10/20/1994 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
October 20, 1994
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, October 20, 1994 at 6:00 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
Pamela K. Akin 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 Deacon Joseph Polcari of St. Cecelia's Catholic Church.
In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
ITEM #3 - Service Awards - None.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards
Proclamation: Shriner's Hospital Benefit Days - November 4 - 5, 1994
Proclamation: Florida City Government Week - October 23 - 29, 1994
ITEM #5 - Presentations - None
ITEM #6 - Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 6, 1994, 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
Dina Atkins stated at a previous meeting, she had asked the City Commission to direct the City Manager to provide a copy of the Charter Review Committee's response to
Commissioner Thomas' letter to Chair Figurski regarding a ten-page, sworn statement Jay Elliott submitted to the City on February 3, 1994. The City Clerk said she has attempted to track
a response from the Charter Review Committee. She stated it appears the Committee never addressed the matter. She is trying to determine if the committee received Commissioner Thomas'
letter.
Charles Marcus questioned why Police Chief Klein did not arrest Owen Hurd when the Police Department knew Mr. Hurd was operating as a contractor without a license. Staff will reply.
Mr. Marcus left information with the City Clerk.
Bob Wright requested his October 13, 1994 letter regarding the water supply and stormwater utility be made part of the minutes. (Attached to these minutes as Exhibit A.) He felt a
new Regional Water Authority is a good idea but it will not happen within twenty years. He suggested sending water to Pasco would be a mistake and recommended the City build ponds in
parks and use the water for irrigation. He stated if the City transfers reclaimed water to the County, the County should pay for it. He noted at the October 17, 1994 meeting, the City
Commission directed staff to bring back the first phase of a reuse plan. He urged the Commission to act as soon as possible as the City's water supply is today's most urgent problem.
He reported he requested Tom Burke, of Camp, Dresser, & McKee, Inc., to help determine those interested in cooperation.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #8 - Public Hearing - Declare City owned real property, City Park Sub., part of Lots 12 & 13 (37 Causeway Blvd.) surplus to City needs; Lease Agreement to Clearwater Beach Seafood,
Inc., for the period 10/31/94 -04/30/2004 (MR)
On December 12, 1983, the City entered into a 15-year Lease Agreement with Clearwater Beach Seafood, Inc. to operate a restaurant and seafood market. On September 9, 1986, the first
amendment to operate a raw bar with beer and wine sales for on premise consumption on the first floor was approved. On October 14, 1987, the second amendment to extend the hours of
the raw bar was approved. On November 20, 1990, the third amendment to allow alcoholic beverage sales other than beer and wine for on premise consumption with meals was approved.
Mr. William Goodwin, owner of Clearwater Beach Seafood, Inc., has requested the existing Lease Agreement be extended by five years to April 30, 2004, due to added expenses of meeting
ADA requirements. Under the present City Charter, leases are limited to 15 years. Because a five-year extension would run beyond 15 years, a new Lease Agreement for 114 months (9.5-years)
was prepared for Clearwater Beach Seafood, Inc. Mr. Goodwin estimates he will spend $40,000 or more on this City owned building to provide handicap accessibility to the second floor.
With approval, the minimum guaranteed sum will be $300,000 over the term of the lease. Rent of $2,500 will be paid monthly for 54 months, and increased 10% to $2,750 for the remaining
60 months. Mr. Goodwin will also pay 5% of annual gross sales in excess of $850,000. The Lessee pays all taxes, utilities, insurance, refuse collection, and maintenance for the interior
and exterior of the building.
William Goodwin asked for the extension due to expensive improvements required to
comply with ADA. He stated he was impressed with the changes made to the Pier and Marina. He presented renderings of how the exterior of the building will be improved to be in keeping
with the tropical seascape theme for the beach.
Anne Garris recommended approval of Mr. Goodwin's request.
John Doran spoke in favor of approval and noted how Mr. Goodwin has gone out of his way to embrace the Tropical Seascape design.
Bob Bickerstaffe spoke in favor of approval.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve declaring City owned real property, City Park Sub., part of Lots 12 & 13 (37 Causeway Blvd.) surplus to City needs and the lease agreement to Clearwater
Beach Seafood, Inc., for the period 10/31/94 -04/30/2004. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Deegan pointed out this new lease is not just an extension and it should stand on its own merit. He questioned if the provision that no percentage of gross sales would
be paid the first year was intentional or the result of an oversight. Harbormaster Bill Held indicated that was a carryover from the original lease. Commissioner Thomas recommended
striking that clause. Mr. Goodwin agreed.
Commissioner Deegan referred to page 5 of the agreement and questioned the size of the deposit being requested. Mr. Held felt the deposit had been made with the original lease and
did not need to be raised to the proposed monthly rate. Commissioner Deegan recommended the amount reflect the current monthly rental rate. Mr. Goodwin agreed with the change.
Commissioner Thomas moved to amend his motion to include these two changes. The seconder agreed.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Thomas questioned when the improvements would be completed. Mr. Goodwin indicated he plans to start as soon as the season is over.
ITEM #9 - Public Hearing - Declare Parcel 811 (lying along US 19N, between SR 60 & the CSX transportation r-o-w N of Drew St.) as surplus for conveyance by grant of permanent easement
to FDOT for drainage purposes; Res. #94-78 - authorizing City officials to execute the permanent easement to FDOT (EN)
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is proposing improvements to US 19N between SR 60 and the CSX Railroad beginning in FY 1995/96 to include a six-lane overpass at Drew
Street, frontage roads and intersection improvements. The project requires FDOT to obtain additional rights-of-way along US 19N.
To facilitate the project, FDOT requests the City convey a permanent easement for drainage purposes in an approximately 400 square foot parcel, Parcel 811, to provide outfall
into the detention pond on the City's Carpenter Field property.
Conditions require the City's right to use the property remain unobstructed, that FDOT pay all costs to install and maintain its drainage facilities, that FDOT shall defend, indemnify
and hold the City harmless from claims, damages, losses and expenses associated with its use of the easement premises, and that the easement rights will terminate at such time as the
easement is abandoned or its purposes cease to exist.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve declaring parcel 811 (lying along US 19N, between SR 60 & the CSX transportation right-of-way north of Drew Street) as surplus for conveyance
by grant of permanent easement to FDOT for drainage purposes. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-78 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-78 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 #10 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5697-94, #5698-94 & #5699-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low & RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1304 Ridge
Ave., Highland Pines First Addition, Blk 8, Lot 5, 0.19 acres m.o.l. (Pappas, A94-20, LUP94-23)(CP)
The applicant wishes to annex the subject property at the southwest corner of Gentry Street and Ridge Avenue to obtain City sewer service. Properties to the north, south and west are
in the City. The applicant's property and the property to the east are in the County. It is proposed to assign the Residential Low Future Land Use Plan Classification, the same zoning
as the adjacent lots in the City. On October 4, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on this application and unanimously endorsed the proposed Annexation, Future
Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning Atlas Amendment.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve annexation and the Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low & RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1304 Ridge Avenue. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5697-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5697-94 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 City Attorney presented Ordinance #5698-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5698-94 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 City Attorney presented Ordinance #5699-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5699-94 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 #11 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5711-94 - Vacating 40' r-o-w easement lying along the N line of M&B 14.02, Sec. 17-29-16, subject to W 15' & N 3.5' being retained as
a drainage & utility easement (Parkwood Estates, V94-10)(CP)
The applicant is requesting the vacation of the 40-foot right-of-way easement lying along the north property line. Several mobile homes encroach into the subject easement. No City
utilities lie within the easement. Engineering has no objections provided the west 15-feet and the north 3.5-feet are retained as a drainage and utility easement.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve vacating the 40-foot right-of-way easement lying along the north line of M&B 14.02, Sec. 17-29-16, subject to W 15' & N 3.5' being retained as a
drainage & utility easement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5711-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5711-94 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 #12 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5712-94 - Vacating 20' r-o-w of Eastmoor Ave., lying along W side of Blk B2, No. 2 Springfield Sub. and lying E of Blk A, No. 1 Springfield
Sub., subject to it all being retained as a drainage & utility easement (City, V94-11)(CP)
The City's Engineering Department is requesting the vacation of the unimproved right-of-way of Eastmoor Avenue. This north/south right-of-way runs from Palmetto to Palm Bluff and is
adjacent to the rear property line of the single family homes on either side. The adjacent homes all have direct access to a paved City street.
Several homeowners have complained about debris and garbage dumped in the right-of-way behind their homes. Upon vacation, the property would reconvey to adjoining property owners.
Ron Lane said he owns property in the subdivision and has maintained the right-of-way behind his property for more than 15 years. He understood property owners on the west of the right-of-way
will be granted a larger portion of the vacated land. He questioned his responsibilities and rights regarding this issue. Mr. Shuford indicated he will provide Mr. Lane with additional
information. Mr. Baker explained if the property was originally part of a west side lot prior to the establishment of a right-of-way, that land will all go back to that property.
Mr. Lane expressed concerns about his property's value and requested access to the right-of-way be blocked off from Palmetto Street to discourage continued dumping. Mr. Baker indicated
residents will have the right to erect fences. The City Attorney stated the City does not control the ownership issue.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the properties to the west have expressed an interest in maintaining the subject land. Mr. Baker noted if the vacation is approved, the City still
owns the rights-of-way at Palm Bluff and Palmetto and could close them to prohibit outsiders from dumping trash. Mayor Garvey suggested a temporary six-month barrier would be adequate.
Barbara Williams, a property owner from the west side of the right-of-way, stated she and other residents want the available property.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve vacating 20-feet of right-of-way of Eastmoor Ave., lying along west side of Blk B2, No. 2 Springfield Subdivision and lying east of Blk A, No. 1
Springfield Subdivision, subject to it all being retained as a drainage and utility easement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5712-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5712-94 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
Mayor Garvey recommended the vacated property be monitored to see if a temporary barricade is needed.
ITEM #13 - Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property (Horizon House) located at 31 Island Way, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 2, Tract A (Horizon House Inc. of Clearwater, SV94-34)(CP)
The applicant is requesting: 1) an area variance of 406.13 square feet from the permitted 40 square feet to allow 446.13 square feet of attached signs; 2) a variance of two attached
signs from the permitted one attached sign to allow three attached signs; and 3) a ratio variance of 2.17 square feet of sign area per foot of building width from the permitted 1.5 square
feet per foot of building width to allow a ratio of 3.67 square feet per foot of building width.
The subject property, on the east side of Island Way north of Memorial Causeway, is in the Multiple Family Residential zoning district. The variance is requested to permit the continuation
of the existing sign until Spring 1995 when the building will be repainted and the sign brought into compliance. Staff recommends accommodating the request by delaying enforcement rather
than granting the variance.
Wayne Fulton, President of Horizon House, verified pictures of the signage as presented by Mr. Shuford. He indicated staff has recommended a 180 day delay in enforcement until the
sign is painted over in the Spring. Commissioner Thomas questioned if he agrees with the recommendation. Mr. Fulton said he did.
Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the variance requests but to delay for 180 days enforcement of the sign code regulations for the Horizon House, 31 Island Way. The motion was duly
seconded.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the building will have any signage once the present signs are concealed. Mr. Fulton indicated there would be signage.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
ITEM #14 - (Cont'd from 09/01/94) Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. 5667-94 - Creating Sec. 36.039, to establish a Tropical Seascape Design Review Committee, establish powers, duties
& jurisdiction for the committee (LDCA94-23)(CP)
The amendment to the Land Development Code would establish a Tropical Seascape Design Review Committee for nonresidential sections of Clearwater Beach to implement measures of the Clearwater
Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force Report. this ordinance, modeled after the N Greenwood Design Review Committee regulations, establishes a seven-member Committee to implement Tropical Seascape
design guidelines to be developed by the Committee.
The scope of the Committee's review will be limited to building plans for new buildings, additions and facade alterations requiring the issuance of building permits, and sign plans
for which sign permits are required or requested. The Committee will also provide policy-type input on design and development issues on Clearwater Beach.
On August 16, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of this code amendment by a vote of 5-1. The Board discussed adding an appeal structure to the amendments but
did not act on the discussion. Several board members expressed an interest in receiving a copy of the design guidelines, once developed, for review and comment.
Should the Commission wish to add a section on appeals, staff recommends appeals going to the City Commission after a minimum of three good faith applications for the same project being
denied by the Review Committee to prevent efforts to "end-run" the Committee through the appeal process.
On September 22, 1994, the Development Code Adjustment Board recommended denial of this code amendment by a vote of 3-2; the members so recommending stated that
they opposed the concept of a regulatory design review process on Clearwater Beach.
There has been discussion about creating a single design review board for the Clearwater Beach, Downtown Clearwater, and North Greenwood Commercial districts. Since a separate set
of design guidelines would cover each area, there is no reason why a single board could not review all design related requests in these three different areas of the City.
If the Commission is interested in pursuing this, it is recommended that the attached ordinance be significantly revised to indicate its application in these three areas of the City,
to change the composition of the board membership to include representatives from each of these three areas, and other changes of a more editorial nature. Because of the extent of the
changes, staff would recommend readvertisement of the item and reconsideration by the Planning and Zoning Board and Development Code Adjustment Board.
Mayor Garvey spoke in opposition to the recommendation because the City does not need another committee to oversee development issues. She felt the guidelines should be voluntary,
not mandatory and noted the guidelines have not yet been developed. Mr. Shuford thought the Commission wanted the Committee to offer input on the guidelines. He indicated the Development
Code Adjustment Board (DCAB) had expressed concerns regarding a lack of specifics. The Mayor recommended a Task Force be appointed to deal only with the guidelines. Mr. Shuford stated
draft design guidelines developed by subcommittees of the Clearwater Beach Association and Chamber of Commerce will be shared with the Committee as well as draft guidelines for N Greenwood
and Downtown. Mayor Garvey said she was not in favor of one design review board responsible for all three areas.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated if a single design committee is appointed, it might be confusing as the guidelines are mandatory for the beach while the ones for Downtown and N Greenwood
are not. Mr. Shuford noted the design guidelines in N Greenwood have included zoning incentives that have not been very successful. The grant program the Commission established has
been more effective. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concerns it would be difficult for one committee to operate under three different sets of rules. Mr. Shuford stated in Wilmington,
NC, several different historic districts had different requirements. A different set of documents was used for each district. Commissioner Fitzgerald agreed it could be like the Planning
& Zoning Board (P&Z) which deals with different areas. Mr. Shuford believed one single committee could be successful.
Commissioner Thomas indicated he supported this issue. He questioned the constitutionality of the City imposing design guidelines and if that could be considered a taking of property
rights. The City Attorney reported these types of ordinances have been upheld when a city has valid reasons for establishing them.
Commissioner Thomas stated he would like an appeal mechanism established and recommended the City Commission act as the appellate group. He requested the committee present the design
guidelines they create to the City Commission for approval. He suggested the language include reference to permitting board members to serve for two full 4-year terms so those appointed
for a shorter first term will be provided that opportunity.
Commissioner Deegan questioned what was included in the draft of design guidelines
for Downtown for an incentive program. He thought they indicated anyone applying for a no-interest loan is required to submit plans that comply with the design guidelines. Mr. Shuford
said that was correct.
Commissioner Deegan noted guidelines for Downtown are similar to those for N Greenwood. As former Chair of the Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force, he recalled the reasons for the guidelines
were to prevent continuing deterioration. He favors guidelines and the establishment of a committee developing them. He endorsed establishing one board for all design review. He requested
staff take this item back for substantial revision and draft a proposal for one committee. He felt is was time to get input from people on the beach.
Commissioner Berfield agreed the first decision should be on the number of committees. She noted the background information addresses Commissioner Thomas' concern regarding the appeal
process. She recommended an appeal process be included in the ordinance.
Commissioner Berfield moved that staff develop an ordinance to establish one committee to oversee design review for the Beach, Downtown, and N Greenwood and other districts that may
be established. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Thomas indicated he would vote against the motion because he felt the three communities have a diversity of concerns. He recommended establishing separate boards. He
noted the economic differences between these three communities are great. He felt it would be too much work for one group of people. Mayor Garvey pointed out a single committee could
act as a uniting force, depending on who the Commission appoints.
Commissioner Berfield noted the City currently has boards that address the entire City. She mentioned the difficulty in finding qualified people to fill the Downtown and Greenwood
committees. She suggested each section of the City be represented on the committee. She pointed out committee members will need expertise to be effective.
Commissioner Thomas referred to the ordinance's language that three of the committee members shall be property owners. Commissioner Berfield agreed, but pointed out the motion was
for the appointment of only one committee. She noted the ordinance is not valid if the Commission approves the appointment of only one committee.
Commissioner Fitzgerald supported asking staff to review this and return with a single board concept. He suggested once the ramifications are addressed, the Commission can vote to
approve or deny it. He agreed with the single board approach and noted the concept as presented will need to be reworked.
Commissioner Thomas noted this item addresses the tropical seascape design for Clearwater Beach and the Commission was totally changing that. He expressed concerns the motivation for
developing a tropical seascape theme for Clearwater Beach has now been lost. Commissioner Deegan stated it will not be lost because the first task of this committee will be to develop
a set of tropical seascape guidelines. Commissioner Thomas agreed staff should review this issue. He expressed concerns the City will lose what it is trying to accomplish. He complimented
Mr. Goodwin for voluntarily accepting the Tropical Seascape theme for his
remodeling project. The Mayor noted that begged the issue if a committee is needed if merchants are voluntarily complying.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas voted "Aye;" Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Consensus was to add an appeal process to the Ordinance.
ITEM #15 - (Cont'd from 09/01/94) Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. 5668-94 - Amending various sections within Chapters 35, 36, 40, 41 & 42, revising alcoholic beverages sales regulations,
establish new definitions, create a new appeals process, establish a new "nightclubs, taverns, and bars" use & establish conditional use standards (LDCA 94-17)(CP)
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to November 17, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Deegan expressed a word of caution about the length of the November 17, 1994 meeting.
ITEM #15a - (Cont'd from 10/06/94) Second Reading Ord. #5571-94 - CPD Zoning for property located at 706-712 Magnolia Drive, Magnolia Park, Blk 31, Lots 6-9; and Final Site Plan subject
to DRC & P&Z conditions (Shaughnessy, f/n/a Nations Bank Florida, Z94-03)(CP)
This item was continued from the October 6, 1994 Commission meeting to allow staff to investigate the density issue raised at that meeting. The investigation revealed the applicant
mistakenly treated a right-of-way easement over the easterly 20-feet of Lot 6 as dedicated right-of-way. Adding this easement to the lot area calculations results in a 0.68 acre lot,
allowing the requested 32 beds. The plan is being corrected to reflect the correct acreage.
The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Myrtle Avenue and Magnolia Drive. The applicant wishes to obtain a zoning change to permit him to use the existing structure
for a congregate care facility with up to 32 beds. It is proposed to rezone the property to Commercial Planned Development. The Future Land Use Plan Classification of Commercial General
would not be changed. The zoning change would allow a maximum density of 24 units per acre, or 48 beds per acre.
On June 14, 1994, the Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing and unanimously endorsed the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment to Commercial Planned Development to the City Commission
subject to meeting the proposed permitted uses: 1) level I group care; 2) level II group care; 3) congregate care; 4) indoor retail sales; 5) personal services; 6) restaurants; 7) business/profession
l offices; 8) funeral homes; 9) accessory dwellings; 10) nonprofit social or community services; 11) multiple-family dwellings; 12) townhouses; 13) three-family dwellings; 14) two-family
dwellings; 15) detached single-family dwellings; 16) family care; 17) remote switching stations; and 18) accessory uses; and limiting conditional uses to: 1) business services; 2) alcoholic
beverage sales (consumption on premises); 3) alcoholic beverage sales (package sales); 4) child day care; 5) veterinary offices; 6) residential shelters; and 7) non commercial parking;
and the signage be restricted to a 20-feet high, 50-square foot free
standing sign and a maximum of 48 square feet of attached signage.
On September 8, 1994, the Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the proposed site plan and recommended the City Commission approve the site plan subject to the following recommended
conditions of approval: 1) Signs and fencing/walls are subject to separate review and permitting processes; 2) The requisite building permits must be procured within one year from the
date of certification of the final site plan and all requisites certificates of occupancy must be obtained within three years of the date of certification of the site plan; 3) Prior
to construction, the owner shall provide a release letter holding the City harmless for demolition work; 4) The minimum turning radius for designated drives and fire lanes shall be 42-feet;
5) If the existing Fire Department connection is relocated, it shall be a minimum of 15 feet from the structure, adjacent to a paved drive and within 40 feet of a fire hydrant assembly;
6) Prior to certification, the Dumpster Requirement Form must be completed and returned to the City Sanitation Department; 7) Prior to certification, the existing circle drive off Myrtle
Avenue shall be shown as removed and new curbing installed to close the existing driveway openings; 8) Prior to certification, the radii for the driveway openings shall be shown as a
minimum of 15-feet; 9) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the landscape plan shall be revised to include 28 interior shrubs.
Mr. Shuford reiterated staff has verified that 32 beds are allowed. Commissioner Fitzgerald thanked Mr. Shuford for correcting the record.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve CPD Zoning for property located at 706-712 Magnolia Drive and final site plan subject to the listed DRC & P&Z conditions.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5571-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5571-94 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 #15b - Public Hearing - Declare property (from NW corner of NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Sec. 18-29-16, run E 11.2' & S 50' to point of beginning (POB); thence run E 17.8', S 65', W 17.8',
N 65' to POB) surplus to City needs for purpose of conveyance of City-owned well site #47 to Florida Power Corp. in exchange for a permanent easement for another, more productive, well
site within the FPC transmission towers r-o-w; this transaction is to accommodate development of the Storm's Driving Range for a Builder's Square operation & will meet requirements of
a FDOT directive; Res. #94-77 - authorizing city officials to execute the agreement and deed of conveyance (EN)
In 1965, the City acquired from Florida Power Corporation (FPC) an 1,147 square foot parcel at the intersection of Gulf-to-Bay and Old Coachman to be used as a well site. Because of
substandard water quality at this location, the well site was abandoned approximately 20 years ago.
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) requires aligning the ingress/egress
of the new Builder's Square facility adjoining well site #47 with the intersection of Old Coachman and Gulf-to-Bay. To accommodate FDOT requirements, FPC proposes granting an ingress/egress
easement, including the well site #47 parcel, to SCBS, Ltd., the developer of the Builder's Square property. In exchange for the City parcel, FPC will allow the City consultant, Camp,
Dresser & McKee, to determine another location within the FPC Higgins-Disston right-of-way that would provide the City with a productive well site. When a mutually acceptable site is
located, FPC will grant the City a permanent easement to allow installation and operation of a City well. The new site is to be located and the easement granted within 12 months of
the City conveying title to well site #47. All transaction related costs, if any, are to be borne by FPC.
Mr. Baker reported the land is valueless to the City. Florida Power will negotiate with the developer of Builder's Square regarding an access agreement.
Ed Armstrong, representative for Builder's Square, expressed concerns regarding the project and referred to possible unintended consequences of an ordinance passed by the City Commission
in April 1994 regarding the "Possibility of Reverter" to the City. He stated the ordinance stipulates if the City conveys property and certain things happen after the fact, the title
would automatically revert to the City. He noted the lender will not lend money for the project nor will the title insurance company insure access via that easement if the possibility
of a future reversion of the title to the City exists. He suggested the Commission authorize the City Attorney and City Manager to confer and draft a non-disturbance agreement. He
warned if that agreement is not reached, the project will die.
The City Attorney reported the ordinance requires a reverter clause and unless the ordinance is changed, one must be included. The non-disturbance agreement recommended by Mr. Armstrong
would grant Builder's Square with a permanent easement.
Commissioner Thomas pointed out the City is giving up a piece of property of fee simple title for an easement for a piece of property. He suggested a swap of like parcels of land would
not trigger the ordinance. The City Attorney reported the ordinance does refer to property being "sold."
Commissioner Deegan moved to declare property (from NW corner of NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Sec. 18-29-16, run E 11.2' & S 50' to point of beginning (POB); thence run E 17.8', S 65', W 17.8',
N 65' to POB) surplus to City needs for the purpose of conveyance of City-owned well site #47 to Florida Power Corporation in exchange for a permanent easement for another, more productive,
well site within the FPC transmission towers right-of-way. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney reported the ordinance passed in April does say "sold" and the City is not selling the property. The City Manager indicated this agreement is between the City and
Florida Power. The City Attorney said the ordinance addresses sales, not all conveyances. Mr. Armstrong questioned if the reverter language could be dropped from the proposed deed.
The City Attorney agreed that language could be dropped.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns that the City was giving real estate and real title for an easement and requested staff to be certain this is what the City wants. Mr. Armstrong
reported he had spoken with Earl Barrett, Real Estate Services Manager, who indicated the City is not interested in acquiring fee title because of the liability associated with
ownership. Commissioner Thomas requested clarification that this action is in the City's best interest. Mr. Baker said the City is getting what it wants and only plans to exercise
water rights on the easement.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-77 and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-77 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 #15c - (Cont'd from 09/01 & 10/06/94) Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 20967 US 19N, Sec. 17-29-16, M&B 23.05 (Clearwater Motel, Inc./Howard Johnson Motel,
SV94-24)(CP) - To be cont'd to 11/03/94
When this item was continued at the October 6th meeting to October 20th, it was past the deadline for advertising for the 20th.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to November 3, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances
ITEM #16 - Ord. #5632-94 - Amending Sec. 41.053, to allow consideration of temporary uses in conjunction with outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage conditional uses, amending
Ch. 41, Divisions 7 & 8, to significantly revise existing requirements for temporary buildings, portable buildings and tents, and for temporary retail sales and displays, amending Sec.
42.34, to delete requirements for temporary commercial parking lots as found in the section (LDCA 93-22)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5632-94 for second reading and read it by title only.
Anne Garris questioned why the ordinance does not address commercial parking at beach motels. Commissioner Deegan indicated the parking issue will appear on the November 17, 1994 agenda.
Anne Garris noted when some of the larger hotels host frequent large recreational activities, it can be difficult for many residents to access the driveways at their homes. In the
past when she questioned the size crowds theses events attract, staff advised her they are authorized by the City activities committee. She questioned if anything in this ordinance
enables the City to be more stern about encouraging hotels to provide alternate transportation to the beaches for large events. Mr. Shuford stated the City has a Special Events Ordinance
and Committee which allows the City to waive many normal regulations in order to accommodate a special event when some public property is involved. He and the Parks & Recreation Director,
Ream Wilson, have discussed developing additional procedures. Ms. Garris questioned if that issue will be addressed in a separate ordinance. Mr. Shuford replied it
will.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the top of page five, paragraphs five and six, where commercial parking is discussed. He suggested these paragraphs be preserved until the November
17, 1994 discussion. He noted this section limits parking uses to what is listed. Mr. Shuford acknowledged this more restrictive language will be in place for about two and a half
months. Commissioner Deegan recommended leaving the more permissive language in place until November 17. The City Attorney stated if substantial changes are made, a new 1st reading
will have to be approved. Mr. Shuford suggested bringing it back on November 17, for a 2nd reading on December 1. The City Manager pointed out pumpkin sales will not be allowed if
this item is continued.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if paragraph sub 10, which is present law, is left in would that be considered a significant change. The City Attorney said it would need to be redone.
Commissioner Thomas questioned who would complain if the City Commission left it in. He noted the Commission will be discussing an entirely new package within 30 days. While the City
Attorney agreed it is not likely the City will get sued over this, she stated procedural correctness and due process is important. She expressed the need to be as conservative as possible.
The Mayor questioned language in 23a, "The outdoor use shall not adversely affect community appearance objectives of the City," and questioned how that sentence will be defined and
by whom. Mr. Shuford stated this was an equity issue based on the number of businesses with grandfathered uses. The Mayor questioned what limits remained. He stated staff will ask
those seeking conditional use permits to describe their plans and the Planning & Zoning Board will decide if they are appropriate. The Mayor noted this is a subjective issue. Mr. Shuford
said it is better to have a board make that subjective decision than staff.
Commissioner Deegan referred to 23 and questioned if the meaning of the word "permitted" is used in the same context as the zoning laws. Mr. Shuford stated things that "may be" permitted
are not automatically permitted.
Commissioner Deegan noted 23 does not list Resort Commercial. Mr. Shuford said this ordinance only deals with the conditional use equity issue. Temporary uses would be allowed in
any commercial zoning district. Commissioner Deegan said he received a request from a citizen interested in outdoor retail sales along the Pinellas Trail in an In-fill Commercial (CI)
zone. Mr. Shuford reported outdoor sales are allowed in CI by code. He said it was a scrivener's error that In-fill Commercial was not included in the list. He indicated "in-fill
commercial" should be included following "highway commercial."
Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5632-94 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 #17 - Ord. #5658-94 - Amending Sec. 35.11, to establish definitions for "Outdoor Cafe,"
Sidewalk Vendor," and "Vendor Stand;" amending Ch. 41, creating a new division 12 to establish requirements for locating and operating outdoor cafes and sidewalk vendor operations (LDCA
94-13)(1st reading was cont'd on 10/06 to 11/17/94)
Commissioner Deegan moved to continue this item to the appropriate meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #18 - Ord. #5666-94 - to increase permitted height bonus for structures with parking beneath the building (LDCA 94-16)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5666-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5666-94 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 #19 - Ord. #5685-94 - Annexation for property located at 1700 El Trinidad Dr., Virginia Grove Terrace, Blk 2, Lot 1 (Mumford Investments Ltd., A94-19)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5685-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5685-94 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 #20 - Ord. #5686-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low for property located at 1700 El Trinidad Dr., Virginia Grove Terrace, Blk 2, Lot 1 (Mumford Investments Ltd., LUP94-22)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5686-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5686-94 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. #5687-94 - RPD-E Zoning for property located at 1700 El Trinidad Dr., Virginia Grove Terrace, Blk 2, Lot 1 (Mumford Investments Ltd., A94-19)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5687-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5687-94 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. #5688-94 - Annexation for property located at 375 Hampton Rd., Sec. 17-29-16, M&B 13.06 (City of Clearwater, A94-18)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5688-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5688-94 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. #5689-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban for property located at 375 Hampton Rd., Sec. 17-29-16, M&B 13.06 (City of Clearwater, LUP94-21)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5689-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5689-94 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 - Ord. #5690-94 - RS-8 Zoning for property located at 375 Hampton Rd., Sec. 17-29-16, M&B 13.06 (City of Clearwater, A94-18)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5690-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5690-94 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": Berfield.
Motion carried.
ITEM #25 - Ord. #5693-94 - regarding consumption of alcoholic beverages, amending Sec. 6.31(4) to delete language pertaining to violations in motor vehicles
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5693-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5693-94 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 #26 - Ord. #5695-94 - Vacating those lots & rights-of-way in Chautauqua Unit 1, Section B and in Chautauqua Unit 2, Section A owned by Florida Power Corp., less portion dedicated
for Enterprise Road East, subject to all rights-of-way being retained as drainage & utility easements (Florida Power, V94-09)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5695-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5695-94 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 #27 - Ord. #5696-94 - Vacating N 12' of 60' drainage & utility easement retained in a previous vacation of Lotus Path lying S of Blk 34 & N of Blk 39, Magnolia Park Sub.; authorize
the Building Official to issue building permits after first reading (Lotus Land Investments, Inc., V94-13)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5696-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5696-94 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 #28 - Special Items of widespread public interest - None.
ITEM #29 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda - None.
The Commission recessed from 8:08 to 8:25 p.m.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #30-32) - Approved as submitted less Item #31.
ITEM #30 - Receipt/Referral - Request for a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) to the approved Park Place Development Order; authorize staff to proceed with intergovernmental coordination
of this item with TBRPC and the FDCA (CP)
ITEM #31 - See below.
ITEM #32 - Preliminary Site Plan for Morritt Parking Lot located near the SE corner of S. Ft. Harrison Ave. & Pinellas St. (Morton Plant Health System, Inc.)(CP) Authorize the DRC to
approve a final site plan subject to the following conditions: 1) Signs and fencing/walls are
subject to separate review and permitting processes; 2) The requisite building permits must be procured within one (1) year from the date of certification of the final site plan and
all requisites certificates of occupancy must be obtained within three years of the date of certification of the site plan; 3) A Unity of Title shall be recorded prior to certification
of the site plan; 4) The minimum turning radius for designated drives and fire lanes shall be 42 feet; 5) A fire hydrant assembly shall be installed not more than 300 feet from each
structure; 6) Prior to certification, a copy of the SWFWMD permit application is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review; 7) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a copy
of the approved SWFWMD permit is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review; 8) Prior to certification, the final site plan must be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered
in the State of Florida; 9) Sidewalks are required adjacent to all street rights-of-way; 10) Handicap spaces must be adjusted to meet government standards; 11) Parking stalls and/or
driveways to be adjusted to the approval of the Traffic Engineer; 12) Dimensions to be shown on the plan to denote measurements for aisles, parking stalls, entrances, etc.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted less Item 31 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
ITEM #31 - Receipt/Referral - LDCA re car rental operations in the Beach Commercial & Resort Commercial 28 zoning districts; staff report re this code amendment requested by others (CP)
Staff received a request from Jerry Miller regarding establishing a car rental operation on Clearwater Beach. Currently, none of Clearwater Beach zoning districts permits car rental
operations. Car rentals are regulated under the use category of outdoor retail sales, displays, and storage. Existing beach car rental operations were established prior to current
land development code requirements. Given the tourist nature of Clearwater Beach, staff feels the use appears appropriate.
Commissioner Thomas recommended limiting how old the rental cars can be and to define a quality level. The City Attorney said she would see if that is a permissible regulation.
Commissioner Thomas moved to receive and refer the Land Development Code Amendment regarding car rental operations in the Beach Commercial & Resort Commercial 28 zoning districts subject
to the research of "rent-a-heap" type businesses. There was no second.
Commissioner Deegan moved to receive and refer the Land Development Code Amendment regarding car rental operations in the Beach Commercial & Resort Commercial 28 zoning districts.
There was no second.
Commissioner Berfield stated she did not agree with the proposition. Commissioner Fitzgerald did not think the issue was in the best interest of the City. Commissioner Berfield suggested
Legal help formulate a motion that includes control over the types of vehicles that will be rented.
Commissioner Thomas moved to receive and refer the Land Development Code
Amendment regarding car rental operations in the Beach Commercial & Resort Commercial 28 zoning districts provided staff research the ability not to have junk cars, heaps, or demolition
derby type vehicles for rent and they be new or like new vehicles. The motion was seconded.
The Mayor suggested if the Legal Department finds there is no legal way to control the rentals, the Commission should be advised by memorandum instead of bringing back the item on an
agenda. Commissioner Deegan stated Legal may find these limits are legal and suggested the Commission can start the receipt and referral process.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye;" Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay." Motion carried.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
ITEM #33 - Areas of Clearwater likely to be redeveloped (CP)
As part of its strategic planning session, the City Commission requested staff identify areas where redevelopment activities could be expected. Staff's research with the Property Appraiser's
office identified three major Clearwater building "booms": the 1920's; 1950's; and 1970's. Since much time has elapsed since the initial development, most areas in the City are "ripe"
for redevelopment. In particular, developments built in the 1950's are most likely to require redevelopment or property improvement activities in the near future.
Though Clearwater is almost "built-out," the City can expect continual permitting activity due to the age of most Clearwater properties. As these structures reach the end of their
useful lives, replacement or improvement will occur. Regulatory requirements such as concurrency and impact fee credits make redevelopment of previously-developed properties more attractive.
Recent examples include: 1) demolition of Loehman's Plaza on US 19N for Wal-Mart; 2) demolition of Jersey Jim Towers' buildings at US 19N and SR 60 for Sam's Club; 3) demolition of
Seahawk Restaurant on SR 60 for Pep Boys; 4) demolition of shops and offices on Mandalay Avenue for Pelican Walk; 5) pending demolition of some Searstown Plaza structures on Missouri
Avenue for Albertson's; and 6) demolition of numerous structures located on waterfront or near-waterfront properties for new residential development.
Mr. Shuford reported the Property Appraiser's office provided a series of maps highlighting decades of County development. Clearwater's inner suburbs were developed in the 1950's while
Countryside was developed in the 1970's. He said buildings near the end of their effective life are not concentrated in one area. He noted LandUse Digest has identified Tampa Bay as
one of the top job growth areas in the country for 1994 through 1996.
Commissioner Deegan said he did not make this request but indicated he is not interested in the age of buildings but in identifying areas most in need of redevelopment so the Commission
can address that need. The Mayor stated the age of buildings dictates where the need will develop. Commissioner Deegan felt the City should help where the need exists.
Commissioner Thomas felt the area west of Missouri Avenue should be closely reviewed and noted if older areas are not redeveloped, the newer areas will pay for it. He noted the decline
in property values along the N Ft. Harrison corridor. He felt the City needs to solve the
problem and not just say problems exist everywhere. He suggested the Commission should focus where the greatest return on investment is possible and recommended concentrating on the
N Ft. Harrison corridor and Clearwater Beach where many properties are undervalued. The Mayor noted much of the area around Downtown would benefit from redevelopment.
Commissioner Deegan stated strategic planning and economic development must provide the impetus for this project. Mr. Shuford reported the economic redevelopment plan will be developed
after the Enterprise Zone work is completed and focus neighborhoods can be identified.
ITEM #34 - NE Coachman Road Zoning Impact Study - recommendation to not pursue rezoning of subject properties from RS-8 to OL (CP)
On April 7, 1994, the Commission authorized staff to prepare a zoning impact study focusing on the 20 single family residential homes fronting the north side of NE Coachman Road between
Graham Drive and Marilyn Street. The area has a Low Density Residential Future Land Use Plan classification and an RS 8 zoning designation.
On August 23, 1994, staff met with the residents to identify and discuss issues and concerns associated with the residents' request for a rezoning to Limited Office. Notices of the
meeting were mailed to Skycrest Terrace Subdivision residents.
Resident concerns include: 1) heavy traffic; 2) increased renters; 3) crime; 4) lack of sidewalks; 5) road construction delays; 6) marketability of homes; 7) safety; and 8) reduction
in home values.
Alternatives presented by staff include: 1) install sidewalks to create a sense of community; 2) install landscape screening and buffering materials to reduce noise from NE Coachman
Road; 3) a reduction in traffic on NE Coachman is anticipated upon completion of improvements to Drew between NE Coachman and US 19N; 4) construct sidewalks in conjunction with landscaping;
5) prepare a needs analysis regarding the installation of a traffic signal at Drew and NE Coachman; 6) reduce the speed limit from 35 mph; and 7) install a vegetative buffer in front
yards to reduce noise and dust.
The 1994, 24-hour Traffic Volume Counts for that section of NE Coachman indicate approximately 14,785 daily trips. The road is currently under construction to be two lanes divided
with a four-foot paved shoulder/bikeway and improved stormwater drainage. Drew is scheduled to be widened to four lanes with a continuous left turn lane from NE Coachman to US 19N.
Upon completion of the two roads, a split in the traffic is expected to result in a reduction in trip volumes along NE Coachman.
FDOT construction plans for this NE Coachman link include stormwater drainage improvements but not sidewalks. Funding for sidewalk construction for the north side of NE Coachman is
not scheduled in the City's Sidewalk Improvement Program.
In the mid 1980's, a similar rezoning proposal was denied by both the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission.
As the Zoning Impact Study indicates, in light of the site development constraints and the existing office space surplus, rezoning the existing RS-8 single family homes to a Limited
Office zoning would not be beneficial to the existing homeowners or the Clearwater community from a marketing, zoning, or community preservation perspective or from an economic point
of view.
Staff, however, might be supportive of a Commission policy to consider larger scale office or public/semi-public proposals involving a minimum of three or four lots as planned developments.
This would result in the following benefits: 1) an opportunity to adequately protect surrounding residential uses through site design; 2) larger scale office or other nonresidential
development of a nonspeculative nature; and 3) improved access control.
Mr. Shuford reported this was one of three area studies done. Lou Hilton, Associate Planner, stated 20 homes are located on the north side of NE Coachman between Graham and Marilyn.
NE Coachman residents have requested it be rezoned Professional Office. He indicated the adjacent neighborhood is stable and well planned and all 20 homes on NE Coachman are presently
occupied. The land south of NE Coachman is zoned Limited Office where the City has annexed a hodge podge of uses. Issues and concerns were identified at the August meeting and steps
to rezone the area were discussed. The property owners requesting the zoning change did not recommend any examples of how they could assemble their land for a reasonable office development.
The Mayor noted this issue originally came up because of the assumption the State planned to widen NE Coachman. Mr. Hilton stated the road is only being widened to provide a four-foot
shoulder. He noted owners of the subject properties are in favor of this change but the balance of the neighborhood opposes it. Mr. Shuford said staff reviewed the size of the lots
and the ability to develop them as offices. He noted if each property is developed separately, access problems would occur. He would support residents uniting and combining their lots.
He believed the volume of traffic will be reduced once Drew Street upgrades are complete. He pointed out the current market for offices is poor. The Mayor stated the City needs residential
rental properties.
Bob Bickerstaffe agreed that owners should be responsible for renters and expressed concerns regarding rundown rental properties. He noted better maintenance results in increased property
values. He commended the Community Response Team for an excellent job but felt they cannot keep up with current demand. He recommended strict penalties for owners who permit renters
to run down property. He pointed out the problems owners have with evictions.
Ernest Thomas said the neighborhood is a wonderful community of nice homes. He opposed changing the zoning. He said once the change begins, it will be impossible to stop. He recommended
the subdivision remain in tact. He did not think there needed to be any more or less renters in the area. He requested the subject properties remain residential.
Joanne Kohler said she has owned property on NE Coachman for fifteen years and noted conditions have worsened since the residents' requests for rezoning in 1986 were denied. An attorney
recommended she speak to Central Permitting regarding her property. She stated she had no success selling her property last year. The neighborhood is deteriorating and
disputed the comment that it is a lovely residential neighborhood. She claimed it is a economic disaster for these property owners who have little or no opportunity to sell their homes.
She said NE Coachman has heavy car and truck use with the majority of westbound traffic turning off Belcher Road. She did not think widening Drew would help reduce this volume. She
noted beauty salons and other business are already located on the road's north side and the south side is all limited office use.
Peter Petchakos shared concerns regarding maintaining the neighborhood's integrity. He noted this is good for the whole subdivision except for those who own property on NE Coachman.
He stated residents are not asking for traffic to be diverted. He also noted residents are not developers and would have difficulty combining their properties. He reported the price
range of similar houses in the City is between $60,000 and $65,000 but the subject houses can be purchased for $50,000 or less. He stated residents rent their houses because they cannot
market them. He expressed concerns regarding what recourse these residents have. He felt residents should not be forced to give away their properties.
Patti Touchton reported she and Mr. Lavelle took a drive around the neighborhood and counted at least 25 vacant commercial properties for rent. She indicated she sympathizes with those
affected. She felt the planned road improvements will help. She did not feel the neighborhood needs more commercial properties.
Patrick Lavelle questioned who would be responsible for the utility easement behind the subject houses. He stated he and Ms. Touchton looked at commercial properties on SR 590 from
Saturn to Belcher.
Michael Blight indicated he and his wife have renters in her house on NE Coachman. He agreed property values are decreasing even though they have spent thousands to keep up the property.
He felt development of offices should not affect those behind him as there is considerable space behind the houses. He noted many of the subject houses have not been well maintained.
Soraya Taylor stated this change would affect three properties by her house. She felt office development on NE Coachman would adversely affect the properties behind because parking
lots would be located there. She stated businesses would interfere with the neighborhood and endanger playing children. She is against the change.
Joe Notarangelo said he did not understand how the neighbors behind the subject houses have any fears. He predicted the offices will be rented by lawyers, doctors, and similar professionals
who go home at 6:00 p.m. He noted children make a great deal more noise. He spoke in favor of the change.
Soraya Taylor said she does not live in her house with her sister and nephew but indicated she would rather hear the sounds of children than screeching brakes avoiding an accident caused
by the development.
Peter Petchakos noted the last traffic count indicated 17,000 vehicles a day. He stated this volume of traffic does not create a nice quiet neighborhood.
Commissioner Thomas moved to receive the NE Coachman Road Zoning Impact Study and accept staff's recommendation to not pursue rezoning the subject properties on NE Coachman Road between
Graham and Marilyn. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Thomas felt the pros and cons of the issue are balanced. He noted staff has recommended many options. He suggested this issue come back to the City Commission in approximately
12-months to review the impact of the staff's recommendations after Drew Street is completed and buffering has been installed. He felt all of the staff's points were valid but said
they needed to be reviewed in one or two years.
Mayor Garvey indicated she had no problem reviewing this matter at a later date but expressed concerns with installing unbudgeted sidewalks and special buffering when this is not done
elsewhere in the City. She noted traffic on NE Coachman will increase while Drew is under construction.
Commissioner Fitzgerald agreed with Commissioner Thomas' point of view. He indicated he travels the road frequently. He reviewed the assessed property values and noted properties
on the southeast side of the street are double the value of those on the northwest side. He concurred with staff's recommendations combined with conditions outlined by Commissioner
Thomas. He noted the road is an angular route off US 19N and is a primary route to Downtown. He recommended keeping the door open regarding providing some relief to the residents if
the suggestions do not have the predicted results.
Commissioner Berfield noted when complaints were raised by residents on Belcher Road regarding truck traffic, trucks were banned between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. She recommended instituting
a similar ban on NE Coachman. The Mayor pointed out NE Coachman is a State road and permission for a ban would be required. Mr. Shuford suggested staff could return in three or four
months with a list of alternatives and costs for consideration of quicker relief. He said staff could then come back later with other recommendations once Drew Street is complete.
The Mayor suggested this would not be a good time to make judgements since traffic is currently shifting to NE Coachman due to the widening of Drew Street. Mr. Shuford indicated staff
would need at least six months to gather information on traffic volume after Drew Street is widened. Commissioner Berfield questioned when the road work will be completed. Mr. Hilton
stated NE Coachman should be completed within 30 days.
Commissioner Thomas stated the follow-up will need to come back with an estimate of costs to implement staff recommendations and a determination if truck traffic can be limited. He
suggested once Drew Street is finished, staff should take 12 months to complete traffic studies, etc. and return to the Commission.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if staff can look at installing sidewalks while the roadwork is being done. Mr. Baker indicated the City currently has no plans to install sidewalks
along NE Coachman. He noted adequate pedestrian traffic must be identified before a sidewalk is budgeted. He suggested questioning the State regarding why they are not building one.
Commissioner Berfield requested staff contact the State regarding the sidewalk.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if residents indicated at the August meeting that any of the staff recommendations would satisfy them. Mr. Shuford acknowledged none of those
from NE Coachman indicated they would be satisfied. Commissioner Deegan pointed out people are convinced that stretch of road is no longer residential and none indicated a desire for
any of staff's recommendations. He noted residents in the next block oppose the change. He felt the real issue is not being discussed. He suggested planned development is a possibility.
He talked with a realtor who indicated the subject properties are not in good shape and many of the lots have shallow depths. He noted two to four properties would need to be combined
to provide enough area to construct a commercial property. Commissioner Deegan did not see the value of pursuing the direction the Commission seemed to be heading.
The Mayor felt office zoning was not appropriate. Commissioner Deegan referred to alternatives listed in the study and recommended residents consider Planned Development Zoning. He
urged biting the bullet and reaching a decision now instead of delaying it several years. Mayor Garvey felt the subject properties should remain residential. Commissioner Thomas questioned
what was Commissioner Deegan's recommendation. Commissioner Deegan recommended permitting a Commercial Planned Development Zone.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the size of lots on this section of NE Coachman. Mr. Shuford said the lots are approximately 100 feet deep and 75 feet wide and indicated the schematic
in the package illustrates how a property might be developed. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the illustration addresses all code requirements. Mr. Hilton stated it does not. Commissioner
Thomas pointed out a minimum of two lots would be required for the development of one office.
Mr. Shuford noted Commissioner Deegan recommended a City policy to accept applications for Office Planned development on a case by case basis. Commissioner Berfield noted that action
is currently allowed. Commissioner Thomas questioned what would stop property owners from getting together and presenting a request for zoning on a specific project with multiple lots.
Mr. Shuford indicated little should stop that. He indicated some minimum acreage requirements could be overridden. He advised it would be more effective if a policy is adopted to
provide staff clear direction.
Commissioner Deegan indicated a Limited Office zoning designation does not make sense on a parcel by parcel basis because the parcels are too small. Commissioner Thomas noted once
redevelopment starts, the whole block will be affected. He referred to a petition presented from all the residents who live on the back side of NE Coachman and oppose a zoning change.
He questioned if Commissioners lived there, if they would want commercial offices constructed in their back yards. Commissioner Deegan indicated this is a transition block and property
owners have the right to dictate the use of their property.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the zoning was changed to commercial, would the back of the property qualify for an eight-foot fence. Mr. Shuford said an eight-foot fence would not
be permitted but a landscaping buffer and possibly a fence would be required. He said those are site design issues that can be modified and should be handled through the Planned Development
type zoning.
Commissioner Berfield questioned what type of businesses can go in a Planned Development. Mr. Shuford said the Commission determines that.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding the people who live behind the subject properties and the commercial quality of NE Coachman. He noted if the property is zoned Commercial,
the City cannot control what moves in and hours of operation.
Commissioner Deegan recommended Planned Development be approved on a case by case basis following a thorough review of each request. Commissioner Berfield questioned if Commissioner
Deegan was recommending leaving the zoning as it is and encouraging property owners to combine their properties. Commissioner Deegan agreed and reiterated that a change to Limited Office
will not work.
Ernest Thomas expressed concerns regarding property owners who may not want fencing and buffering installed behind their homes.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
ITEM #35 - Res. #94-75 - authorizing execution of CDBG Subrecipient Agreements with certain non-profit corporations (ED)
On August 4, 1994, the City Commission approved the 20th Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Final Statement and Objectives for FY 1994/95. Agreements with approved subrecipients
have been developed with similar provisions and were presented for Commission approval by Resolution 94-75 which sets forth the basic agreement form and summarizes the agreements to
be executed for an October 1, 1994 activation date.
A direct agreement will be executed with: 1) Community Pride Child Care Center of Clearwater, Inc.; 2) Boys and Girls Clubs of the Suncoast, Inc.; 3) Homeless Emergency Project, Inc.;
4) Tampa Bay Community Development Corporation, Inc.; 5) Religious Community Services, Inc.; 6) Pinellas Opportunities Council, Inc.; 7) YWCA of Tampa Bay; 8) Gulf Coast Family and Mental
Health Service, Inc.; 9) Clearwater Housing Authority; 10) Clearwater Police Department; 11) Pinellas Private Industry Council; 12) Community Service Foundation; 13) Clearwater Neighborhood
Housing Services, Inc.; 13) Partners in Self-Sufficiency; and 14) the Salvation Army.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve authorizing the execution of CDBG Subrecipient Agreements with certain non-profit corporations. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-75 and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-75 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #36 - Other Pending Matters
a) Incentive Plan
The City Manager presented an incentive plan where real dollar savings are defined as monies budgeted by a department for a specific purpose/activity on which savings are realized and
savings must be a result of specific management or team processes or actions. All permanent full-time employees employed by the City on September 30 of the subject year would share
equally, regardless of time of service. All permanent part-time employees employed by the City for at least six months on September 30 of the subject year would receive half the amount
that permanent full-time employees are awarded that year.
The concept of the structure of a bonus/incentive plan for City employees is as follows: 1) All real dollar savings would be divided: a) 65% returned to citizens with an actual cut
to the department's budget and a transfer of those funds to undesignated reserves; b) 25% retained in the department for enhancement of "working tools" to enhance workplace productivity;
and c) 10% transferred to a pool to be shared by employees as an annual bonus; 2) Throughout the fiscal year, departments may submit savings items in memorandum form with full documentation
to the City Manager for inclusion in the bonus/incentive plan. No department can take credit for savings created by happenstance or a reduction in service levels. Minimal savings to
be considered for this program are $1,000; 3) The City Manager will review submissions for eligibility and upon approval, the amounts saved will be transferred from the department's
budget to the aforementioned pools; and 4) At the City Manager's discretion, a department can carry-over its reward into the next fiscal year to accumulate two year's amounts for larger
purchases.
Commissioner Thomas felt the City Manager's recommendation was trend setting, ground breaking, and embodied a suggestion he had been making. He requested the savings set aside for
residents be more specifically directed. He recommended rebating taxes to citizens from that pool.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the 65% figure was an attractive feature of the proposal if it represents an actual cut in a department's budget. He questioned how the money would be
returned to the citizens. The City Manager said she had not planned on cutting a check to each resident. Commissioner Fitzgerald suggested using the savings to cut next year's budget.
He expressed concerns that transferring the funds to undesignated reserves would permit those funds to be plugged into other projects. Ms. Deptula said the City Commission would make
the decision on how the savings would be used. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted the City does not have a very good track record on reducing expenses. He felt the real benefits should
go to taxpayers.
Commissioner Deegan stated he had recommended the transfer of savings to undesignated reserves so however the Commission decides to benefit the citizens, money is available to do it.
He noted not raising taxes is a benefit. He expressed concerns that budget cuts must be carried forward to the next year. He felt each year's budget should be independent and depend
on that year's needs. Ms. Deptula noted in some instances, innovations will result in long term cuts to the budget.
Commissioner Deegan referred to plans for departments to retain 25% of the savings. He recommended those funds not be immediately released for a department's use but rather placed
in a pool and calculated at the end of the year. Mayor Garvey agreed with the
recommendation. The City Manager noted the intention is to provide the department bonuses during the following fiscal year.
Commissioner Thomas felt taxpayers should get a piece of the action. He noted 100,000 residents live in the City. He suggested giving credits on utility bills. He stated this program
will "incentivize" employees to be cognizant of the bottom line. He cautioned against short term savings and recommended the program extend over three years with 1/3 of the savings
distributed each year. He reiterated his recommendation on providing rebates to the taxpayers. Mayor Garvey suggested lowering or not raising the millage would represent a rebate.
Commissioner Berfield suggested the funds could offset a water rate or franchise increase. She noted it would cost more to issue rebate checks than the actual value of the checks.
She suggested trying this program for a year and modifying it as glitches arise.
Commissioner Deegan said the citizens will be happy to see that two-thirds of the savings are being credited to "their bank account." Commissioner Thomas felt the reserve should be
specifically identified apart from the general pool. The Mayor noted when the City Manager reviews the employees' bonuses based on savings, the City Commission will be advised. Commissioner
Thomas suggested if citizens are not going to be given a rebate, the extent of savings should be clarified.
Commissioner Thomas moved to accept the proposed incentive plan with the refinements agreed to during the discussion. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
b) Legislative Package
Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice indicated the City's legislative package includes several high priorities. This year the City is reviewing franchise agreements and have identified several
franchise and utility issues the City would like changed. Another high priority issue is funding for programs addressing the needs of homeless persons. She pointed out a recommendation
to review the limitations on telecommunication franchise fees, which are not evenly distributed. The City would like cable TV to be subject to a public service tax.
Commissioner Deegan suggested asking the legislature not to allow passing franchise fees through to residents. He stated the tax should be on the business, not the consumer. Ms. Rice
said she will work with Jim Massie, the City's lobbyist, on the suggestion.
Ms. Rice noted another issue relates to inclusion of assessed interest for the late payment of revenues due a municipality. Commissioner Deegan disagreed with charging 18% interest.
Ms. Rice will look at lowering the rate. Commissioner Deegan recommended charging the current IRS interest rate.
Ms. Rice referred to the City's right to expand utilities is also of concern.
Commissioner Berfield questioned requiring photo identification for handicapped parking, noting the difficulty some handicapped persons face acquiring photos. Ms. Rice stated staff
will review ways to identify handicapped persons without a photo. She suggested supporting a fine increase for illegal parking in spaces identified for the handicapped.
Ms. Rice expressed concern regarding needed support for the Sand Key beach renourishment efforts and recommended supporting legislation that would provide funding to enable Pinellas
County to complete the project.
Ms. Rice also noted a request to clarify rules so that tickets sold on cruise ships to nowhere be considered an "admission" subject to sales tax. Mayor Garvey questioned the meaning
of the letter on this subject from the Department of Revenue. Ms. Rice said the letter indicated the Department's awareness of the City's concerns. Commissioner Deegan pointed out
the letter said the City is not responsible for making the ship comply. The State is. Ms. Rice said the City is asking the legislature to make the law more clear. Mayor Garvey questioned
if that was necessary as administrative laws cover this subject.
Commissioner Deegan suggested dropping that request and replacing it with one regarding High Speed Rail. He also recommended additional legislation to permit directional signage in
urban areas on State roads.
Ms. Rice indicated other issues the City supports include asking for actual notice rather than constructive notice regarding "trips & falls" on public sidewalks so the City will have
to be notified first that a problem exists.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the partial year assessment item was brought up previously. Ms. Rice indicated it is brought up every year.
Commissioner Berfield expressed concerns regarding making the owner responsible when a car is involved in "Fleeing or Attempting to Elude a Police Officer" and questioned the owner's
liability if the car was stolen. Ms. Rice said she would review this issue.
Commissioner Berfield referred to the concern regarding the sale of single, cold alcoholic beverages at establishments selling gasoline and suggested the concern should be regarding
the sale of all alcoholic beverages at establishments selling gasoline.
Commissioner Thomas suggested recommending the mandatory removal of all enclaves within a City's borders. Commissioner Berfield recommended continuing to push for the annexation of
enclaves.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if approving a Countywide water authority would have to go through the State. Commissioner Deegan noted a regional water authority was recommended.
Ms. Rice reported Mr. Massie indicated this is the year for water issues. The Mayor stated the City needs to know the schematics of what is currently in place. Commissioner Deegan
noted home rule is already harmed by the existing boards. Commissioner Thomas said he had recommended one water department be established for the whole County. Ms. Rice questioned
if the Commission embraced a unified approach. Commissioner Fitzgerald recommended asking the Legislature to address the water issue. Mayor Garvey suggested addressing the bills as
they are proposed by the legislature. Ms. Rice said the City can indicate that the water supply is a top priority. Commissioner Thomas suggested the City take the lead or the State
will lead the City.
The City Attorney reported she is member of the Governor's Land and Water Planning Task Force that will be making recommendations on these issues in November. She stated legislation
will be proposed by interested Legislators proposing a Statewide water board. She indicated a great deal of change will occur in the next several years regarding water. Modifications
are leaning toward regionalization.
Mayor Garvey questioned if a copy of the City's legislative program was sent to the Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Rice stated a Chamber employee indicated he was planning to pick up one.
c) High Speed Rail
1) Res. #94-100 - promoting High Speed Rail into Pinellas County, FL, using the Courtney Campbell Causeway as the entrance point into Pinellas County, promoting a monorail system to
Clearwater Beach.
Commissioner Fitzgerald said he would like to support this resolution but could not in the form presented. He recommended removing the term "publicly funded" from the title saying
it is not appropriate for the Commission to make this commitment. He felt that would limit the City and rule out the option of private funding or assistance. He indicated he has been
a proponent of developing a monorail system for many years and noted no cost analysis has been completed identifying potential costs. He noted the system connecting Harbor Island in
Tampa with the Convention Center is privately funded. He also recommended changing the word "supporting" to "promoting" to identify an active role for the City. He recommended removal
of the words "publicly funded" from the fourth "Whereas" paragraph and in Section 1 deleting "...would take a lead..." Commissioner Berfield said she had no problem with the changes
and signified support of the resolution as amended.
Commissioner Thomas understood Commissioner Fitzgerald's concern regarding a referral to public funding and agreed to its removal. He spoke against removing the positive attitude from
the resolution and objected to removing "take a lead in building." He did not want the resolution to be "watered down." He wants the City included in the High Speed Rail RFP (Request
for Proposals). Commissioner Berfield questioned if Commissioner Thomas would agree to wording "the City would take the lead in promoting the building of a low speed..." Commissioner
Thomas indicated he wanted the City Commission to take the lead in building it. He noted it is improbable that the High Speed Rail will come to Clearwater and a monorail will need to
be built in order to increase the probability. Commissioner Berfield noted saying the City will take the lead does not mean the City will build it.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt "promote" is a stronger term than support. The Mayor expressed concerns that "taking the lead" would indicate the City Commission will be contributing
funds to the project. Commissioner Fitzgerald said he had problems with that interpretation. Commissioner Thomas stated the Commission is not making a financial commitment. He stated
the Commission must take a lead and let everyone know the City wants High Speed Rail to come to Clearwater.
Commissioner Deegan recommended the phrase read "take a lead to get built a Low Speed Monorail..." Consensus to agree.
Commissioner Deegan referred to Section 2 and suggested a copy of this resolution also be forwarded to the Florida Department of Transportation, the Governor's office, and to members
of the Pinellas County Delegation. Ms. Deptula suggested sending copies to the cities in north Pinellas County cities. The City Attorney indicated she could insert those recommendations
to Section 2 using the word "and."
Commissioner Thomas said he drafted a letter for all of the Commissioners to sign if this resolution passes to send to all members of the High Speed Rail Transportation Committee.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-100 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-100 as distributed tonight and amended 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.
Commissioner Deegan noted the Commission received a letter today from the Downtown Clearwater Association (DCA) supporting this resolution. He reported all those in attendance at the
recent Partnership meeting supported the High Speed Rail and the City taking a lead regarding a Low Speed Monorail.
2) Res. #94-104 - Establishing a Task Force to promote construction of High Speed Rail into Clearwater, FL, using the Courtney Campbell Causeway as the entrance point into Pinellas
County and to develop and promote a plan for a Low-Speed Monorail System from the terminus of the High Speed Rail to Downtown Clearwater and Clearwater Beach; providing an effective
date.
Commissioner Fitzgerald requested the words "publicly funded" be removed from the fifth "Whereas."
The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-104 and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-104 as distributed tonight and authorize the appropriate
officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Berfield requested the appointment of a Task Force be agendaed. Commissioner Deegan recommended each Commissioner provide two or three names and the Commission choose
10 from the list. Commissioner Thomas noted the Task Force will need "heavy hitters" on it. Consensus to appoint the Task Force during the October 31, 1994 meeting.
Commissioner Thomas read Section 1 of the resolution aloud and indicated this is an all encompassing issue.
Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
Commissioner Thomas requested the Commissioners sign his letter tonight for tomorrow's mail.
d) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Long Range Highway Plan
Ms. Deptula reported a map included in the MPO package identifies a one-way pair for Ft. Harrison and Myrtle. Commissioner Thomas wanted the City Commission to go on record opposing
this proposition. Ms. Deptula noted the Commission already passed a resolution in support of moving the Alternate 19 designation to Myrtle, which is not reflected in this one-way system.
Mayor Garvey questioned if there was any change in direction from former City Traffic Engineer Peter Yauch's proposal of a modified version of one-way pairs on those two streets with
two lanes of traffic traveling in one direction and the third lane travelling in the opposite direction. The City Clerk stated the Commission had agreed on the concept for the modified
pairs to address traffic concerns on Ft. Harrison. Mr. Baker stated the modified pair was recommended instead of one-way pairs. He noted since that time, the Commission endorsed moving
the Alternate 19 designation to Missouri Avenue. He expressed confusion regarding this MPO plan.
Commissioner Deegan questioned what the map was showing. Commissioner Thomas said the maps illustrate County road plans for the year 2015. He cautioned against the Commission remaining
silent on this long range plan. Mr. Baker felt this map depicts someone's misrepresentation of the proposed modified one-way pairs. Mayor Garvey questioned if staff still supports
modified one-way pairs. Mr. Baker felt the redesignation of Alternate 19 instead, will assist the City with traffic concerns regarding Ft. Harrison. Commissioner Thomas indicated the
Florida Department of Transportation currently is discussing the elimination of Alternate 19.
Consensus to send a letter from the Commission to the MPO in opposition to a simple one-way pair on Myrtle and Ft. Harrison.
e) Confirm 11/02/94 date for Special Meeting re beach business concerns
A special meeting to discuss beach issues with beach business and homeowner associations was confirmed for November 2, 1994 at the Memorial Civic Center at 7:00 p.m.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
ITEM #37 - Other City Attorney Items
Attorney/client meetings
The City Attorney requested two attorney/client meetings be set. The meeting regarding
American United versus the City, and Scientology versus the City was scheduled for November 3, 1994 at 4:30 p.m. The City Attorney indicated a conference room with speaker phone would
be required. The meeting regarding the City versus Fisherman's Wharf was scheduled for October 31, 1994 at 10:30 a.m.
Outside Counsel
The City Attorney reported she is presently working on needs assessments. She is conferring with all City Directors to determine their legal needs and usage. She will meet with the
Commissioners to determine what they consider the City's legal needs to be. She is meeting with outside counsel to discuss the status of their cases and what they are doing for the
City. She stated her goal is to present the Commission with a staffing plan in January.
The City Attorney stated these tasks are time consuming and indicated a need for short term interim legal assistance on some legal issues. She estimated all the cases will be short
term and cost less than $10,000 each. She noted the Commission currently allows the City Manager to contract up to $10,000 and asked that she be allowed to do the same within her budget.
She said she will report regularly to the Commission. Ms. Akin noted she will be coming to the Commission regarding two areas requiring more extensive assistance.
Commissioner Thomas felt the City Attorney's recommendation is correct. Mayor Garvey agreed. Commissioner Deegan noted if each case costs $10,000, the City would have a problem if
20 such cases exist. Ms. Akin noted she presently is considering only three items. She said she will report to the Commission monthly on expenditures. She indicated each item will
cost less than $10,000 and will provide assistance with litigation and drafting. She noted these are not areas she would typically go outside for assistance.
Commissioner Berfield stated she did not have a problem with the recommendation as long as the City Attorney stays within her budget.
Commissioner Deegan noted the City Charter states the Commission shall fix and provide for the compensation paid the City Attorney and special counsel. He questioned how the Commission
would fix the compensation paid to outside counsel if they are advised of the rate after the fact. He did not oppose the idea but wanted to comply with the City Charter. The City Attorney
said she understood the Commission's concern and indicated she will discuss this with them at the October 31, 1994 meeting.
Consensus to resolve this at the next Commission meeting.
ITEM #38 - City Manager Verbal Reports
Reschedule City Commission meeting
The City Manager questioned rescheduling the November 28, 1994, meeting due to Chanukah. Commissioner Thomas questioned if there had been a problem in the past due to the holiday.
Ms. Deptula reported it had been changed in the past. Consensus to reschedule the meeting to November 29, 1994 at 9:00 a.m.
Pinellas Trail
The City Manager reported Pinellas County has requested inclusion on the October 31, 1994 agenda to present an update on the status of the Pinellas Trail.
November 2, 1994 Beach Meeting Topics
The City Manager distributed a tentative agenda for the beach meeting on November 2, 1994 and requested direction. Suggested items for discussion include: vendors and outdoor cafes;
vending machine signs; redevelopment plan; parking fees and fines; Mandalay and Baymont streetscape; parking structure; pier area plan and tower development; tourism promotion; conference
center; tropical seascape theme design guidelines; and commercial parking lots on private property.
Commissioner Thomas requested addressing the schedules related to the Clearwater Beach parking meters. The City Manager said she could include a discussion on replacing lost revenues
if beach parking becomes free. She noted a special taxing district had also been considered.
Commissioner Berfield suggested the Pier 60 swimming pool be addressed. Commissioner Deegan suggested traffic aides during the upcoming tourist season also be addressed. Commissioner
Berfield recommended discussing alternate routes and the use of the Jolley Trolley and a ferry when the Sand Key Bridge is closed. She noted the Memorial Bridge will also be under repair
this winter. Ms. Deptula indicated staff planned to take this opportunity to promote the Charter questions.
Commissioner Deegan questioned what type of format was planned. Ms. Deptula indicated they will try to limit the meeting to two hours. Commissioner Thomas suggested it be conducted
like a City Commission meeting with a clock and microphone. Mayor Garvey suggested establishing priorities. Commissioner Thomas suggested the City Manager courier her suggestions on
discussion items to the beach associations for them to assign priorities. Commissioner Berfield noted the meeting was originally scheduled to address the concerns of the beach groups.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns that the beach groups requested a dialogue. He recommended against running it like a regular Commission meeting. He noted they want closure
on some of these points. He suggested focusing on a few high priority topics. Commissioner Thomas agreed with the need to seek closure. He suggested the beach groups prioritize the
list and address to each subject followed by Commission debate. One or two spokespersons can work to close the issue following the debate. Mayor Garvey said she did not think closure
will be reached at this meeting. She recommended the discussion be limited to the top five topics. The City Manager said staff will send the lists to the beach groups and request they
prioritize their choices. The topics with the most votes will be ones discussed. She indicated the groups can add topics to the list but only the top ones will be addressed.
Consensus was to address the five issues the beach groups identify as priorities.
Town Meeting
The City Manager reminded the Commission and the public a Town Meeting at the Martin Luther King Center will be held on October 27, 1994, at 7:00 p.m.
Enterprise Zones
The City Manager indicated a packet was sent in a Manager's Report to the Commission in late September regarding Enterprise Zone designation. She questioned if the Commission was interested
in designating Enterprise Zones and establishing incentives.
Mayor Garvey questioned how many Enterprise Zones are in Clearwater. Economic Development Director Alan Ferri said Clearwater currently has one Enterprise Zone. It overlaps the CRA
zone Downtown. The proposed new Enterprise Zone's northwest boundary is Ft Harrison and the northeast boundary is Betty Lane. Because statutory requirements require block groups to
meet low income eligibility criteria, the Enterprise Zone extends down S Missouri to the City line. Mayor Garvey questioned if the designation for the N Greenwood Enterprise Zone is
disappearing. Mr. Ferri indicated it sunsets December 31, 1994. Mayor Garvey recommended going forward with the Enterprise Zone concept.
Commissioner Deegan questioned how the new Enterprise Zone is more user friendly. Mr. Ferri stated the previous program included limited benefits but the management and promotion of
benefits are now up to the locality which is being asked to provide its own incentives based on a broad set of options.
Commissioner Deegan questioned how this would add to what the City is doing through the Community Development Corporation. Mr. Ferri said if Clearwater is designated as an Enterprise
Zone it will be a tremendous asset. An Enterprise Zone development agency would need to be appointed. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Ferri had talked to the people he recommended.
Mr. Ferri indicated they had all indicated a willingness to serve.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the borders of the Enterprise Zone. Mr. Ferri stated it squiggles around due to low income requirements. Mr. Ferri indicated a larger and clearer map
hangs in his office.
Mayor Garvey questioned if any existing non-profit organization can operate as the Enterprise Zone corporation. Mr. Ferri said they could not because the law mandates certain memberships
which do not match local non-profit agencies.
Commissioner Deegan questioned how to further investigate the feasibility of an Enterprise Zone. Mr. Ferri said feasibility will be investigated by the Committee. Commissioner Deegan
questioned if a referendum would be required. Mr. Ferri said it would be if it is determined to establish the zone.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if a business with its headquarters outside the Enterprise Zone decides to locate a branch there, will the tax credit apply to the business' overall tax
bill. Mr. Ferri believed it would apply to the business' total State of Florida tax bill. Commissioner Thomas questioned if a company has property outside an Enterprise Zone as part
of its tax base, can it credit its overall tax bill or are only ad valorem taxes in the district
affected. Mr. Ferri indicated the ad valorem taxes paid in the State would be affected. Commissioner Thomas questioned the Community Contribution Tax Credit of $200,000 annually per
business. Mr. Ferri stated if a business made a contribution to a non-profit agency whose activities are within the Enterprise Zone, a tax credit could be received after certification.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the sales tax for building materials referred only to materials used in the Enterprise Zone. Mr. Ferri indicated the materials must be used in the
Enterprise Zone. Commissioner Thomas questioned if sales tax exceptions on business property equipment refer only to equipment used in the Enterprise Zone. Mr. Ferri said that is correct.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if sales tax exception on electrical energy refers only to energy used in the Enterprise Zone. Mr. Ferri said that is correct. Commissioner Thomas indicated
he supports the concept.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if the City develops an Enterprise Zone can the City cancel it at some point. Mr. Ferri reported the Enterprise Zone ceases to exist after ten years.
The Mayor questioned if the City can cancel it after one year. Mr. Ferri did not believe the City would have the opportunity to back out at that point. Commissioner Berfield questioned
what would happen if the Committee disagrees with a business relocation into the Enterprise Zone the City is pursuing. Mr. Ferri said the decision will be up to the local Enterprise
Zone development agency to certify businesses as eligible. A company not eligible could still locate in the Enterprise Zone but would not qualify for benefits.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the Enterprise Zone development agency would be independent from the City. Mr. Ferri indicated once the Enterprise Zone is running, the agency will
need to be independent but will have City representation. Mayor Garvey questioned who pays to run the agency. Mr. Ferri suggested the Economic Development staff is capable of handling
the administrative processes required by the agency. Commissioner Deegan questioned if CDBG funds can be used for this operation in the future. Mr. Ferri indicated they could be.
Mayor Garvey questioned if CDBG funds were used, would they have to be identified as administrative costs. Mr. Ferri indicated they would be and the administrative cap would apply.
He suggested that was why he had recommended using his staff rather than having the agency hire additional personnel.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the further investigation of the need and feasibility of having an area designated as an Enterprise Zone, appoint a committee (attached to these
minutes as Exhibit B) to do the investigation, and develop a strategic plan if an Enterprise Zone is believed to be feasible and a possible benefit to Clearwater. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #39 - Commission Discussion Items
ITEM #40 - Other Commission Action
Commissioner Berfield confirmed the High Speed Rail Task Force is to be appointed at the October 31, 1994, City Commission meeting.
Commissioner Berfield referred to a memorandum from Mr. Sehlhorst regarding development along the Pinellas Trail in Dunedin. She pointed out it is being accomplished with private funds.
Commissioner Thomas requested to see a copy of the response to Ms. Atkins. The City Manager stated one of the issues was questioning what the Charter Review Committee had done regarding
Commissioner Thomas' memorandum to them. Ms. Goudeau is researching the minutes from the Charter Review meetings to find out if they received it and what they had done. She noted Mr.
Elliott had sent her a letter expressing similar concerns and a request to forward his letter to the States Attorney's office along with information he previously provided the Commission.
She stated that letter was mailed today.
Commissioner Thomas requested a copy of the correspondence on issues referred to by Charles Marcus.
Commissioner Thomas reminded the City Attorney he is waiting for a response regarding limiting the number of ordinances required for annexation.
Commissioner Thomas informed the Commission he has requested staff to obtain information regarding Plant City's fiber optic system. He indicated Plant City is renting space on their
lines to the telephone and cable companies and controlling the distribution of the utility network. Ms. Rice reported staff is waiting for written information. Commissioner Thomas
said if the City installs its own system, it would not have to depend on GTE. He noted this would be a tremendous technological opportunity. Ms. Rice said staff has worked with Jean
Rice's expert on fiber optics to learn what needs to be known.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if it was practical to place reclaimed water lines under the roads during the Del Oro road project. Mr. Baker indicated it was not practical. He reported
plans are to install the reclaimed water pipes in the grass behind the curb. He said it was not necessary to do this ahead of time. He expressed concerns regarding laying pipe before
developing a financial plan regarding reclaimed water.
Commissioner Deegan stated he had not received information from the Mayor regarding the Tampa Bay Defense Transition Task Force. The Mayor indicated she had turned the request over
to Alan Ferri and would follow-up on the request.
Commissioner Deegan stated the Partnership Meeting consisted of reports from three committees. The Promotions Committee discussed the success of the New Orleans Street Fest and the
largest Jazz Holiday to date. The Design Review Committee had nothing new to report. The Recruitment Committee featured a progress report from the Community Redevelopment Agency's
(CRA) Executive Director Peter Gozza. The Annual Report was discussed and it was decided it would be premature for the Partnership to put together an Annual Report. It was recommended
that the release dates for Annual Reports from various groups be staggered. Chuck Pollick from the Beach Views offered to print an insert of the Annual Report in his newspaper for cost.
Commissioner Deegan announced a committee was formed to address this matter.
Commissioner Berfield referred to the plan to have ambassadors visit downtown stores and reported she had received a phone call from a person who had lost three Downtown businesses
and had never been contacted by an ambassador. Commissioner Deegan indicated the ambassadors should be visiting all Downtown businesses on a planned sequence.
He noted Staff Assistant Jacque DeGrory of the CRA has done a yeoman's job keeping in touch with Downtown businesses.
Commissioner Deegan announced Mike Neville resigned as chair of the Recruitment Retention Committee.
ITEM #41 - Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:22 a.m. (October 21, 1994)