland Street to permit on-street parking.
Two major modifications to the street network in the downtown Clearwater area are being proposed, the redesignation of S.R.60, from Cleveland Street to the Court/Chestnut Street corridor
and the removal of traffic lanes from Cleveland Street to allow curbside parking. The existing street network does not currently have the capability to accommodate both of these changes
without a significant increase in delays and congestion in the downtown area.
The Transportation Group of the Department of Public Works recommends against the immediate implementation of curbside parking along Cleveland Street. Roadway improvements along the
Court/Chestnut corridor (or other corridors) should be in place to avoid a reduction in the roadway levels of service and to ensure downtwon redevelopment efforts are not hampered by
concurrency concerns.
However, now is an ideal time to identify the desired future of downtown's Cleveland Street. A Commission decision at this time to ultimately minimize the importance of Cleveland Street
as a through arterial would be valuable input to both the Alternate US19 and S.R.590 (Drew Street) PD&E studies, as well as the upcoming study for the replacement of the Memorial Causeway
drawbridge.
Commission's direction would also initiate the FDOT's thorough review for the jurisdictional reclassification process, and allow the planning and construction of improvements to the
alternative corridors to be started. The mere redesignation of S.R.60 (with just signing changes) would have some impact on through traffic headed to the beach, though not to the point
where the Court/Chestnut corridor would become overloaded. It would be a good first step if the direction to be taken is the ultimate reduction in traffic along Cleveland Street.
Mayor Garvey said she did not believe the action being requested was appropriate and expressed concern a number of businesses would be hurt.
Commissioner Deegan said the recommendation only mentioned requesting the Florida Department of Transportation to redesignate SR 60 and indicated the motion made at the Community Redevelopment
Agency included moving forward with a planning process for the redesign of the lanes on Cleveland Street from Myrtle Avenue to the Causeway.
Traffic Engineer Peter Yauch stated due to references to Dunedin's Maint Street parking he drove along Main Street and noticed the diagonal parking is not opposite each other. He felt
the configuration of diagonal parking would reduce capacity considerably. He said the question of how much traffic would be diverted off Cleveland Street to the Court/Chestnut corridor
would need to be answered before coming up with a design. There is a pavement width of 50 feet on Cleveland Street. Two full rows of diagonal parking on both sides and a two-lane roadway
in the middle would require 63 feet. He said he had reviewed some recent traffic counts done as part of the Drew Street PD&E study which showed in a 2 block section of downtown along
Cleveland Street there is more traffic east bound than west bound. He felt before coming up with a design further capacity analyses would need to be done.
Discussion ensued in regard to angled parking and Mr. Yauch indicated going beyond a 45 degree angle would not provide any additional spaces. Commissioner Thomas felt diagonal parking
was easier to deal with than parallel.
The City Manager said he had requested delaying designing the parking until approval was obtained and indicated there were a variety of options.
Commissioner Thomas felt the keypoint was to expedite this request to get onstreet parking on Cleveland Street between Myrtle Avenue and Osceola Avenue.
Commissioner Deegan reiterrated the CRA motion requested City staff to begin planning to redesign Cleveland Street to permit onstreet parking.
The City Manager said there is a lot underway in the traffic and engineering areas at this time indicating DOT did not support this project in the past. He indicated a conceptual plan
could be ready in a few weeks. He said if DOT concurs with the Commission's request, the design could be started once the notice of intent is received. He felt DOT is going to want
road improvements as a condition of the swap.
Commissioner Deegan felt if two lanes of traffic are maintained going west with one lane going east and the medians removed, onstreet parking can be achieved without affecting concurrency
requirements. He felt if a design was available to present to DOT, they would be more receptive to the request.
Mr. Yauch said DOT would be very interested in knowing what capacity constraints will be put on Cleveland Street if they are going to inherit the Court/Chestnut corridor.
The City Manager recommended authorizing the Mayor to write a letter to start negotiations with DOT to see what they will require.
Commissioner Deegan said he did not want to tell staff how to design the parking layout but to come up with conceptual ideas that might be saleable to DOT instead of asking them what
they want us to do.
Mr. Yauch said the parking configuration that would minimize the taking of pavement would be parallel to the curb. He said the normal width of parallel parking stalls on the street
are 8 feet. He expressed concern regarding backing out of a diagonal stall into oncoming traffic.
Commissioner Deegan felt diagonal parking was no more dangerous than parallel parking due to a car having to stop in the traffic to back into the space. The City Manager said extra
length stalls would address this by allowing the car to pull directly into and out of the space.
Commissioner Thomas said he felt the majority of the Board wanted parking on Cleveland Street as quickly as possible and wanted a positive methodology pursued by staff to accomplish
this goal. The City Manager said DOT has been put on notice regarding onstreet parking on Cleveland Street. He said previous correspondence from DOT indicated, before giving up the
corridor, they wanted to see the results of the Drew Street/Cleveland Street one way pairs which is scheduled for the next meeting. He said he could not envision DOT giving
up the right-of-way until they make a decision regarding the one-way pairs. The City Manager assured the Commission he would pursue this issue in a most diligent manner.
In response to a question regarding when the results from the one-way pair study would be available, Mr. Yauch said public input would be solicited in mid June and shortly after a determination
would be made.
Commissioner Deegan said he would like to avoid waiting until the one-way pair study is done and felt conceptual designing should be started now.
The City Manager said he wanted to have a better feel of what is going to come to pass as staff is under a lot of pressure to get public works items done.
Commissioner Deegan moved to request the State of Florida Department of Transportation to redesignate SR 60 from Cleveland Street/Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard to Court Street/Chestnut Street
for that portion of the above referenced streets lying between Highland Avenue and Memorial Causeway, and to expeditiously begin conceptual planning to redesign Cleveland Street in order
to permit onstreet parking. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Garvey suggested waiting until a response has been obtained from DOT prior to staff moving forward.
Commissioner Berfield asked if it would be to the City's advantage to include a description of what is being proposed when the request for the swap is made to DOT. Mr. Yauch felt a
verbal conceptual description would help them to envision what is being proposed. He said FDOT's real concern would not be how the parking is implemented on Cleveland Street but how
much traffic would be diverted from Cleveland Street to the Court/Chestnut corridor.
The City Manager said there are a variety of things to consider. He said $1 million has been set aside for the improvement of Greenwood Avenue and Court Street. He said DOT personnel
are very receptive in approaching transportation projects where the City is willing to commit certain revenues for projects that will benefit them as well as the City. He expressed
concern in dictating to DOT how the project will be done and asked flexibility in pursuing this project.
Commissioner Deegan said he would like the City to inform DOT of their intentions rather than have DOT dictate to them. The City Manager pointed out, when dealing with DOT, they usually
request a series of alternatives.
Discussion ensued in regard to language in the motion delaying the project. The City Clerk restated the motion: "Commissioner Deegan moved to request the State of Florida Department
of Transportation to redesignate SR 60 from Cleveland Street/Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard to Court Street/Chestnut Street for that portion of the above referenced streets lying between Highland
Avenue and Memorial Causeway, and to expeditiously begin conceptual
planning to redesign Cleveland Street in order to permit onstreet parking. The motion was duly seconded."
In response to a question, the City Manager felt this could cause a delay and indicated, if authorized to expeditiously pursue this project, he would. He said there is more involved
than just onstreet parking; there are other roadway improvements to be considered. He said staff will have to strategize with DOT on the best way to do the project. Mr. Yauch said
DOT's main concern is increasing lane mileage.
Commissioner Deegan said strategizing with DOT would be beginning the conceptual planning.
Commissioner Thomas concurred with going forward with the conceptual planning.
Mayor Garvey felt the conceputal planning could be accomplished verbally.
Commissioner Fitzgerald said he does not support the proposal. He said DOT is currently doing a study and will not approve anything until the study is done. He said he would like
to see what their position will be regarding the one-way pairs. He said he supports the Traffic Engineer's position and does not believe onstreet parking is going to be the salvation
of downtown.
Commissioner Deegan said no one is claiming onstreet parking is going to be the salvation of downtown; however, it will add something to the revitalization efforts.
Commissioner Thomas indicated a number of approaches needed to be taken to find out how to improve the downtown and make it a viable business center. He found this proposal to be a
start.
Mayor Garvey felt this project would affect future development due to difficulty in meeting concurrency requirements because of decreased traffic flow.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas voted "aye"; Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "nay." Motion carried.
ITEM #32 - Preliminary Plat for Bradford Court, Lot 1, Sec. 19-29-16, M&B 41.011 (Bradford Scott Corp./Kehm SUB93-04)(PLD)
The preliminary plat reflects vacant property being subdivided from the existing Denny's restaurant property. The newly subdivided property is intended to be developed as the site
of a future motel building. Certain restrictions and covenants were recorded with Pinellas County Official Records on October 18, 1972. The Commission then approved an amendment to
Restrictive Covenant No. 2 effective October 12, 1976, which states: "2. The North 6 acres (+/-) of said read property which is more specifically described by the attached Exhibit "A",
shall be limited to usage as a site for an appropriate commercial use, with any structure limited to two stories in height and with site and sign plans for any such proposed commercial
use to be
submitted to and reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board and approved by the City Commission".
The applicant has not indicated any problem with these covenants.
With regard to concurrency management, a traffic impact study is anticipated, as this link of US19 is at an adopted Level of Service "E" and is "backlogged" for future improvement.
Preliminary review indicates all existing utilities and necessary easements are shown on the preliminary plat with sufficient area for two-way traffic circulation. There are two existing
30 foot wide driveways with easements to access both the Denny's restaurant and the proposed motel property to the rear of the property.
There were no other comments from reviewing departments.
Planning Manager Scott Shuford said questions were raised at the work session regarding how this application related to Denny's. He said a two-lot subdivision is being created from
the Denny's property and the large vacant area to the rear. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford indicated he believed the current Denny's driveway would be used by both parties.
The City Manager said the plat refers to it as a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress.
In response to a question, Mr. Shuford said when development occurs on the vacant parcel, a site plan will come forward for review.
A question was raised if a review had been done to see if a traffic congestion problem will be created by combining traffic from the subdivision and the restaurant. Mr. Shuford said
they have no idea of what the traffic volumes will be. The City Manager pointed out approving the subdivison is being considered tonight not actual development of the site.
Even though the property is intended for a motel site, Mr. Shuford said the applicant does have other use alternatives. He said staff has not looked at the motel from a concurrency
standpoint. There is no information regarding the number of units.
Commissioner Thomas asked what the legal downside would be if this item is approved tonight and it turns out the traffic is far greater than code standards. Mr. Shuford said if they
do not meet code, the plan would have to be modified.
A question was raised what would prevent the applicant from selling off portions of the property and the City Attorney said it would be considered an illegal subdivision; however, could
be done without the City knowing.
The City Manager said the applicant is requesting the property be subdivided and development on this site will be subject to the site plan process with the Commission giving final
approval.
Mr. Shuford said the applicant could develop the rear portion of the property with a motel without subdividing it or could sell off M&Bs still utilizing the same access points. He
said there is no other place on this property to access a roadway.
Commissioner Deegan moved to authorize the Development Review Committee (DRC) to approve a final plat for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #33 - Approve payment of $40,000 to Ervin's All American Youth Club; funding to be provided by the unreserved undesignated fund balance from the General Fund
The City has been requested by Tom Whitney, Chairman of the Board, to fund an additional $40,000 to Ervin's All American Youth Club through the end of the year. This amount is the
differernce between the budgeted amount and actual expenditures. The monies are available in the unreserved undesignated fund balance from the General Fund.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a payment of $40,000 to Ervin's All American Youth Club with funding to be provided by the unreserved undesignated fund balance from the General
Fund. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked clarification of what is being proposed and referred to a proposal for a job readiness program and questioned how it related to the subject request.
The Mayor said they were separate proposals and the organization is only requesting $40,000 to continue the current program.
Commissioner Deegan said the organization initially thought it might be good to embark upon a new program as a justification for asking for money. They have since withdrawn their request
for the new program.
The City Manager said staff had suggested the current approach and he indicated he concurred.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if the organization's funding comes from just two sources and it was indicated it did.
Asheela Harris, representing Ervin's All American Youth Club, said originally she wanted to provide jobs for approximately 20 youths who did not qualify under the summer work program
and indicated a desire to be included in the City's decision making process for summer jobs. She said this is what the $40,000 was originally for and would like to discuss this issue
at a later date. The $40,000 currently requested is to keep the club going. She said she understands there is money available for summer jobs and would like to know how the City plans
on spending it. In response to a question, Ms. Harris indicated they do receive donations; however, no where near the $40,000 being requested. She felt the work the organization does
benefits the whole community.
In response to whether the board members solicit private sector donations, Ms. Harris said they get so busy providing services they forget to spend time with the board members on this
issue.
The Mayor suggested the board members approach the private sector for donations.
Ms. Harris felt they have not received the kind of support they deserve. She said they need City government support and the community needs to become united.
Commissioner Thomas commented he could not think of a greater need in our community than giving more support to this organization. He felt the areas in need of help are the disadvantaged
areas which include the North Greenwood and North Fort Harrison corridors. He said the Commission needed to search out more ways to invest in these areas. He felt it crucial to the
long term health and welfare of this community indicating more focus needs to be given to building our youth.
In response to a question, Ms. Harris indicated they have attempted to get outside funding; however, it has not come through.
Commissioner Thomas felt the organization's performance was great; however, felt they needed to increase their public relation efforts.
Commissioner Fitzgerald noted the state withdrew the club's funding. Ms. Harris said the money stopped because of budget constraints not because they were not producing. She felt
there was plenty of money out there and their board needed to put forward a little more effort in soliciting donations. She expressed appreciation for what the City has done to support
them.
Commissioner Thomas pointed out Ervin Harris is on the Governor's special committee representing African/American Affairs of the State of Florida and felt Clearwater has been honored
by his presence.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
ITEM #34 - Municipal Code Enforcement Board - 1 appointment (CLK)
Commissioner Deegan moved to appoint Louise Bolton to finish out the term to October 31, 1995. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #35 - Other Pending Matters - None.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
First Reading Ordinances
ITEM #36 - Ord. #5401-93 - Proposing an amendment to Article II of the City Charter; Amending Section 2.07(E) - providing that nonresidents of the City may be appointed to advisory boards
whenever residents possessing the necessary qualifications for board membership are not available for appointment; providing for a special election to be held 11/2/93 in order to submit
proposed amendment to the voters
Mayor Garvey expressed her opposition to the amendment. She felt with a population of 100,000 there are enough residents with the necessary qualifications to serve on these boards
and said it is the City's responsibility to seek them out. She expressed concern regarding non-residents giving advice on how to run the City.
Commissioner Thomas pointed out Clearwater residents are given first priority; however, there are times when there are not enough volunteers in specific areas. He supported the amendment.
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern that a procedure has been established for a citizens' Charter Review Committee which will be appointed in January 1994 to address these type
issues. He felt moving forward in this manner is a circumvention of the system that has already been established. He said on this basis he was opposed to the amendment.
Commissioner Deegan said when the Charter Review Committee meets, they may not want to include this recommendation. He said charter amendments go before the public as a total charter
to be approved or disapproved and felt there would be no way to know if the public was in favor of this recommendation.
The City Clerk said amendments to the Charter do not have to be handled as a single vote. She said in the past they have been handled both ways.
Commissioner Deegan pointed out the purpose of advisory boards is to give recommendations; not run the City.
Commissioner Fitzgerald said his objection is based on the procedure more than anything else.
Commissioner Berfield said she did not have a problem with the procedure but did have a problem with non-residents sitting on City boards.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5401-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5401-93 on first reading. The motion was duly
seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Deegan and Thomas.
"Nays": Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
Motion failed.
ITEM #37 - Other City Attorney Items
The City Attorney reported the City's motion for rehearing in the Dimmitt case has been denied. He said Ordinance #5382-93 readopting the sign permit requirement is scheduled for first
reading on May 20, 1993. If a permit is not obtained and a sign erected, the sign is illegal.
ITEM #38 - City Manager Verbal Reports - None.
ITEM 39 - Other Commission Action
Vision Cable
Commissioner Thomas moved to authorize that Vision Cable be requested to broadcast live all City Commission meetings, to tape work sessions for future playback; and when possible, broadcast
or tape for future broadcast all special meetings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Berfield thanked all the volunteers for the Fun N Sun activities, in particular, Terry Schmidt.
Commissioner Deegan thanked the City Clerk for recasting the minutes to identify all speakers. He requested discussion regarding all City leases and referring to the Pier 60 lease
to Pier Pavilion, Inc., he felt there was no reason not to continue this lease until the Pier is completed.
The City Attorney pointed out the lease ends in December and the charter provides for a 15-year limitation on leasing City property. He said there is nothing in the charter that would
prevent the City from entering into another lease with the same party. The City Manager expressed concern that previous opinions had indicated competitive bids would be required.
The Mayor indicated this was prime property for a commercial establishment and felt the City should go out for competitive bids to give others an opportunity.
Commissioner Deegan said he would like to allay any necessity for rush action as the reconstruction of Pier 60 would have a bearing on what takes place. He favored keeping the current
lessee until the pier is completed.
The City Manager asked if the referendum provision in the charter would kick in if the lease is for a period longer than 3 years because this is recreation/open space property. He
said he was under the impression it would. He said an election has been set for November, and if this issue has to go to referendum, he felt the Commission may want to consider going
out for proposals now.
Commissioner Thomas suggested developing an RFQ to see what the market has to offer.
The City Manager said on a cash basis the pier basically breaks even. No cash is set aside for depreciation or for replacement. He said he has envisioned the concept of once the pier
is rebuilt and the marina is rehabilitated, the two properties would be tied together with the same architectural theme. He suggested operation of both could be bid as one package.
Commissioner Thomas indicated the subject property was one of the most valuable pieces of property the City owns and felt the parcel could be productive and generate a good cash flow
for the City.
The City Manager said this issue could be agendaed for discussion at the next work session and still make the November special election.
Commissioner Berfield said there are two issues to be considered; should the current business be allowed to continue on a month to month basis until the pier is completed and whether
to go to referendum after that.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concern regarding going out for bid at this time as potential bidders would not know what would be there as the Pier is being rebuilt.
The City Attorney said he was only looking at the current lease to see if there was anything unusual to keep the City from doing anything at the end of the 15-year term. He said the
confusion comes about because of the charter provision that provides that recreation/open space property may be disposed of only with referendum approval. He said the question is what
does "disposal" mean. He said the charter refers to "disposed of" as meaning a lease longer than 3 years which raises the question whether it will take a referendum to have a lease
longer than 3 years for the Pier 60 property.
Discussion ensued in regard to the meaning of the word "disposal" when used in the charter and the City Attorney asked if the Commission felt "disposed of" means to sell. The majority
said they did. He asked if a 15-year lease is long enough to be called a disposal of the property and the majority of the Commission did not agree. The City Attorney said when the
current lease expires in December, the Commission will need to decide whether to renegotiate another lease, length of term, etc.
Commissioner Thomas recommended including a design plan of the pier when going out to bid and the City Manager said there would be a conceptual plan available.
The Mayor felt if the Commission was going to recommend going out to bid, that it be done the beginning of the year.
Commissioner Thomas said when dealing with a major construction project, it takes a minimum of twenty years to finance it. He felt 15 years would prevent a major developer from putting
something on the property. The City Manager said it would take a charter amendment to change it. It was questioned whether the City had an option to renew leases at the end of a 15
year lease term and it was felt the entire issue needed further discussion. Commissioner
Thomas said if the City could have an option to renew the lease without violating the law, he would support that right in this concept.
Commissioner Thomas moved that the Commission does not consider "disposal" of property to be a lease of 15 years with an option to renew for 15 years.
Mayor Garvey recommended dealing with the charter issue beyond 15 years separately.
Commissioner Deegan requested defining "disposal" as a change of ownership.
Commissioner Thomas withdrew his motion.
The City Attorney said defining "disposal" does not help with language in the charter that says flat out that "City property cannot be leased for a term longer than 15 years.
Commissioner Berfield moved to clarify the term "disposal" in the City Charter to mean when the City transfers title of any City property. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Thomas moved that the City Manager be authorized to negotiate leases up to 15 years with an option to renew up to 15 years. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Garvey expressed oppostion indicating the charter clearly states the intent was 15 years and felt we should allow others the option to use City property. She felt the Charter
Review Committee should address this issue.
The City Attorney felt a motion or a charter amendment may not be necessary at this time. He distributed copies of lease transactions. He said it may be time for the voters to address
the 15 year lease term.
In response to a question, the City Clerk said when the 15 year issue first came up, there were concerns because the City had entered into some long term leases which were not beneficial
to the City.
Commissioner Thomas felt by allowing longer term leases than 15 years the City Manager would have the flexibility to negotiate a better package. He felt the marketplace should determine
the worth of the property and indicated when a developer invests money, more than 15 years is needed to finance the project.
Commissioner Deegan said the question is whether the charter would allow a longer term or renewal of the lease.
It was noted this had been done at Ruth Eckerd Hall and the Long Center; however, it was noted this was not favored.
The City Manager asked direction regarding extending the Pier 60 and Head Start leases with the current tenants.
Consensus was to move forward with direction provided at the May 3, 1993, work session regarding the Head Start Lease. The Pier 60 Pavilion Lease will be reviewed at the end of the
year.
Commissioner Deegan requested an update on the Sun Bank Building sale. The City Manager reported ads had been placed in various publications and some bid packages have been requested.
Commissioner Deegan requested an update on the RFP for the management company for the Sun Bank Building and the City Manager reported it was on a parallel track with the bid for the
sale of the building.
Commissioner Deegan requested the status of the Dunedin Pass RFP and the City Manager reported a draft had been sent to the Commission for their input. There were no objections expressed
and the ad will be placed.
Commissioner Deegan asked for endorsement of his request for a proposal from Dr. Peter Graves of California to perform a "Community Consensus" program.
Mayor Garvey referred to a memo she sent to the Commission regarding goal setting and community consensus. She requested the Commission consider individuals in Florida within our local
region that could be used for short term goal setting and also for community consensus . She felt they would be familiar with Florida laws, the historical prospective of the City and
the State, etc. She said there was a need to move quickly as the City Manager is preparing for the budget and would like direction from the Commission.
Commissioner Thomas felt that Clearwater lacks significant market research about what citizens want, what they need and the prioritization between want and need. He felt it was time
the City made a significant investment to true market research to learn the difference between the needs and the wants of the citizens in a prioritized fashion. He supported hiring
Dr. Graves as he found his credentials to be outstanding.
Commissioner Fitzgerald agreed there was a need to move forward and felt we should utilize our local resources and supported using the local university. He said as they developed an
expertize in this area and felt it would be to our advantage to support them.
Commissioner Deegan said if we were talking about survey research in general, he would concur with a local resource; however, he said Dr. Graves has a unique program and did not feel
a local would be able to use Dr. Graves' approach of comparing every issue against every other issue.
Mayor Garvey said she did not realize this would involve surveys and questionnaires, she thought it would deal with focus groups.
Commissioner Deegan said surveys, questionnaires and focus groups would be combined. He said he had suggested this proposal last year but it was not supported.
Commissioner Deegan moved to request from Dr. Peter Graves a proposal subject to the Commission's acceptance to lead the City of Clearwater through his trademark community consensus
program in order to determine a relative priority of the wants of the citizens of the City of Clearwater. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Garvey asked what the cost might be and Commissioner Deegan indicated he is estimating the cost at $20,000-$25,000.
Commissioner Berfield said she supported the motion and felt distance might prove to be an advantage and indicated Dr. Graves is a specialist in this field.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas voted "aye"; Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "nay." Motion carried.
Mayor Garvey said she would like to obtain an outside facilitator through the Florida Institute of Government for the goal setting sessions. She indicated it is difficult to run the
meetings and keep track of everything.
The City Manager said he is four weeks away from finishing the budget. He said he has less money from ad valorem taxes to work with and substantial increases in benefit costs. He
said not raising the millage is going to be a struggle. He requested if the Commission is going to give him short term goals, they do it soon.
Commissioner Deegan said it might be worthwhile to review the goal setting minutes from the previous meetings as there was some direction set forth. The City Manager said he felt the
philosophies have shifted with the new Commission and the minutes contained consensuses and many issues were not voted on. He said he found it important to have motions and specific
direction. He said the budget proposal is pretty much "status quo." In response to a question, he said the 1992 citizens survey did provide guidance. He said he remembers direction
from the board to balance the budget without raising taxes and to maintain the current level of service.
Commissioner Thomas referring to a letter he sent to the Commission indicated it would be helpful to him if the Commission would each list five important issues they would like to accomplish.
He felt there may be some commonality to give the City Manager direction.
There was discussion regarding something similar having been done in the past during the goal setting meetings.
The Mayor said it would be difficult to list just five things as there were many things she considered important. She suggested giving Commissioner Thomas what has been done so far
regarding goal setting. The Mayor asked if the Commission was in favor of having a facilitator come in and do a short term goal setting session and the Commission felt the Manager was
already too far into the budget process for this.
Commissioner Deegan thought the Commission would benefit from having one goal setting session and agreed with Mr. Thomas' suggestion of the Commission making a list of what they considered
to be the five most important issues to them.
The Mayor felt the City Manager should be part of the goal setting sessions.
Commissioner Deegan said the reason the goal setting meetings were handled the way they was because it was felt the Commissioners needed some time to do their own brainstorming without
a lot of staff input.
A goal setting meeting was set for Tuesday, May 18, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. The location is to be determined at a later date.
Mayor Garvey questioned Commissioner Thomas' appointment of a City employee to the Environmental Advisory Committee. Consensus was a City employee would have a conflict and should
not be appointed.
Commissioner Fitzgerald informed the Commission he would be attending the Suncoast League Mini-Conference in Crystal River. He stated the letter from County Commissioner Rainey bears
on the City's consideration for the sign code.
Commissioner Thomas stated he would be bringing forwad a new sign code. He requested to see all responses to the citizens appearing under Citizens to be Heard.
The City Manager requested a copy of the tracking list be sent to the Commission.
ITEM #40 - Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.