04/27/1994
City Commission
"
.:.iGj2r:,~.."_.. .
;,;,i~l~~~"";<' '
.~5;~;;, .
COMMISSION
DATE
4/:;.1lQIf
-.<1
..;.!':: .
" 'i~
i;l~::'
~~~, :
,....1.:.
1 JLibYJUL 0 :i 3 7
"
'1-1.'
..t"....
~;~."< ":. .
'~tr:";~ .
"~1"""" . ,
:11"
.L.
!!t~;'.: .
1. ;.; .
j;J~',;
.....:..,
~t:...
.:..":.~ ,
,".
~~.': ~;..;.'
.-',;l,
.' ' : .: .. ' .." .. . ,~'. . , ' .. . ,~ :. . , , . ',' .., ; , . ,~ .' , . /
,t.
~.
. "i.,
q
ACTION AGENDA
City Commission Special Meeting - Sign Variance Requests
Wednesday, April 27, 1994 - 9:00 A. M.
Pledge of Allegiance - Mayor.
Invocation - None.
ITEM A - (cant from 4-19-94) Marks & Gilliss, Inc/Marks HoldinQ Co, Inc (Ken Marks Ford) for
variances of (1) 7 square feet from the permitted 112 square feet to allow a freestanding sign
with an area of 119 square feet, (2) 1 7 square feet from the permitted 56 square feet to allow
an auxiliary sign with an area of 73 square feet, (31 a 169 feet separation from the required
300 feet to allow freestanding signs 131 feet apart, and (4) 128 square feet from the
permitted 1 20 square feet to allow the existing 248 square feet of attached signs to permit
nonconforming signage to remain at 24791 & 24825 US Hwv 19 N, Ken Marks Ford, Blk A,
Lot 1 together with Ken Marks Ford 1 st Add Sub, Lot 1, zoned CH (Highway Commercial).
SV 93-65 - Continued to 6/2/94.
1
.J
"
} \.
','.
j;
ITEM B - (cant from 4-19-94) Aubrev Maclean, TRE/Clearwater Trust/Trizec Properties, Inc
(Gayfers) for variances of (1) 1 92 sq ft of sign area to permit a total of 342 sq ft of attached
sign age on east side of building; and (2) 192 sq ft of sign area to permit 342 sq ft of attached
area on west side of building; and (3) a ratio variance of .027 sq ft of attached sign area per
1.0 linear foot of building width to permit a ratio of 1.527 sq ft per linear foot of building
width to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 20505 US Hwv 19, Sec 17-29-16, M&B
32.01 & 32.02, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93-30 - Denied #1, #2 & #3.
1. Ashmore, Inc/GDM Property Manaqement (Bay Breeze Motel) for variances (1) to permit
a freestanding sign where building setback is less than 15 ft; (2) of 5.66 ft to permit 25.66
ft in sign height; (3) of 5 ft to permit 0 ft street setback; and (4) to permit an above roof sign
with 175 sq ft sign area to permit nonconforming sign age to remain at 411 E. Shore Dr.,
Barbour-Morrow Sub, Blk C, part of Lot 6, Lots 7-9 and riparian rights, zoned CB (Beach
Commercial). SV 92-27 - Denied #2 & #4; Approved a freestanding sign with zero foot
setback at a height of 20 feet subject to: By having a sign within the street setback pursuant
to this variance, the owner or applicant agree that no governmental agency shall be liable for
the cost of relocating or removing the sign in the event the property is acquired by eminent
domain for road widening or any other public purpose.
2. Aristotelis & Nick Koutlemanis (Olympia Motel) for variances (1) of 51.6 sq ft to permit
99.6 sq ft of attached sign area; and (2) an area ratio variance of 1.1 sq ft per foot to permit
2.6 sq ft per foot width of building to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 423 E.
Shore Dr., Barbour-Morrow Sub, Blk C, Lots 3 & 4, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). SV 92-90
- Denied #1 & #2.
3. EQuitel (Holiday Inn Central) for a variance of 72 sq ft of attached signage to permit an
attached sign of 222 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 21030 US Hwv 19,
See 18-29-16, M&B 14.01, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93- 26. Approved an area
variance of 34.5 square feet subject to the condition that they do not request a variance for
a larger pole sign than is allowed by code.
l~..
4/27/94
1
'.... ';:- ..~;, ..:. ., ,.>, ,.' I"'. "
t.A',y;;<,
r~
"
4. Nell M. Lokey, TRE/Lokev Oldsmobile, Inc for variances of (1) 14 sq ft in area to permit a
78 sq ft freestanding sign; (2) 3 ft in height to permit a 23 ft high freestanding sign; (3) 10
sq ft in area to permit a 42 sq ft auxiliary freestanding sign; (4) 5.5 ft in height to permit a
15.5 ft high auxiliary freestanding sign; and (5) 8.75 sq ft in area to permit a total of 72.75
sq ft if attached sign area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2339 Gulf-to-Bay
Blvd, See 18-29-16, M&B 31.05, 31.06, & 31.071, together with Lokey FBC, Lot 2, zoned
CG (General Commercial) and RMH (Mobile Home Park). SV 93-35 - Continued to 5/19/94.
5. Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc (Rio Bravo) for variances of (1) 8.8 ft in height to
permit a 28.8 ft high freestanding sign; and (2) 30 sq ft to permit 180 sq ft of freestanding
sign area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 26200 US Hwy 19, See 31-28-16,
The Village at Countryside, Parcel 1 less road right-of-way, zoned CC (Commercial Center).
SV 93-48 - Denied #1 & #2.
6. First Florida Bank, N .A.lBarnett Banks, Inc (Parkside Office Center) for variances of (1) 1
freestanding sign to permit 2 freestanding signs; and (2) 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign 0
ft from property line to permit nonconforming sign age to remain at 24639 US Hwy 19, N, See
5-29-16, M&B 22.04, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-75 - Continued to 6/2/94.
7. Arthur Alimonos (Country Pizza Inn) for variances of (1) 8.8 ft in height to permit a 28.8
ft high freestanding sign; and (2) 3.6 ft in distance to permit a freestanding sign 1.4 ft from
a side property line to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 25856 US Hwv 19, N, See
31-28-16, M&B 14.03, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-82 - Denied a height
variance of 8.75 feet; Approved #2 subject to the condition that the sign height be made to
conform to code within 60 days after removal of the construction trailer located immediately
to the north of this sign.
8. Faith United Church of Christ, Inc for a variance of 3.5 sq ft to permit a directional sign of
7.5 sq ft to permit nonconforming sign age to remain at 2401 Drew St, Sec 18-29-16, M&B
12.02, together with Eastwood Terrace, 3rd Add, Blk F, Lot 1, and Lots 3-6, zoned P/SP
{Public/Semi-Public}. SV 93-90 - Approved.
9. R & W Partnership (State Farm Insurance) for a variance of 132 sq ft to permit 156 sq ft
of attached signage to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1234 Court 5t, Hibiscus
Gardens, Blk 0, Lots 12-19, zoned OL (Limited Office). SV 93-114 - Continued to 6/2/94.
10. Alan C. Bomstein & Robert J. Burnside (Checker's Drive-In Restaurant, Inc) for variances
(1) to permit a freestanding sign of 24.6 ft and 16 ft in height in the UC(C} District; (2) of 4.5
ft to permit a sign of .5 ft from West property line; and (3) of 1 ft to permit a sign 4 ft from
South property line to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 205 Ft Harrison Ave, N,
Jones Sub of Nicholson's, Blk 5, Lots 1 & 2, zoned UC(C) (Urban Center (Core).
SV 93-115 - Approved a variance to allow the continuation of a freestanding sign up to 12
feet in height, 24.6 sq.ft. in area, with a 0.5 foot setback from the N. Ft. Harrison Ave. right
of way and a 4 foot setback from the Drew St. right of way subject to the following
condition: by maintaining a sign within the street setback pursuant to this variance, the owner
or applicant agree that no governmental agency shall be liable for the cost of relocating or
removing the sign in the event the property is acquired by eminent domain for road widening
or any other public purpose.
t
".
4/27/94
2
l \.' ~
" .
"
r~\
,
f:''''''''';
,~.
Lr
11. Florida Clearwater Beach Hotel Co n/k/a Hunter Hotel Company (Clearwater Beach Motel)
for variances of (1) 1 freestanding sign to permit 2 such signs; and (2) 28.5 sq ft freestanding
sign area to permit a total of 78.5 sq ft of such sign area to permit nonconforming sign age
to remain at 500 Mandalav Ave, Clearwater Beach Resub, Tract A and vacated portion of
Baymont on south, together with Miller's replat, Lots 1 & 10 and part of Lot 9, together with
parts of vacated Beach Dr, and Ambler St, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). SV 93-117 -
Approved #1 &. #2.
12. Fred & Vivian Whalen (Edgewater Drive Motel) for variances of (1) 16.5 sq ft in area to
permit a freestanding sign of 68 sq ft; (2) 5.5 ft in sign height to permit a 25.5 ftfreestanding
sign; and (3) 3.6 ft to permit a freestanding sign 1.4 ft from street right-of-way (Edgewater
Dr) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1919 EdQewater Dr, Sunset Point and
Replat, Lots 2 & 3 less road, zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercial). SV 94-' 0 - Continued to
6/2/94.
13. Edward A. & Carol J. Jones (Companion Animal Hospital) for a variance of (11 1
freestanding sign to permit 2 freestanding signs; (2) 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign to
remain 0 ft from a rear (south) property line; and (3) 120.2 sq ft of attached sign area to
permit a total of 184.2 sq ft of attached sign area to permit nonconforming sign age to remain
at 1465 Jordan Hills et, Jordan Hill, Lots 5 & 6, and part of Lot 7, zoned CG (General
Commercial) and OL (Limited Office). SV 94-13 - Continued to date uncertain.
Adjournment - 12:10 p.m.
4/27/94
'"
3
r.'"
. .
-,
C"..
. .""t.....
:,. :".A..
..
":,
l;:.t~>
"
I
.....~~.
. . . , " ,..' '. . . _.' J., " ,- : " w ' : ' '- ' . '. .' . , . ..,'. J.' ..
r
CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
April 27, 1994
I'
i
:'
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in special session at City Hall,
Wednesday, April 27, 1 994 at 9:00 a. m., with the following members present:
Rita Garvey
Fred A. Thomas
Richard Fitzgerald
Sue A. Berfield
Arthur X. Deegan, II
Mayor/Co m missioner
Vice-Mayor /Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Also present:
I<.d thy S. Ri ce
Miles lance
Scott Shuford
John Richter
Susan Stephenson
Deputy City Manager
Assistant City Attorney
Central Permitting Director
Senior Planner
Deputy City Clerk
Pledge of Allegiance
Moment of Silence
Public Hearings were held concerning the following sign variance requests.
ITEM A - (cont from 4-19-94) Marks & G:lliss, Inc/Marks Holdinq Co, Inc (Ken Marks Ford)
for variances of (1) 7 square feet from the permitted 112 square feet to allow a
freestanding sign with an area of 119 square feet, (2) 17 square feet from the permitted
56 square feet to allow an auxiliary sign with an area of 73 square feet, (3) a 169 feet
separation from the required 300 feet to allow freestanding signs 131 feet apart, and (4)
128 square feet from the permitted 120 square feet to allow the existing 248 square feet
of attached signs to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 24791 & 24825 US Hwy
19 N, Ken Marks Ford, Blk A, Lot 1 together with Ken Marks Ford 1 st Add Sub, Lot 1,
zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-65
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the meeting of June 2,
1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM B - (cont from 4-19-94) Aubrev Maclean, TRE/Clearwater Trust/Trizec Properties,
Inc (Gavfers) for variances of (1) 192 sq ft of sign area to permit a total of 342 sq ft of
attached signage on east side of building; and (2) 192 sq ft of sign area to permit 342 sq
ft of attached area on west side of building; and (3) a ratio variance of .027 sq ft of
minS P04c. 94
4/27/94
1
Neither the applicant nor their representative was present.
r't~
attached sign area per 1.0 linear foot of building width to permit a ratio of 1.527 sq ft per
linear foot of building width to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 20505 US Hwy
19, See 17-29-16, M&B 32.01 & 32.02, zoned CC (Com mercial Center). SV 93.30
Tne applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing attached
signs on the east and west building faces to remain: 1) an area variance of 384 square
feet from the permitted 300 square feet to allow a total of 684 square feet of attached
signage on the east and west building faces, and 2) a ratio variance of 0.027 square feet
of attached sign area per 1.0 linear foot of building width from the permitted ratio of 1.5
square feet per 1.0 linear foot of building width to allow a ratio of 1.527 square feet per
linear foot of building width.
Tne subject property is located on the soutneast corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard
and US1 9, and is in the CC zonin~] district.
Both of the signs addressed in the applicati on are directed to the interior of the
Clearwater Mall parking lot. The maximum allowable size of 150 square feet will both
respect the scale of the building and adequately serve to identify Gayfers to mall patrons
who are in the parking lot. The application does not indicate the cost to repair the brick
wall, hovvever, staff notes that other buildings throughout the City have undergone
cosmetic repair to facilitate replacement of nonconforming signs. It is not clear why this
store should warrant different treatment in this regard. Fi nally, the area requested is more
than double the area allowed by code, thereby causing this request to fail to qualify as a
minimum variance.
,~ .
i
\, The existence of these two 342 square foot signs are not in character with the
signs permitted for other major tenants in shopping malls. The granting of these variances
will detract from businesses that have conforming signs.
Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance
approval.
John Richter explained the application and noted that the applicant feels the signs
are in sc ale to the building and repairing the wall if the are removed wi II be impossible. At
the request of the Commission staff investigated other similar situations where channel
letters were removed from brick buildings. Sears at Countryside, Barnett Bank at Highland
and Court, and Angie's Homestyle had similar situations and the buildings appeared to be
unblemished. The letters on Gayfers are two or three inches away from the building and
attached with bolts. Staff feels that removal of the letters will not make the building
irrepar ab Ie.
Commissioner Thomas moved to deny the requested variances for the subject
property for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
r
\....,
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
2
, ' ,', '" ' . : ~;' ." '., ' ,,' .... .' ,: . . l' ' .. ...' : I. , ~. . . " . ~, .' ' , '.' .,,' f . ' , '.. , .' 'A' .,
1~;1Y~:
f .
1. Ashmore, Inc/GDM Property Management (Bav Breeze Motel) for variances (1) to permit
a freestanding sign where building setback is less than 15 ft; (2) of 5.66 ft to permit
25.66 ft in sign height; (3) of 5 ft to permit 0 ft street setback; and (4) to permit an above
roof sign with 175 sq ft sign area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 411 E.
Shore Dr., Barbour-Morrow Sub, Blk C, part of Lot 6, Lots 7-9 and riparian rights, zoned
CB (Beach Commercial). SV 92-27
The applicant is requesting the iollowing variances to permit the existing
freestanding and roof signs to remain: 1) a variance of one freestanding sign where no
freestanding signs are permitted due to a building setback of less than 15 feet; 2) a height
variance of 5.7 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign 25.7 feet high;
3) a setback variance of 5 feet from the required setback of 5 feet to allow a freestanding
sign zero feet from- the East Shore Drive right of way; and 4) a variance to permit an above
roof sign, having an area of 1 75 squ are feet, where above roof signs are prohibited.
The subject property is located on the east side of East Shore Drive, north of
Mari anne Street, and is in the Beach Commercial zoning district.
"
f
'<-
The motel on this property is in very close proximity to the East Shore Drive right of
way. In order for a freestanding sign to be permitted in this zone, it would be necessary
for the motel to be no closer than 15 feet to the right of way. The motel is much closer
than this. Consequently, the freestanding sign is not permitted. The sign is located
between two parking spaces in front of the motel. It is "squeezed" into a very small front
yard, in fact, it touches the front of the building and, also, encroaches into the East Shore
Drive right of way by 2 feet. Further, the sign is 5.7 feet higher than the code permits.
This equates to a 28 % dep arture fro m the code. Given the extent of the nonconformities,
it is staff's position that the freestanding sign should be removed as the code requires, and
be replaced with a conforming attached sign.
In addition to displ aying a sign oriented to the public street, like 3 or 4 other motels
on East Shore Drive, this motel utilizes the waterfront to display a roof top sign.
According to the application, the sign on the waterfront is necessary to alert motorists
arriving on Clearwater Beach that there are motel accommodations in the East Shore Drive
area.
It is staff's position that utilization of the waterfront skyline for advertising is not in
the best interest of Clearwater Beach or the City. The creation and preservation of an
attractive waterfront skyline outweighs the individual interest of utilizing this natural
resource for advertising with large rooi mounted signs.
A 25.5 foot high freestanding sign that encroaches into the right of way and a 175
square foot roof mounted sig n are not in character with the signs permitted for other
properties in this zone and divert attention fro m those properties. The granting of these
variances will detract from properties that have conforming signs and will negatively affect
the appearance of Clearwater Beach and the City.
t
......~f .
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
3
;1"";' ..~..,::...u'".\.~~~j,.J,' .... .;"
.t
r1lo
. .. ..\
'~ '
Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance
ap prov al.
John Richter explained the application. He noted that all buildings in this zoning
must be set back 15 feet from the right-of-way to qualify for a freestanding sign and this
building is set back less than that.
Gary Ashton stated the building has been there since the 1940's and the sign since
the 1 960' s. They depend on repeat business and on tourists fro m Europe. If the roof sign
is removed people will have difficulty changing lanes in order to turn once they cross the
Causeway. He investigated putting up a canopy with a sign but the support poles would
be in the right-of-way. He pointed out that the Causeway is a State road and the City
cannot place signs on it indicating there are hotels to the north.
Discussion ensued regarding placement of a canopy and whether it would encroach
into the right-of-way.
The Mayor stated the City is looking into putting a sign on the Causeway that will
indicate there are motels to the north.
Commissioner Thomas noted he is not in favor of the roof sign but would not have
a problem with a pole sign 20 feet high. He felt a canopy sign would be more attractive_
Mr. Ashton stated he feels he needs the roof sign but that he could make it smaller.
<f
\, Further discussion ensued regarding roof signs and the fact that they do not project
the image the City wants. Mr. Ashton stated he was not told there was a sign code that
did not allow roof signs when he purchased the property in October 1990. It was agreed
that a pole sign was reasonable.
Commissioner Berfield moved to deny a variance to permit a roof sign. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Berfield moved to deny a height variance. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve a variance for a freestanding sign with a 0
foot street setback and a height of 20 feet for the subject property for meeting Se ction
45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the condition that by maintaining a
sign within the street setback pursuant to this variance, the owner or applicant agree that
no governmental agency shall be liable for the cost of relocating or remo"ing the sign in
the event the property is acquired by eminent domain for ro ad wi dening or any other public
purpose. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
(
.......... ..
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
4
" . . , . . I . I' .,.... ~. ,. , '..,. ' '",. " , . ' . .... . . " ~ I ., '. ....: " . "., "~",,,t. ),\"'.,.'",,.(.. '""..., j :.. " ' .' ....... t", " ' . '':t:
:..JIt:'" .
.t.... ."" ','.
. . . . .' . " .... . '," ,1 . " ", "" ',.".'.. ..-',.', ' ' , ;' I , , I ;n " ~ : " I '. .'. , ',,'" '. ,
".r...
~.,
2. Aristotelis & Nick Koutlernanis (Olvmpia Motel} for variances (1) of 51.6 sq ft to permit
99.6 sq ft of attached sign area; and (2) an area ratio variance of 1. 1 sq ft per foot to
permit 2.6 sq ft per foot width 0 f building to permit nonconforn::ng sign age to re main at
423 E. Shore Dr., Barbour-Morrow Sub, Blk C, Lots 3 & 4, zoned CB (Beach Commercial).
SV 92-90
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit two existing attached
signs to remain: 1) an area variance of 51.6 square feet from the permitted 48 square
feet to allow 99.6 square feet of attached sig ns, and 2) a ratio variance of 1.1 square feet
per linear foot of building width from the permitted 1.5 square feet per linear foot of
building width to allow 2.6 square feet of sign area per linear foot of building width. One
of the two signs is proposed to be relocated and downsized. The roof sign which faces
the waterfront, will be removed from the roof, downsized from 104 square feet to 76
square feet and relocated to the south wall of the motel.
The subject property is located on the east side of East Shore Drive, south of
Papaya Street, and is in the Beach Commercial zoning district.
Clearwater's sign code is designed to facilitate property identification from the
adjoining publi c street.
f.....
....
,
,<;\,-;.. :
Like three or four other motels on East Shore Drive, the Olympia Motel utilizes both
the adjoining public street and the waterfront to display a sign. According to the
application, the sign on the waterfront is necessary to alert motorists arriving on
Clearwater Beach that there are motel accom modations in the East Shore Drive area.
Granting variances to utilize the waterfront for advertising is not in the best interest
of Clearwater Beach or the City. The public interest in creating and preserving an
attractive waterfront outweighs the individual interest of utilizing this natural resource for
advertising with oversized signs. Furthermore, neither of the variances is a minimum
vari ance.
Attached signs having a total area of 99.6 square feet is not in character with the
signage permitted for the surrounding properties and diverts attention from nearby land
uses. The granting of these variances will detract from properties that have conforming
signs and will negatively affect the appearance of Clearwater Beach and the community.
Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance
approval.
John Richter explained the application. He stated the wall, where the sign will be
placed, is 29 feet wide. Signs are permitted to project over the tops of canopies. The
two signs together exceed the square footage permitted.
Nick Koutlemanis stated he understands that the City does not want roof signs. He
proposes to remove the roof sign, reduce its size, and put it up on the wall. He pointed
f . .
",",
minSP04-c.94
4/27/94
5
..,~!t ;":il",~':';;:" i~;>''';;~;:!: ~~ '.. ~:'" ! : ~. ',~,
>....:1'..,':.,._. '.
',', ., ',11I '" 'o~ ,.': ".' ..,....: :,'." " "F:-~' ':.. . ".. . .,'... " '.'. :1'" .~., .,,1' '. .. .
r~
out that due to the design of the building, the only place they can locate the sign is on the
smallest wall which is why they need a ratio variance.
Commissioner Thomas questioned whether the sign in the front is adequate.
Mr. Koutlemanis stated it is visible from East Shore but not from the Causeway.
The other sign will be on the south wall of the building.
Discussion ensued as to whether the present roof sign could be downsized to meet
Code. Mr. Koutlemanis stated they are going to squeeze the spacing between the letters.
It was felt that if the sign is going to be redone, it should conform. Mr. Koutlemanis
inquired as to whether the sign could be on the south side if it is 24 square feet in area.
He was informed a 24 square foot sign is allowed without variances.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny the requested variances for the subject
property for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously,
3. Equitel (Holiday Inn Central) for a variance of 72 sq ft of attached signage to permit an
attached sign of 222 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 21030 US Hwy
19, See 18-29-16, M&B 14.01, zoned CH (Highway Commercial}. SV 93-26
The applicant is requesting an area variance of 34.5 square feet from the permitted
187.5 square feet to allow the existing attached "Holiday Inn" sign with an area of 222
{ square feet to remain.
"
",1'_
The subject property is located on the west side of US 19, north of Gulf to Bay
Boulevard, and is in the CH zoning district.
The application indicates the special conditions and circumstances applicable to this
property are: 1) the property is significantly recessed from US 1 9 due to the existence of
the service road; 2) visibility of the property is restricted due to the existence of the
overpass at Gulf to Bay Boulevard; and 3) US19 is a six lane, high speed roadway which
allows difficult access to the property.
First, despite the existence of a service road at this location, the US19 right of way
is no wider at this location than elsewhere in the City. Consequently, the property is not
recessed.
Second, the visibility of the sign is not restricted due to the overpass. Upon
viewing the sign travelling northbound on US 19, staff finds the existing sign is plainly and
prominently viewable. Even if the visibility was restricted, increasing the size would not
cure this condition. In fact, upon studying the location and visibility of the sign, staff finds
that visibility is most restricted to southbound traffic. This is because the sign is located
on a wall that is back from the forwardmost wall of the building. The main entrance to the
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
(
,..
6
, . : . .' 'II,...:.,.. ' ',' ~ '", "' I ,. ~',. '. ' ' : " .':' '.1', ,'.. \ , '. '. '
"
("''>eo,
building, which is to the north, extends out closer to US 19 than does the wall of the
building where this sign is located. The extension substantially blocks the view of this
sign to southbound motorists. However, increasing the size of the sign will not cure this
condition either.
Third, the fact that US19 is a six lane, high speed roadway which allows only
difficult access is not a condition unique to this property. Many US19 properties have
access difficulties. Further, increasing the sign size will not enhance access to this
property. The allowable attached sign size in the CH zone, 150 square feet, is larger than
in most other districts, specifically in recognition of the highway characteristics, including
speeds and num bers of lanes.
Staff does not find special conditions or circumstances applicable to this property.
The property is developed much like other properties in this zone.
Staff feel s the appl icant' s reque st does not meet the standards for variance
approval.
John Richter explained the application. He pointed out that US 19 is no wider here
then anywhere else and that visibility is not restricted. When traveling southbound the
sign is obstructed and increasing the size would eliminate that obstruction.
t
.'
"'t:.
"~"
Harry Cline, attorney representing the owner/applicant, stated the business has
been there for more than 30 years. This is the only variance they are requesting for all
three of their hotels. Thei r business has eroded and even people with reservations have
written to national headquarters stating they could not find it. It is necessary to crest a
hill before you can see the sign and it can only be seen from the south. It is a small sign
and is invisible due to clutter. There is no impact to the community by letting this sign
remain.
In response to a question regarding the starburst, it was indicated it is included in
the area and if it were removed the sig n would conform as to area.
Mr. Cline responded that the starburst is necessary as it is required for the
franchise.
Commissioner Deegan noted that he is impressed that the owner is not looking for
variances for the pole sign.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the request was reasonable and was in support of the
variance subject to the co ndition that the applicant keep the existing pole sign.
Commissioner Thomas noted that it is a difficult site and that he did not want to
restrict other allowable signage.
(
~"'"-. . '
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
7
: ~~~~.. ~':f'~ '. J ~,,", i~>r\:' "(,,i:';,): .~.:;",:" i,;
-1t-;t'- -
r
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a variance of 34.5 square feet in are a for
the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject
to the condition that they do not request a variance for a larger pole sign than is allovved
by Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Cline inquired as to whether they were precluded from coming back for
variances if they found it necessary. It was noted that if they should come back this
variance may be voided.
4. Nell M. Lokev, TRE/Lokev Oldsmobile, Inc for variances of (11 14 sq ft in area to permit
a 78 sq ft freestanding sign; (2) 3 ft in height to permit a 23ft hig h freestanding sign; (31
10 sq ft in area to permit a 42 sq ft auxiliary freestanding sign; (4) 5.5 ft in height to
permit a 15.5 ft high auxiliary freestanding sign; and (5) 8.75 sq ft in area to permit a total
of 72.75 sq ft if attached sign area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2339
Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, See 18-29-16, M&B 31.05,31.06, & 31.071, together with Lokey FBC,
Lot 2, zoned CG (General Commerciall and RMH (Mobile Home Park). SV 93-35
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the continuation of
two freestanding signs, each of which will undergo reductions in height and area: 1) an
area variance of 14 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a 78 square
foot freestanding sign; 2) a height variance of 3 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a
23 foot high freestanding sign; 3) an area variance of 10 square feet from the permitted
32 square feet to allow a 42 square foot auxiliary sign; and 4) a height variance of 5.5
feet from the permitted 10 feet to allow a 15.5 foot high auxiliary sign.
t
~;_.. The subject property is located on the south side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, east of
Belcher Road, and is in the CG zoning district.
According to the application, the variances are requested because: 1) this property
is larger than other Gulf to Bay Boulevard properties; 2) there are 3 distinct businesses on
the property; 31 the property fronts on Gulf to Bay, which is a high speed, six lane road;
and 41 the property is not at an intersection with traffic signals.
First, sign area and height are not determined by the size of the property, but rather
by the zoning of the property. L3rge properties are allowed a second, or auxiliary,
freestanding sign due to the existence of generous street frontage. This property qualifies
for an auxiliary sign. In effect, the code allows more roadside signage for large properties.
It would be duplicative to grant a variance on this basis since the code has accounted for
this condition.
Second, many properties throughout the City have multiple businesses. The
existence of 3 distinct businesses 0/1 this property is not unique and is not grounds for
allowing larger or higher freestanding signs.
Third, the fact this property fronts on Gulf to Bay, is not cause to grant larger or
higher signs. Signs of conforming area and height are appropriately sized to identify other
properties fronting on Gulf to Bay, and likewise will amply identify this property.
{'
,-
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
8
.l '~'r<::,.l;f,~l',j.;:~';.<:...~ I......: .;' ;f.'.:<
; , '. , '". . . ,. . '"". '.," I' ,', ~ ' ,', ' , .,., '" .,. ',' J.'" . . t'..,' , . . ~ ' . ' ',' " .~ .,J ,. , .
Finally, the location of the property away from a signalized intersection is not cause
for this property to warrant special treatment.
.,4/,:.;.''"
f
Furthermore, this condition is shared by all properties on Gulf to Bay, it is not unique to
this pro perty.
A 78 square foot freestanding sign and 42 square foot auxiliary sign will not be in
character with signs on other properties in this zone and will divert attention from those
properties. The granting of these variances will detract from properties that have
conforming signs and will negatively affect the overall appearance of the community.
Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance
approval.
Mr. Shuford recommended this item be continued due to the fact that
readvertisement is required because the area of the logo signs was not included in the area
variance.
Harry Cline, the applicant's attorney, agreed.
Commissioner Thomas inquired as to whether there was any way that they could
proceed without readvertising.
.ft'
f
~?t
Mr. Shuford responded that readvertising was required because the variance being
requested is greater than the variance which was advertised.
Discussion ensued as to whether there was any way to advertise variances that
would not require readvertising if the request was minimally larger than what was
advertised. It was stated the wording might indicate a variance to a particular type of sign
with no specific figures but this is not the general practice.
Miles Lance expressed concern regarding at what point it would be challenged. He
noted it made some sense to not be so specific and that possibly they could try some
modifications. He suggested that the ad might indicate a variance not to exceed but this
would not totally solve the problem.
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 19,
1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
5. Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc (Rio Bravo) for variances of (1) 8.8 ft in height to
permit a 28.8 ft high freestanding sign; and (2) 30 sq ft to permit 180 sq ft of
freestanding sign area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 26200 US H wy 1 9,
See 31-28-16, The Village at Countryside, Parcel 1 less road right-of-way, zoned CC
(Commercial Center). SV 93-48
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing
freestanding sign to remain: 1) a height variance of 8.8 feet from the permitted 20 feet to
\
\":;."1:'..
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
9
. .~. :t.i:~' .;i.J~~~;ir.{-I~n ;~1~"~",:f~ (.:~l '1.\,~), ",', :i'i" i,'. -,',
John Richter explained the application.
(-.'
allow a freestanding sign 28.8 feet high, and 2) tin area variance of 30 square feet from
the permitted 150 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 180 square
feet.
The subject property is located on the northwest corner of US 19 and Enterprise
Road, and is in the CC zoning district.
This property fronts on two major thoroughfares and, therefore, is permitted two
freestanding signs, one oriented to each roadway. There is only one existing sign on this
property. However, it is too large and too high. The requests are not minimum variances.
The existence of this 28.8 foot high, 180 square foot sign is not in character with
other freestanding signs permitted in this zone and diverts attention from nearby uses.
The granting of these variances will detract from properties that have conforming signs
and will negatively affect the appearance of the community.
Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance
approval.
{
b
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated this is a separately 0 wned parcel
independent of the shopping center. The one existing sign can do the job. The building is
1 8 feet in height and the size is necessary in order for the sign to be seen from Enterprise.
It is not necessary to have 2 signs if this sign remains. It is a 600/0 reduction of allowed
pole signage.
In response to a question as to the sign's location, it was noted that it was shown
incorrectly on the drawing submitted and that the sign is to remain in its present location.
Discussion ensued as to why the sign was unique and its visibility from Enterprise.
Mr. Pressman submitted photos showing visibility from Enterprise.
Commissioner Thomas clarified that they are allowed two pole signs of 150 square
feet each and they are giving up 120 square feet of signage and one sign.
Mr. Pressman noted that the shopping center wraps around this property and one
sign will do the job but the height is a critical feature. He expressed concern that the site
location and surrounding roadways are what is unique.
Commissioner Fitzgerald noted that they can put attached signage on the building
and they will need a new sign anyway. He felt there was nothing unique and did not feel
that lowering the height or bringing the area into conformance would be detrimental.
In response to a question, Mr. Pressman stated they only need to change the
cabinet or the face. They would not need to replace the sign if the variances are granted.
i
I
\.....
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
10
.t ';\~':.~/';~~'1i?i~~~~)"i'.": ;>~~,~,~, ih..~~,
.' .'"L".. ;>"'\. ,'.,
..~" ..
f
Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the requested variances for the subject
property for fai lure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
6. First Florida Bank, N.A./Barnett Banks, Inc (Parkside Office Center) for variances of (1)
1 freestanding sign to permit 2 freestanding signs; and (2) 5 ft to permit a freestanding
sign 0 ft from property line to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 24639 US Hwy
19, N, See 5-29-16, M&B 22.04, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-75
The app lie ant is requesting the following variances to permit the placement of a
new sign for the Parkside Office Center on the neighboring Barnett Bank property: 1) a
variance of one freestanding sign from the permitted one freestanding sign to allo w two
freestanding signs, and 2) a setback variance of 5 feet from the required 5 feet to allow a
freestanding sign with a zero foot setback. (The existing "Parkside" sign located on a
planter wall and freestanding "Beachnuts" sign are proposed to be removed.)
The subject property is located on the east side of US 19, north of Sunset Point
Road, and is in the CH zoning district.
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant requested that this item be continued.
The property has gone into default. More signage is needed which will require additional
advertising.
Scott Shuford stated a new application would be needed.
i
\. Deputy City ;v)anager Kathy Rice stated agenda items for May 19 are due today,
therefore, the request should be continued to June 2.
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the meeting of June 2,
1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 10:51 to 1 1 :00 a.m.
7. Arthur Alimonos (Country Pizza Inn) for variances of (1) 8.8 ft in height to permit a
28.8 ft high freestanding sign; and (2) 3.6 ft in distance to permit a freestanding sign 1.4
ft from a side property line to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 25856 US Hwy
19, N, See 31-28-16, M&B 14.03, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-82
The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow the existing
freestanding sign to remain: 1) a height variance of 8.75 feet from the permitted 20 feet
to allow a freestanding sign 28.75 feet high, and 2) a setback variance of 3.6 feet from
the required 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 1 .4 feet from the north side property line.
The subject property is located on the west side of US1 9, south of Enterprise Road,
and is in the CH zoning district.
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
,
...~. "
1 1
. '. I ". .
. ,,' i..... "y ',\~ ,. ". ,', ~ ..",:. '''., '., ..' , 1
,...:. :..:',. ,';.., ~', 'Ill n ., ;,': . .t", ," .......~. ,I" .,.~ ", " ,:.:' .!+~'., ". .,', :~:,., ,'., '.: '.. ,.', .', '. '.. 'f .f.. , .' 0" ',' '." .
J'(.-....
;'
There are several trees aligning the US 19 right of way that affect visibility of this
sign. In general, the sign has very good visibility to northbound motorists, and moderate
visibility to southbound motorists. This condition is not unique to this property. Many
properties in the City have signs with restricted visibility due to trees. It is staff's position
that signs should not be raised to heights substantially greater than the code limit for the
purpose of promoting visibility over treetops. This height variance is not a minimum
variance. Of greater concern to staff is the existence of a construction trailer, immediately
to the north of the sign. If the sign is lowered to a conforming height, the trailer will
severely obstruct the view of the sign from the north. The trailer is used as a field office
for US19 reconstruction work in the area, which is nearing completion. Upon contacting
the FOOT, staff learned the trailer is scheduled to be removed no later than September 1,
1994. Staff recommends the sign height be made to comply timely upon removal of the
trailer.
The sign is located on the edge of the parking lot, 1.4 feet from the north side
property line. If the sign is relocated to conform with the 5 foot setback requirement, it
would be located in the parking area. This would disrupt the parking area, which would
impose an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant. Given the 10 cation of the parking, the
setback variance satisfies the standards for variance approval.
The height of this 28.75 foot high sign is not in character with other signs
permitted in this zone and diverts attention from nearby uses. The granting of this height
variance will detract from properties that have conforming signs and will negatively affect
the appearance of the co m munity.
t
'":".~;
Staff feels the applicant's height variance request does not meet the standards for
variance approval.
John Richter explained the application. In response to a question, he noted the
standard setback condition is not necessary as this is a setback from a side property line.
Arthur Alimonos stated this location is the only place to put a sign and it was
suggested it be higher because of the trees. If the height is reduced the sign will not be
visible. Florida Department of Transportation suggested they make the sign higher three
years ago when they had to move it.
Discussion ensued as to what is accomplished by making him lower the sign and on
the other hand what makes it unique. It was noted that the trees blocking visibility of his
sign are not his doing and they are not on his property.
Commissioner Fitzgerald pointed out that Forbidden City was denied a height
variance and there were trees involved in that case.
Commissioner Berfield moved to deny a height variance of 8.75 feet for the subject
property for failure to Illeet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, to direct
code enforcement action to be held in abeyance unti I 60 days after removal of the
construction trailer located imrnediately to the north of this sign; and to approve setback
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
'\
.":....
12
, ., . '::f;"~J,;';'j";.'J~~\'~',~~,;,,~,,'_'"
,.,,:.,. ',"
~::n~\l
I,., .
variance of 3.6 feet as this meets the standards subject to the condition that the sign
height be made to conform to code within 60 days after removal of the construction trailer
located immediately to the north of this sign. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the
vote being taken Mayor Garvey and Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield, and Thomas voted
II Aye;" Commissioner Deegan voted "Nay." Motion carried.
8. Faith United Church of Christ, Inc for a variance of 3.5 sq ft to permit a directional sign
of 7.5 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2401 Drew St, See 18-29-16,
M&B 12.02, together with Eastwood Terrace, 3rd Add, Blk F, Lot 1, and Lots 3-6, zoned
P/SP (Public/Semi-Public). SV 93-90
The applicant is requesting an area variance of 3.5 square feet from the permitted 4
square feet to allow a directional sign 7.5 square feet in area. This variance is requested
to permit the" Faith Church Entrance" sign to remain.
The subject property is located on the south side of Drew Street, west of Old
Coachman Road, and is in the P/SP zoning district.
The "Faith Church Entrance" sign is the lone nonconforming sign on this property.
The area variance requested is an 87 % departure from code. Though the variance is large,
expressed as a percentage, it is small in quantity. It is 3.5 square feet too large. Given
the sign is existing, staff regards the variance as minimal.
('
'\;,:'
The granting of this variance will not detract from properties with conforming signs
and will not adversely affect the appearance of the community.
Staff feels the applicant's request meets the standards for variance approval.
Drucilla Bell, attorney representing the applicant, thanked staff for their
consid er ation.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the requested area variance for the
subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
9. R & W Partnership (State Farm Insurance) for a variance of 132 sq ft to permit 156 sq
ft of attached signage to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1234 Court St,
Hibiscus Gardens, Blk 0, Lots 12-19, zoned OL (Limited Office). SV 93-114
The applicant has requested a continuance of this matter.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to the meeting of June 2, 1994.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
l_.
13
. . )'.,",';~'- ~ :'..i ,.~l "-"l~' ;(;.:~ ",., i\~;.},:';~'~~"~~~:;"'~ ..~'t;,t;;;.~,.:l,:'''4;.''~ y ,>' ~ .~,
" .' ., I J u, . ',: '. ' I, ,;: .;, '. ~ ~. .', " . . . ..... .~, . '.' ~. . . .1\.' :',' '" . ",.... "' ~, .. : .
flJ'",.,
.'
10. Alan C. Bomstein & Robert J. Burnside (Checker's Drive-In Restaurant, Inc) for
variances (1) to permit a freestanding sign of 24.6 ft and 16 ft in height in the UC(C)
District; (2) of 4.5 ft to permit a sign of .5 ft from West property line; and (3) of 1 ft to
permit a sign 4 ft from South property line to permit nonconforming signage to remain at
205 Ft Harrison Ave, N, Jones Sub of Nicholson's, Blk 5, L.ots 1 & 2, zoned UC(C) (Urban
Center (Core). SV 93-'1 5
The applicant is requesting a variance to permit the existing freestanding sign to
remain: continuation of a freestanding sign 1 6 feet in height, 24.6 square feet in area,
with a 0.5 foot setback from the N. Ft. Harrison Avenue right of way and a 4 foot setback
from the Drew Street right of way.
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of N. Ft. Harrison Avenue
and Drew Street and is in the UC(C) zoning district.
The Checkers Drive-In restaurant is set back from the N. Ft. Harrison A venue and
Drew Street right of way. Since only attached signs are allowed in the downtown core,
this business would have no roadside identification if the code were strictly enforced. This
would cause a hardship for the applicant.
f
~k,
The sign is located in a I andscape island, at the corner of N. Ft. Harrison Avenue
and Drew Street. The sign area is 24.6 square feet, which is generally consistent with the
area allowed for other downtown properties sized less than one acre. Lowering of the sign
would cause it to gain visibility to northbound traffic because the canopy on the building to
the south currently obstructs it. However, the existing 16 foot height is in scale with the
development of this property and other nearby properties. Also, moving the sign
approximately 2 feet in a northeasterly direction would increase the setback without
interfering with the parking lot. However, this is not recommended because it would
further decrease the visibility of the sign to northbound traffic.
The existence of this sign is in character with the signs permitted for downtown
properties which have buildings set back from the right of way. The granting of this
variance will not detract from businesses with conforming signs and will not adversely
affect the appearance of downtown or the City.
Staff feels the applicant's request meets the standards for variance approval.
Scott Shuford explained the application noting that freestanding signs are not
permitted in this zoning district but that the Commission has given direction regarding a
Code change that will allow freestanding signs. This sign is very close in size to what the
Commission has agreed is acceptable.
Chris Conkle agrees with staff's recornmendation.
~.,
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
14
-::;i4i.}, f.".'~iJ/ ;~:~,:.j >t'~'l;" L",'.'ri.."y. .,...::...".." _I".';'.. ~.
fil'O:^^<
if
Commissioner Thomas inquired as to how the sign was erected since this is a new
business and the sign was put up after the Code changed.
Miles Lance stated that Mr. Cline represented the applicant for a variance before
the Development Code Adjustment Board. It was questioned as to whether the granting
of that variance was conditioned on the sign coming into conformance in October 1992.
It was suggested this item be continued until later in the meeting to allow staff to
investigate the circumstances regarding this sign.
Mr. Shuford stated there was an existing sign on the property and they only
changed the face. The permit was issued and stamped that it needed to conform or seek
a variance when the amortization period expired in 1992. He noted that the Commission
has given direction that they will allow freestanding signs in this district. In response to a
question regarding size and height, Mr. Shuford stated a parcel this size will be permitted
24 square feet in area but he was unsure of the height.
Mr. Conkle expressed concern that if the sign is lowered it may create a visibility
problem for turns at this intersection.
Mr. Shuford stated that if there was 9 feet of clear distance under the sign the top
of the sign would be at 12 feet.
/"
~ .
''':.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a variance to allow continuation of a
freestanding sign up to 16 feet in height, 24.6 square feet in area, with a 0.5 foot setback
from the N. Ft. Harrison Avenue right ot way ang a 4 foot setback from the Drew Street
right of way, for the subject property, for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval,
items 1-8, subject to the following condition: By maintaining a sign within the street
setback pursuant to this variance, the owner or applicant agree that no governmental
agency shall be liable for the cost of relocating or removing the sign in the event the
property is acquired by eminent domain for road widening or any other public purpose.
the motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Fitzgerald and
thomas voted "Aye," Mayor Garvey and Commissioners Berfield and Deegan voted "Nay."
Motion failed.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a variance to allow continuation of a
freestanding sign up to 12 feet in height, 24.6 square feet in area, with a 0.5 foot setback
from the N. Ft. Harrison Avenue right of way and a 4 foot setback from the Drew Street
right of way, for the subject property, for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval,
items 1 -8, subject to the folio wing condition: By maintaining a sign within the street
setback pursuant to this variance, the owner or applicant agree that no governmental
agency shall be liable for the cost of relocating or removing the sign in the event the
property is acquired by erninent domain for road widening or any other public purpose.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanirnously.
(-
\.,... .
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
15
';:"~~'~">;::fl~..~.;;.\..~_.~. :h:':;;" I.:,.
4"':',1',-
I
11. Florida Clearwater Beach Hotel Co n/k/a Hunter Hotel Company (Clearwater Beach
Motel) for variances of (1) 1 freestanding sign to permit 2 such signs; and (2) 28.5 sq ft
freestanding sign area to permit a total of 78.5 sq ft of such sign area to permit
nonconforming signage to remain at 500 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Resub, Tract A
and vacated portion of Baymont on south, together with Miller's replat, Lots 1 & 10 and
part of Lot 9, together with parts of vacated Beach Dr, and Ambler St, zoned CR 28
(Resort Commercial). SV 93-117
..,
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the continuation of the
two existing freestanding signs: 1) a variance of one freestanding sign from the permitted
one freestanding sign to allow two freestanding signs, and 2) an area variance of 28.5
square feet from the permitted 50 square feet to allow freestanding signs with a total area
of 78.5 square feet.
The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Mandalay Avenue and
Baymont Street, and is in the CR-28 zoning district.
There are presently two freestanding signs on this property. Only one is allowed. If
the variance to allow the two signs to remain is approved, the applicant proposes to
relocate the 30 square foot, 11 foot high sign from Baymont Street to the corner at
Mandalay Avenue.
There is presently no clear identification of this .property for motorists travelling
north on Mandalay Avenue. There is a sign placed nea't\-the main entrance to the hotel,
~" , but it is not particularly noticeable because it is placed on a steep incline, in a heavily
;t;:, , landscaped area, and its orientation is parallel to the right of way rather than the more
conventional perpendicular.
Given the unusual layout of this property, staff views this request as minimal to
satisfactorily identify this use.
The existence of two freestanding signs, with a cumulative area of 78.5 square
feet, is in character with the development of this property. The granting of these
variances will not detract from businesses with conforming signs and will not adversely
affect the appearance of Clearwater Beach or the City.
Staff feels the applicant's requests meet the standards for variance approval.
Mr. Richter explained the application.
Mr. Wallace Lee, representing the applicant, stated they want to move one sign to
better identify the hotel.
Commissioner Thomas moved to .ill2illove a variance of one freestanding sign to
allovJ two such signs and an area variance of 28.5 square feet for the subject property for
meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
fJ.::...
~4''-''
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
16
, . '.."..+....' ','1,
(""
12. Fred & Vivian Whalen (Edqewater Drive Motel) for variances of (1) 16.5 sq ft in area
to permit a freestanding sign of 68 sq ft; (2) 5.5 ft in sign height to permit a 25.5 ft
freestanding sign; and (3) 3.6 ft to permit a freestanding sign 1.4 ft from street right-of-
way (Edgewater Dr) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1919 Edgewater Dr,
Sunset Point and Replat, Lots 2 & 3 less road, zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercial). SV 94.
10
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing
freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 16.5 square feet from the permitted
50 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 66.5 square feet; 2) a height
variance of 5.5 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign 25.5 feet high;
and 3) a setback variance of 3.6 feet from the permitted 5 feet to allow a freestanding
sign 1.4 feet from the Edgewater Drive right of way.
The subject property is located on the east side of Edgewater Drive, north of
Sunset Point Road, and is in the CR-24 zoning district.
This is a particularly scenic portion of Edgewater Drive. The subject property is
developed with a motel in close proximity to the Edgewater Drive right of way. The
primary identification sign for the motel is uniquely placed on a pole with the sign panel
apparently resting on top of a limestone pillar that extends above the motel office.
Staff does not consider the variances to be minimal. Further, staff recommends the
applicant be directed to reapply for a variance to the attached sign area, thereby allowing
( . the 50 square foot panels to be relocated on the limestone pillar.
't,",
The existence of this 25.5 foot high, 66.5 square foot freestanding sign is not in
character with signage permitted for nearby uses and diverts attention from those uses.
The granting of these variances will detract from the businesses with conforming signs
and will adversely affect the appearance of the community.
Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance
approval.
John Richter explained the application. The applicant has looked at alternatives.
The sign would have good visibility if it were located on the limestone pillar which would
be at a height of 20 feet with no setback variance required.
Fred Whalen inquired as to whether the bulletin board for the restaurant could
remall1.
Mr. Richter stated the panel encroaches into the setback and staff has tried to
encourage the applicant to include a panel for the restaurant. Staff will not consider it a
roof sign as long as it is below that building feature. There will be a sign panel on either
side.
\
.........
minS P04c. 94
4/27/94
17
, ....,...
.' "'f....".:, t.~i' " _ ,4/ ... :
; ":~' ", .
The subject property is located on the south end of Jordan Hills Court, north of
Belleair Road and west of Highland Avenue, and is in the CG zoning district.
("/
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to the meeting of June 2, 1 994-.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
13. Edward A. & Carol J. Jones (Companion Animal Hospital) for a variance of (1) 1
freestanding sign to permit 2 freestanding signs; (2) 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign to
remain 0 ft from a rear (south) property line; and (3) 1 20.2 sq ft of attached sign area to
permit a total of 184.2 sq ft of attached sign area to pennit nonconforming signage to
remain at 1465 Jordan Hills Ct, Jordan Hill, Lots 5 & 6, and part of Lot 7, zoned CG
(General Commercial) and OL (Limited Office). SV 94--13
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the continuation of the
existing freestanding and attached signs: 1) a variance of one freestanding sign from the
permitted one to allow two such signs; 2) a setback variance of 5 feet from the required 5
feet to allow a freestanding sig n zero feet from the south property line; and 3) an area
variance of 120.2 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow 1 84.2 square
feet of attached signs.
Jordan Hills is a small nonresidential subdivision with access from Highland Avenue.
Two lots at the entrance to this subdivision have frontage on Highland. The others have
frontage only on Jordan Hill Court, a 300 foot long cul-de-sac. The Companion Animal
Hospital is situated at the end of the cul-de-sac. It is the only property in the subdivision
zoned General Commercial. The other properties are zoned Limited Office. Given the
commercial zoning, the animal hospital is entitled to rnore sign area than other Jordan Hills
properties. However, the hosp ital does not have an advantageous position to display its
signs due to the lack of frontage on a major thoroughfare.
It is understandable that the applicant desires to advertise this business to
motorists on nearby Highland Avenue and Belleair Road. However, the lack of a good
location to accomplish this is not, in staff's view, a good reason to place larger signs than
the code allows, or to place ad ditional signs whi eh require viewing across adjoining
properties. The 184.2 square feet of attached signs on this property is a wholesale
departure from the signs permitted in this zone. A variance to this extent can not be
considered minimal. The place ment of a second freestanding sign, which requires viewing
across adjoining properties in order to be seen from the public right of way, is neither
desirable for adjoining property owners nor consistent with the City's aesthetic interests.
This should not qualify as a minimum variance. Accordingly, the setback variance for the
second sign should not be regarded minimal either.
The existence of two freestanding signs and 184.2 square feet of attached signs on
this property is not in character with the signage perrnitted for other uses in this zone.
The granting of these variances will detract from properties with conforming signs and will
adversely affect the overall appearance of the community.
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
.~~~
18
'i:"\ .'.' '" "".1 '.,,'~! ,1 '.'.> 1
,."',
r' .
Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance
approval.
John Richter explained the application and noted that the existing signage is almost
triple what is allowed.
Ed Jones stated his property is in a cui de sac that has no street sign. He provides
emergency care and many of his clients are elderly and have difficulty finding his office.
The sign on the fence gives visibility to Belleair Road because the lots to the south are
vacant. When they are developed there will be no visibility from Belleair. The signs on the
east side are behind the Bread & Roses building creating a unique situation. In response to
a question regarding alternatives, Dr. Jones stated there is an entry sign but a group of
attorneys proceeded to use that sign as they saw fit.
Staff stated they would be happy to meet with Dr. Jones to discuss alternatives. It
was noted there was one letter in support and one letter in opposition to the request.
Commissioner Deegan moved to continue this item to a date ullcertain. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 12: 10 p.m.
_.,';.-
". ".~''''i
.:,~k"
..." '.~.
ATTEST: ~~ Z, JL,cO...
City Clerk
minSP04c.94
4/27/94
() .
'~.-
19
,_ . " of., ,', '. .: .... , ,'.' ." ,,' ,', , . 0 .'.' .' ., : ,1, '.' , .' ':,,' .
April 27, 1 994
'"
~.-~'
f~ '\',
'i
CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Capital Improvement Project Session
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall with the following
members present:
Rita Garvey
Fred A. Thomas
Richard Fitzgerald
Sue Berfield
Arthur Deegan
Mayor/Commissioner
Vice-M ayor/Comrn issioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Also present were:
Elizabeth M. Deptula
Kathy S. Rice
William C. Baker
Tina Wilson
Miles Lance
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Budget Manager
Assistant City Attorney
City Clerk
.1
(
l~
The meeting was called to order at 12:55 p.m.
Elizabeth Deptula, City Manager, indicated the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) program
is to be a five-year broad look at projects the City anticipates implementing. She requested
the Commission keep that perspective in reviewing the program. She reviewed several
projects for which there is no specific cost or funding source at this time: 1) the new police
headquarters is estimated at $10.8 million (it includes 200 spaces in a shared garage); 2) the
telephone system is old and antiquated and will need to be addressed (after September, GTE
has agreed to continue to try to maintain the current system); 3) the manufactured gas plant
mediation is a project for which there is no idea of the extent of the problem or cost; 4) the
City Hall bond issue is currently in at $10 million; 6) the Bayfront Mart (Maas Brothers) current
budget includes slightly over $2 million for the improvements for the Stein Mart area, but not
the next series of improvements (those costs are to be available in early July).
She stated the City has available $14.5 million to cover these projects. She stated the
General Fund unreserved, undesignated balance is $ 5,899,000 above the ten percent reserve.
She stated this is the least restricted money. The Special Development fund has $2,590,000,
which can only be used for Capital Improvement projects. In the Penny for Pinellas
(Infrastructure Tax) Fund there is $5,084,000, also dedicated to capital projects. Commis-
sioner Fitzgerald questioned if this was what would be available through the duration of the
infrastructure tax. Ms. Deptula indicated it would be. She stated the local option gas tax
fund includes $310,000; the open space impact fees $297,500. Revenue generated during
the City's ownership of the Sun Bank, or Atrium building was a net income of $532,344.63.
(
............
MINSP04D.94
04/27/94
~,~~L~:::~;.
, '.1, '.., /. ~ r -,,'
Ms. Deptula indicated there is also ongoing discussion, by individuals interested in
acquiring the property on which Countryside substation is located. This could result in
relocation of that substation.
1:'....1".
{;,
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the funds outlined were all available for one year. Ms.
Deptula indicated all but the Penny for Pinellas fund, or Infrastructure tax, which figure
includes all monies available throughout the duration of the tax.
Commissioner Deegan questioned why the summary of funds available, just presented,
did not agree with the information on page 6 of the Capital Improvement Program booklet.
Ms. Wilson indicated what was presented was above and beyond what is included in the
book. It was also indicated the book does not include projects that have already been funded.
It was requested, when the final version is published in September, that those projects be
included.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Commissioner Fitzgerald requested, regarding the driving training facility, that a
consolidated program with the County be considered in order to have a shared facility. Ms.
Deptula indicated there were two issues to be examined; the reuse of the old General Electric
plant on Bryan Dairy Road and use of some of the City-owned property in Hillsborough
County. She stated the booklet is a planning document, the driver training facility is in the
boo k in order to have this on the table for discussion.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concern that a general comment, "You approved it in the
CiP" would be used in the future to say the program had already been approved. It was
stated the Commisison is only approving what is proposed to be spent in the first year.
I
"
'\"
Commissioner Thomas agreed the driver training facility should be more than just the City
of Clearwater. He also requested, rather than just pursuing a ground training course, that
high-tech trainers be investigated.
Mayor Garvey reported there were no Capital Improvement Program projects for 1994/95
in the Pol ice Department.
Commissioner Thomas requested consideration be given to another district being pursued.
Chief Kline indicated that a new, computer-aided dispatch system will provide a mechanism
for deployment, which will address Commissioner Thomas' concern.
Commissioner Deegan questioned when they would receive a reply regarding the ability
to renovate the existing police headquarters. William C. Baker, Assistant City Manager,
indicated the report is currently being prepared. He has heard from the consultants and they
are convinced it would not be cost-effective to use the existing building. Their recommenda-
tion will be to construct a new building south of the existing one, raze the existing structure
and place a parking garage on that property.
i
t
''"-.
MINSP04D.94
2
04/27/94
, ~i~,~",,~'~":':';A(( 1,~i;~i..l;.l~';:r':J ;~:~':'.'tll.\~'_i~'.;;t.t ~~'-"'::;S;,~;J~~~ '
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned where the $2.3 million, due to the reduction in the
scope of the Highland Avenue widening was placed. Ms. Deptula indicated it is part of the
funds shown as rem aining in the Penny for Pinellas fund.
.4-'"
~'~ ~" ."
Commissioner Berfield requested clarification in that $350,000 is shown on a separate
sheet as having already been allocated to the computer-aided dispatch system and now, an
additional $300,000 is being requested in the year 1999/2000. Commissioner Deegan
pointed out $1.4 million had been approved for that project. Ms. Deptula indicated the
$300,000 in FY 2000 was placed there in order to recognize the life span of the computers.
Ms. Wilson indicated this actually should be a new project number.
Commissioner Deegan questioned, if the consultant report is finished, whether or not the
funds need to be in FY 94/95 for the new police headquarters. Ms. Deptula indicated there
would be a need for funding and information will be available by Septernber.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns there was nothing in the budget regarding the
take-home car project. Ms. Deptula indicated that was due to the fact that no decision was
to be made by the Commission until January of 1995. Commissioner Thomas pointed out,
if the training facility was in the budget in order to get that topic on the table, the same
should be done for the take-home cars. He stated, if the Commission's decision is not to
pursue that project, it can always be deleted. Ms. Deptula indicated it could be included in
the book with a description that it is under study.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
t~ . ,
Ms. Deptula indicated the Fire Department's Capital Improvement Program budget is fairly
straightforward. She stated the refurbishment project is ongoing and shows up every year.
The Emergency Management System (EMS) capital equipment is funded from monies received
from the Cou nty. She stated the computer upgrade has been postponed one year, waiting
for technology.
,:1'
Commissioner 1homas questioned what the Fire Department does with old fire engines.
Bob Lockwood, Fire Administrative Support Manager, stated ones with usable tanks are used
by the Water Pollution Control division. Others are usually sold as surplus.
Commissioner Deegan questioned the amount of money saved because of the fire fighters'
design of the new fire engines. Mr. Lockwood reviewed the process, which results in the City
saving approximately $35,000 on each vehicle.
TRANSPORT ATION
Commissioner Deegan questioned why the Drew Street Project had moved forward. Peter
Yauch, Traffic Engineer/Acting Public Works Director, indicated this was because the Project
Development and Environmental (PD&E) study had been completed. Mr. Baker indicated that,
so far, the City is simply doing work tor DOT regarding that project and there have been no
contractual arrangements.
\
,,~
MINSP04D.94
3
04/27/94
..' ;_ II';. ::~ " .) -.",. ~ l' . ".,. , .:
":',~ .,.... " ,".' "~' ,.,..../:,...:' ," ..' . I" '( :. '.'",.,' ". '. .'. '. ~,I. 'I." ',~j ,'. I ,
.i'
t'
Commissioner Deegan questioned if there was any way to recoup those funds. Mr. Baker
indicated there was not; however, the City had indicated it would spend no more tl"lan $4
million to expedite the project. Mr. Baker indicated they are not pursuing right-Df-way
acquisition, but are simply doing plans and specifications.
Commissioner Deegan questioned why Missouri Avenue was deleted as a project. Mr.
Yauch indicated it was because it will most likely tie in with the Drew Street project or an
Alternate 19 decision and those improvements will be picked up in one of those projects. He
indicated Missouri Avenue is a high right-of-way item.
Commissioner Deegan questioned why Druid Road improvements were being moved up.
Mr. Yauch indicated this was only a small portion of the Druid Road improvements having to
do with the Allen's Creek culvert, which was tied into an Environmental project the
Commission had approved. The funding will cover the cost of rebuilding the bridge at that
location.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if there is anything the City could do regarding the
County deciding widening of Belcher Road is too expensive. Mr. Yauch indicated the major
problem was the properties at Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Drew Street. Mayor Garvey pointed
out the Metropolitan Planning Organization had been encouraged not to support the widening
until the Keene Road corridor had been improved. Mr. Baker indicated there had always been
support of widening Belcher Road from Belleair Road to Druid Road.
Commissioner Deegan expressed particular concern regarding the area from Druid Road
to Drew Street. Commissioner Berfield pointed out County Commissioner Parks had
suggested the County work with Clearwater and the Post Office to see if anything could be
done for that particular stretch of Belcher Road. Mr. Yauch indicated the County's widening
of Northeast Coachman Road will help and the State had looked at the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
and Belcher Road intersection, but the right-of-way had been too expensive. Commissioner
Deegan stated he would like this project to be investigated.
Commissioner Thomas indicated Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Belcher Road is one of the
worst intersections in the City and should be looked into. Mr. Yauch indicated the Co unty' s
original plans had been to widen Belcher Road all the way to Sunset Point Road. He stated,
perhaps if the project were scaled back, they may be interested.
Commissioner Thomas requested the Commission set a policy, whenever a road is
changed, the power lines be buried. Ms. Deptula requested staff have time to study this
proposal.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned the placement of the Landmark Drive extension in
FY 1997/98. Mr. Yauch indicated it was tied to the year the environmental permits were to
expire. He stated this project is being looked at as the school board may decide to construct
a school in this area, in which case the extension would be needed. He stated there a re also
concerns regarding the need for a back road for residents of the Shady Oaks Subdi'Vision,
which currently can only exit or access their subdivision from McMullen Booth Road to Marlo
Boulevard. Mr. Yauch indicated the traffic projections for McMullen Booth Road are
astronomical; however, it is not known how accurate they are.
6.:,;
~1.
-\;.~
MINSP04D.94
4
04/27/94
',J'.l.k,.'ji".'.::
I
i
,;;;!,~,
r' '
Ms. Deptula stated major projects for resurfacing and maintenance are ongoing, as well
as sidewalks and bike trails. Commissioner Deegan questioned the big jump in the allocations
for sidewalks, in that it goes from $100,000 in the FY 1 997/98 to $400,000 in 1998/99.
Paul Nystrom, Public Works Finance Manager, stated currently funds are being spent to
address ADA requirements; however, Public Works will be returning to a regular sidewalk
repair and maintenance program after the ADA regulations are add ressed. He stated, at that
point, there will be some catching up to do in sidewalk maintenance and replacement.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the City had identified where sidewalks are really
needed. Mr. Baker indicated they had.
Commissioner Berfield questioned, on the pages showing where money has already been
allocated, if there was still money available for sidewalks. It was indicated there was.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns regarding some of the work being done to
address the ADA requirements. He felt there was a public relations problem with the
contractors. As they do work on Drew Street, they seem to be replacing perfectly good
sidewalk. When the residents ask why, the workers say they don't know, they are simply
being told to do it by the City. It was indicated, in order to meet the ADA requirements, a
certain slope is required. What appears to be, and is, perfectly good sidewalk, is being
replaced in order to meet that slope. Commissioner Deegan recommended we impress upon
the contractors that they are creating a public relations problem for the City.
(
Ms. Deptula pointed out, on pages 26 and 27, the first funding for the Memorial
Causeway PD&E study has been included. Comm issioner Deegan questioned if this was for
planning purposes as this has not been given final approval. Ms. Deptula indicated this was
correct.
Commissioner Thomas questioned what it would take to put a toll on a new Memorial
Causeway Bridge. Mr. Yauch indicated this is a State road and the State would have to
approve that. Commissioner Thomas felt a 50C toll would result in the bridge being paid for
in less than five years and it was unnecessary to spend money on a PD&E study in order to
obtain funding from the State and Federal governments. He stated he would like for the
Commission to consider the concept of placing a toll on the bridge, which would pay for the
bridge and cuts in the Memorial Causeway for water flow. Mayor Garvey pointed out people
were opposed to the toll on the Sand Key bridge. It was agreed that staff would come back
with information regarding the process that would have to be purs ued in order to place a toll
on the bridge.
Commissioner Deegan questioned the status of the feasibility study. Mr. Baker indicated
at the next Commission meeting they would be asked to rank the consulting firms and the
feasibility study would take five or six months.
.j (
t.
"'Il..,
Commissioner Thomas stated there were two issues regarding the toll and that some had
thought the City was "silly" for taking the tolls off the Sand Key bridge. He stated the State
had no plans for a high-span Memorial Causeway bridge and it was the City pursuing it. He
stated, if it were left up to the State, it would take 20 years for a new bridge. Mr. Baker
indicated that was not what he was hearing. It w as agreed all information would be
presented when the feasibility study is completed.
MINSP04D.94
5
04/27/94
I
I
i
, ',' ,','. . ,t' ~j"~.' ,": ,'. ',: ~:.'" '.'~"..' : ~., ' ' , , I \ ." ' ,..., :l, ,: , 'f.,' - ',,' . ' . ,:'.. '. d 10...:" .. , ' '., '
(OF,
.,""".
The meeting recessed from 2:25 to 2:37 p.m.
LEISURE - Parks and Recreation
Mayor Garvey questioned why soccer fields were being sprinkled. Mr. Wilson indicated
there had been recent grading and resodding of the fields,
Commissioner Thomas questioned what was planned to be purchased by the funds
allocated in park land acquisition. Mr. Wilson indicated there was the possibility of properties
around Clearwater High School and the YWCA; however, these fu nds are in an out year and
there are no definite plans at this time.
Commissioner Berfield questioned, if something became avai lable, whether or not the
funds could be moved forward. It was indicated they could.
Miles Lance left the meeting at 2:40 p.m.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the allocation for a softball complex in an out year. Mr.
Wilson indicated this was not a real number, but an anticipated future expense. He stated
currently there is no need for an additional softball complex. He stated this pro,ject could
change to a different use.
~"
'~:':.,
Commissioner Deegan questioned a suggestion for a wetlands nature trail. Mr. Wilson
indicated a bike trail route was through the property, and while there were no plans for the
nature trail, there could be.
Commissioner Deegan questioned for what purposes the impact fees for Parks and
Recreation could be used. Mr. Wilson indicated the open space fees have to be used within
a certain radius of the property generating those fees for the purchase of open space. The
recreation land fee is to be used for purchase of land for development of tennis courts,
basketball courts, et cetera. The recreation facility fee is to be used to build the facilities on
the lands purchased. Commissioner Deeg an questioned whether or not these funds could be
used for construction of a softball complex instead of Penny for Pinellas monies. Mr. Wilson
indicated they could, if recreation facility fees are available. Commissioner Deegan requested
Penny for Pinellas monies not be set aside if other sources were available. Mr. Wilson agreed.
Art Kader, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director, pointed out funds coming in from the
fees have slowed. He stated, over the 11 years they have been in effect, not more than $1
million has been generated. He stated, when the projects come forward, those funds are used
prior to other funding sources.
I
l
~
Commissioner Deegan questioned why Soule Road Park had been brought forward in the
schedule. Mr. Wilson indicated a petition had been received from residents in the area. This
would be a small 5-acre park. COITlmissioner Deegan questioned if this was in the
comprehensive plan. Mr. Wilson indicated it was.
(
~t!':-;;.
Commissioner Berfield questioned development of Northeast Coachman Park and why it
was being converted to an active park when it has been passive. Mr. Wilson indicated what
is being proposed is playground equipm ent and a picnicking area.
MINSP04D.94
6
04/27/94
.:,...i;.";'/;" ~,:;,.;\;.; .~~._..!:.;:: ';:,'l.':'~'} :.~":.: .'"..'..,\,:: .'. :., .
~ ." .,,"; t.. .
::,..... " ""',_":::' \ ';'.:. ,:.. ,'~ ,.,...', . ~ ,": .,,,: .: ':, . "~'. .....~.' .1" " ,:,' .,......' ',' . .',. '., .',", . . "'~" . '
J!~~
.'
t
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the Lake Chautauqua development was also along
Soule Road. Mr. Wilson indicated it was and the Departm ent of Natural Resources is
encouraging the City to develop the park there. However, the Landmark Drive extension is
needed prior to being able to develop this property.
Commissioner Thomas questioned, from a long-range point of view, how much of the
budget should be in Parks and Recreati )n. He stated the Capital Improvement Program project
is just the beginning of the cost and there will still have to be monies for staffing and
operations. He stated this Commission needs to come to grips with the percentage of the
budg et that can be spent on Parks and Recreation. Mayor Garvey felt, if the money was
being spent to keep kids off the street, it was a better use of the funds. She stated recreation
is vital to the community.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the Commission had ever looked at the valid
percentage of the budget to be allocated to various programs. He agreed with Mayor Garvey
that it was good to keep children out of trouble. He stated; however, at some point, the
Commission had to decide how much the City could afford for each segment of running the
City. Commissioner Deegan pointed out this was the point of the Community Consensus
Project and it should be part of the Strategic Planning sessions prior to finalizing next year's
budg et.
Commissioner Thomas stated there was nothing in the budget regarding drinking water.
Ms. Deptula disagreed, stating there were significant monies for the water system.
f
Ms. Deptula expressed concern, if the Commission were to set budget percentages, that
information would be needed soon, as staff is already putting together next year's budget.
Commissioner Fitzgerald slated it was important to remember that the Parks and
Recreation budget includes a lot of things not related to parks. He stated, if you look back
over time, the percentages allocated in the budget for various programs do not cha nge much.
Ms. Deptula requested clarification regarding for what the Commission was asking.
Commissioner Deegan stated if the bulk of the items important to the community has to do
with public safety, then the majority of the budget should be for public safety. Ms. Deptula
indic ated she would compare the Community Consensus results to the budget to see how
they relate. She hoped to have that information by the middle of May.
Commissioner Deegan questioned the additional $ 380,000 being added to the downtown
cOnlnlunity center. Mr. Wilson indicated that brings the total for that project to $1.2 million.
Commissioner Deegan questioned the amount of work begin proposed for Del Oro Park.
Mr. Wilson indicated this is a 20-year-old park that had been given little attention and now
need s a lot of help.
.
\~.t..,. '
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned the Sand Key Park item. Mr. Wilson indicated it
would not be developed without beach renourishment. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned
what would happen if renourishrnent is not pursued. Mr. Wilson indicated the Sand Key
residents would be asked for input. He stated, more than likely, it would be maintained as
a passive park unless there were other requests from the Sand Key neighborhood.
.~
.i
"
"
,~
MINSP04D.94
7
04/27/94
\
I
t
I
I
. <to..' " .~.. . ". .. '. . . 't .. ~
. ..: \~1~'h~;"':~l:ai~::::;..~~;/, ",~' '..~:..~.:..'~:.~ 'l'; :....;:: e
c
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt funding for this should come from the Clearwater Beach
improvement CIP. He did not support additional dollars for this program. Commissioner
Thomas questioned if recreation facility fees would be available. Mr. Kader pointed out the
recreation facility fees are to be used for new facilities and not rehabilitating existing ones.
A majority of the Commission agreed to include this in the Capital Improvement Program in
order to note it will be a decision to be made in the future.
.1,.."
i
Commissioner Deegan pointed out the major portion of the funds were for parking. He
questioned if Ultimar III was bringing in any additional funds. Mr. Wilson indicated he thought
the fees had already been paid. Mr. Kader indicated the land fees have been collected, but
there may still be a facility fee of $200 per unit to be collected. Commissioner Thomas
pointed out rent is being collected from this property while Ultimar uses it during construction.
He requested these funds be designated for development of this property. It was the
consensus of the Commission to do this.
Commissioner Deegan questioned the new D.O. Davis Park. Ms. Wilson indicated this had
been approved in the Penny for Pinellas project list and was just now moving into the five-year
Capital Improvement Program.
Mayor Garvey questioned the project for restrooms at Ross Norton Park. fVlr. Wilson
indicated there were no restroom facilities at the ball fields. Mr. Wilson pointed out the new
project for Crest Lake improvements were important in that they will be addressing ADA
complaints.
Commissioner Thomas questioned a proposal for a Memorial Causeway recreation path
improvement. He stated he did not support this being done. Mr. Wilson indicated this had
been recommended by the Beautification Committee. Commissioner Thomas stated he did
not support it as it would obstruct the view and this was to be a passive area. Commissioner
Deegan agreed the shelters would attract individuals to park on the causeway.. He did feel
the water fountains to be installed were a good idea. Consensus of the Commission was to
remove this project from the Capital Improvement Project program and have the water
fountains done out of the operating budget.
Commissioner Thomas stated he would like additional parking areas on the causeway.
Commissioner Deegan felt this would create the same problem as the shelters and would
make this a beach area. There was no support for this addition.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if there were any thoughts regarding improvements to
Courtney Campbell Causeway. Ms. Deptula indicated this was State properlY and the City
was working with them to have a plan to control the activities in that area. Commissioner
Berfield questioned it this would require any funding. Ms. Deptula indicated if it does, she will
know that prior to finalizing the budget.
Commissioner Thomas requested the face lift for the Memorial Civic Center be placed in
this year's budget. There was concern regarding the impact of this on the proposed
redevelopment area. Ms. Deptula questioned if this was just fac;:ade or whether or not it
included interior work. Mayor Garvey pointed out there was a lot of work that needed to be
done inside the buildi'lg. Commissioner Deegan stated a committee report will be forthcoming
with recommendations regarding improvements to the Memorial Civic Center.
MINSP04D.94
8
04/27/94
'; J. "". H ,_'~.. ' . I.' ,..'
,1': .,
I
,
i'
\i
"
\"
. "
~"
Mr. Wilson pointed out the Parks and Recreation Departrnent has included in the Capital
Improvement Program a computer upgrade and replacement. He stated this is the fourth
phase of the department's long-range computer plan. Com missioner Berfield questioned if this
was the final phase. Mr. Wilson indicated it was the next to the last, as five phases are
planned. Commissioner Deegan questioned why another $100,000 would be needed. Mr.
Kader indicated these are upgrades to the system. Commiss ioner Deega n questioned the cost
of computers for the new Countryside Community Center. Mr. Kader indicated those would
cost approximately $ 8,000. Mr. Kader indicated that what is in the book is the fourth phase,
which would cost $29,140. He stated the entire definition is not there for the upgrades in
the out years.
lEISURE - Library
Comrnissioner Deegan pointed out the Capitallmprovelnent Program for book acquisition
did not include the Beach branch. Arlita Hallam, Library Director, indicated a correction had
been sent in; however, had not made it into the book. Commissioner Thomas questioned the
City joining the cooperative and whether it would pay for growth in the library system. Ms.
Hallam indicated the City would fu nd growth for the existing population and the cooperative
for the activities generated from being a member of the cooperative. She stated the City will
not be fund ing additional a cqu isitions needed due to the cooperative.
Comlnissioner Deegan questioned the reason for cha nging the wording for the Main
Library/expansion project. Ms. Hallam indicated the fonner language had been too limiting.
Commissioner Deegan questioned the inclusion of "or location." He stated the long range plan
did not say a new building would be constructed. Ms. Hallam indicated that, regardless of
the final plan, there are real problems with the existing building. If it should be used, a new
electrical system and new roof would be needed. She stated the cost \/Vould be approximately
the same for rehabilitation or relocation. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern regarding
the cost being the same. Ms. Hallam indicated those are the estimates provided to her. She
stated the need for land would be the difference in cost. Commissioner Deegan reiterated the
long range plan did not sa).' the building had to be replaced. Ms. Hallam indicated this was
correct.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the size of the new library. Ms. Hallam indicated it had
been estimated at 80,000 to 90,000 square feet. Commissioner Thomas questioned if this
included a conference room. It was indicated it did. It \/Vas felt the conference room may be
able to be eliminated if the Bayfront Mart (Maas Brothers) bu i1ding is renovated for conference
space. Commissioner Deegan pointed out the television studio is to be removed and the 350
seat auditorium may also be able to be deleted.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the proposed footprint for the parking garage for the
Police Department and the Municipal Services building. He stated he felt a library could be
placed all top of the garage. Mayor Garvey felt this would increase the size of the garage.
Commissioner Thomas stated he si mply wanted to have all the ideas on the table. Ms. Hallam
indicated, wherever the building is, the floors must be constructed to sustain 150 pounds per
square foot. Ms. Deptula indicated a general obligation bond may be proposed for the Library
project, which would require voter approval.
MINSP04.D.94.
9
04/27/94
.. ... '," ~......'. ' A _ '. "'" " ~ ~..
._, ,;>,.',", ',. '~;~ 1,. ""'.'
~I Ms. Deptula stated another meeting would be needed in order to complete the Capital
~~. ". Improvement Program. Consensus was to set this meeting for 1 :00 p.m. on May 6, 1994.
(This date was later changed to after the regular Commission meeting of May 16, 1994.)
The meeting adjourned at 3:56 p.m.
ATTEST:
- z. J1,. cOo ~
Clerk
. {".....
'>.i..
Jf
. t
...... '.' .
....~..t
MINSP04D.94
10
04/27/94
_' ,'It ,', .~~' ,. 'It. ,