01/18/1996CITY COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
January 18, 1996
Present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner
Sue A. Berfield Vice-Mayor/Commissioner
Fred A. Thomas Commissioner
J. B. Johnson Commissioner
Robert Clark Commissioner
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
Rich Baier Engineering Director
Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. The invocation was offered by Reverend Dennis MacAleer of Trinity Presbyterian Church. The Mayor led the Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
ITEM #3- Service Awards
Two service awards and two retirement awards were presented to City employees.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards
Proclamations: Clearwater on Sail Week - March 17 - 23, 1996
ITEM # 5- Presentations
a) High Speed Rail - Hillsborough County Rail Initiative - Commissioner Ed Turanchik
Hillsborough County Commissioner Ed Turanchik reviewed regional rail expansion opportunities on existing rail lines. He said the previously proposed system is not feasible because
of high insurance costs and access charges. Last year's Hillsborough County review was financed by 16 county corporations representing a range of employers. He said road construction
needs over the next 20 years are estimated at $8.5-billion and only $3.81-billion will be available. He said small, self-powered diesel trains, with speeds up to 80 mph, cost $2.5-million
each while roads covering the same distance cost $6-million. He said a 70-mile system is estimated to cost $300-million or $4.4-million per mile. Sixty-one percent of surveyed residents
indicated support. The system would serve Tampa malls, most tourist attractions, Ybor City, the Ice Palace, Seaport, and half of Tampa's hotels, neighborhoods and businesses. He predicted
up to half of the project is funded. A major investment study needs to be made.
Hillsborough County Commissioner Turanchik said this project would provide Hillsborough and Pinellas counties an opportunity to work together. Operating hours would be from 6:00 a.m.
to 11:00 p.m. The system would operate as a transit system, not as a commuter system. Following existing rail lines skirting north Tampa Bay, a high quality transportation expansion
could link Tampa with downtown Clearwater. He estimated the expansion from Westchase in Tampa to downtown Clearwater would cost $75-million, not including CSX acquisition costs. He
indicated farther expansion from Clearwater to St. Petersburg, with one stop at Ulmerton Road, would cost $68-million. Travel time between the two cities is estimated at 21 minutes.
He noted another connection from Tampa to St. Petersburg could be via the Gandy Bridge.
Commissioner Turanchik said the franchise for High Speed Rail from Orlando to Tampa will be awarded on February 28, 1996. He noted extremely strong interest in connecting North Hillsborough
County with North Pinellas County to help the tourist trade. He said all proposals assume the system will operate at a profit and cover operating expenses. For the High Speed Rail
concept to work, good regional transportation is needed for connections.
He said the regional system has been endorsed by every environmental and civic association and Chamber of Commerce in Hillsborough County. He urged the City to consider joining the
system. He reported low level polling done in Pinellas County indicated Pinellas support is softer than in Hillsborough but is still strong. The Mayor questioned if this idea had been
presented to the Pinellas County Commissioners. Mr. Turanchik said he had presented it to the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) and Pinellas County Commissioner Siebert had requested
the MPO evaluate this use of existing rail lines.
ITEM #6 - Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Clark moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 4, 1996, 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
Pat Yagel questioned why many downtown property owners were not invited to the January 12, 1996, Grand Opening of the Harborview Center. The City Manager said the City appreciated
everything done by property owners in the downtown. The decision regarding those invited was made by staff and she apologized for the inadvertent oversight.
John Doran expressed concern regarding large rate increases by Time Warner cable. He encouraged citizens to complain to the FCC within 45 days. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the
City could provide government oversight. Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice said staff is negotiating a franchise and is looking at these types of issues. Information Management Director
Jeff Harper said the City regulates only the basic tier of service. Rates for other tiers must abide by benchmarks based on national averages. Time Warner was able to increase rates
dramatically on other tiers because Vision Cable rates were low. Staff will contact Time Warner and question if they are abiding with the spirit of ongoing negotiations.
The City Commission recommended citizens complain to the FCC regarding rate hikes and directed staff to send a letter to the FCC expressing concerns regarding the size of the increases.
Mr. Harper will obtain a supply of FCC complaint forms. Commissioner Berfield said many citizens have called with complaints. She noted service levels before the change in ownership
were better. Commissioner Thomas felt the marketplace will solve the problem as people can purchase satellite disks and GTE soon will enter the market. Ms. Rice reported GTE has contacted
the City regarding a cable franchise.
Tom Sehlhorst encouraged public participation in his case before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #8 - Public Hearing - Declare surplus for purpose of exchanging for other real property, northerly 27.75’ m.o.l. of vacant City owned property located at 1551 Gulf Blvd. on Sand
Key, Sec. 19-29-15, M&B 43.01 (EN)
On December 17, 1992, the City purchased the subject Sand Key parcel with recreation impact fees generated by Sand Key development. The subject parcel contains 2.45 acres of upland
and 1.35 acres of wetlands extending into Clearwater Harbor. The upland acreage will be developed by the City as a park and for public parking to support beach renourishment.
A certified boundary survey, not available until the day after closing, reveals an encroachment, of approximately ½-foot, by a masonry addition to the Sand Key Condominium-South Bay
recreation building overlapping the property's northeasterly boundary. The remainder of the northerly property boundary, extending eastward from Gulf Boulevard, is adjacent to the driveway
entrance to the condominium's recreation center. A fence erected along this property line would create a visual and possible safety concern for condominium owners.
To ameliorate these concerns, staff and condominium officials propose to exchange upland parcels of equal value, each with approximately 3,057 square feet. The City will benefit by
owning a rectangular parcel with a straight East-West northerly boundary. The condominium would no longer encroach on City-owned property and condominium property ownership would move
approximately 27.75 feet south and away from the driveway entrance to its recreation center.
The City-owned parcel is believed to be equal in value to the condominium parcel proposed for the exchange. The value determination, based on the City's appraisal obtained at the time
of purchase, is believed to be relevant for the purposes of the proposed property exchange.
Commissioner Thomas moved to declare as surplus for the purpose of exchanging for other real property, the northerly 27.75 feet, more or less, of vacant City-owned property located
at 1551 Gulf Boulevard on Sand Key, identified as Tax ID parcel # 19/29/15/00000/430/0100, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached to these minutes, and that the appropriate
officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #9 - Not Public Hearing - Contract for Exchange of Property located in Sec. 19-29-15 with Clearwater Key Association - South Bay, Inc., each parcel having an equal estimated value
of $34,475; pay for environmental audit, survey update, title insurance & closing expenses estimated at $3,575 (EN)
On December 17, 1992, the City purchased the subject Sand Key parcel from Anthony Petraca. A certified boundary survey, not available until the day after closing, reveals an encroachment
by an addition to the Sand Key Condominium-South Bay recreation building. To ameliorate these concerns, condominium officials have agreed to exchange a triangular parcel bounded by
the condominium's easterly seawall to the City in exchange for an equal parcel of City land fronting Gulf Boulevard approximately 27.75 feet in width.
Based on appraisal calculations James M. Millspaugh, MAI, performed in 1990, each parcel is approximately 3,058 square feet and could support development of 1.97 condominium units.
Market evidence at that time indicated developers were paying approximately $17,500 per buildable unit. The value of each parcel is calculated at approximately $34,475 and can be exchanged
reasonably without additional consideration from either party.
Structural engineer Glenn Myers of PBS&J (Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.) visually inspected the exposed seawall on the parcel the City would receive in the exchange. Mr. Myers
reports the approximate 40-feet of seawall, visible above ground level, appears to be in generally good condition. One 10-inch diameter tree, next to the wall, may cause damage in a
major storm event.
Staff feels the City would benefit in the exchange by owning a more workable rectangular parcel for development as a park and parking facility. The recreation building encroachment
would no longer exist, and the condominium would enjoy safer access to its facilities.
Commissioner Clark moved to approve a Contract for Exchange of Property with Clearwater Key Association - South Bay, Inc. lying in Section 19, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, each
parcel to be exchanged being more particularly described in Exhibit B and depicted in Exhibit C, attached to these minutes, of said contract, each having an equal estimated value of
$34,475, and pay for an environmental audit, survey update, title insurance and closing expenses estimated at $3,575, for a total cost of $3,575, and that the appropriate officials be
authorized to execute same.. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #10 - (Cont'd from 01/04/96) Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5889-95 - LDCA amending permitted and conditional uses (LDCA 95-12) (CP)
To streamline development procedures and ease the regulatory process, staff has reviewed conditional uses in each zoning district to identify those that could be reclassified as permitted
without adversely affecting neighborhoods or neighboring properties. Staff recommends some reclassification of uses. No changes are proposed for the urban center district. On December
5, 1995, the Planning & Zoning Board reviewed the draft ordinance and recommended approval subject to several changes that are included.
Proposed change of conditional to permitted uses proposed for Residential and Office Zoning Districts: 1) nursing homes - all residential and office; 2) adult day-care - limited and
general office; 3) art galleries - limited and general office; 4) commercial or trade schools - limited and general office.
Proposed changes for Commercial Zoning Districts: 1) art galleries or studios - neighborhood commercial - prohibited to permitted use; 2) business services - neighborhood commercial
- conditional to permitted use; 3) child day-care - general commercial and highway commercial - prohibited to conditional use; 4) commercial or trade school - commercial center - prohibited
to permitted use; 5) commercial parking lots - beach commercial, resort commercial 24, and resort commercial 28 - conditional to permitted use; 6) multiple-family dwellings - beach commercial
- prohibited to permitted use; 7) outdoor retail sales, display and/or storage - neighborhood commercial - prohibited to conditional use; and 6) transportation stations - general commercial,
infill commercial, and highway commercial - conditional to permitted use;
Proposed changes for Downtown Zoning Districts (Downtown/Mixed Use only): 1) bed and breakfast inns - prohibited to conditional use; 2) business services - conditional to permitted
use; 3) personal services - conditional to permitted use; 4) single-family dwellings - prohibited to conditional use; 5) three-family dwellings - prohibited to conditional use; 6) townhouses
- prohibited to conditional use; 7) transportation stations - conditional to permitted use; and 8) two-family dwellings - prohibited to conditional use.
Proposed change of conditional to permitted uses for Research and Development, Public/Semipublic; and Open Space Zoning Districts: 1) adult day care - public/semipublic; 2) business
services - research, development and office park; 3) commercial parking lots - public/semipublic; 4) hotels/motels - research, development and office park; 5) nursing homes - public/semipublic;
6) personal services - research, development and office park: 7) restaurants - research, development and office park; 8) restaurants and indoor retail sales in conjunction with golf
courses and recreation complexes - open space/recreation; and 9) transportation stations - public/semipublic.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approved the Land Development Code Amendment revising the use provisions of the Zoning Regulations. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5889-95 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5889-95 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances
ITEM #11 - Ord. #5950-95 - Annexation for property located at 2030 Calumet St., Clearwater Industrial Park, part of Lot 9 (Douglas R. Birch, Trustee, A95-26)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5950-95 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Johnson moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5950-95 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #12 - Ord. #5951-95 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Industrial Limited for property located at 2030 Calumet St., Clearwater Industrial Park, part of Lot 9 (Douglas R. Birch, Trustee,
LUP95-32)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5951-95 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Clark moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5951-95 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #13 - Ord. #5952-95 - IL Zoning for property located at 2030 Calumet St., Clearwater Industrial Park, part of Lot 9 (Douglas R. Birch, Trustee, A95-26)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5952-95 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5952-95 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #14 - Ord. #5953-95 - Annexation for property located at 1622 Sherwood St., Highland Pines 3rd Addition, Blk. 16, Lot 6 (Rebecca L. Hutto, A95-27)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5953-95 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Johnson moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5953-95 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #15 - Ord. #5954-95 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low for property located at 1622 Sherwood St., Highland Pines 3rd Addition, Blk. 16, Lot 6 (Rebecca L. Hutto, LUP95-33)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5954-95 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5954-95 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #16 - Ord. #5955-95 - RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1622 Sherwood St., Highland Pines 3rd Addition, Blk. 16, Lot 6 (Rebecca L. Hutto, A95-27)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5955-95 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Clark moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5955-95 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #17 - Ord. #5959-96 - Vacating (& Quit-Claim) city’s interest in westerly 160’ m.o.l. of South Shore Blvd. r-o-w and the 20’ temporary construction easement which crosses South
Shore Blvd. to Fisherman’s Wharf of Clearwater, Inc. (City, V95-22)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5959-95 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5959-95 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #18 - Ord. #5960-96 - Vacating full east/west r-o-w of Pinellas Street, lying between Waters Ave. & Bay Ave., subject to it being retained full width as a drainage, utility, ingress
& egress and sidewalk easement (Morton Plant Hospital, V95-14)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5960-95 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5960-95 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #19 - Ord. #5961-96 - Vacating West 2’ of 12’ Drainage and Utility Easement lying along East side of Lot 27, Woodgate of Countryside Unit One, less South 5’ (Joyce, V95-18)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5961-95 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Johnson moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5961-95 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #20 - Ord. #5965-96 - Vacating East 2.5’ of 7.5’ Drainage and Utility Easement lying along West side of Lot 406, Morningside Estates Unit 4 (Olson, V95-19)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5965-95 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Clark moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5965-95 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #21 - Ord. #5966-96 - Vacating 5’ Drainage and Utility Easement lying along Northeast side of Lot 52, Ambleside First Addition (Diemer, V95-20)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5966-95 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5966-95 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #22 - Ord. #5967-96 - Vacating (& Quit-Claim) City’s interest in water main easement granted to the City by Florida Power Corp. on 02/20/95 back to Florida Power (Secs. 6-29-16
& 7-29-16) (City, V95-15)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5967-95 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5967-95 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #23 - Ord. # 5968-96 - Amending Art. III of Ch. 2; designating an official city seal; establishing general restrictions on the use of said seal
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5968-95 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Johnson moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5968-95 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson and Clark
"Nays": Garvey
Motion carried.
Commissioner Thomas referred to David Campbell's January 17, 1996, letter regarding the CRT's (Community Response Team) logo and suggested registering it as a trademark.
Consensus was to discuss this issue at a Work Session. The City Manager indicated many City departments have adopted different logos to identify themselves.
ITEM #24 - Not Public Hearing - Res. #96-08 - Authorizing the use of the Municipal Seal of the City of Clearwater
The City Attorney presented Resolution #96-08 and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #96-08 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #25-30) - Approved as submitted
ITEM #25 - FY 1995-96 HOME Funding Agreement with Pinellas County for funding to be provided under HOME federal housing program (ED)
ITEM #26 - Purchase of one 1996 mid-size window van from Bill Currie Ford, Tampa, FL, for $17,437; and the following vehicles under FSA (Florida Sheriff’s Association) Bid No. 95-03-0925:
two 1996 4-door utility vehicles from Brandon Chrysler-Plymouth-Jeep Eagle, Brandon, FL, for $37,248; two 1996 1/2 ton pickups with topper & bedliner from Carlisle Ford, St. Petersburg,
FL, for $31,444.50; and award administrative fee of $200 to FSA; also, purchase one 1996 full-size panel truck from Regency Dodge, Inc., Jacksonville, FL, under State Contract No. 070-300-403,
for $17,744; total cost of these purchases not to exceed $104,073.50; funding to be provided under city’s master lease-purchase agreement (GS)
ITEM #27 - Cooperative Agreement with SWFWMD regarding placement of an Interactive Video Water Information Display at Moccasin Lake Park (PR)
ITEM #28 - Purchase one 1995 Crane Carrier Centurion L.E.T. Truck with GS-Products Semi-automated Recycling Body from Crane Carrier Co., Tulsa, OK, for $99,700; financing to be provided
under City’s master lease-purchase agreement (SW)
ITEM #29 - Acceptance of utilities easement (Monin, Inc.) (CA)
ITEM #30 - Acceptance of warranty deed for right-of-way (Park Place Land, Ltd.) (CA)
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
ITEM #31 - Reconsider - Contraction / De-annexation for property located at 3001 Sunset Point Rd., Sec. 4-29-16, M&B 23.03, .063 acres m.o.l. (Roetzer, A93-30, LUP93-41) (CP)
The subject property was once in Pinellas County jurisdiction. On December 2, 1993, the applicants petitioned the City for annexation to receive sanitary sewer service. On December
8, 1993, the County issued a building permit for the construction of the applicants' single family residence. On March 17, 1994, the subject property was annexed by the City. On May
19, 1994, the County issued a permit for construction of a fence along Oak Forest Drive which, according to the petition, was erected on June 7, 1994. The fence does not meet City standards.
A notice of violation was issued on June 9, 1994. The County permit is invalid because the property was annexed into the City before the issuance of the County permit. The fence's
construction is classified as after the fact action.
The subject property meets the general criteria established for voluntary annexation as established by State Statutes. It lies within Census Tract 268.04, Block 1 and 2 as shown on
the map for 1990 Census Tracts and Incorporated Areas in Pinellas County. The subject property is located in the City Planning Area and is surrounded by residential properties. It
is contiguous to existing City limits and is served and accessed from Sunset Point Road (SR 588) and Oak Forest Drive, a City road. Sunset Point Road is paved and maintained by the
County and has a 100 foot right-of-way. The rights-of-way for Oak Forest Drive North and West are platted 60 feet. They are paved, curbed, and maintained by the City. Sanitary sewer
is available from a line on Oak Forest Drive West. The City has an 8-inch water line on the south side of Sunset Point Road and a 6-inch water line on the east side of the subject property.
A City fire hydrant is located within 50 feet.
Per City Code Section 37.21 (1-8), property standards of procedure were followed when the subject property was annexed. The applicants submitted three copies of sworn and signed petitions
for annexation, including all relevant documentation in compliance with the voluntary annexation requirements. On January 20, 1994, the City Commission received the petition for Annexation,
Future Land Use Plan Amendment to Single-Family Residential "Six" (RS-6) and referred the request to the City Clerk to be advertised for public hearings. The request was duly advertised
for public hearings on February 2 and February 10, 1994.
On February 15, 1994, the Planning & Zoning Board unanimously endorsed the application. On March 3, 1994, the City Commission approved Ordinances #5545-94, #5546-94, and #5547-94 on
first reading which set the parameter for the annexation. On March 17, 1994, the City Commission adopted and passed the ordinances on second reading, thereby annexing the subject property
into the City.
Subsequent to annexation, and in accordance with Florida Statutes 171.044(3), certified copies of the ordinance, including the map, were filed in a timely fashion on March 23, 1994,
with the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the County Administrator of Pinellas County, and the Florida Department of State.
Based on the annexation's effective date, and in accordance with State Statute 171.062, an area annexed to a municipality is subject to all laws, ordinances, and regulations in force
in that municipality. The applicants did not comply with applicable City regulations when they constructed the fence along Oak Forest Drive. On June 30, 1994, the applicants requested
approval of height variances to allow the construction of two fences in structural setback areas from the street rights-of-way. One fence, proposed to be six-feet high, was to be constructed
along Sunset Point Road where the property is addressed; City code restricts fence height in this area to 30-inches. The second fence, a six-foot high, non-opaque chain-link fence,
was erected along the property line where the rear yard adjoins the Oak Forest Drive right-of-way. Fences in this location have a height limitation of four feet. On July 28, 1994,
DCAB (Development Code Adjustment Board) denied the variances because granting them would not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code and comprehensive
plan, and would be injurious to surrounding properties. The applicants appealed the decision to the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings. On January 10, 1995, DCAB's
decision was upheld at an administrative hearing
The applicants wish to de-annex from the City because they have installed a six-foot fence that is lawful under County Code but unlawful under City Code According to Florida Statute
171.051, contracting municipal boundaries requires that the property to be excluded did not meet requirements for annexation under Florida Statute 171.043. This is not the case as the
applicants fully met the legal requirements for annexation.
Due to miscommunication between staff and the applicant regarding the hearing date for the Petition, the applicant did not attend the December 7, 1995, City Commission meeting where
the Commission denied the Petition. The City Attorney recommended rescheduling this item so Mr. Roetzer could address the Commission..
Chris Roetzer, owner of the property, said neither he nor the County were aware of the annexation when the County granted him a fence permit in May 1994. The fence was erected on June
7, 1994, according to County regulations and the City posted a notice two days later stating the County permit was invalid. DCAB denied his request for a variance and his appeal also
was denied. Neighboring properties do not like the fence. He said this petition for de-annexation was his only option and felt this would not be an issue if his fence had been permitted
50 days earlier. He said the annexation experience is complex and frustrating. Mr. Roetzer recommended adding the property owner to the distribution of the annexation ordinance and
include a "Welcome to Clearwater" letter that highlights available services and departments and notes that non-permitted improvements are subject to City rules. He suggested advising
the applicant the annexation process is generally permanent and that City and County rules differ. He recommended reexamining the requirement for annexation to obtain sewer service.
Commissioner Clark questioned if the Roetzers had legal counsel during the process of obtaining their lot, building their house, etc. Mr. Roetzer said they had not. The Mayor said
the Roetzer's knew they had to hook up to the City's sewer system and should have checked City
regulations. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern this was a "Catch-22" issue and questioned the neighbors' objections. Mr. Roetzer indicated the back of their property is adjacent
to a subdivision and the fence was erected in the street's 25-foot right-of-way.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the City Commission can solve the problem. The City Attorney said a code amendment would be required. She indicated the Roetzers could attempt to
obtain another variance if they amend their request. Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford said he has worked with the Roetzers to look at a number of alternatives. Commissioner
Thomas requested staff to continue to try to solve the problem. Mr. Shuford reported he will meet with the Roetzers to see if something can be done.
Commissioner Berfield questioned why the County issued a fence permit two months after the City annexed the property. The City Manager indicated the City sent the annexation information
to the County on March 23, 1996, six days after the annexation was finalized. Mr. Shuford noted the County currently cannot update their maps quickly. He reported staff sends a short
letter to all property owners upon annexation and said information will be added to the letters regarding staff contacts. Mr. Shuford suggested the City Commission could waive the application
fee for a variance.
Commissioner Thomas moved to waive the variance fee regarding the Roetzer's fence. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Carol King, a neighbor of the Roetzers, said she and her husband are realtors who work actively in their neighborhood. Before the fence was erected, her husband had advised the fence
company it violated City regulations. She complained that the fence has remained even though the Roetzer's variance request and appeal were denied. She said the Roetzers have installed
elaborate landscaping and felt they are insensitive to their neighbors. She questioned why this issue keeps coming up repeatedly. She felt the fence has lowered neighboring property
values because of its stockade-like appearance. She requested the City Commission be aware of the neighbors' feelings. Mr. Shuford referred to the neighbors wish that this issue be
resolved soon and recommended limiting the time of the waiver.
Commissioner Thomas amended his motion to waive the variance fee for 30 days. The seconder accepted the amendment.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
ITEM #32 - Res. #96-10 - Finding the proposed shoreline protection construction project associated with the Grande Bay Apartment Complex to be a public necessity with mitigation required
(CP)
Grande Bay Apartments, FKA Beach Club Apartments, at 2909 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard has obtained a DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) permit to install a revetment to prevent
further erosion of the shoreline and undermining of utilities. Policy 1.1.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan states "any permanent and temporary alterations of . . . wetlands . . .
only shall be permitted upon a finding by the City Commission of public necessity, and upon consideration of mitigation."
Until the elimination of the receipt and referral process, such alterations typically were reviewed by the City Commission as part of site plan consideration. No current procedure
allows this Commission review to occur automatically. Staff is forwarding this case to the City Commission for consideration as a special agenda item. Staff hopes to modify the Comprehensive
Plan policy to reflect current procedures.
Staff finds the erosion control provisions of the proposed revetments are of a public necessity. The proposed work will protect the eroding shoreline and underground utilities. The
DEP permit requires mitigation by planting Spartina alterniflora in a 5,600 square foot area waterward of the revetment.
Commissioner Johnson moved to find that the Grande Bay Apartments' wetland modification is a public necessity with mitigation required. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #96-10 and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #96-10 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #33 - Res. #96-04 - officially naming access road to the new Pier 60 Park as “Pier 60 Drive” (formerly Marianne Street and Coronado Drive) (EN)
The Pier 60 Park design includes the Marianne Street and Mandalay Avenue rights-of-way. The new drop-off road needs an official name. The name "Pier 60 Drive" was recommended as it
associates the new roadway with the park for easy public identification.
Commissioner Thomas moved to officially name the access road to the new Pier 60 Park as "Pier 60 Drive." The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #96-04 and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #96-04 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #34 - Other Pending Matters - None.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
ITEM #35 - Resolutions
a) Res. #96-03 - Assessing property owners the costs of having mowed or cleared owners’ lots
The City Attorney presented Resolution #96-03 and read it by title only. Commissioner Clark moved to pass and adopt Resolution #96-03 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
b) Res #96-07 - Requesting State assistance in the renourishment of the storm ravaged beaches on Sand Key in Pinellas County
The City Attorney presented Resolution #96-07 and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #96-07 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
c) Res. #96-11 - Amending Rule 12 of Commission Rules relating to Commission action on items not on the agenda
The City Attorney presented Resolution #96-11 and read it by title only. Commissioner Clark moved to pass and adopt Resolution #96-11 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Thomas noted the language states appropriate support material must be provided. He expressed concern staff could "sandbag" action by withholding support materials, thus
keeping an item off the agenda. He recommended amending the resolution to require staff to supply the necessary materials. The Mayor felt the Commission should be able to trust staff.
Commissioner Clark agreed.
Commissioner Johnson questioned how staff could provide materials for an agenda item brought up late during a meeting. Commissioner Thomas noted Commissioners would have to indicate
they wanted an item agendaed for the Thursday meeting during a Work Session. He said if staff does not supply the necessary information, the issue could not be addressed. The Mayor
noted support material may take a while to gather. If it is not available, she said the issue could be addressed at the next meeting. Commissioner Thomas reiterated his concern that
staff would have the power to keep items off the agenda. Commissioner Clark felt it is critical that Commissioners are supplied with appropriate support material before voting to spend
money. He expressed concern that spending issues have been brought up for a vote at the last minute without any support material provided.
The City Manager questioned if staff would provide support materials if the majority of the Commission indicates they do not support an issue. Commissioner Thomas noted the Commission
does not vote at Work Session and that each Commissioner has the right to agenda any item. Commissioner Berfield agreed decisions cannot be made at a Work Session.
Commissioner Clark said public input and support materials are important for votes regarding the spending of funds.
Commissioner Thomas reiterated his concern that support materials may be withheld. The City Attorney agreed, on occasion, logistical problems may limit staff's ability to supply support
materials promptly. Commissioner Clark did not want support materials to be presented to the Commission moments before a meeting begins. He noted this resolution only addresses issues
where money is spent. The City Manager said City Commission Rules require items to be agendaed during the Work Session, at the latest. Issues presented after that time will be agendaed
for the following meeting.
Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Thomas, Johnson, Clark and Garvey
"Nays": None.
ITEM #36 - Other City Attorney Items
a) Hire outside attorney for Pension investment issue
In her January 12, 1996, memorandum, the City Attorney indicated the City's Pension Plan has $4-million in GIC's (Guaranteed Investment Contracts) with Confederation Life Insurance
Company, In August 1994, Confederation Life was placed in liquidation by the Canadian government. Shortly thereafter, the Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Michigan, sought
and obtained an Order of Rehabilitation for Confederation Life Insurance Company, U.S.
The City is a member of the Association of Confederation Life Contract-holders who filed a class action suit challenging the Insurance Commissioner's rehabilitation plan. The Association
has invited its members to participate as plaintiffs. In addition, the Association recommends individual contract holders, such as the City, investigate possible state guarantee coverage
and remedies. Considering the City's substantial investment, the City Attorney recommended the City hire outside counsel with experience in this area and requested authority to retain
outside counsel for an amount not to exceed $10,000 without further Commission action.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the Pension Plan had lost $4-million. The City Attorney said that is not the case. The City's maximum risk is 10%. She said the expected return
is between 96% and 103%. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern most state guarantee funds limit liability to $100,000. The City Attorney indicated the insurance company is in receivership
in Michigan. The City already is part of a class action suit. She said counsel will determine if the City also has state coverage and guarantees. She noted the City has been asked
to join the suit as an individual.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the City Attorney's recommendation to hire outside counsel regarding the Order of Rehabilitation for Confederation Life Insurance
Company, U.S., to address the class action suit by the Association of Confederation Life Contract-holders challenging the Insurance Commissioner's rehabilitation plan, and to investigate
possible state guarantee coverage and remedies for an amount not to exceed $10,000 without further Commission action. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Hawks versus City lawsuit
The City Attorney requested bringing a third party into this suit regarding an automobile accident. The plaintiff has alleged a stop sign was obstructed by a tree.
Commissioner Thomas moved to bring a third party into the Hawks versus City lawsuit. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #37 - City Manager Verbal Reports - None.
ITEM #38 - Other Commission Action
Commissioner Berfield reported the Pinellas Planning Council heard the McDonald's and Bayview cases on January 17, 1996. The McDonald's rezoning was approved and the Bayview rezoning
was denied. She said the issues now continue to the County Commission for final action.
Commissioner Berfield reported Ruth Eckerd Hall has written rules regarding their new parking fees. Staff is forwarding complaints to them regarding this issue . She indicated Ruth
Eckerd Hall made $20,000 from Angels in America and received a donation for “staying the course” regarding that production.
Commissioner Berfield questioned Mr. Campbell’s letter regarding copyrighting the City Code. The City Attorney said she has spoken to Mr. Campbell several times regarding this issue
and felt his concern is more philosophical than practical . She reported the public’s access to the code is not affected. Staff provides copies of the code upon request and the City
recovers the cost of copying as permitted by State statute. Commissioner Clark questioned if other organizations who provide this service have the same practices. The City Attorney
said this issue can be addressed should the City engage another firm or renegotiate the current contract.
Commissioner Berfield requested the complimentary letter regarding two Solid Waste employees be placed in their personnel files.
Commissioner Clark questioned if the Commission was interested in passing a resolution regarding the CVB (Convention & Visitors Bureau) moving to Clearwater. Consensus was to send
a letter, signed by the Mayor, to all County Commissioners and CVB members. Commissioner Clark requested the letter be as strong as possible in encouraging this move.
Mayor Garvey announced another Saturday in the City event will be held downtown on January 20, 1996.
ITEM #39 - Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.