06/16/1994 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
June 16, 1994
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, June 16, 1994 at 6:03 p.m., with the following members present:
Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner
Fred A. Thomas Vice-Mayor/Commissioner
Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner
Sue A. Berfield Commissioner
Arthur X. Deegan, II Commissioner
Also present:
Elizabeth M. Deptula City Manager
Kathy S. Rice Deputy City Manager
William C. Baker Assistant City Manager
Paul Richard Hull Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford Central Permitting Director
Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk
The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was offered by Reverend Thurman Rivers of Skycrest United Methodist Church.
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
Three service awards were presented to City employees.
Employee of the Month Award for June, 1994, presented to Elizabeth Khan of the Parks and Recreation Department.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards
Proclamation: Recreation and Parks Month - 7/94
ITEM #5 - Presentations - None.
ITEM #6 - Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Berfield pointed out in the July 12, 1993 minutes, page 29, 8th paragraph, the word "bridge" should be added after the words "Memorial Causeway".
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 12, 1993 as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 2, 1994, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Commissioner. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the minutes of the special meeting of 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.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the minutes of the special meeting of May 3, 1993, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Commissioner. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the minutes of the special meeting of May 17, 1993, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Commissioner. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the minutes of the special meeting of June 1, 1993, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Commissioner. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the minutes of the special meeting of July 13, 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
Dennis Henegar indicated he had been before the Commission two months ago regarding crime in downtown Clearwater. He stated at that time he had shown the Commission a report furnished
by the Police Department. He spoke with Commissioner Deegan while Commissioner Deegan was on a television show and it was Mr. Henegar's impression that it was believed he had made up
the report.
He stated crime in downtown Clearwater is a hush-hush situation. He reported three to four weeks ago, Gulf Marina was broken into and there has been no follow-up regarding this crime.
He stated the report he had presented showed 1,257 incidents. He further stated there is a water problem in Clearwater and it is time the Commission realizes the difference between
necessity and convenience. He felt the $22 million to be spent on a Municipal Services Building and new Police Department should be used to address the water shortage.
Commissioner Deegan, in response, stated he had not indicated Mr. Henegar had made up the report. He stated what he had been told was that many of the incidents on the report were
not actual incidents and there was no ability to follow up on them. He further stated that according to police, downtown Clearwater still has the lowest crime rate in the City.
Mayor Garvey stated she felt the police were doing an excellent job within their resources.
Ernest Barger requested the Commission do what it can to require the County to complete the Pinellas Trail. He reported he had been assaulted on the trail and had been placed in the
hospital in February. He expressed concerns regarding the ambulance services. He had to argue with them regarding to which hospital he should be taken.
He also stated St. Petersburg, Dunedin and other cities are way ahead of the City of Clearwater in recycling water. He felt the taxpayers should be placed before the employees and
water should be addressed prior to new city buildings.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #8 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5620-94, #5621-94 & #5622-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and RPD-E Zoning for property located at 1761 Cardinal
Dr., Pinellas Terrace, Lot 68 less S 3', 0.19 acres m.o.l. (Penhollow, A94-12, LUP94-12)(CP)
The subject property is located approximately 890 feet north of SR 590, one block east of US 19. The applicants wish to annex to obtain city sewer service. The residential property
west of the applicants' property and Cardinal Drive is in the City, has a City Future Land Use Category of Residential Urban and RS-8 zoning. The majority of the property in the applicants'
subdivision (Pinellas Terrace) is in the County and has a Countywide Future Land Use Category of Residential Low, 5.0 units per acre maximum. It is proposed to assign the applicants'
property a City Future Land Use Category of Residential Low and RPD-E zoning (same dimensional restrictions as RS-8).
On June 14, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed this request.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve annexation, a land use plan amendment to Residential Low and RPD-E zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5620-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5620-94 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5621-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5621-94 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5622-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5622-94 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 & First Reading Ords. #5623-94, #5624-94 & #5625-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and RPD-D Zoning for property located at 2353 Dora
Dr., Rolling Heights, Lot 8, 0.28 acres m.o.l. (Moberley, A94-13, LUP94-13)(CP)
The subject property is located on the southeast side of Dora Drive, one block north of Drew Street and approximately 2,120 feet east of Belcher Road. The applicant wishes to annex
to obtain city sewer service.
A few lots in the subdivision, which were in the City prior to the County's Consistency Program, have a City Future Land Use Classification of Residential Urban and RS-6 zoning. The
lots which have been, or are in the process of being annexed, have a City Future Land Use Classification of Residential Low and RPD-D zoning. It is proposed to assign these classifications
to the applicant's property. RPD-D zoning has the same dimensional requirements as RS-6 zoning. Later this year, staff proposes to follow up with an administrative rezoning to establish
uniform land use and zoning classifications for the subdivision as part of a major Consistency rezoning program.
It is proposed to annex the right of way of Dora Drive abutting Lots 8 and 53. This will adjoin the right of ways of Dora Drive and Ella Place being annexed with Lot 68.
On June 14, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed this request.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve annexation, a land use plan amendment to Residential Low and RPD-D zoning for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5623-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5623-94 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5624-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5624-94 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 Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5625-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5625-94 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 #9a - (Cont. from 6/2/94) Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 24791 & 24825 US 19N, Ken Marks Ford, Blk A, Lot 1 together with Ken Marks Ford 1st Add. Sub.,
Lot 1 (Marks & Gilliss, Inc./Marks Holding Co., Inc., SV93-65)(CP)
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the three existing freestanding signs to remain and to permit the existing attached signs for the auto repair business
to remain: 1) an area variance of 7 square feet from the permitted 112 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 119 square feet; 2) an area variance of 17 square feet
from the permitted 56 square feet to allow an auxiliary sign with an area of 73 square feet; 3) a height variance of 8 feet from the permitted 12 feet to allow an auxiliary sign 20 feet
high; 4) a separation variance of 169 feet from the required 300 feet to allow freestanding signs 131 feet apart; 5) a variance to allow a second primary freestanding sign, 112 square
feet in area, 20 feet in height, with a setback of 20 feet; and 6) an area variance of 128 square feet from the permitted 120 square feet to allow 248 square feet of attached signs for
the automotive repair business. The applicant proposes to reduce the area and height of the "Ford" (northernmost) sign and the "Ken Marks Used Cars" (southernmost) sign, and maintain
the "A-1 Used Cars" (middle) sign.
The subject property is located on the east side of US 19, south of McCormick Drive and is in the CH zoning district.
The applicant contends the variances are necessary because there are three distinct business operations on this property. The applicant further contends the variances are necessary
because the property is 13 acres in area with more than 730 feet of frontage on US 19.
Other properties in the City have multiple distinct businesses, many with multiple distinct business owners, and are allowed only one freestanding sign. Further, the sign code takes
into account that some properties have generous street frontage, and permits a second, or auxiliary, freestanding sign. The 730 feet of frontage qualifies this property for an auxiliary
sign. But to allow a third freestanding sign on this property would constitute a special privilege for this applicant that is not routinely available for other properties in this zone.
The primary freestanding sign can be 112 square feet in area and 20 feet high. The auxiliary sign can be 56 square feet and 12 feet high. The area variances requested for these two
signs, 7 square feet and 17 square feet respectively, equate to a combined 14% variance from the code. These can be considered minimal. However, the 20 foot height requested for the
auxiliary sign is 67% greater than the 12 foot height allowed. This can not be considered minimal. The 131 foot separation is substantially less than the 300 feet required by code,
however, the cost to the applicant to relocate the sign would outweigh the resultant benefit to the public.
The variance for attached signage is for the auto repair business. This business occupies approximately 35,000 square feet of the interior floor area and is located in two separate
buildings.
The variance addresses 5 existing signs: "Body" and "Shop" (32 square feet each), "Parts and Service" (96 square feet), "Motorcraft Fast Lube" (48 square feet), and "Ken Marks Rent
A Car" (40 square feet). Upon inspection of the property, staff finds that the "Body Shop" signs and the "Parts and Service" sign are low impact signs as viewed by the public from US
19 due to the existence of densely clustered pine trees on both sides of the driveway entrance. The trees substantially limit the visibility of these signs. Also, these signs are located
approximately 260 feet from the US 19 right of way. The only signs that are readily viewable from US 19 are the "Motorcraft Fast Lube" sign and the "Ken Marks Rent A Car" sign which
together total 88 square feet. In sum, it is staff's position the above conditions combine to make the property unique and the attached sign area variance justified.
The existence of three freestanding signs on this property and an auxiliary sign with a height of 20 feet is not in character with the signage permitted for other properties in this
zone. The granting of these variances will detract from the properties that have conforming signs, permit an unfair advertising advantage for this applicant, and negatively impact the
appearance of the community.
Staff feels the applicant's requests for a third freestanding sign and an auxiliary sign 20 feet high do not meet the standards for variance approval.
Ed Armstrong, the applicant's representative, further contends when Ken Marks Ford increased its land area several years ago through the purchase of part of the Jennifer Office Complex,
the dealership qualified for an additional freestanding sign because: 1) the purchase included businesses that were entitled to freestanding signs, 2) the Used Car dealership located
on the purchased land is a separate business, 3) the purchased property was separately platted after the acquisition, and 4) to require the title of the purchased land to be recorded
in a different corporate name for the purpose of establishing separate ownership does not make good sense.
In order for the purchased land to qualify for a separate freestanding sign, it must satisfy the code definition of property. A property is defined as "land which has been or which
is proposed to be used, developed, or built upon as a unit under single ownership." The combination of the purchased land with the original land, which together operate and function
as an auto dealership and include through circulation and access, causes the overall auto dealership to be the "unit." Ken Marks Holding Company, the record owner of all of the land,
is the "single ownership."
The following responds to Mr. Armstrong's reasoning: the existing development and ownership must be examined to determine opportunities for sign placement; each business located on
a property is not entitled to a freestanding sign; the platting of property does not entitle the placement of an additional sign; and even if the purchased land was or is recorded in
another corporate name, the land would still be under single ownership if the parties in each corporation are the same.
Mr. Shuford reviewed the request, stating this item was continued from the last meeting. It is staff's position the substantial variance for the attached signs makes sense. However,
they are unable to resolve the need for two of the requests for freestanding signs. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the height variance to allow the central sign to be 20 feet
tall, and the variance to allow a second, primary freestanding sign. It is their belief the property can be identified without these variances. Staff is recommending approval of the
area variance on the condition the third freestanding sign be removed and the auxiliary sign be reduced in height.
Mr. Shuford presented pictures of the signs. Mr. Armstrong verified those are the signs at Ken Marks Ford.
Mr. Armstrong stated the situation does warrant granting the variances for the freestanding signs. He stated the 20 feet in height for the auxiliary sign is needed in order for the
sign to be visible from the highway. He reviewed the history of the site.
Ken Marks Ford moved to the US 19 site in 1982. The business was successful and the Used Car facility became cramped. In 1988, a portion of the Jennifer Office Complex to the south
was purchased. That property had three legal descriptions and was considered three parcels containing a Western Sizzler, a racquet ball court and a retention pond on those three parcels.
The Used Car business was moved to this property. Ford Motor Credit required the property be platted into one lot but it was not joined to the property to the north. He reported there
are freestanding used car lots up and down US 19 that are considered independent businesses. He stated it is their belief the Ken Marks Used Car facility is an independent business
and, therefore, allowed an extra freestanding sign.
He stated this situation is similar to the K-Mart Store and Payless Shoe Store on SR 60 for which the Commission has granted variances. He handed out a chart that showed what he regarded
to be the similarities between the Ken Marks, K-Mart and Payless properties. He stated these similarities warrant granting the request.
Mr. Shuford indicated staff does recognize the similarities, however, at Ken Marks there is essentially the same type of operation under one ownership versus the K-Mart and Payless
Shoes situation. He stated a logical conclusion if Mr. Armstrong's arguments are accepted, is that there would be a number of freestanding signs on separately platted properties throughout
the City.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the attached signs were hinged on the variances for the freestanding sign. It was indicated they were not.
Commissioner Thomas questioned there being two used car signs. Mr. Armstrong indicated that would be the case if the signs remained as they are, however, if the variance is granted,
they intend to change the middle sign face to Ford Trucks versus Used Cars.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the front footage. Mr. Shuford indicated there is 730 feet. Commissioner Thomas did not feel three freestanding signs would create sign pollution in
this area. Mr. Shuford pointed out the code recognizes properties with extra ordinary frontage and that one auxiliary sign is allowed for properties with over 500 feet of frontage.
He stated prior to the 1992 changes to the sign code, no auxiliary signs were allowed other than ground signs.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked Mr. Shuford to explain his concern regarding setting a precedent. Mr. Shuford indicated that along US 19 in the Countryside area, there are a lot of metes
and bounds properties that have holdings under separate ownership. He stated if Mr. Armstrong's argument is accepted, there could be many more signs placed on individual properties.
If the Commission wishes to approve the variance, he would recommend they base it on exceptional frontage, not individually platted lots and/or businesses.
Commissioner Thomas indicated he did not buy the K-Mart, Payless argument. He stated this is a car business, however, trucks are now 50% or more of that business and need to be identified.
He agreed the property is extremely long and he did not consider three signs to be sign pollution. He stated he was in favor of granting the third sign if the height was kept as staff
recommended.
Mr. Armstrong indicated he felt only allowing one additional auxiliary sign, no matter how much frontage above the 500 feet existed, was not fair. He did not feel this would set a
precedent as he did not see any other properties with facts similar to those for the Ken Marks property.
Ken Marks, Jr. stated in their agreement with Ford Motor Company, they feel strongly they should show three separate signs for New, Truck and Used. He agreed with Commissioner Thomas's
statement regarding trucks, stating they are 2/3 of the new vehicles sold. He cited competitors who are not within the city limits of Clearwater being allowed to have more signage than
he is able to have. He stated proper signage is extremely important and there are three separate entities on the property.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the following variances: 1) an area variance of 7 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 119 square feet; 2) an area variance
of 17 square feet to allow an auxiliary sign with an area of 73 square feet; 3) a height variance of 8 feet to allow an auxiliary sign 20 feet high; 4) a separation variance of 169 feet
to allow freestanding signs 131 feet apart; 5) an area variance of 128 square feet to allow the existing 248 square feet of attached signs to remain for the automotive repair business;
and 6) a variance to allow a second primary freestanding sign 112 square feet in area, 20 feet in height, with a setback of 20 feet, for the subject property, as these variances meet
the standards for approval.
Commissioner Berfield indicated she would second the motion if Commissioner Thomas would amend it to have the signs 12 feet in height. Commissioner Thomas agreed. Commissioner Berfield
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Deegan stated he was not in favor of the three signs being placed in one half of the property. He felt they should be spaced out further. He recommended the truck sign
be moved to the north end of the property.
Mr. Armstrong expressed a concern regarding clusters of trees on the northern portion of the property obstructing the view of a sign. Mr. Marks also indicated the north portion of
the properties front corridor is trees.
Commissioner Deegan stated the sign could be placed on the ground rather than in the treeline. He indicated he would support the variances if the signs were further separated and one
of the signs be a ground sign near the north curb cut.
Commissioner Thomas withdrew his motion. The seconder withdrew the second.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the following variances: 1) an area variance of 7 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 119 square feet; 2) a variance to allow
a second primary freestanding sign, 112 square feet in area, 20 feet in height, with a setback of 20 feet; 3) a separation variance of 169 feet to allow freestanding signs 131 feet apart;
and 4) an area variance of 128 square feet to allow the existing 248 square feet of attached signs to remain for the
automotive repair business subject to the condition that the auxiliary freestanding sign be a ground sign no more than 32 square feet in area, 8 feet in height, with a minimum setback
of 5 feet and located south of the north curb cut. The motion was duly seconded.
Mr. Armstrong questioned if Ken Marks Ford would be able to more equally space the signs. It was indicated this would be available to them.
Mayor Garvey stated she was against the motion as she would prefer to have what was being granted in front of her.
Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas voted "Aye," Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried.
ITEM #10 - (Cont. from 4/27 & 5/19) Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 2339 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Sec. 18-29-16, M&Bs 31.05, 31.06 & 31.071, together with Lokey Sub.,
Lot 2 (Nell M. Lokey, Trustee/Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc., SV93-35)(CP)
This item was continued from the April 27 and May 19 sign variance meetings to allow the applicant the opportunity to revise the sign area variance requests to include the logo panels.
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) an area variance of 19 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow an 83 square foot freestanding sign; 2) a height
variance of 3 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a 23 foot high freestanding sign; 3) an area variance of 12.7 square feet from the permitted 32 square feet to allow a 44.7 square
foot auxiliary sign; and 4) a height variance of 5.5 feet from the permitted 10 feet to allow a 15.5 foot high auxiliary sign.
The subject property is located on the south side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, east of Belcher Road, and is in the CG zoning district. The variances are requested to permit the continuation
of two freestanding sings, each of which, will undergo reductions in height and area.
According to the application, the variances are requested because: 1) this property is larger than other Gulf to Bay Boulevard properties; 2) there are three distinct businesses on
the property; 3) the property fronts on Gulf to Bay Boulevard which is a high speed, six lane road; and 4) the property is not at an intersection with traffic signals.
First, sign area and height are not determined by the size of the property, but rather by the zoning of the property. Large properties, such as this auto dealership, are allowed a
second, or auxiliary, freestanding sign due to the existence of generous street frontage. Specifically, properties with more than 500 feet of street frontage are entitled to an auxiliary
sign. This property qualifies for an auxiliary sign because it has approximately 740 feet of frontage. In effect, the code allows more roadside signage for large properties. It would
be duplicative to grant a variance on this basis since the code has accounted for this condition.
Second, many properties throughout the City have multiple businesses. The existence of three distinct businesses on this property is not unique, and is not grounds for allowing larger
or higher freestanding signs. Many properties on Gulf to Bay Boulevard have multiple businesses and have conforming roadside signs that serve to identify the use of the property.
Third, the fact that this property fronts on Gulf to Bay Boulevard, which is a high speed, six lane road, is not cause to grant larger or higher signs. Signs of conforming area and
height are appropriately sized to identify other properties fronting on Gulf to Bay Boulevard, and likewise will amply identify this property. Furthermore, this condition is shared
by all properties on Gulf to Bay Boulevard; it is not unique to this property.
Finally, the location of the property away from a signalized intersection is not cause for this property to warrant special treatment. Many properties throughout the City are located
away from signalized intersections and are readily identified with signs that conform to the city sign code.
An 83 square foot freestanding sign and 44.7 square foot auxiliary sign will not be in character with signs on other properties in this zone and will divert attention from those properties.
The granting of these variances will detract from properties that have conforming signs and will negatively affect the overall appearance of the community.
Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance approval.
Mr. Shuford reviewed the application reiterating staff does not feel the variances are justified.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicants, stated this is one of the largest sites on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and has been operated by the Lokeys for years.
Mr. Shuford presented pictures of the signs, and Mr. Cline verified they were indeed pictures of the Lokey signs.
Mr. Cline stated the Lokeys have spent significant funds upgrading the property. He reported some time ago they were before the Commission with a much larger variance being requested.
Since that time, compliance has been reached for the attached signs and they have dramatically reduced the request for the freestanding signs. He stated the signs being proposed are
the closest to code requirements available from Oldsmobile.
He stated this property is unique. There are three car dealerships on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and car dealerships are different from the norm. He stated customers come from the entire
Tampa Bay area and are not frequent repeat customers, therefore, these businesses needed to be seen from a quarter of a mile away on high speed roads.
He reiterated that what is being requested at this time is a substantial reduction in the signs that currently exist and the variances that were previously requested. He stated they
would be willing to withdraw the height variance requests if the area variance requests are granted. He stated this is the minimum variance needed in order to operate the business.
He reported granting these variances would be consistent with those granted for Carlisle Lincoln Mercury and Ken Marks Ford.
Mayor Garvey expressed concerns regarding the argument that car dealerships can not meet code requirements due to pre-packaged signs from the manufacturers. She stated this argument
has been presented before but the Commission has been told there are other cities which have required car companies to meet their code requirements.
Commissioner Deegan agreed this argument has been heard before. He stated however, the City of Clearwater did not know what sign ordinances other cities had.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated the Commission has resisted this argument because if accepted, it would allow any organization to establish the size of signs they would have for their
properties.
Mr. Cline agreed and stated he was requesting the variances be granted based on the size of and the operation on the property and the infrequency of the customer base.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if this dealership was located on US 19, how large a primary sign would be allowed. Mr. Shuford indicated 112 square feet.
Commissioner Deegan questioned staff's recommendation should the height variances not be granted. Mr. Shuford indicated staff's denial recommendation was based most strongly on the
height variances being requested. He stated if the height variances are withdrawn, the request would be similar to what has been approved for Ken Marks Ford.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve an area variance of 19 square feet to allow a 83 square foot freestanding sign and an area variance of 12.7 square feet to allow a 44.4 square foot
auxiliary sign, for the subject property, as these variances meet the standards for variance approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if a condition could be added that no additional signs will be requested. Commissioner Deegan agreed to this amendment. The seconder agreed.
Upon the vote being taken, the amended motion carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 8:12 p.m. to 8:26 p.m.
ITEM #11 - (Cont. from 4/27 & 6/2) Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property (State Farm Insurance) located at 1234 Court St., Hibiscus Gardens, Blk O, Lots 12-19 (R & W Partnership,
SV 93-114)(CP)
Originally, the applicant requested an area variance of 132 square feet from the permitted 24 square feet to allow 156 square feet of attached signs. This variance was requested to
permit the existing attached signs to remain.
The item was continued from the April 27, 1994 and June 2, 1994 meetings during which time the applicant and staff met to review and evaluate options. As a result of the meeting, the
applicant revised his application, decreasing the variance request.
The applicant is now requesting an area variance of 73.25 square feet to allow 97.25 square feet of attached signs.
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Court Street and Lincoln Avenue, and is in the OL zoning district. The applicant proposes to downsize the signs on the south
and east
sides of the building to 47.25 and 24 square feet respectively, remove the logo from the north side of the building, and maintain the 26 square foot sign on the west side of the building.
This property is unique because there is no freestanding sign, and because a tenant in this building does not display any signs.
Under OL zoning, this property is entitled to a 24 square foot freestanding sign. However, no freestanding sign exists. Instead, attached signs on the east and west building faces
identify the use of this property to traffic on Court Street. In effect, the signs are comparably sized to the freestanding sign allowance. The sign on the east building face will
be downsized to 24 square feet, and the sign on the west building face has an existing area of 26 square feet. The additional attached area necessary to accommodate the east and west
signs is, in staff's view, minimal.
In addition to the signs on the east and west building faces, there is an existing 62 square foot sign on the south building face. This sign is proposed to be reduced to 47.25 square
feet. There are two business establishments in this building. Each establishment is entitled to 24 square feet of attached sign area. However, only the applicant's business displays
signs. The other business is located toward the rear of the building. There is no advantageous position in that location to place a sign, and there appears to be no particular interest
in displaying a sign for the second business. Moreover, any such display would be controlled by the property owner, the applicant. Rather than displaying a sign for the second business
on this property, the variance request has the effect of applying the allocation for the second business to the applicant's business.
In sum, staff generally looks with favor upon the placement of attached signs in lieu of freestanding signs, given the relative aesthetic impacts of each. The specific attached sign
proposal tendered by the applicant is in keeping with the scale of this office building and qualifies as a minimum variance given the unique conditions described above.
Given the lack of a freestanding sign and, also, the lack of any attached signs for the second business located in this building, the existence of 97.25 square feet of attached signs
will not detract from businesses that have conforming signs and will not adversely affect the appearance of the community.
Staff feels the applicant's request meets the standards for variance approval.
Mr. Shuford reviewed the request and presented pictures of the signs. Cliff Wyatt and Bill Ruggie verified the pictures were indeed of the State Farm signs.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve an area variance of 73.25 square feet to allow 97.25 square feet of attached signs, for the subject property, for meeting Section 45.24 Standards
for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the following conditions; the attached signs shall conform in the event a freestanding sign is placed on this property and no additional attached
signs shall be permitted for the second business establishment in this building. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Deegan questioned staff's comments that the property was unique due to there being no freestanding sign and the tenant not displaying a sign. He stated this was not a
code requirement but rather a uniqueness created by the applicant.
Mr. Shuford indicated the site design does not lend itself to a freestanding sign. He stated he considered it a minimal variance due to the total square footage of signage that would
be allowed for the property if it had a freestanding sign.
Commissioner Deegan pointed out if a typical chart had been used, it would indicate the signage was three times that allowed for attached signage.
Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Fitzgerald, Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye," Commissioner Deegan voted "Nay." Motion carried.
ITEM #12 - (Cont. from 2/7 & 4/19) Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 1450 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Knollwood Replat, Blk 3, Lot 13 (Davison/Bay Area Neuro Muscular, SV93-13)(CP)
This application was continued from the February 7 and April 19 sign variance hearings for further investigation. In particular, it was premised that lowering the height of the sign
to conform to code and relocating it closer to the right of way may prove more desirable than leaving the sign with nonconforming height in its existing location.
The original application was for a 7 foot height variance to allow the existing 27 foot high sign to remain. The buildings on the adjacent properties are positioned approximately 5
feet from the right of way. The additional height was requested to enable the sign to be viewed above the rooflines of the adjacent buildings. A notation on the original application
indicated the sign was positioned 7 feet from the Gulf to Bay Boulevard right of way. However, upon further investigation, it has been determined the sign is only 2.95 feet from the
right of way. To move the sign 2.95 feet would not produce an increase in visibility of sufficient proportion to warrant the expenditure necessary to relocate the sign. Therefore,
the applicant wishes to proceed with the original height variance. In addition, the applicant has amended the application to request a setback variance and an area variance.
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) a height variance of 7 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a 27 foot high freestanding sign; 2) a setback variance of 2.05
feet from the required 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 2.95 feet from the Gulf to Bay Boulevard right of way; and 3) an area variance of 5.45 square feet from the permitted 64 square
feet to allow a freestanding sign area of 69.45 square feet.
The subject property is located on the north side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, west of Remo Avenue, and is in the CG zoning district. The variances are requested to allow the existing
freestanding sign to remain, however, with a reduced area.
The existing freestanding sign has two panels. The top panel, measuring approximately 52 square feet, is to be retained. The bottom panel, currently measuring approximately 40 square
feet, is also to be retained, however, it will be downsized to approximately 17 square feet.
The building on this property is positioned approximately 24 feet from the Gulf to Bay Boulevard right of way. The buildings on the adjoining lots are positioned approximately 5 feet
from the right of way. Given the location of the adjoining buildings, the message panels on the freestanding sign must be located above the roofline of the adjoining buildings in order
to be seen by motorists on Gulf to Bay Boulevard. If the sign was lowered 7 feet to comply with code, visibility of the
sign would be substantially obstructed by the neighboring buildings. This condition gives rise to granting the height variance.
The total freestanding sign area proposed is 69.45 square feet, 5.45 square feet over the code allowance for this zone. The lower panel on the sign is proposed to be downsized from
40 square feet to 17.2 square feet. The 17.2 square feet will allow the applicant to maintain two lines of changeable messages. The variance equates to an 8% departure from the code.
This qualifies as a minimum variance.
The existing setback from the Gulf to Bay Boulevard right of way is approximately 3 feet. It would be possible to move the sign back 2 feet in order to conform to code, however, to
do so would diminish visibility of the sign. Further, the cost to the applicant to relocate the sign would outweigh any public benefit derived from such action. This variance also
qualifies as a minimum variance and satisfies the standards for approval.
This 69.45 square foot sign, 27 feet high, will not detract from businesses and properties that have conforming signs and will not adversely affect the overall appearance of the community.
Staff feels the applicant's requests meet the standards for variance approval.
Mr. Shuford reiterated that further investigation by staff found the sign was closer to the right of way than had been thought. He stated it would be impractical to move the sign and,
therefore, the height variance is needed. He presented pictures of the sign. Richard Davison, representing the applicant, indicated they were indeed pictures of the subject sign.
Mr. Davison said looking at the pictures, the lower half of the sign would be reduced.
Mayor Garvey questioned why the height variance should be allowed. Mr. Shuford indicated it would be the only way the sign could be seen from the property.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a height variance of 7 feet, a setback variance of 2.05 feet, and an area variance of 5.45 square feet, for the subject property, for meeting Section
45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the following condition: by maintaining a sign within the street setback pursuant to this variance, the owner and applicant agree
that no governmental agency shall be liable for the cost of relocating or removing the sign in the event the property is acquired by eminent domain for road widening or any other public
purpose. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #13 - Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 1861 N. Highland Ave., Sunset Square, Lots 1 & 4 (Stuart S. Golding Co./Sunset Square Shopping Center, SV94-16)(CP)
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) an area variance of 56.7 square feet from the permitted 150 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 206.7 square
feet; 2) a height variance of 19.7 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign 39.7 feet high; and 3) a variance of 2 message panels from the permitted 2 message panels
to allow a freestanding sign with 4 message panels.
The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Sunset Point Road, and is in the CC zoning district. The variances are requested to permit the existing
freestanding sign to remain.
The 150 square foot sign size allowed in the Commercial Center zone is the largest freestanding sign area allowed in the City. The sign identifying Sunset Square Shopping Center is
considerably larger than the code allows, measuring 206.7 square feet. The maximum sign height if 20 feet, and this sign is 39.7 feet high. The variance to permit four sign panels
in lieu of the two permitted is not a minimum variance either. There is no condition unique to this property to warrant variances of this magnitude.
The granting of these variances will detract from the businesses that have conforming signs and will negatively affect the appearance of the community.
Mr. Shuford reiterated the variances being requested are quite large. He stated for the most part, this is a residential area.
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, verified that the pictures presented by Mr. Shuford were indeed pictures of the sign on the property.
Mr. Pressman indicated this site is squeezed into a residential area. He handed out an aerial to show the relationship of the shopping center, the sign and the residential area. He
stated this is the only existing sign on site. The neighboring center is causing difficulty regarding visibility of the sign and, therefore, the pole sign is needed.
He stated the site is allowed 150 square feet of signage. He indicated there is no sign on Sunset Point Road. He submitted a petition with 12 signatures in support of the requested
variances and in opposition to additional signs. He reported Thomas Sign Company has looked at the existing sign and has found it impractical to lower the sign using the existing poles.
He stated they have come up with an alternative plan to take the existing top panel and place it lower on the sign. He stated it is also possible to overcome the multi-panel problem.
He submitted two pictures to show the perspective of the center from the residential areas. He indicated there are unique conditions and the amended proposal is the absolute minimum
that can be done and at the same time resolve adverse impacts.
Mr. Shuford indicated he did not have information regarding the modified request. He stated he would be unable to calculate these at tonight's meeting. Mayor Garvey indicated the
request still looked excessive. Mr. Shuford indicated he did not think the possibility of a second sign was a realistic option.
Commissioner Thomas stated the current code allows a freestanding sign on Sunset Point Road and one on Highland Avenue, both at 150 square feet and 20 feet high. He stated it sounded
as if the applicant was willing to lower the sign.
Mr. Shuford indicated that based on preliminary calculations, it would appear the sign would be 221 square feet in area and 25 feet tall.
Mayor Garvey recommended continuing this item to allow appropriate calculations.
Commissioner Deegan questioned how the decision of the property owners not to put a sign on Sunset Point Road differed from item #11 where the owners chose not to install a freestanding
sign but rather to have all their signage attached. Mr. Shuford indicated the previous item had single ownership and there was no freestanding sign. He stated he did not like to get
into trading of sign areas, however, in certain cases he felt it was appropriate. He stated this item is not dealing with attached signage.
Commissioner Deegan stated he did not buy the argument on the last item as uniqueness is not based on what an applicant could do. He stated there is no consideration in this case for
the fact that there is no sign on Sunset Point Road.
Mayor Garvey felt two small signs would be more pleasing than the large one being requested.
Commissioner Deegan pointed out the neighbors do not want another sign. He also stated the sign company could not find a place to put one. He requested staff be consistent in their
recommendations.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if they had ample parking. She also pointed out there is a Checkers sign at the corner of Highland and Sunset. There are three signs in this area
although they may not be for this particular property. She stated there are options available.
Mr. Pressman indicated they would not object to a continuance.
Commissioner Deegan moved to continue this item to July 21, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #14 - Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 314 S. Belcher Rd., Sec. 13-29-15, M&B 14.07 (Frayne Enterprises, Inc., SV94-15)(CP)
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) a setback variance of 3 feet from the required 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 2 feet from the south side property line;
2) an area variance of 22 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 86 square feet; and 3) an area variance of 8.4 square feet from the
permitted 64 square feet to allow attached signs with an area of 72.4 square feet.
The subject property is located on the west side of Belcher Road, between Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Rainbow Drive, and is in the CC zoning district. The variances are requested to
permit the existing freestanding sign indefinitely and three attached signs to remain until the building is remodeled.
According to a letter dated December 20, 1993, submitted as part of the variance application, the applicant will be remodeling the front of this building, which will be completed within
18 months, or June 20, 1995. Upon completion of the remodeling, the applicant states that attached signs will be placed on the new storefront in conformance with the code.
There are presently 4 attached signs on this building. Three of these signs are proposed to remain until the remodeling is complete. The fourth sign, the "Frayne's" sign on the north
wall, is scheduled to be removed before the end of May, 1994. The cumulative area of the three signs to remain until the completion of the remodeling total 72.4 square feet. This is
8.4 square feet greater than allowed in this zone, or a 13% variance. Taking into account the degree of the variance (13%) and the temporary period that the signs will remain in a nonconforming
state (until June 20, 1995), the attached area variance is minimal.
The area variance for the freestanding sign is greater than the area variance for the attached signs, and is not supported by the standards that govern approval. There is no unique
condition that warrants granting an area variance for the freestanding sign. The impending remodeling does not affect the freestanding sign as it does the attached signs. The area
of the freestanding sign can be modified to conform now. Further, the area variance is not minimal. The requested area is 34% greater than the code allows.
The freestanding sign is positioned on the south side of the parking lot, 2 feet from the south property line. If the sign is moved northward to comply with the setback requirement,
it will be located in a parking space. This would impose a hardship on the applicant. Further, the benefit to the public caused by sign relocation in this case would be negligible.
The continuation of an 86 square foot freestanding sign is not in character with other signs permitted in this zone. The granting of this variance will detract from businesses that
have conforming signs and will adversely affect the appearance of the community.
Staff feels the request for an area variance for the freestanding sign does not meet the standards for variance approval.
Mr. Shuford reviewed the request and reiterated the attached sign variances are minimal. The freestanding sign area variance is not, and staff recommends denial. They recommend approval
of the setback variance.
Mr. Shuford presented pictures of the signs. Rebecca Frayne-Morton, Vice President of Frayne, verified they were indeed pictures of the subject signs.
Ms. Morton indicated the freestanding sign actually faces the drive for the Albertson's grocery store and does not sit on the highway. She stated there is no freestanding sign on Belcher
Road. She submitted a picture depicting the property and the freestanding sign from Belcher Road. She stated it indicates the freestanding sign can not be seen from Belcher Road.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if Ms. Morton agreed with staff's recommendation. She indicated she wanted to keep the freestanding sign as it is.
Commissioner Deegan questioned why the freestanding sign was located as it is. Ms. Morton indicated she thought her father felt it was more important for shoppers existing the Albertson's
store to see the sign than for traffic on Belcher Road. Commissioner Deegan pointed out a smaller sign could still easily be seen from the Albertson's store.
Commissioner Deegan moved to deny an area variance of 22 square feet regarding a freestanding sign and to approve an area variance of 8.4 square feet to allow attached signs with an
area of 72.4 square feet and a setback variance of 3 feet, for the subject property, subject to the following conditions: 1) the sign on the north face of the building shall be removed,
and 2) all attached signs shall conform to the code by June 20, 1995. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #15 - Amendments to FY 1992-93 CDBG Final Statement and add one new activity (ED)
Staff has reviewed the CDBG expenditures for 1992-93 in preparation for the Grantee Performance Report. It was determined one new activity needed to be added to the Final Statement.
This activity recognizes program delivery costs as opposed to administrative expenses.
CDBG regulations allow all costs associated with delivering a program to be classified as activity delivery costs. These costs include rehabilitation counseling, work specification
preparation, loan processing, inspections, and other services related to assisting homeowners, tenants, contractors, and other entities in the rehabilitation program.
This new activity relates to those costs incurred by Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., engineering consultants and the Florida Planning Group to review the City's Housing Program. This
review was authorized by City Management to address concerns identified by the Commission. Funding for this activity ($10,000) was obtained by reducing the budget for the 1992-93 CDBG
Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Program.
Staff also recommends reducing the administrative budget authorization for the City and Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Service HOME Programs to zero as these funds were never used.
The $27,000 savings will be added to the City's 1992-93 CDBG Administrative line item.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the effect of this item was to make the final report agree with what actually took place. Alan Ferri, Community Development Manager, stated this was
the effect.
Commissioner Deegan moved to authorize amendments to the Fiscal Year 1992-93 CDBG Final Statement and to add one new activity and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute
same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #16 - Amendments to FY 1992-93 Grantee Performance Report (ED)
The Grantee Performance Report (GPR) is the principal administrative report documenting the City's expenditures of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It serves as the basis for program monitoring for compliance and for financial audits.
In December 1993, the City forwarded an unaudited GPR to the HUD to comply with the submission requirements established in the CDBG regulations. The report was submitted with a cover
letter stating that a revised report would be forwarded once the program had been audited.
Some changes supplement the report narrative with more complete statistical documentation of activity performance. The remaining changes correct reported program income and expenses.
The revisions incorporate program financial activity as reported in the City's Audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve amendments to the Fiscal Year 1992-93 Grantee Performance Report to correctly reflect the performance of the City's CDBG program during the 1992-93
fiscal year. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Deegan questioned when a report would be received regarding the carry over amount. Mr. Ferri indicated this would be included in the July 21st CDBG agenda item.
ITEM #17 - Regarding SHIP, Res. #94-43 - accepting the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee's (AHAC) recommendations for a Clearwater Affordable Housing Incentive Plan; amendments to
the Local Housing Assistance Plan (ED)
Ordinance #5410-93, as amended, established a Clearwater State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program. The Clearwater SHIP program created a local Housing Assistance Trust
Fund account to receive and disburse funding from the State of Florida. The ordinance also created an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) and charged them with the responsibility
of developing recommendations for an Affordable Housing Incentive Plan. Lastly, the ordinance adopted a Local Housing Assistance plan for state fiscal years 1992-93 and 1993-94.
The AHAC has completed their assignment and is presenting their recommendations for the Affordable Housing Incentive Plan to the Commission. The AHAC held a public hearing on May 26,
1994 to review their proposed plan.
Section XVI of the Local Housing Assistance plan requires submission of an amended plan if 50% of the SHIP funds have not been encumbered by the midway point of the approved plan period.
To date, the City has not met this condition and is required to review and amend the Local Housing Assistance Plan.
The Clearwater Housing Authority (CHA) has requested termination of their administrative agreement with the City to administer the SHIP program. The Economic Development Department
is prepared to resume administrative responsibility for this program. CHA Resolution #94-22 confirms the Housing Authority's approval of the transfer of this responsibility.
Commissioner Deegan questioned the notation in the first page of exhibit A, number 11, the preparation of a printed inventory of locally owned land suitable for affordable housing.
He questioned if that was a study the Commission would be asked to approve. Mr. Ferri indicated the studies have already been completed.
Commissioner Deegan questioned on page 12, the difference between encumbered and expended. Mr. Ferri explained that encumbered means the funds are under contract but there is additional
time to complete the project. Expended is when the monies have actually been disbursed. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the time frames could be met. Mr. Ferri indicated they would.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Affordable Housing Incentive Plan and authorize amendments to the Local Housing Assistance Plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The Assistant City Attorney presented Resolution #94-43 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-43 and authorize the appropriate officials
to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #18 - (Cont. from 6/2/94) Approval of Final Site Plan and Second Reading Ord. #5614-94 - CPD Zoning for property located at 1297 S. Missouri Ave., F.E. Hanousek's Sub., portion
of Lots 11 & 12 (Sears Roebuck & Co., Kash n' Karry Food Store, Z94-05)
Kash n' Karry has requested this item be continued due to continued negotiations with Sears.
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to a date uncertain. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #18a - (Cont. from 6/2/94) Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5597-94 - Amending Sec. 40.489 to establish new parking requirements for Bayfront Core and Eastern Corridor subdistricts
of Urban Center District; also report on parking conditions in downtown (LDCA94-06)(CP)
The City Manager recommended this item be continued.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to July 21, 1994. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Deegan questioned why the item should be continued. Mr. Shuford indicated staff wished to make available additional information and make sure all options had been presented
to the Commission. He also indicated an outdated code was used to draft the ordinance.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if it might not be possible the Commission would decide to leave the code as is. Mr. Shuford indicated that if that was so, it would not be necessary
to continue the item.
Commissioner Thomas stated the last proposal was to grandfather in existing buildings which should address any concerns regarding the ordinance. Commissioner Deegan stated it could
not be certain this would be a part of the ordinance and he felt the ordinance should be left alone.
Commissioner Thomas expressed his strong belief that there was a need to correct the existing code. He stated there are serious parking deficiencies in the downtown area. He does
agree with allowing flexibility in the issue but he did not wish to place the City in jeopardy.
Commissioner Deegan stated to require a tighter ordinance but to leave loopholes was contradictory. Mayor Garvey stated if there were no parameters established, the Commission could
not look at the developments individually.
Commissioner Thomas stated it would cost the City several thousand dollars per parking space and there should be a payment in lieu of providing parking. Commissioner Deegan stated
that was in the current ordinance. Commissioner Thomas pointed out the current ordinance allows fewer spaces and therefore, there would be less parking spaces to "buy."
Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Fitzgerald, Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye," Commissioner Deegan voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances
ITEM #19 - Ord. #5597-94 - Amending Sec. 40.489 to establish new parking requirements for Bayfront Core and Eastern Corridor subdistricts of Urban Center District (LDCA 94-06)
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item as first reading of this ordinance has been continued (see item 18a). The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #20 - Ord. #5613-94 - Amending Sec. 40.433 to add "Accessory Dwellings" as a permitted use in the Infill Commercial District (LDCA 94-09)
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5613-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5613-94 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. #5619-94 - Vacating the southerly 5.25' of the 10' drainage & utility easement lying along the northerly side of Lot 9, Blk S, Brookhill Unit 7 (Thompson, V94-06)
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5619-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5619-94 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. #5628-94 - Amending the Operating Budget for the Fiscal Year ending 9/30/94
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5628-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5628-94 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. #5629-94 - Amending the Capital Improvement Program report and budget for the Fiscal Year ending 9/30/94
The Assistant City Attorney presented Ordinance #5629-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5629-94 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 #24 - Special Items of widespread public interest - None.
ITEM #25 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda - None.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #26-34) - Approved as submitted less item #s 29, 31, 32 & 34.
ITEM #26 - Receipt/Referral - LDCA re dock regulations (LDCA 94-07)(CP)
ITEM #27 - Receipt/Referral - LDCA re revision to minor variance ordinance (LDCA 94-20)(CP)
ITEM #28 - Receipt/Referral - LDCA re establishing a Downtown/Mixed Use Zoning District (LDCA 93-17)(CP)
ITEM #29 - See below.
ITEM #30 - Receipt/Referral - LDCA re increase in permitted height in Limited Office Zoning District (LDCA 94-14)(CP)
ITEM #31 - See page 25.
ITEM #32 - See page 26.
ITEM #33 - Agreement for PPC's Local Government Grant for FY 1993-94 (CP)
ITEM #34 - See page 28.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted less Items 29, 31, 32 and 34 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #29 - Receipt/Referral - LDCA re prohibiting parking on front lawns of single family, duplex and triplex uses, including any unpaved portion of the street r-o-w adjacent thereto
(LDCA 94-15)(CP)
The proposed code amendment was prepared in response to requests from various homeowner groups, the Code Enforcement Review Task Force (CERTaF), the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z),
the Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB), and the Commission. It proposes a parking prohibition on front lawns of single family, duplex and triplex uses in residential zoning districts.
The prohibition includes parking on the unpaved portion of the street right of way. The purpose for the amendment is to preserve the appearance and property values of the City's residential
neighborhoods.
Enforcement options available to the City include directing violations to County Court or to the Municipal Code Enforcement Board (MCEB). Staff will likely pursue violations of this
ordinance to County Court. Further, it is anticipated the Police Department will share responsibility for enforcement of this ordinance with the Community Response Team (CRT).
The Commission should be aware significant violations of this ordinance currently exist. Staff, including The Management Team, the Police Chief, the CRT leader, and the Central Permitting
Director, are concerned about the impact of this ordinance on single family residential property owners. They are also concerned about the ability to enforce this ordinance with existing
staff resources. Consequently, staff recommends not proceeding with receipt and referral of this code amendment.
Police Chief Klein has written a memo to City Manager Deptula indicating his opposition to the ordinance as written. He stated he would recommend that instead of this being enforceable
as a code violation, it be made a violation of the City's parking code which is then enforceable by the issuance of a parking citation. This would allow violations to be handled by
parking enforcement officers, police service technicians, code enforcement officers, fire personnel, police aides and police officers.
Ms. Deptula reiterated it is staff's recommendation this amendment be rejected.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns that this would not solve the problem. He stated this amendment has been requested by multiple homeowners associations and neighborhoods. Mr.
Shuford indicated it was staff's belief that a bigger problem would be created. Commissioner Thomas indicated this was still not solving the problem. He stated there are some properties
being turned into rental properties and six to eight vehicles are being parked on a property designed for two cars. He stated he wants a solution.
Mayor Garvey indicated she did not see this as a big problem.
Commissioner Deegan stated he agrees a problem exists and it is more widespread than many might think. He referenced the memorandum from Chief Klein and indicated this would not be
any different from how violations are handled regarding boats being stored in front yards, etc. He stated the CRT could handle this through tickets. It was not the Commission's desire
to take police officers from higher priority calls. He stated he has heard the complaint regarding parking on front
lawns for at least three years. He also reported the CERTaF had suggested such an amendment to the code.
Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated that while he has heard the arguments regarding this for a long period of time, when The Management Team, Police Department, Central Permitting and
the CRT indicate serious reservations, he has to give that consideration. He stated he could understand where families with teenagers would have difficulty in parking all the cars for
that household. He stated he was not sure the amendment would solve the problem and he supported rejection of the ordinance.
Commissioner Thomas stated it was the Commission's responsibility to solve the problem. He reiterated he expects staff to come up with a solution. Mayor Garvey stated that just because
a neighborhood does not have deed restrictions does not make it a junk yard. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated he was simply saying this amendment is not necessarily the solution. Commissioner
Deegan agreed stating Chief Klein had pointed out an alternative.
Ms. Deptula recommended the Commission remand the issue to staff. Staff will go out to the community to solicit input regarding a solution. She stated the proposed code amendment
is not the way staff recommends addressing the problem.
Howard Groth spoke in favor of an ordinance of this type. He indicated his neighborhood is going through a transition and he felt property is devalued when cars are parked on the front
lawns. He indicated the deed restrictions for his neighborhood terminate in 1999. He stated there are already ordinances on the books that recreational vehicles and boats can not be
parked on the front lawn and he questioned why cars should be allowed. He recommended handling the violations as parking code violations and recommended they be handled on a complaint
basis. He stated parking on the front lawn is not allowed on Clearwater Housing Authority properties.
Bill Baldwin, member of the Beautification Committee, indicated several schemes to address this issue had been submitted.
Ms. Deptula indicated she would return in September with recommendations.
Commissioner Thomas moved to remand the issue to staff to come back with a recommended solution. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #31 - Receipt/Referral - LDCA re outdoor cafes & sidewalk vendors (LDCA 94-13)(CP)
The Commission has expressed interest in allowing outdoor cafes and sidewalk vendors to operate in pedestrian-oriented zoning districts.
For outdoor cafes, staff has researched regulations from a number of communities. For sidewalk vendors, staff has researched vendor regulations in a number of other communities and
those proposed by the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers.
The proposed ordinance includes: 1) definitions for outdoor cafes, sidewalk vendors, and vendor stands, and 2) locational and operational requirements, including; limits on hours of
operation,
required liability insurance, fencing requirements, signage requirements, and exemptions from off-street parking requirements.
It should be noted that no off-street parking is required for outdoor cafes or sidewalk vendors in order to encourage the establishment of these uses in areas where off-street parking
is unavailable or extremely limited. Staff does not believe a parking shortage will result since the outdoor cafes must be associated with indoor restaurant uses having parking requirements
and the vendor operations should primarily attract pedestrian oriented clientele.
The Planning and Zoning Board and Development Code Adjustment Board will review this ordinance.
Commissioner Deegan questioned requirements for a minimum 5 foot wide sidewalk and railings when these were not found in the other cities' ordinances. He has noticed railings exist
at some facilities and not at others. Mr. Shuford indicated these requirements have been imposed when individuals go through the conditional use process. He stated the purpose is to
make sure the area is well defined, there is no encroachment than what is allowed, and it often separates the area from a driveway. He stated the purpose of this is to provide an appearance
of a special area.
Commissioner Deegan questioned why on one street two facilities have railings and another one does not. Mr. Shuford indicated he did not know.
Commissioner Berfield indicated she knew for one of the establishments, the Commission had asked for the divider.
Commissioner Berfield moved to receive and refer the land development code amendment for outdoor cafes and sidewalk vendors. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #32 - Receipt/Referral - Site Plan and RPD-C Zoning for property (Landmark Manors) located at 3160 McMullen Booth Rd., Sec. 21-28-16, M&B 23.04, 23.05, 23.06, 23.08 & 23.13 (McCullough,
Z94-04)(CP)
The applicants propose to develop 20 single family homes and incorporate their existing home into the development, for a total of 21 lots, on a 17.3 acre parcel, for a density of 1.21
dwelling units per gross acre. Entrance into the new subdivision is proposed to be from Landmark Drive. The entrance road would have a bridge over the northern portion of the retention
pond south of Turtle Brooke and adjacent to Landmark Drive. This will require an easement to be conveyed by the Eagles Glen Condominiums. All roads in the subdivision will be private
roads, but will be constructed to city standards. The subject property was annexed into the City on December 17, 1992.
Neighbors residing at the Turtle Brooke residential development and city staff have expressed opposition to the location and design of the proposed bridge entrance with concerns being
identified as road alignment, conflicting left turn movements, and the proximity of the bridge entrance to the residential homes to the north. Staff held a neighborhood meeting with
the concerned neighbors and the developer to discuss acceptable alternatives for the proposed bridge entrance location. As a result, the developer has agreed to relocate the bridge
approximately 60 feet south of Turtle Brooke subdivision. Staff feels the developer has demonstrated a willingness to accommodate traffic
concerns and the wishes of the Turtle Brooke neighbors. The City Traffic Engineer has approved the new alignment which eliminates the left-turn conflict from Landmark Drive.
The Parks and Recreation Director recommends the City accept 4% of the value of the developable upland area in cash in lieu of dedication of land for parks, as there are no existing
parks nearby to add the land to and the area would be too small to stand alone as a park.
The applicants' property was annexed but the zoning of RS-6 and future land use classification of Low Density Residential were never approved by the County Commissioners. During the
Countywide consistency program the property was assigned a future land use category of Residential Suburban. The property is therefore annexed, but unzoned. Staff proposes to assign
the new zoning classification of Residential Planned Development-C (RPD-C) to the applicants' property. This zoning provides for a density of 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre and the
dimensional and numerical requirements of the RS-6 zoning district.
There are existing wetlands located on the property which will restrict development. Development with the proposed zoning will not affect the permitted density or infringe on the environmentally
sensitive wetlands. The applicant is working closely with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the City Environmental Management Group in order to design the proposed
residential development in an environmentally sensitive manner.
Mr. Shuford indicated the citizen that had requested this item be pulled from the consent agenda had to leave the meeting. He stated the citizen's concern had to do with access to
McMullen Booth Road through a 40 foot accessway. He stated the other point of access is a 80 foot right of way easement to Landmark Drive which goes over wetland and environmentally
sensitive areas. He reiterated the access to Landmark Drive has been moved. He stated there may be other alternatives for access to the property.
Mayor Garvey stated the Commission could not deny use of the property. Mr. Shuford indicated, however, access to Landmark Drive could be denied.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned what happened to the property that runs to McMullen Booth Road. His concern was that there would be two accesses and people would use the subdivision
as a cut-through between McMullen Booth Road and Landmark Drive.
Mayor Garvey expressed concerns that this would set up another problem regarding there only being one access to the subdivision. Mr. Shuford indicated the accessway to McMullen Booth
is too narrow for a standard city street. He stated he is concerned regarding emergency access. There have been no negative comments regarding emergency access for a 17 unit development.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if staff was confident they could come up with a mutually satisfactory solution. Mr. Shuford indicated a solution would probably not please everyone
but they would reach the best solution possible.
Commissioner Thomas moved to receive and refer the application for RPD-C Zoning and the Preliminary Site Plan for Landmark Manors; to request the City Clerk to advertise the zoning
request for public hearing; and for the DRC to review the site plan with it returning to the Commission for final approval subject to conditions attached to these minutes as Exhibit
A and to accept staff's
recommendation to accept fee instead of land to meet open space/land dedication requirement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #34 - Preliminary Site Plan for Bayside Nursing Pavilion located at the northeastern portion of the existing Bayview Gardens Adult Congregate Care Facility (Morton Plant Hospital
Association, Inc.)(CP)
The applicant proposes to expand the existing Bayview Gardens Continuing Care Retirement Community by constructing a 49,250 square foot, two story, 120 bed nursing facility on the grounds
of the existing Bayview Gardens. The facility will be state licensed.
Bayview Gardens is a state licensed Adult Congregate Care Living Facility which currently has 94 assisted living beds in the Inseal Tower and 287 Garden Units. The Garden Units accommodate
26 two-bedroom units, 106 one-bedroom units, and 166 efficiency units for a total of 324 beds. The proposed Bayside Nursing Pavilion will displace two existing buildings currently containing
two one-bedroom units and two efficiency units for a total of 4 beds. The proposed expansion will increase the total parking spaces within Bayview Gardens from 309 to 319 including
2 additional handicap parking spaces. The proposed 319 parking spaces exceed the 269 required based upon one parking space per two bed formula.
Staff believes this item should return to the Commission for final approval due to the proximity of the proposed nursing home building to the existing natural drainage channel and the
environmentally sensitive features such as existing mature trees and topography associated with the site proposed to be altered.
The Parks and Recreation Director has determined that no fee or land dedication is required as the proposed development is exempt from the Open Space Land Dedication requirement.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if questions by staff regarding water management and other concerns have been answered. Mr. Shuford indicated they have been partially answered and they
will continue to be during the review process. He reported staff is never able to resolve all the issues before a site plan comes to the Commission. He stated receipt and referral
will start the process. The final site plan is recommended to come to the Commission for approval. He reported it is not unusual to have unanswered questions at this stage.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if all issues raised in a letter from Allan Stowell will be addressed. Mr. Shuford indicated they would be. He reported, regarding concerns of the aquatic
lands designation, that until a site plan is reviewed, it is not always known where the wetlands are. He stated in order to determine this, the receipt and referral process must be
approved.
Commissioner Thomas questioned Mr. Stowell's statement that a nursing home could not be built within a 100 year flood plain. Mr. Shuford indicated he did not know if there were regulations
that would preclude that. Mr. Baker indicated a nursing home can be built in a 100 year flood plain if certain rules are observed. He stated the question is whether or not there will
be any DER jurisdiction.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if addressing all these issues is part of what this item will accomplish. It was indicated this was the case.
Commissioner Thomas moved to receive the preliminary site plan for Bayside Nursing Pavilion and authorize the DRC to approve a final site plan subject to preliminary conditions attached
to these minutes as Exhibit B and return the final site plan to the Commission for final approval. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 10:20 p.m. to 10:35 p.m.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
ITEM #35 - Pavilion on the Beach
Originally discussion of an open air pavilion on Clearwater Beach was discussed in conjunction with development in the Pier 60 area. Several citizens requested this be considered separately
as they felt the pavilion was an important addition to the beach and should not be delayed by consideration of further development in the Pier 60 area.
Bill Baker stated staff has met on site and considered the placement of a 80 x 40 foot open air pavilion on the property. He stated it can be placed landward of the CCCL but some felt
this would result in the structure being too close to the sidewalk. A question to be answered does regard the size of the facility.
The reason for suggesting placing this structure landward of the CCCL was to save a few months in obtaining permits. There was also concern that if the decision made regarding the
Pier 60 area is to have a park-like atmosphere, that area may be the appropriate location for the pavilion.
Mr. Baker reported Ream Wilson, Parks and Recreation Director, does not believe a 40 x 80 foot structure is necessary unless dances are to be held there.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the Commission decided to place the structure seaward of the CCCL, would permits be obtained. Mr. Baker indicated they would be, however, it would
cost a few months time.
Commissioner Thomas and Mayor Garvey questioned if this item should be considered after decisions are made regarding item #42 - Development of the Pier 60 area.
Anne Garris spoke in support of the pavilion. She questioned the location stating the current proposal is the only location at which point traffic faces the water.
David Little stated, historically, Clearwater Beach has had a pavilion. He stated the important questions are: 1) size, 2) location, and 3) timing. He requested it not be included
with the Pier 60 consideration as he felt it would delay construction one to two years. He suggested a 50 x 100 foot structure. He stated proposals do include such things as square
dancing, holding Kids Week there, and other major activities. He stated if it is in the area of Pier 60, it will be too noisy. He reiterated the need for an attraction on Clearwater
Beach.
Mike Frangedis, representing the Clearwater Beach Business Organization, stated they supported the pavilion. He felt it would help businesses on Clearwater Beach.
Commissioner Thomas questioned whether the proposed location was to the right or left of the restrooms. Mr. Baker indicated it was to the left.
Ken Rosenow stated he echoed the comments by the previous three speakers. He stated it made more sense to begin the pavilion and keep it separate from the Pier 60 consideration. He
reported Clearwater Beach is declining at a rapid rate. Regarding the size, design, and events to be held at the facility, he felt a lot of public input could be gotten for those questions.
He believed the pavilion could be built and in operation within one year.
Mayor Garvey again expressed her belief the entire development of the beach area should be looked at at one time to make sure the pavilion is in the appropriate location.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated he agreed with Ms. Garris regarding not wanting to obstruct the view of the water. He stated many people are indicating they do not want to clutter up
the beach. He reiterated the critical issue is where to place the pavilion so it would not obstruct the view of the water. He stated there is a need to figure out how the Pier 60 area
might fit into this plan.
Commissioner Deegan stated the issue regarding blocking the view of the Gulf was moot as, at this point, traffic is circling the parking lot and the water would not be seen at that
location. He stated prior to tonight, the suggestion had been to build the pavilion east of the coastal construction control line in order to provide easy access. Upon talking to other
individuals, he found, as long as there is a boardwalk or ramp to provide access to the facility, constructing it seaward of the coastal construction control line would be better. He
thought to accommodate the needs of the proposed events would require a 40 x 80 facility. He felt putting the pavilion in proximity of the Pier 60 area would complicate the use of the
pavilion and the pier. Commissioner Deegan stated he is in favor of moving forward immediately to obtain the permits for an open air pavilion on the sand at the special events area.
Mayor Garvey again stated she felt a decision needs to be made regarding the Pier 60 area as the placement could be dependent on those decisions. She agreed the fisher people would
be impacted no matter where the pavilion was placed.
Commissioner Berfield stated all the Commissioners are agreeing to the need for a pavilion. She thought the proposed size may be large, however, if it was full, may appear to be small.
She stated she preferred the pavilion to be at the south end of the beach, which would allow development at Pier 60. This would also provide a reason for the public to move from one
area to the other. She questioned what the pavilion would look like.
Mr. Baker indicated a site plan would be provided to the Commission. He stated preliminary proposals are for the long access of the pavilion to run up and down the beach, in front
of the coastal construction control line. There would be a raised walkway to the pavilion, no electricity or air conditioning; it would be a deck and roof with columns and railings,
raised only enough to make sure there was no sand problem. He stated a budget of approximately $100,000 would be needed.
Concerns were expressed that electricity should be provided to the facility as lights would be needed.
Commissioner Deegan suggested the facility be made circular. Mr. Baker said several ways of constructing the facility will be brought forward to the Commission. The size would need
to be determined.
Commissioner Thomas felt a 50 x 100 foot structure would be beneficial. He felt bands would attract crowds. Commissioner Deegan felt the 40 x 80 was appropriate.
Commissioner Thomas stated he liked the idea of the pavilion in front of the coastal construction control line. He felt it should be a little north of the special events area so as
not to obstruct the view. He agreed the design should come back to the Commission for approval. He felt staff should pursue the permitting process.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the permitting process could begin without specific drawings. Mr. Baker indicated the plans could be conceptual and minimal for the permit application.
Commissioner Thomas moved to authorize staff to develop plans and apply for permits for a 3,200 square foot pavilion with electricity and access walkway located where it will not obstruct
the view of the Gulf not inhibited by the CCCL. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if the permit had to be specific regarding location. Mr. Baker indicated they had to give a general idea.
Mayor Garvey expressed opposition to the motion until the entire issue is considered.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if it is decided the pavilion should be in the Pier 60 area, could the permit be transferred. Mr. Baker indicated, while it may take some doing, he
felt it could be done.
Commissioner Fitzgerald agreed with the Mayor that Pier 60 and the pavilion should be looked at as one project.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas voted "aye." Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "nay." Motion carried.
ITEM #36 - Final Report from Coastal Technology re Dunedin Pass
In October, 1993, Coastal Technology Corporation was hired to assist the City in pursuing permits for the opening of Dunedin Pass. Phase I of that work was to determine the probability
of obtaining the permits.
Michael Walther, of Coastal Technology, has submitted a concept development report for the reopening of Dunedin Pass as the final product of Phase I. The conceptual plan calls for
excavation of the Pass at the location where the Pass most recently existed. A 335 foot wide channel is recommended as a hydrologically stable channel. The channel would be expected
to remain open after initial construction. To prevent migration of the reopening of the Pass, and to provide for reliable navigation, bulkheads of rock revetments are recommended on
each side of the Pass throughout. A sediment trap is recommended within the mouth of the Pass to provide for sand transfer by trapping, dredging and disposal of sediment on the downdrift
beach. The estimated total initial cost of the
recommended conceptual plan is $2.55 million. It is expected the Pass would require dredging as frequently as every two years, at an estimated cost of $500,000 per dredging. Monitoring
costs are estimated at $100,000 per year for the first three years after construction, and $50,000 per year thereafter.
Public benefits expected with the opening of Dunedin Pass include navigation improvements, reduced bridge openings at the Memorial Causeway Bridge and the Clearwater Pass Bridge, improved
control of pedestrian access to Caladesi Island's state park, improvement to water quality in Clearwater Harbor, potential reduced human disturbance of bird nesting and foraging activities
near the Pass, and potential restoration of habitats surrounding the Pass.
At a public hearing on April 25, 1994, public interest expressed toward opening the Pass were, primarily, relative to improved water quality and associated environmental enhancements
and, secondly, relative to improved navigation. Existing data indicates navigation benefits are the primary tangible benefits which would be realized with the opening of the Pass.
Existing data predominantly indicates Clearwater Harbor meets state water quality standards and has a similar quality to that of the near shore waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
State and Federal regulatory staff have indicated existing data does not provide a compelling demonstration of sufficient public benefits to justify opening Dunedin Pass under existing
state statutes and rules.
To further document benefits toward opening the Pass, the following recommendations are made for immediate action by the City to proceed with this project:
1) As a management tool for Clearwater Harbor, hydrodynamic water quality models should be developed to evaluate possible improvements to the water quality in Clearwater Harbor associated
with stormwater improvements, bridge/causeway improvements, and/or reopening the Pass. This model is estimated to cost $250,000 and requires two years to develop.
2) To further define expected navigation improvements, a navigation study should be performed at an estimated cost of $50,000. This study is expected to require six months to complete.
3) Data collection and field studies should be performed. To identify seasonal (summer) sea turtle nesting and bird nesting foraging data. These studies are estimated to cost $12,500
and require six months to complete.
Subsequent to completion of these efforts, if the studies reveal more tangible and compelling public benefits, then permit applications should be prepared and submitted. Permitting
costs are estimated at $538,500 for work required to the point of intended state agency action, including the items recommended above. If a hearing is required, an additional $300,000
to $400,000 may be required to obtain the permits.
Mr. Walther reviewed the findings and recommendations in the report. He indicated action by the City Commission to proceed would be needed before additional work is done.
Joshua Magidson stated the study is essentially saying it recommends the consultant be paid more to do more studies. He reported the consultant is now saying he does not believe the
permits can be obtained. He stated it is time to say, "Enough" and to cease efforts to open the pass.
David Little, chairman of a committee to reopen Dunedin Pass, stated keeping passes open is good for the water quality in Florida. He stated nature did not close the pass. The pass
was closed through man-made actions. He stated, however, there is still a limit to the pursuit of the permits. He thanked the Commission for their efforts and stated the report provides
good, solid answers.
Ray-Paige stated that many more studies need to be done. She stated man-made activities are only a part of the cause of the closing of the pass. The pass actually started closing
in 1926 after a hurricane cut other passes through the islands. She reviewed the history of the County's efforts to get the permits and stated, eventually the effort was abandoned because
there was no way the permits could be obtained.
Lisa Lanza stated there has been a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals which allows individuals the right to sue should erosion be caused. She stated if Dunedin Pass is reopened
and erosion caused, the negatively impacted property owners could sue the City.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated the opening of the pass has been studied "almost to death." He stated he has reviewed all the documentation and, reading between the lines, feels the
report indicates it is time to put this issue to rest.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to discontinue any further efforts to open Dunedin Pass and that the remaining funds in the budget be put back into regular City funds. There was no second.
Commissioner Thomas stated it is time to take the focus off Dunedin Pass and to focus on what it will take to improve the water quality in Clearwater Harbor. He suggested the development
of a Request for Proposal that deals with opening Memorial Causeway and how to deal with stormwater runoff. He felt there needed to be study regarding the quality of water five to ten
years ago and what it will be five to ten years from now. He stated he is truly concerned with the harbor.
Commissioner Thomas moved to direct staff to develop an RFP to determine the current level of water quality of Clearwater Harbor, what is causing the deterioration of the water quality
and what steps need to be taken to reverse the deterioration. There was no second.
Commissioner Deegan stated an RFP is a separate issue. This particular agenda item deals with Dunedin Pass. He stated he was a strong proponent for dredging and, in his heart, he
still wants to pass to be open. He does believe the water quality is terrible and the bay is deteriorating. He stated, however, the report indicates the reason for going forward would
be navigational benefits and the cost is now $2.5 million instead of $900,000. He stated that expenditure is not best for the City of Clearwater.
Commissioner Deegan moved that, in view of the findings contained in the report, the City discontinue efforts to open Dunedin Pass. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned what was the proper thing to do with the leftover funds.
Commissioner Berfield pointed out the report indicates the inlets are competing with each other and the Hurricane Pass won over Dunedin Pass. She reported, however, Hurricane Pass
is also closing. She stated there is still an issue that needs to be dealt with, although she does not argue with not opening the pass simply for navigation purposes.
Mayor Garvey pointed out the report states it will initially cost $2.5 million to dredge and the expenses for monitoring and keeping the pass open continue indefinitely.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Deegan returned to the issue of water quality. He stated the main reason he did not second Commissioner Thomas's motion was that he did not believe an RFP was needed.
He felt the Public Works Department contained the expertise needed for the study of stormwater quality and how to clean up the bay. He suggested the monies remaining in the Dunedin
Pass project be used with other stormwater monies to come up with an overall plan to deal with stormwater impact on Clearwater Harbor and that staff come back to the Commission with
alternatives. He did agree that culverts under Memorial Causeway may be a possible solution.
Commissioner Thomas stated that was the reason he wanted the issue to be broader, as he feels the causeway is a dam to the north-south flow of water. He did not feel culverts would
be enough. He agreed staff was the best place to start and water quality was always the focus of the Dunedin Pass effort.
It was general consensus for staff to come back with alternatives for addressing the stormwater issues in Clearwater Harbor of how to use the funds left over from the Dunedin Pass project
to address stormwater runoff in Clearwater Harbor.
Commissioner Deegan thanked Mr. Walther for his efforts.
ITEM #37 - Direction re installing a section of sidewalk along the north side of Montclair Road, between Keene Road and Seton Drive (PW)
As part of the 1994 Sidewalk and Ramping Contract, which was approved by the Commission earlier this year, the Public Works Department proposed the installation of a section of sidewalk
along the north side of Montclair Road, from just east of Keene Road to Seton Drive. This is a missing link between existing sections of sidewalk.
The Public Works/Transportation Group feels the construction of this section of sidewalk is desirable as it serves students walking to Dunedin Middle School, as well as bikers headed
to and from the Pinellas Trail. Montclair Road is a narrow, two lane roadway; the sidewalk will allow bikers to avoid traveling on the roadway itself. And, while there is a sidewalk
along the southern side of the roadway, the construction of the missing link will keep some pedestrians from having to cross Montclair Road twice.
Just prior to construction, the homeowners of the properties adjacent to the new sidewalk objected to its construction, submitting a petition to City Manager Deptula. Staff noted the
sidewalk location, at its normal 1 foot inset from the property line, was visually too close to the residences, and proposed an alignment closer to the roadway edge. However, the adjacent
homeowners have opposed this as well.
The Public Works Department recommends the construction of the sidewalk at its new proposed alignment, which will minimize the impacts on the adjacent properties. Staff requests Commission
direction on the construction of this sidewalk.
Mr. Baker indicated the sidewalk committee determined a sidewalk should be placed on Montclair Road. He stated it will be at City expense, on City right-of-way with no cost to the
property owners. He reviewed the history of the project, indicating, although the sidewalk has been moved further from the homes, the adjacent property owners still object. He stated
there have been petitions from those wanting the sidewalk as well as those that do not want it. He reported the sidewalk committee continues to believe it is proper to place the sidewalk
here.
Mayor Garvey pointed out this will be connecting existing sidewalks.
Nancy Crosby, representing the individuals against the sidewalk, stated, while it has been moved, they are still not in favor of the sidewalk. She stated there is a sidewalk on the
other side of the road that doesn't interfere with any lawns. She indicated there are streets within the City with no sidewalks at all and it would be better to address them. The individuals
affected have been beautifying their lawns and do not want a sidewalk across them. There were also concerns regarding child safety and cars parked across the sidewalk.
Commissioner Deegan questioned a reference made to the effect on landscaping. Ms. Crosby indicated, where the stakes currently are, some palm trees would be affected.
Mr. Baker indicated the current location would not interfere with any trees.
Harry Cassabian stated he has children and does not want the sidewalk on his property. He stated he has been maintaining the grass for a long time. He reported there is a sidewalk
on the other side of the road.
Arlene Ellis stated there are ten houses that will be affected. She stated three families don't care and two want the sidewalk. The ones that want the sidewalk are set substantially
back from the road and one wants the sidewalks for her visiting grandchildren. She did not feel is was necessary to have a sidewalk on both sides of the street. She stated there have
been no complaints regarding there not being a sidewalk in this location and placing one there would ruin her lawn.
Mayor Garvey stated she thought any sidewalk was valuable. She also noted there is a school bus stop on Montclair Road.
Mr. Baker indicated, while there are streets in Clearwater with no sidewalks, staff attempts to put sidewalks on both sides of thoroughfares and collector roads. He stated Montclair
is a collector and there are sidewalks on both sides of the street except for this one gap. He indicated Keene Road will be getting sidewalks with the widening project.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if there are many areas without sidewalks. Mr. Baker indicated there are quite a few quiet residential streets that do not have sidewalks.
Commissioner Thomas felt this was a neighborhood issue and not a city-wide one. He questioned a statement by Mr. Baker that no one wants sidewalks. Mr. Baker indicated objections
to
the installation of sidewalks are more frequent than support. He stated sidewalks are needed on collector streets.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if the sidewalk would be on the right-of-way. Mr. Baker indicated it would be. Commissioner Berfield questioned whether or not that meant residents
have planted trees in the right-of-way. Mr. Baker indicated the sidewalk has been planned to only disturb sod; no trees will be taken down in order to accommodate the sidewalk; however,
there may need to be some jogs in the sidewalk to work around the trees.
Commissioner Berfield stated she could see an advantage for children to use the sidewalk. She stated there are only ten homes involved and three or four agree to the sidewalk. She
felt this was a safety issue.
Mr. Baker indicated it would not be just these ten homes involved, as Montclair is a collector street.
Commissioner Berfield stated she could understand why people would not want other individuals walking in front of their homes. She stated she could also relate to the parking problems
that may occur; however, she felt this was a safety issue and she could support the installation of the sidewalk.
Art Bartolo questioned Mr. Baker's statement that the sidewalk may jog. He stated sidewalks are usually put in straight. He stated the sidewalk would be only six inches from one of
his palm trees. He felt this was a quiet street and that sidewalks were not needed.
Mr. Baker reiterated the sidewalk will not impact any trees.
Commissioner Berfield moved to direct staff to install a section of sidewalk along the north side of Montclair Road between Keene Road and Seton Drive. The motion was duly seconded.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Fitzgerald, Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye"; Commissioner Thomas voted "Nay." Motion carried.
ITEM #38 - Contract for architectural services for Municipal Services Complex
Donnell Consultant, Inc., in association with Rowe Architects, Inc., have submitted a proposal for providing architectural services for the Municipal Services complex which will include
the Municipal Services building, the Police Department and a parking garage. Estimated cost of the complex is $22 million.
The proposed schedule of the architects is to have construction underway by October 1, 1994 and City occupancy of the new office building and new Police Department building by November
1, 1995. The new City parking garage and renovation of the existing City Hall will follow those completions by five months.
Mr. Baker indicated the consultants proposal provides basic services for a percentage of the construction costs. Additional services and allowances, such as a police architect, if
needed, have been included, with a $100,000 budget. He stated if all the additional services and allowances are done, the total fees would add up to 9.8 percent of the total construction
costs. He reviewed recent
projects, stating the State Administration building in Fort Myers cost $23 million and the fees were 9.3 percent. At the University of South Florida in St. Petersburg, a project cost
$11 million and fees were 10.55 percent. He stated the proposed contract is not out of line with industry standards. He stated the proposed construction process will result in saving
more than $300,000 than that estimated for the design-build concept.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding the additional fees and services. He stated if the architects do not know how to design a police department, they should not be hired.
Mr. Baker indicated Donnell and Rowe will be doing all of those services, but they added the additional services in case they were needed.
Commissioner Thomas stated he felt a six percent fee was not an unusual cost. Mr. Baker indicated that it was unusual in his experience. He stated six percent is more likely to just
get plans and specifications and then other services would be added on. He stated he is familiar with total fees ranging from ten to fifteen percent.
Commissioner Thomas requested Mr. Rowe "sharpen his pencil."
Dean Rowe, of Rowe Architects, indicated a chart from the Department of Management was used for the basic services fee. He stated this is a complex contract on a fast track and will
require additional staff. The chart which was used is used throughout the state.
Commissioner Thomas stated he did not like the price. He indicated Mr. Rowe and Mr. Donnell have received a lot of work for the City. He questioned how much of the work was jobbed
out to others. Mr. Rowe indicated they are not jobbing out any more than what is normal. He stated this type of project requires a big team of professionals.
Commissioner Thomas stated we cannot competitively bid architectural services and we either have to accept or reject this. Mr. Baker indicated if Mr. Rowe is not chosen, there will
be a lengthy process to obtain another architect.
Commissioner Thomas asked if Mr. Rowe would accept $1.5 million as the fees for this job versus the $1.8 in the proposal.
Commissioner Deegan agreed the cost was high. He referenced on the graph fees of 5.8 and 5.9 percent. Mr. Baker indicated the graph is used for basic services. Commissioner Deegan
questioned why the total construction cost could not be calculated and then one graph used. Mr. Baker indicated the charts have categories for the differing degrees of difficulty of
the tasks. Mr. Rowe pointed out as an example, it is more difficult to design the garage than the Police Department. Mr. Rowe indicated there were certain services that could be reduced,
such as the full-time field monitor and the Police Department architect.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns regarding the budget of $72 per square foot for the construction . The City Manager indicated while this is setting the budget, it is not giving
the actual authorization to spend the funds. Commissioner Deegan felt the price was still high and allowed too much latitude. He also expressed concerns regarding the $90 per square
foot for the Police Department. He stated he is aware of other government projects at $50 per square foot. He
stated Mr. Rowe does excellent work but does appear to be expensive. Commissioner Deegan stated it is his impression the City is spending too much money on this project.
Mr. Rowe indicated the price could be lowered by removing certain items. Commissioner Thomas stated he does not want any items removed, he wants the price lowered.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if this decision has to be made tonight. Mr. Baker indicated it does not, but it is staff's impression the Commission wished to move quickly on this
project. He stated if the decision is not made tonight, construction would not begin in October.
Commissioner Thomas stated he does not want to delay the project; he wants Mr. Rowe to "sharpen his pencil." He again suggested the price of $1.5 million.
Mr. Rowe indicated he could meet that price with the proviso that there be no special consultants. The City Manager expressed concerns that Mr. Rowe would be deleting consultants the
City may want.
Commissioner Thomas stated if Mr. Rowe would lower his price to $1.5 million, he would have his vote. Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns regarding the percentage, as the Commission
has not talked about the construction cost. Commissioner Thomas stated he fully expected the square foot price to come down; however, as the price comes down, the percentage of the
fee goes up.
Mr. Rowe pointed out the $72 per square foot has been used for some time, but is a figure that was lowered from the original $85 per square foot. Mr. Rowe indicated if the contract
is approved tonight, he will be bringing forward a negotiated general contractor for the project by mid July. He introduced Jeff Stark of Rowe and Associates, and they presented possible
sketches of the design.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the proximity of the proposed Pinellas Trail was any cause for concern. There was none noted.
Steve Lafferty, President of the A.I.A. representing area architects, expressed concerns regarding the modification to the contract with Donnell and Rowe may not be in keeping with
state law. He indicated he appreciated the response received from the Interim City Attorney indicating proper procedure had been followed. He stated there are still concerns, not with
the firm, but with the methodology. Mr. Lafferty stated the project started as a design/build contract, and the project managers chosen, Donnell and Rowe, would not be eligible to provide
architectural services under that scenario. He stated this remained as a design/build project until after December, 1993. Many qualified teams chose not to apply for the project manager
but to wait to provide the architectural services. He stated the project is now a $22 million municipal services complex including the police department. It is not the same project.
He felt the scope of the work has changed, and there has been a circumvention of the consultant's competitive negotiation act. Mr. Lafferty felt the Commission should return this to
a design/build project or rebid the services. He stated two years and thousands of dollars have been spent on this project. Another 60 days would not matter.
Commissioner Thomas questioned Mr. Rowe, if the shoe were on the other foot and he was not the architect chosen, would he feel there was a lawsuit against the City.
Mr. Rowe indicated he would not.
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concerns he found it hard to believe the Commission is embarking on a project of this magnitude. He stated the estimates are for $22 million or more,
and he is not certain all the costs have been factored in. He agreed we are paying too much. He stated what causes him the most concern is the way the Commission is going about the
project. He stated a referendum was promised to the public. The project was expanded, linked together with the police department and now the commitment for the referendum is not being
honored. He referenced an unscientific survey done by the St. Petersburg Times saying a significant number of citizens are very much opposed to what is being done; and those that are
in favor expressed that support with conditions. He stated this process shows why there is a breakdown of the people's trust in government. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated he wants
to go on record as being opposed to the way this project is being handled. He stated the Commission is not serving the people of Clearwater as best it could.
Mayor Garvey stated it is time to move forward on the project. Discussion regarding the need for a new building has been going on for seven years.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the contract with Donnell Associates in cooperation with Rowe Architects, Incorporated at the price of $1.5 million for all parts of the contract
as deemed necessary by staff. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if approval of this motion would approve the budget for construction.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt that, tacitly, that approval was given. Commissioner Thomas felt the amount was not in the budget and the budget could be dealt with separately. Commissioner
Deegan stated he wants it made clear that approval of this motion does not include the budget for construction.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "aye." Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "nay." Motion carried.
Commissioner Deegan questioned how to reduce the $72 per square foot. Mr. Rowe indicated the atrium could be deleted. Commissioner Deegan questioned if it could be done at $60 per
square foot. Mr. Rowe indicated it could be if the atrium is deleted.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if there would be serious damage to the concept of the building if the budget was $60 per square foot instead of $72. Mr. Rowe indicated there would
be. Commissioner Deegan questioned $65 per square foot. Mr. Rowe indicated that would be more reasonable, but he still would not know if the atrium could be included.
Mr. Baker pointed out the variable would be quality of the materials used.
Commissioner Thomas stated he liked the atrium, as it would provide a more user friendly aspect for the citizens. Commissioner Deegan pointed out the lobby is where the user friendliness
comes in, with or without an atrium. He stated the atrium adds light and decor.
Commissioner Thomas felt the building should be long lasting, durable and user friendly. He did not feel it was appropriate to be pulling numbers out of the air.
Commissioner Deegan stated he would be willing to compromise on $65 per square foot. He questioned why the police department would be $90 per square foot. Mr. Rowe indicated this
was due to security, communications center and a holding cell.
Commissioner Deegan felt $7 could be shaved off the price per square foot for the police department. He questioned the square footage of the office building, stating at one point it
was up to 75,000 square feet and it is now back down to 70,000.
Mr. Baker pointed out the 75,000 square feet was chosen for the referendum question to provide some flexibility.
The City Manager indicated the project is back down to 70,000 square feet and does include a growth factor.
Commissioner Deegan moved to set the budget for the construction of the municipal services building at $65 per square foot and for the police department at $83 per square foot. The
motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if this included allowing the upgrades in the mechanical systems. Commissioner Deegan indicated it did.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas voted "aye." Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted 'nay." Motion carried.
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue the meeting past midnight until all business is finished. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 1:08 to 1:17 a.m. (6/17/94).
ITEM #39 - Other Pending Matters
a) Lease for Utility Customer Service (AS)
The Utility Customer Service building at 900 Chestnut Street is 29 years old and contains asbestos in the ceiling and floor tile, has an unusable heating and air conditioning system
and is in need of a new roof.
The Commission directed that the Utility Customer Service Division be moved into an appropriate facility as soon as possible, staying at the new location until the new city facilities
are built, and to offer the 900 Chestnut Street building for sale as is.
Alternative sites have been investigated by staff, and staff has concluded the space available at 1130 Cleveland Street, formerly leased by Citizens Bank, is the best available space.
The Utility Customer Service Division employs 42 employees. The area of the present location is 12,651 square feet. The 1130 Cleveland Street site is 9,941 square feet. Of the sites
found to be available, the
Citizens Bank building is the closest fit and will require the least amount of modification to meet the needs. The site has a drive-in facility, vaults and a cashier counter, all on
the first floor. Parking is adequate. The building is laid out well for providing good customer service. It is actually a more efficient space than the current site. Additionally,
the location will keep the Utility Customer Service Division in the downtown area close to other city departments.
The requested budget of $64,500 is to cover the following estimated costs: $8,000 for moving furniture and equipment, $5,500 for moving computer equipment, $4,000 for cabling computers
at the new site, $2,000 for moving the automatic call director, $35,000 for a new telephone system and $10,000 for preparing the new site.
Three options for payment of the lease have been offered. The first option is monthly payments of $8,606.72 for a total of $206,561.28. This option will require payment of the first
and last month's rent, plus a security deposit being payable on the lease commencement date. The second option is annual payments of $98,116.63, totalling $196,233.20, plus a security
deposit being payable on the lease commencement date. This is a five percent reduction from option 1. The third option is a single payment of 4178,675.50 for the two year term of the
lease. This is a reduction of 13.5 percent from the monthly payment option.
This is a full service lease including utilities and janitorial costs, thus the Utility Customer Service Division will have a budget reduction of $45,881 for items that are included
in the lease - electricity, other utility charges and custodial service. This amounts to a savings of $4.62 per square foot.
Staff recommends option 3, a single payment of $178,675.50.
The City Manager indicated it is not feasible to wait for a decision regarding the Annex before moving the employees housed in the current Utility Customer Service building. She reiterated
there is a substantial reduction for a two year advance payment on the proposed lease.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if any agents were involved in the transaction, and what happened at the end of the 24 month period.
John Scott, Assistant Director, Administrative Services, Utilities Customer Service, stated there was an agent that manages the property, and the lessors are paying a fee to them.
He stated at the end of the 24 month period there is an option to renew.
The City Manager pointed out under the current plan for the development of the municipal services complex this function will be in the new building in less than 24 months.
Commissioner Deegan pointed out on page 1 of the lease it stated the term is three years. Ms. Deptula indicated this had been at one point in the negotiations, but the term of the
lease is now two years.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if she understood there is to be a security deposit if options 1 or 2 are chosen, but there is no security deposit for option 3. Mr. Scott indicated
this was the case.
Commissioner Berfield questioned Article 6 regarding renewal of the lease, stating it references a renewal for 12 months, whereas in another section it references month to month. Mr.
Scott indicated if the City notifies the lessors 150 days in advance, they can have an additional 12 month lease, and would be locked in for that year. If there is no such notification,
month to month renewal is allowed at the expiration of the lease, but the lessors would be actively looking for a new tenant. He indicated if they find a tenant, the month to month
renewal would not be allowed.
Commissioner Berfield questioned the provisions regarding maintenance and repairs, and if City staff had gone through the building and listed items needing attention. Mr. Scott indicated
there is a list of items to be corrected. As they find additional items, they are addressed.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if the City is responsible for plumbing, sewer and electrical. Mr. Scott indicated we would be responsible for routine maintenance; however, if it
is to be replaced, that is a capital expenditure and would be the lessor's cost.
Commissioner Berfield referenced the requirement the building be returned in the same condition in which it was accepted. She recommended a video be done of the premises.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if the City vacates the premises prior to the expiration of the 24 months, would there be any refund. It was indicated there would not.
Commissioner Berfield expressed concerns regarding provision on page 5 regarding the common area, that the City must provide keys to the lessor to the City area. She questioned if
the City usually gave keys to other entities. Ms. Deptula reported the City would not be the only tenant in the building. Commissioner Deegan stated the common areas are defined.
Mr. Scott indicated the City would be using the vault.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if it was current operational procedure for files to be locked every night. Mr. Scott indicated only confidential ones. Mr. Scott indicated, however,
most records of the Utility Customer Service Division are not confidential. Ms. Deptula indicated the security of the facility would be reviewed.
Commissioner Berfield questioned on page 6, the lessor would not be responsible to the lessee for non-performance of any other tenant or occupant of the building. Commissioner Deegan
stated the City would not be able to hold the lessor responsible for another tenant's actions.
Commissioner Berfield expressed concerns, on page 14, regarding the lessor paying and keeping insurance payments even though the City has paid all the rent that is due. Commissioner
Deegan agreed they would "luck out" should something happen as the City is paying all the rent up front. The lessors pay the insurance premiums and keep any insurance payments.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a lease agreement with Office Property, Inc., to lease office space including the drive-in facilities which represents Suite 100 of the office building
at 1130 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, FL, for the period 7/1/94-6/30/96, for $178,675.50 and to approve a budget of $64,500 for moving furniture & equipment, cabling, computers to the
new site, preparing the new site including signs, and purchasing a new telephone system, and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded.
Upon the vote being taken,
Commissioners Deegan, Fitzgerald and Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "aye." Commissioner Berfield voted "nay." Motion carried.
b) 1994/95 Millage Rate
In accordance with the TRIM Bill process, it is necessary for the Commission to adopt a tentative millage rate prior to finalizing and adopting the Budget. The tentative millage rate
will be included in the TRIM notices sent to taxpayers by the County Property Appraiser and can not be increased without special mailing; however, the millage rate may be decreased prior
to the adoption of the final budget following public hearings in September.
The City Manager's recommended millage rate of 5.1158 mills is the same as the 1993/94 rate. If the recommended rate is approved, all advertising requirements will indicate no tax
increase for fiscal year 1994/95.
The "rolled back rate," which is the rate when applied to the tax base exclusive of new construction that would provide the same tax revenue to the City as was levied in the prior year,
is 5.1240 mills. Adoption of the rolled back rate would provide $32,672 of additional ad valorem tax revenues above the City Manager's recommended budget.
Mayor Garvey questioned if the TRIM millage rate should be set higher as the rate can not be increased when the budget is adopted but can be lowered.
Commissioner Thomas moved to adopt a tentative millage rate of 5.1158 mills for FY 94-95 and set public hearings on the Budget for 9/1/94 & 9/15/94 to be held no earlier than 6 p.m.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
c) Request for funding - Ervin's All American Youth Club
Ervin's All American Youth Club has requested additional support from the City in the amount of $57,152. These monies will be used for the following fixed costs and programs:
Fixed Costs: $10,792
Programs:
1) Camp Nguzo Saba $10,000
2) Senior Citizens Outreach $13,112
3) Young Brothers & Sisters Club $23,248
TOTAL $57,152
The Third Quarter Budget review will include an amendment to provide funding from the Unreserved, Undesignated Fund Balance of the General Fund.
Ms. Deptula reported the Commission had asked that staff meet with Ervin's All American Youth Club regarding their finances. This has been done on more than one occasion. The Club
did have a shortfall and is now coming forward asking for funds to continue its programs to the end of September.
Commissioner Thomas recognized the club members in attendance and complemented Mr. Harris on his presentation.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the City contributing an additional $57,152 to Ervin's All American Youth Club Inc. and to approve a budget amendment to provide the funding from
the Unreserved, Undesignated Fund Balance of the General Fund. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated he has had conversations with Mr. Harris regarding the ongoing budget problems. He reported there is an ongoing effort to raise funds.
Mr. Harris expressed his gratitude to the City Commission for their continued support. He reported Ervin's All American Youth Club is one of 15 organizations that the Kellogg's Foundation
has chosen to consider as a model. He stated they have been approved for a 20 year initiative by the Kellogg Foundation. He pointed out the Kellogg Foundation program is an entrepreneurial
one for African/American boys. He stated the Youth Club's programs also include girls. He stated they are trying to get their act together and be sure of the books and auditing process.
He stated they will be sitting down to make plans for next year's budget. Kellogg is considering adding girls to its programs. He stated the Club and the Commission all share in the
honor of this recognition.
Commissioner Deegan pointed out one recommendation from last year had been for the Club to try and coincide its fiscal year with the City, which begins in October. He stated in the
report it shows all different months for programming.
Eric Doan, accountant for the Youth Club, stated they have converted the Club's tax year to coincide with the funding agency. He stated after this first full year, the ending date
of the fiscal year will be September 30, 1994.
Mr. Harris stated one of the problems he has in dealing with this program and clients is he considers participants as family. He said it is difficult to think of the programs in any
other perspective. He stated every penny will be accounted for.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if literacy training is part of the program. Mr. Harris indicated it is. He stated there are tutoring programs and grades are monitored. He also reported
the youth are learning how government works.
Mr. Harris reported he, as an appointee by the Governor to the African/American Affairs Committee, will be putting together a round table discussion to deal with African/American male
problems.
Commissioner Berfield noted a senior citizen outreach program, and questioned why this was not being handled through Neighborly Senior Services. Mr. Harris indicated the seniors in
the North Greenwood area are being brought together with the youth in that area in order to alleviate the alienation between the seniors and the youth.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if some of the programs presented, such as the brothers and sisters and senior citizens outreach, were new. Mr. Harris indicated they are not creating
new programs, but are doing what needs to be done. He stated, again, this is an ongoing "family operation."
Commissioner Berfield stated while every family has needs, it must also operate within a budget. She stated they need to make sure they can accommodate the programs.
Mr. Harris stated he understood, and stated they have goals and a professional CPA service now.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if they are currently working on their 94/95 budget. Mr. Doan indicated they are, and have it in draft form. He stated there is a lot of funding
which is set in stone. They will see what can be covered, and then come in with an annual funding request to the City.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if Mr. Doan felt the Club would operate within that budget. Mr. Doan indicated he did.
Commissioner Deegan stated they want to be sure the Club has a balanced budget. Mr. Doan indicated that FY 94/95 will be balanced by a request of funding from the City.
Ms. Deptula pointed out the City's budget is currently being set. Mr. Doan indicated he needs to get with Mr. Harris and the City Manager fairly soon. He indicated the operating expenses
for the Club have been fairly level the past three or four years.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
ITEM #40 - Other City Attorney Items
a) First Reading Ord. #5652-94 - Amending Sec. 2.066, to provide that the City Manager may remove a board member for excessive absences
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5652-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5652-94 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
Mr. Hull announced a need for a closed session regarding a lawsuit filed by Countryside Country Club regarding the City charging for effluent water. Commissioner Fitzgerald announced
he would have a conflict of interest in this matter.
A closed attorney/client session regarding Countryside Country Club vs. City was set for 9:00 a.m. on June 23, 1994.
ITEM #41 - City Manager Verbal Reports
The City Manager requested a Budget Session be scheduled. Consensus to set for August 11, 1994 at 9:00 a.m., location to be determined.
The City Manager questioned if the Commission wished to hold a budget town meeting. Majority consensus was not to do so.
The City Manager announced the opening of the Solid Waste Facility on June 20, 1994.
The City Clerk questioned if the Commission wanted to schedule a special meeting for discussion regarding the floor plan for the Bayfront Mart (Maas Brothers). Consensus to try and
address this at the regular meeting of July 18, 1994.
ITEM #42 - Commission Discussion Items
a) Direction re Pier 60 area development
Tom Labdon, of Innovative Technologies, questioned what the next step would be. Commissioner Thomas stated it would be discussed by the Commission, but first they requested public
input.
Mike Frangedis stated, for the record, whatever the decision is, the Commission needs to consider the benefit for the businesses as well as the citizens. He requested this area be
made a tourist destination.
David Little requested this area be made an attraction for visitors. He stated there are a number of parks in Clearwater and there is a need for something other than a passive park.
He stated there were a good variety of ideas presented at the last meeting (6/7/94). He stated he particularly liked the idea of an educational attraction.
Commissioner Thomas stated he has come full circle from his proposal 2-3 years ago to construct a water mountain. He stated the vast majority of people want mother nature to prevail.
Therefore, his proposal would be to continue the Pier 60 architecture with a walkway all the way out to the street, with every so often, an architectural treatment similar to that on
the pier. He stated the buildings should be razed and the pool eliminated. To the right of Pier 60, a children's playground covered with shade should be constructed, and to the left,
a similar structure with nothing but sand under it. He recommended including part of the landscaping proposal that was presented at the June 7, 1994 meeting, but he does not want the
dune structures included. Commissioner Thomas stated the "hard entertainment" proposals could be located in the redevelopment area at East Shore and Poinsettia. All of these recommendations
should tie into the pavilion and the pier.
Mayor Garvey and Commissioner Fitzgerald agreed with Commissioner Thomas's ideas.
Commissioner Deegan agreed with tearing down the buildings and eliminating the pool. He also agreed with the comments regarding the landscaping proposal, but again without the dunes,
but a boardwalk going through it. He also agreed with the playground and shaded area. However, he felt a middle approach is needed as many of the individuals who spoke stated there
is something needed
to help tourism. He stated he was impressed with the tower proposal that had been presented at the June 7 meeting. He stated the tower would be a narrow structure and would not have
much impact on the vista. Educational programs could also be accommodated in this facility. Commissioner Deegan stated he agreed with excluding a pool, bumper boats, and carousel.
He indicated these would be nice features to have at a different location.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if Commissioner Deegan's proposal would include the tower being built with private funds. Commissioner Deegan indicated absolutely. He indicated the
City would generate revenue by leasing the land to the developer of the tower.
Commissioner Thomas stated he would also like a boardwalk along the beach. Commissioner Deegan felt that would be something the City would do versus including it with the tower proposal.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if there had been any further discussion regarding extending the lease with Mr. Alexander. Ms. Deptula indicated she had met with Mr. Alexander and he
indicated an interest in extending the lease under certain conditions. She stated she will now inform him the Commission has decided on a different direction.
Commissioner Thomas moved that Clearwater develop the Pier 60 area by extending the walkway from the pier to the street with architectural treatment that would be similar to that on
the pier, with a shaded sand area to the left, a shaded playground to the right of the pier; along the walkway would be incorporated restrooms and a small beverage concession; landscaping
to be provided by Parks and Recreation. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Garvey expressed concerns regarding the area which currently has the Clearwater, Florida sign. Commissioner Thomas indicated the relandscaping could deal with that issue.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Thomas moved to create a hard surface walkway the length of Clearwater Beach that ties in with the pavilion and the pier. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Deegan questioned where the boardwalk would be located. Mr. Baker indicated staff would bring forth proposals.
Commissioner Deegan requested the motion be amended that before any work was done, the Commission would see drawings but these would not be done prior to accomplishing the tasks in
the first motion. Commissioner Thomas did not feel there was a need to delay.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Thomas and Fitzgerald voted "aye." Commissioners Berfield and Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted "nay." Motion failed.
Commissioner Deegan moved to authorize staff to develop a request for proposal for development, with private funds, of a tower similar to the idea expressed in the proposal submitted
by Mr. Baldwin at the June 7, 1994, Special Commission Meeting, with or without a restaurant. The motion ws duly seconded.
Mayor Garvey stated she would be against the motion as she felt it was proper that the beach be as natural as possible. Commissioner Deegan pointed out there is still a need for an
attraction on the beach.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Fitzgerald, Deegan and Thomas voted "aye." Mayor Garvey voted "nay." Motion carried.
ITEM #43 - Other Commission Action
Commissioner Berfield questioned if the Commission was to appoint the Equity Study Commission at this meeting. The City Clerk indicated names were to be submitted to her as individuals
are making the appointments.
Commissioner Deegan requested the appointees be identified.
Commissioner Berfield appointed Dee Fry; Commissioner Thomas, John Meek; Mayor Garvey, Kathy Rabon; Commissioner Fitzgerald, James Appelt; and Commissioner Deegan, Sarah Adler.
The City Manager reported she has appointed Ann Wilkins as one of her two appointees. She still needs to name the remaining individual.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if the Commission felt a response was needed to the latest letter from Mr. Elliott. Consensus of the Commission was that no response was needed.
Commissioner Berfield questioned the response to a letter expressing concerns that people were hanging around in the parking lots at City Hall and causing people to be uneasy. She
requested the response be the City is aware of the situation and is monitoring it.
Commissioner Berfield thanked the City Clerk for providing the Commission with a customer service report card. She announced the ribbon cutting for the third Jolley Trolley.
Commissioner Thomas requested a name be added to the list of candidates for City Attorney. He distributed a resume to the Commission members. It was requested Mr. Zimmet be asked
his opinion of this candidate.
Commissioner Thomas referenced a memo from Alan Zimmet, Interim City Attorney, regarding the motion for ordinances for annexations, land use plans and zonings. He requested the City
Attorney's Office be directed to adopt this policy of one motion for land use plan and zoning ordinances for the same property. Consensus was to do so.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding recent complaints regarding the EMS service. Mayor Garvey stated she has already sent a letter to the County expressing concern.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if an April 1 letter from Alan Stowell had been responded to. Ms. Deptula indicated a proposed final settlement is scheduled to be on the Commission
agenda of July 18.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated a June 9 letter from Empress Cruise Lines does not conclude the responses required as it did not address the sales tax issue. Ms. Rice indicated she
has talked to the Interim City Attorney and he is looking into this.
Commissioner Deegan stated the Commission has received a letter from Mayor Freedman requesting a resolution taking a position on the casino gambling issue. He questioned if the Mayor
could be authorized to send a letter stating they are in opposition to gambling in the State of Florida.
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concerns regarding a number of people in the community supporting casino gambling. Commissioner Deegan felt the Commission, as elected officials,
were right to take a position.
Commissioner Deegan moved the City Commission go on record opposing casino gambling and a letter be sent from Mayor Garvey which states the City is opposing gambling in Florida. The
motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt if the entire Commission did not agree, it should not merit stating a position. He felt the people of Florida should be allowed to vote on this issue.
Commissioner Thomas agreed they should be allowed to vote, but felt the elected officials should take a stand.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioner Berfield, Deegan and Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "aye." Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "nay." Motion carried.
Commissioner Deegan referenced the procedure for interviewing city attorney applicants. He stated he felt peers should also be involved in the interviewing process, stating he would
like to invite the City Manager to join in the interviewing. Consensus of the Commission was to agree to this.
Commissioner Deegan requested permission to attend the Annual Chi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation meeting, July 29, in New York. He indicated it is the City's responsibility to pay
for his attendance. Commissioner Thomas questioned this. Commissioner Deegan pointed out the Foundation had no choice regarding Commissioner Deegan's membership, as it had been imposed
on the Foundation. Consensus of the Commission was to approve this travel.
ITEM #44 - Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:06 a.m. (6/17/94)