01/24/1994 (2)
r:f.~:~;f\::/::', ?'~:::./~.; y c
~ .''', , ;'" ,'.., ,
;~'!~:':::'Y':> ',.' ...
"
, ,
, I,
" .,.1
.'.
~; ":-;,':':. : ~
:,:: >'~.~<;:.. '\, :, +!. . I', .
'01 '. .. ~l ~ , ,,: ~':. .~.
'~K:>::::.;"':~"::J' ,,' ',: .".
1,1 1'," . ':,,,
~O:, <t) ~< '" .}.
~..~; ;::. ~'. "
I :
, "
'i'. .
'.~ ,. 'r I
. .i...:.,:': ')
,
, ,
I
J,
(
, , ,
. -, ; . (
f ,,' .~.I- ",,' ~ . I r ..'
j:{'::\'::'i! ,',,~;;, ' '. ::, ' "
<~i:~~~,,~<;;]~,.~,:~:~X~:;~~,:;::'~;;>j:....;:'(; ; ',::;', ," , '
j~~-fi1.;:'''k...\~,j,..li{t''r~..~;..;.~.\'''ih...~..,-U~':'''~'''ka..''V~ II~, ~,,"'to'.'f '~y,_,
"
, .'
.'
"
, ..
.,
.",
'I
'<,I
'.,
"
.1' .
'.
"
"
t',">,
I,
'l
.,'
,I",'" ."' I.
, r 0 ~ '
1
, '
'COMMISSION
t:;ity Com~ission
"
DATEili rL#J 94
j~ :.:.
,0.1 ~ ' .
......
'1' .,', ...'
'. vl-Ck(J1UL
, , '
{Ilel
~l'
: ]>:~~~;:< I .
u~. .
,"
'), ~ "~;:::":
:'
.'
1~:~ ,:~ ,
'J:~'"
'(:.]""....
, ~~;<. ',+ .
~ f f; .
""';....,..~r....
>..:.:.,
: .', ~ l::~::'~>
J~ ~:
. ' ~...t; :
"
"
. ,
"
"
II,
" .
. '''',,:
'.', ..","
'\
,.
.,1
"
"
.'
.J
'"
....li.>
.'
i,
"
, '
, ': I ~
"
,',
,
.:-.., 'I
"
r'.
.0.,
"
, ..
, ,
f: '
"
).l
"
,>
.,
"
{.";:; '"
(" ,
; ,:+ ~~.; 1~:. ~
" f "
, ~
r~.
. j -I,
" ,
.1,<
ACTION AGENDA
City Commission Special Meeting
Sign Variance Requests
January 24, 1994 - 9:00 a.m.
ITEM A - (cant from 1 O~29~93) Addise, Inc (Monaco Motel) for variances of (1) to permit two
above roof signs; (2) of 45 sq ft to permit a total of 1 01 sq ft of attached signage; and (3)
42.5 in to permit a freestanding sign to be positioned 17.5 in setback from street to permit
" nonconforming signage to remain at 648 Poinsettia Ave, Mandalay Unit No 5 Raplat, Blk 84A,
Lots 16-20, zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercial). SV 92~48 - withdrawn.
ITEM B - (cont from 11 ~9-93) Espana Business Center for variances (1) of 96 sq ft to allow
160 sq ft of signage area; and (2) 3.33 ft in height to permit a 23.33 ft freestanding sign to
permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of 7 year amortization period at 1674
-: 1688 Belcher Rd N, Clearwater Industrial Park, part of Lot 14, zoned IL (Limited Industrial).
SV 92-78 - continued to 2/7/94. '
ITEM C - (cont from 11-9-93) Steven N. Eiseman, TRE (Alternative Auto) for a variance of. 5
ft to permit a freestanding sign 0 ft from property line to permit nonconforming signage to
remain at 1902 Drew St, Marymont Sub, Blk 24, Lot 24 and half vacated street, zoned CG
(General Commercial). SV 93~08 - approved subject to the condition the applicant or future
owners shall bear all expenses incurred for removal or relocation of sign if required by
Department of Transportation for Drew Stre~t widening project.
,.-, ITEM D - (cont from 11-9-93) Florida Family Investors, Inc/Baxter & Rinard (Kenyon Dodge)
\,,~ for variances (1) of 122 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of 234 sq ft in area; (2) 16.75 ft
in height to permit a 36.75 ft freestanding sign; and (3) 5 ft to permit a sign 0 It from street
right-of-way to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 19400 US Hwy 19 S, See 19-29-
16, M&B 14.01 less road, zoned CH (Commercial Highway). SV 93-34 - (1), (2) and (3)
denied. J
1. William D. & Kathryn A. McKnight (Seven Oaks BP) for a variance to permit 2 freestanding
signs in a zone where such signs are not permitted at 706 Drew St, Property of E.H.
Coachman, Blk 8, Lots 1 & 2 less street, Lots 3 & 4, and part of Lots 10, 11, A, and all of
Lot 14, zoned UC(Cl (Urban Center (Core). SV 92-18 - approved.
2. Natt C. Smith, Jr. & Betty L. Smith (Accurate Automotive Repair) for variances of (1) 49.5
sq ft to permit a freostanding sign of 73.5 sq ft; (2) 17.2 ft in height to permit a freestanding
sign of 25.2 ft in height; (3) 4.4 ft in distance to permit a freestanding sign .6 ft from
property line; and (4) 1 message panel to permit a freestanding sign with 3 message panels
to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1266 Court St, Hibiscus Gardens, Blk 0, part
of Lot 21. Lots 22-27 and part'of Lot 28, zoned OL (Limited Office). SV 92-30 ~ (1) approved
an area variance of 1 sq It to allow .a 25 sq ft sign where 24 sq ft is permitted; (2) approved
a height variance of 3.9 ft to allow a sign height of 11.9 ft where 8 ft is permitte'd; (3)
. approved a setback variance as requested; and (4) applicant withdrew request for one,
message panel.
l~
1/24/94
1
"
',' '.,' ~ : .
T > F.~.' t
't"
~ t _ I . .T ..
,,'
,t:, '
:;
, t
r.\
~ '
3. Pauline Rophie (Alco Center) for a variance of 4 ft to permit a freestanding sign with a 1
ft street setback to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2416 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, See
18-29-16, M&B 13.02 & 13.03, zoned CG (General Commercial). 5V 92~45 - approved
subject to the conditions (1) the freestanding sign at the southeast corner of the property shall
be removed within 60 days of the date of this public hearing and (2) the subject sign shall
comply with all height and area requirements within 60 days of the date of this public hearing.
4. Affiliated Agencies, Inc (C-21 Condon-Meek, Inc) tor a variance of 5 ft to. allow a
freestanding sign 0 ft from property line to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1211
Court 5t, Hibiscus Gardens, Blk R, Lots 11-16, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 92~69 -
approved.
. If:>"!
~.?
6. Ernest R. & Lydia J. Malice (Ritz Resort Motel) for variances of (1) 4.5 ft setback to allow
a freestanding sign 0.5 ft from street right-at-way (S. Gulfview Blvd); (2) 5 ft setback to allow
a freestanding sign 0 ft from street right-of-way (Fifth St); and (3) 4 sq ft to allow a
freestanding sign of 54 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 355 S. Gulfvicw
Blvd, L1oyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lots 71 & 120, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). SV 92-84 ~
(1), (2) and (3) approved subject to the conditions (1) neither sign shall be permitted to
increase in area and (2) the small restaurant sign on Coronado Dr shall be removed
immediately.
5. Lakeview Oaks Condo for a variance of 11.6 sq ft to allow a freestanding sign of 75.6 sq
. ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of 7 year amortization period
at 600, 610 & 620 Lakeview Rd, Lakeview Oaks Condo, zoned IL (Limited Industrial).
SV 92~ 79 - approved subject to the condition the landscaping in front of the sign be
continuously maintained.
7. Barger Interests (Peaches) fol' variances of (1) 13.2 sq ft to permit a total of 163.2 sq ft
attached area signage (En~erprise Rd frontage); (2) 1 attached sign to permit 6 attached signs
,and of 3 wall signs to permit the 6 signs to be of the same type (US 19 frontage); and (3)
91.2 sq ft to permit 233.7 sq ft attached area signage (US 19 frontage) to permit
nonconforming signage to remain at 26034 US Hwy 19, Darryl's Sub, Unplatted Lot 1, less
road right.of.way, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 92-94 - withdrawn.
8. Chevron USA, Inc (Chevron & Dunkin Donuts) for variances of (1) 1 freestanding sign to
permit a total of 3 such signs; (21 86.25 sq ft freestanding sign area to permit a total of 263.9
sq ft of such sign area; and (3) 6 ft in height to permit a 26 ft high freestanding sign to permit
nonconforming signage to remain at 23988 US Hwy 19 N, Blackburn's Sub, part of Lot 1, and
part of vapated Barrett Rd, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 92-95 M (1) approved as
requested; (2) approved an area variance of 64 square feet to allow a total of 176 square feet
where 112 sq ft is permitted; and (3) denied. '
9. Ruth A. Davis, TRE/First National Bank CW, TR (Chain Wheel Drive, Inc) for a variance of
5 ft to permit a freestanding sign to be located 0 ft from side property line at 1805 Drew St,
Skycrest Sub Unit No.4, Blk F, part of Lot 3 and all of Lot 4, zoned CG (General Commercial).
, ,
SV 92M96 - approved.
I
\.-
1124/94
2
"
. ' ,
~ - ~ .,
~', '
r'
10. John & Christina Stathas (Sandpiper Motel) for variances (1) of 12.5 sq ft to' permit a
total of 62.5 sq ft freestanding signage area; (2) of 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign to
remain 0 ft from street right-of-way; (3) to permit a freestanding sign in Beach Commercial
Zone without 15 ft minimum building setback; (4) of 16 sq'ft of attached sign area to permit
. a total of 64 sq 1t; and (5) to permit a roof mounted sign to permit nonconforming signage
to remain at 400 East Shore Dr, Barbour~Morrow Sub, elk B, Lots 12-14, zoned CB (Beach
Commercial). SV 92~100 ~ (1), (4) and (5) denied; (2) and (3) approved as requested subject
to the conditions (1) all signage shall be brought into compliance and the encroachment into
the Poinsettia Ave right-of-way shall be eliminated within 15 months of the date of this public
hearing. .
11. Thomas E. & Barbara E. Soares (El Capitan Restaurant & Lounge, lnc) for variances of (1)
.5 ft to permit a, freestanding sign 4.5 ft from property line; and (2) 227.2 sq ft to permit
291 .2 sq ft in area of attached signage to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2525
Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, See 18~29-16, M&B 41.04, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-05 - (1)
approved; (2) continued to 2/7/94.
1 2. Lakeview Professional ViUage Condo Assn, Inc for a variance of two directory information
signs to permit two nonconforming signs to remain at 516 Lakeview Rd, Lakeview
Professional Village Condo, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). SV 93-28 - approved subject to the
condition the signs shall be positioned in accordance with the site plan that accompanies the
variance application.
(",
13. Burdlnes Real Estate Inc/Federated Dept Stores for variances of (1) 185 sq ft of attached
sjgnage to permit 335 sq ft of such signage on east building face; and (2) 185 sq ft to permit
335 sq ft of attached signage on south building face to perm:t nonconforming slgnage to
remain at2050S US Hwy 19, 17-29~16, M&B 31.02. zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93
37 - (1) and (2) denied.
14. Wonderful Family USA, Inc (Forbidden City Restaurant) for variances of (1) 12 ft in height
to permit a freestanding sign of 32 ft; (2) 78 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of 190 sq ft;
(3) 2.3 sq ft to permit a directional sign of 6.3 sq ft; (4) 4 ft in distance to permit a
freestanding sign 1 ft from south and east property Hnes; and (5) permit a directional sign with
a logo/name that occupies more than 25% of sign area (1 sq ft) to permit nonconforming
signage to remain at 25778 US Hwy 19 N, Sec 31-28-16, M&8 14.05, zoned CH (Highway
Commercial). SV 93-41 - {11. (2) and (4) continued to 217/94; (3) and (5) denied (entrance
sign). ,
15. Great lakes Property, Inc (Cambridge Apartments) for variances of (1) 65.25 sq ft to
permit 89.25 ft of freestanding signage area; (2) 18 ft in height to permit a 24 ft high sign;
and (3) 5 ,ft to permit a freestanding sign 0 ft from street right-of-way to permit
nonconforming signage to remain at 21227 US Hwy 19 N, See 17-29-16, M&B 22.02, zoned
RM-24 (Multi-Family Residential). SV 93-61 - (1) approved; (2) approved 14 ft In height to
allow a 20 ft high sign; (3) approved as requested subject to the conditions (1) a sign permit
to modify the sign be obtained within 45 days of the date of this public hearing and (2) the
sign be completed in accordance with the variances granted within 3 months of the date the,
sign permit is obtained.
.l"
1/24/94
3
, c ... ~. Ir .
~,: '\.1" .: / , ; ,
"
, I
"
" ,
'.
'. I
(;"",
""jo ,
16. Fusco Corp & John S. Taylor, III (Sunshine Mall) for a variance of 4 ft in height to permit
a 24 ft freestanding sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1200 S. Missouri Ave,
See 15-29-15, M&B 34.01 together with See 22-29-15, M&B 21.01,21.02 & 21.12, zoned
CC (Commercial Center). SV 93.62 - approved. .
17. M. H. Corson, Jr. TRE (Howard Johnson) for variances of (1) 430.5 sq ft to permit a
freestanding sign of 542:5 sq ft; (2) 28 ft in height to permit a freestanding sign of 48.5 ft
in height; (3) 1 message panel to permit 3 message panels; (4) 4 ft in height to allow a
freestanding sign of 24 ft; and {51 15.26 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of 127.26 sq ft
to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 20788 US Hwy 19 N, See 18-29-16, M&B
14.12 & 14.1 21 , zoned CH (Highway Commercial) sv. 93.64 - (1) approved an area variance
of 30 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of 142 sq ft for the purpose of allowing two business
names to appear on the sign and subject to the condition the signs be brought into compliance
within 90 days of the date of this public hearing; (2), (3), (4) and (5) denied.
18. Vlasta Stahle (Val's Fine Foods) for variances of (1) 37.2 sq ft to permit 101.2 sq 1t of
attached signage to remain; and .(2) 3 attached,signs to allow a total of 6 attached signs to
permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1736 Drew St, Drew Terrace Sub, Lot 43, zoned
CG (General Commercial) SV 93-76 - continued to 2/7194.
19: U-Haul Co West Coast Florida, Ine (U-HAUL) for variances of (1) 96.8 .sq ft in area to
permit a freestanding sign of 160.8 sq ft; (2) 11 ft in height to permit a freestanding sign of
31 ft in height; (3) 5 message panels to permit 7 message panels; and (4) 21.4 sq ft in area
to permit 85.4 sq ft in area of attached signage to permit nonconforming signage to remain
1Il~ at 201 S. Missouri Ave, Hibiscus Gardens, Blk L, Lots 1-6, part of Lots 7, 11 & 12, zoned CG
~} (General Commercial). SV 93-77 - continued to 217194.
20. First Florida Bank, N.A. (Barnett Bank) for variances of (1) 43.5 sq ft to permit a total of
67.5 sq ft of attached signage on the west elevation; and (2) 49.5 sq ft to permit a total of
. 73.5 sq ft of attached signage on the east elevation to permit nonconforming signage to
remain at 1499 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Boulevard Heights, Blk J, Lots 9-17 less'road & Lots 21-23,
zoned OL (Limited Office). SV 93-96 - (1) and (21 approved subject to the condition no
additional freestanding signs (other than directional signs) be erected on the property.
21. Mas One ltd Partnership (Barnett Bank) for variances of (1) 161 sq ft to permit a total of
270 sq ft of attached signage; and (2) .24 sq ft per ft of building width to permit a ratio of
1 .74 sq ft per ft of building width to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 600
Cleveland St, Clearwater Tower, Lots 1 & 2, zoned UC(C) {Urban Center (Core). SV 93-116-
continued to 317194.
, ,
23.' Agreement for renovation of Ice House (630 Drew Street) - accepted with changes.)
22. Direction ra: reconsideration of Sign Variance cases SV 93-25 - Grandy's and SV 93-31 -
Work America, Inc. - approved requests for reconsideration; scheduled for 3/7/94.
24. Adjournment - 3:59 p.m. '
L~
1/24/94
4
! \:l::,,' '..:, ,i:(;;q.:::, ..... .': .
f. I
, '
" '
~{,~/~"r",;::-:,::':' " ,--: ':'
\", .r'
"
, ,I
~. !
,'.' !
" l.t
" ,
.,~., : ~ I .
,,'
.:: .
, ,
, '> l ~
" .
i,."
I,
, ,
, ..
~
't......;.f
CITY COM~ISSION SPECIAL MEETING
January 24, 1994
, .
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in special session at City Hall,
. Monday, January 24, 1994 at 9:02 a.m., with the following members present: "
Rita Garvey
Arthur X. Deegan, II
Richard Fitzgerald
Sue A. Berfield
Fred A. Thomas
Mayor/Commissioner
VicepMayor /Com missioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Also present:
Elizabeth M. Deptula
M.A. Galbraith, Jr.
Scott Shuford
John Richter
Mary K. Diana .
Interim City Manager
City Attorney ,
Central Permitting Director
Planner
Assistant City Clerk .
Public Hearings were held concerning the following sign variance requests.
If'.,; '"
~ .1 '
ITEM A - (Cant from 10-29-93) Addise, Ine (Monaco Motel) for variances of (1) to parmit-
-two above roof signs; (2) of 45 sq ft to permit a total of 101 sq ft of attached 5ignage; .'
and (3) 42.5 in to permit a freestanding sign, to be positioned 17.5 in setback fro m street
to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 648 Poinsettia Ave, Mandalay Unit No 5
Raplat, Blk 84A, ,Lots 16-20, zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercia\). SV 92~48
The original variance request was made by Addise, Inc., the former owners of the
Monaco Motel. Di Domizio, Inc. (f/k/a/PWDD Company) recently took title to the. property
pu~suant to a foreclosure action initiated by them against the former owners, Addise, Inc.'
This item was withdrawn. .
ITEM B'- (Cont from 11-9-93f Espana Business Center for variances (1) of 96 sq ft to
allow 160 sq ft of signage area; and (2) 3.33 ft in height to permit a 23.33 ft freestanding
sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of 7 year amortization
period at 1674 - 1688 Belcher Rd N, Clearwater Industrial Park, part of Lot 14, zoned IL
(Limited Industrial). SV 92-78
Due to a conflict, the applicant is requesting this item be continued.
.' Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to the scheduled meeting of
February 7, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. .
f:.'
.,,,;;;.;)
rninSP01 b.94
1/24/94
1
::'?r,~:> "','. ': "",'
i " .
;
t. ':, I ,
:: .\.~: ,', . 't ~ .. ~ . '" :. ' I '.'
. A .'
. ,
I ",~',,,. , . .' ,
"
i.
r~
ITEM C - (Cont from 11-9-93) Steven N. Elsemon. TRE (Alternative AutQ) for a variance of
5 ft to permit a fr~estanding sign zero ft from properly line to permit nonconforming
signage to remain at 1902 Drew St. Marymont Sub. Blk 24. Lot 24 and half vacated
street. zoned CG (General Commercial). SV'93.08
The subject property is located on Drew Street, approximately 300 feet west of
Corona Avenue and is in the CG' zoning district.
1
I
I
I
. 'I
The applicant is requesting a setback variance to allow an existing freestanding sign
zero feet from the Drew Street right-ot-way.
The new sign ordinance is being unitormly applied to all signs in this zoning district.
The recent erection of a security fence, 25 feet from the street right-at-way. caused the
loss of some of the vehicle display area. The applicant contends the relocation of the sign
to meet the setback requirements will cause loss of more vehicle display area. The
applicant also states he intends to erect a new sign on the site.
I' ~ T
ti
Although the location of the security fence may make relocation of the sign
difficult, the applicant has not provided any evidence this variance request arises from any
conditions unique, to this property. A new sign can be erected to a maximum height of 20
'feet, 5 feet higher than the existing sign. This would enable the sign to be seen above
vehicles parked in the display area. Staff review indicates there are no particular physical
surroundings, shape' or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for this
property. .
, On May 14, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Board granted a conditional use
allowing automobile sale's subject to fifteen conditions. Condition 1t10 required all signage
to conform to city code.
A survey shows the sign encroaches into the right-of.way 0.8 feet. Drew Street is
owned and maintained by the Florida Department of Transportation. The Public Works
Department commented the sign would not be allowed to encroach into the right-of-way if
City of Clearwater property.
This variance request is extreme with regard to the permitted setback of a
freestanding sign and cannot be considered a minimal.request.
The existence and/or proposed construction. of a freestanding sign zero feet from
the street right-of-way .is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding
commercial areas and not cO,nsistent with those land uses. The granting of this variance
wi'lI detract from the surrounding businesses that have conforming signage as well as.
negatively affect the overall appearance of the community.
Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford said staff is recommending denial of the
request. The applicant was aware he needed to meet the requirements of the conditional
use approval and it is telt he can conform without a hardship. He presented photographs
of tho existing signs on the property.
(j
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
2
, '
II
. ,;
>: 1-. ~ l
"
, ~'.
" '
c. .\ ....
, ,
~
~.::
,.
Mr. Steve Eiseman, applicant, verified the photographs of the signage prosented by
staff. He said he applied for the conditional use to permit outdoor retail sales. A
conditional use was granted. with fifteen conditions which Mr. Eiseman said he has
complied with tor the past tour years. The property was rented for six months betore the
business opened under the name Alternative Auto. At that time the area was landscaped
and the parking lot asphalted. Mr. Eisoman indicated the sign has been in existence for 17
years and has just been refaced with the new business name.
t
i
I
I
Mr. Eiseman said he has spentalot of money enhancing the business and the
property. He noted he did not own the property originally, however, has purchased the
property since then. The business was not doing well as an automobile lot and Mr.
Eiseman felt he should specialize in something in order to make the business work. He
moved to tourpwheel drive vehicles, accessories, etc. At that time, he wanted to rename
the business and <;:ontacted City staff to reface the sign. He said when he switched to
jeeps, he started to hav~ security problems and attempted to erect a security fence. In '
meeting the setback requirements for the fence, three to four vehicle dispfay parking areas
,were deleted. If the sign is moved back. it will be in the parking area and will eliminate
additional display areas.
t....
t~,l
l;;.4
When he approached staff to change the sign, he was informed the City was not
accepting any sign face charmes in that area because the signs have to conform with
DOT's expansion of Drew Street which is to take place in approximately five years. He
said he applied for a variance over a year ago! He indicated he made several attempts to
'get an answer from staff as to what to do in order to change his sign to reflect that he
was now selling four-wheel drive vehicles. He said he went ahead end retaced the sign.
Mr. Eiseman noted he does not want to erect a new sign. as the agenda item reflects.
"
Referring to the standards tor approval. Mr. Eiseman felt his situation was unique
because of the security problem associated with selling soft-topped vehicles. He said it he
.,
increase~ the height of the sign, it will be obscured by the surrounding trees. There is no
place to move the sign where it will be visible. He said the sign is aesthetically pleasing
and would not detract from the neighborhood. Over' the last four years, he indicated
approximately $40,000 has been spent in improving the subject property.
Centra! Permitting Director Scott Shuford indicated Mr. Eiseman has been aware
since 1991 that he was required to meet the setback requirement as a condition of his
conditional use approval. He noted the sign encroaches into the right-of-way less than a
foot.
.1
,I
,
1
J
Mr. Eiseman indicated he was not aware he had to move his sign back in 1991. He
said he interpreted the sign c~de as prohibiting ,banners and attached and roof s1gns.
'C'ommissioner 'Deegan questioned if the applicant obtains a variance, will the sign
be in conformance. Mr. Shuford responded it would.
.L;
minSPO 1 b. 94
1/24/94
3
"I
.. ",
,: .
,\
, ,
,
" "
",I
.." . ,," ., ~
. . I ,
, , I ~
t",
..'.(. :
;\. .
j,C..
, '
o
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned when the encroachment into the right-of~way
was discovered. Mr. Shuford responded the encroachment was found when a survey was
done and indicated the applicant was notified 18 months before the'sign code went into
effect. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if DOT is aware of the encroachment and Mr.
Shuford replied he was not sure.
Mayor Garvey asked if the expansion of Drew Street goes forward, v...iIl the DOT
have to compensate for the subject sign if it needs "to be moved. Mr. Shuford responded
DOT would be responsible for relocation costs if the sign conforms with local government
requirements.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the large trees in the area will be removed
when the widening occurs. Mr. Shuford replied if they are in the right-of-way.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if any research has been done regarding how the Drew
Street widening will affect this property. Mr. Shuford noted there is 1 OO~foot' wide right-
of-way in this area and believed no 'additional right-of-way would be required or would any
trees have to be removed.
Commissioner Thomas felt since the trees would not be removed Mr. Eiseman
made a valid point in proving a hardship. If the height at his sign is raised, it would be
,obscured by the trees. He also felt the loss of 'display parking spaces due to the need for
a security fence created a hardship. He noted zero setbacks have been approved by the
Commission 'for good reason. He believed multiple hardships have been shown and
recommended approval of the request.
(,.
"tI
, "
"
, ,
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a variance of 5 feet to' permit a
I freestanding sign zero feet from a property line for the subject property. The motion was
duly seconded.
Mayor Garvey expressed concern in granting the variance as the applicant was
aware of the conditions when his conditional u'se was approveu. She felt the security
issue should not be considered in granting this request.
, ,In response to questions, Mr. Shuford indicated the width of the sidewalk in this
area is 5 feet, is setback 1 foot from the right-at-way, the sign does not extend ,over the
sidewalk and does not present a safety hazard for passerbys.
Discussion ensued regarding conditioning the r'equest, i1 approved, that DOT not be
responsible for any expenses involved with relocating the sign,. Concern was oxpressed in
DOT keeping track of this condition. A suggestion was made to send a letter to DOT
regarding this condition.
Commissioner Thomas amended the motion on the floor to include the condition the
applicant or future owners shall bear all expenses incurred for removal or relocation ot the
sign if required by'the Florida Department 01 Transportation for the Drew Street widening
project. The seconder concurred. '
C~I
, I'
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
4
. , ~,
, ,
':- . ~
, "
,/
, .'
,\ ~ .'
i ( '\'.~
t l~/~. ~C, ,c .. ~ ' .
.', t .,
..1> ...., ~ ;'l'.':~.~l ~ ~ ','
c~
Upon the vote being taken on the motion to approve a variance of 5 feet to permit
a freestanding sign zero teet from a property line for the subject property as Section 45.24
standards for approval have been met, subject to the condition the applicant or future
owners shall bear all expenses incurred for removal or relocation of the sign if required by
the Florida Department of Transportation for the Drew Street widening project, the motion
carried unanimously.
Ms. Deptula indicated staff will send a letter to DOT and copy it to the applicant.
ITEM D - (cont from 11-9-93) Florida Familv Investors. Ine/Baxter & Rinard (Kenvon .
DodQe) for variances (1) of 122 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of 234 sq ft in area; (2)
16.75 ft in height to permit a 36.75 ft freestanding sign; and (3) 5 ft to permit a sign zero
ft from street right-ot-way to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 19400 US Hwy
,19 S, See 19-29~16, M&B 14.011e55 road, zoned CH (Commercial HighwayL SV 93-34
The subject property is loc~ted on the west side of US 19, approximately 270 feet
north of Ham Boulevard and is in the CH zoning district.
I'::")
'"~,.
The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district.
The applicant contends this property is unique in that it is located on US 19, soutt, of
Clearwater Mall, one of the busiest stretches of highway in Clearwater, and requires
signage which would allow proper notice to motor vehicle operators. However, thiS is not
the only business in the vicinity and cannot be considered a unique property for this
reason. The applicant has not provided any evidence .that these variance requests arise
from any conditions unique to this property.
These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area, height, and
s~tback of a freestanding sign and C8nnOt be considered minimal requests.
The existence of this 234 square foot, 36 foot high, freestanding sign with a zero
foot setback is not in character with' the signage permitted for the commercial businesses
in the area. The granting of these variances will detract from the commercial businesses
that have conforming signage, permit an unfair advertising advantage to the applicant over
the surrounding businesses, and negatively impact the overall appearance of the
community .
, Staff feels the applicant's request does not meet all the standards for variance
approval. ,
Planner John Richter explained the request and presented photographs of the
existing sign.
Referring to the photographs, Commissioner Thomas expressed concern in the
applicant having to r~move the pilings to meet the setback requirements.
Mayor Garvey noted there is no condition unique to the,property to approve a zero
setback.
L:~'
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
5
.::.. .' \, ... ~ I ~
{t ;.-
~.' . +
, '
, "
. ~. .
, I
"
'.
>. '..... \. ~ "
" '
, .
. .:.. ~. i '. . I
c~.
There was no one present to represent the applicant.
Mayor Garvey asked if staff felt confident the applicant had been notified of today's
meeting. The Assistant City Clerk referred to an affidavit of mailing which reflects the.
applicant and applicant's representative were sent notices. Mr. Shuford noted staff
attempts to contact and confirm the meeting date with the applicant's representative.
, ~:~
W.
Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the requested variances for the subject
property for failure to meet Section 45.24 standards for approval, items 1) The variance
reque'sted arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither
ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions
of ,the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the
execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not
be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2} The particular
physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the
strict. application of the provisions of this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is'the minimum necessary to
overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable
use of the land; 5) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or
injurious to other property or improvements in th~ neighborhood in which the property is
located; 6) The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or
ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the appearance of the community,
substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire,
endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish or impair the value of
surrounding property; and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the
general spirit and intent of this development code. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously. I
1. William D. & Kathrvn A. McKnight (Seven Oaks BP), for a variance to permit two
freestanding signs in a zone where such signs are not permitted at 706 Drew St, Property
of E.H. Coachman, Blk 8, Lots 1& 2 less street, Lots 3 & 4, and part of Lots 1 0, 11, A,
and all of Lot 14, zoned UC(C) (Urban Center (Core). SV 92-18
The freestanding signs will be 19 feet in height, 64 square feet in area nnd have a .
setback of 5 feet.
The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Drew Street and Myrtle
Avenue and is in the UC(C) zoning district.
This property is developed with the Seven Oaks BP service station. Under the
UC(C) zoning assigned to the property, no freestanding sign is allowed. Presently, there
exists a 45 foot high sign that has an area of 64 square feet. The applicant proposes to
replace the existing sign with the' two lower signs previously described. One sign will be
placed at the northeast corner of the property oriented to Myrtle Avenue and the other
,sign will be placed on the south side of the property oriented to Drew Street.
~,
~;~
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
6
, ,
" ,
",,
:~; .<:', '
~ ' I
.,' .
~' .
,
/',;-, ,
'. ~ .1.
c~
Unlike most properties in this zoning district, the building is setback substantially .
from the right of w,ay. Because the building is setback, the applicant would be
disadvantaged and face a hardship if no sign is allowed in proximity to the right-of-way.
Further, because the property fronts two major thoroughfares, it would be appropriate for
, the property, to be identified from both.
t
I
Properties located on the east side of Myrtle Avenue are zoned Urban C8nter
(Eastern Corridor) and within this zone are permitted freestanding signs with an area of 64
square feet. Therefore, the signs proposed for the Seven Oaks BP service station would
be ir, keeping with other signs allowed on nearby properties.
,
f
.1
f
Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval. .
, Mr. Shuford 'explained the request indicating the applicant wants to replace the
existing sign with two new freestanding signs substantially lower than the existing sign.
He presented photographs, of the existing signage.
4).\
l;l '~I
Bill Hardee, representing the applicant, verified the photographs of the signage
, presented by staff. He stated the remodeling of the station was finished in December with
an upgrading of the tanks, lines and dispensers. He felt this remodeling has added to the
revitalization of the urban core. This investment in the remodeling' was made after much
consideration and the assumption the City would approve the variance request. Mr.
Hardee noted in 1992 plans were submitted to the City to demolish and rebuild anew
. station. However, the applicant was informed by the City, unless Apec deeded to the City
without compensation 25 feet along Drew Street and 20 feet along Myrtle Avenue, the
building permits would not be issued. This was unacceptable to Apec and all plans were
withdrawn at a cost of $25,000. He said after the plans were withdrawn a sign variance
request was submitted on August 25/ 1992. Apec has to meet DOT regulations;
therefore, all lines and dispensers had to be in and upgrades made by the end of 1993.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve a variance to permit two freestanding
signs, 1 9 feet in height, 64 square feet in area and setback five feet from the property line
for the subject property as Section 45.24 standards for approval have been met. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Natt C. Smith. Jr. & Bettv L. Smith (Accurate Automotive Repair) for variances of (1)
49.5 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of 73.5 sq ft; (2) 17.2 ft in height to permit a
freestanding sign of 25.2 ft in height; (3) 4.4 ft in distance to permit a freestanding sign .6
ft from property line; and (4) 1 message panel to permit a freestanding sign 'with 3
message panels to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1266 Court'St, Hibiscus
Gardens, Blk 0, part of Lot 21, Lots 22-27 and part of Lot 28, zoned OL (Limited Office).,
SV 92-30 '
The subject property is located on the north side of Court Street, east of Lincoln
Avenue and is in the OL zoning district.
(J
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
7
.J :' > I " i
, \'
.\ ':
:<' ct
" .
) I'.
~': ~ ~. ~
.,
r
The Accurate Auto Repair shop is a lawful nonconforming use of this property. The
applicant contends that because the use is commercial. the existing sign should be
permitted to remain. At very least, the applicant contends, the sign requirements
applicable to this property should be the General Commercial sign standards. (CG
standards allow a 64 square foot sign, 20 feet in height)
Staff finds that all properties in' this block of Court Street, on both the north and
south side, are zoned Limited Office. Consequently, it would confer a special privilege on
this property owner to disregard the zoning on this property and allow larger, higher signs
, than other surrounding properties not allowed. Other signs in this zone are limited to an
area of,24 square feet and a height of 8 feet. It is staff's position that the variance
requests are not minimal and would detract from properties having signs of conforming
area and height. .
The applicant states the auto repair shop has a paved area totally surrounding the
building and the sign poles are embedded within the parking area causing the relocation to
be extremely ~ifficult. Staff concurs. In the event the applb'::ant revises the variance
application to propose placing a conforming sign on the existing sign poles, staff would
look favorably upon such a request.
@,
The existence of this freestanding sign with 3 message panels, 73.5 square feet of
area and 25.2 feet in height, and located 0.6 foot from the property line is not in character
with the signagepermitted for the surrounding businesses and diverts attention from those
land uses. The granting of these variances will detract from the businesses that have
conforming signage and negatively impact the overall appaarance of the community.
t'
Staff feels the applicant/s request does not meet the standards for variance
approval. .
Mr. Richter explained the request and presented photographs of the existing
signage.
John McCormick, owner, verified the photographs of the signage presented by
staff. He, indicated he will reduce the variance request to allow a sign that meets the
requirements of the general commercial zoning district. He said if the sign is moved back
, to meet setback requirements, it would block the driveway and access to both garage
bays. He said he has been informed Court Street will become the new S.R. 60 and will
carry additional traffic. He felt the City's rezoning of this property creates a hardship in
making the property non-conforming. The competition two, blocks west is zoned general
commercial.
A question was raised if the variance could be conditioned that any change of use
, be conforming and also conform to the sign code. The City Attorney responded the
vari~mce could. '
, ~ '~
V
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
8
:1
I
I
I
-I
I
I
'1
!
J
I,
.'r~
.. \
In response to a question, it was indicated the original request was far an areD
variance of 73.5 square feet and was reduced to 49.2 square feet where 24 square feet is
allowed. .It was noted a sign 20 feet in height is allowed in the general commercial zoning
district. . .
.,', . '.,
, ..'.,' .
. III
. '.
:'. r
, .
"'. I
.t~,:.:J' . I,.
.,. "
Commissioner Thomas asked how long an auto repair garage.has been operating at
this location and Mr. McCormick responded for approximately 20 years. Commissioner
Thomas felt to move the sign would be a real hardship on the business as it would place
the sign in the middle of the driveway and would interfere with traffic going in and out.
He believed reducing the height of the sign would make the sign more attractive and be in
line with the intent of the code. He found it difficult to look at this property as an office
use when a garage has operated on this site for over 20 years. He asked what size sign
the general commercial standards allow and Mr. Shuford responded a 64 square foot, 20
foot high sign.
Mayor Garvey said she appreciates the applicant coming in with an alternative
proposal; however, expressed concern regarding future use of this property if a variance is
approved. '
Commissioner Deegan said he is concerned with the present use of the property
and in setting a precedent. He noted if the request is approved it would allow a sign
double the height and area of what is allowed surroun,ding the property.
4:'..:~
~'1
Com'missioner Deegan asked Mr. McCormick if is he is willing to conform the height
and square footage of ~he, sign to what is allowed indicating, if this is the case, he would
be in favor of the setback variance.
Mr. McCormick indicated other businesses in the area are bypassed due to the
traffic speed and said his property has been used far parking by customers walking to
ather businesses nearby. He felt an 8.foot sign would not provide the visibility he needs.
,Commissioner Thomas asked if S.R. 60 is rerouted down Court Street, would it
have an impact on how the zoning pattern is reviewed. Mr. Shuford responded this would
not necessarily trigger a rezoning study. He noted the area is sensitive due to the
surrounding residential properties.
Discussion ensued in regard to the height of the vehicles Mr. McCormick services
and it yvas questioned whether an 8-foot high sign would be visible if vehicles park in ,front
of it. '
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern in granting the request a non-
conformity would bo allowed to be addressed as a conforming use.
, ,
Com~rlissioner Berfield questioned whether the City coused the non-conforming use
when the property was rezoned. Mr. Richter indicated the 1980 rezonings had a
widespread effect on zoning classifications.
lj
minSPQ1 b.94
1/24/94
9
"
c,' ,1
, ;
'; /,
, ,
,
.~., .
.
, ' '
c~
, .
Net Smith, owner'of the property, stated the property was downzoned in 1980 and
did not express concern because he thought the property would be grandfathered in. He
noted surrounding properties are zoned commercial. He agreed an 8-foot sign would be
difficult for passerbys to see. '
. Commissioner Thomas said the intent of the sign ordinance is to beautify the City
not to destroy the use of the property. The subject property has been used as commercial
property since 1969,and should be' treated accordingly.
Commissioner Deegan agreed that the visibility of the sign could be obscured when
vehicles are parked in front of it; however, indicated this could be considered when the
sign heights are addressed in the code. .
The request for one message panel was withdrawn.
Discussion ensued in regard to reducing the height of the sign by removing the top
two panels which would make the sign 11.9 feet in height.
Commissioner Deegan moved to grant an (1) area variance of 1 square foot to
allow a 25 square foot sign where 24 square feet is permitted; (2) a height varian'ce of 3.9
feet to allow a sign height of 11.9 feet where 8 feet is permitted; and (3) a setback
variance of 4.4 feet to permit a freestanding sign 0.6 feet from the Court Street rightRof-
way as requested for the subject property as Section 45.24 standards for approval hav'e
been met. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
r-;'.',.:.
~'
Commissioner Thomas asked if any signage is allowed to be placed on the roof
facing. Mr. Shuford responde'd attached signage is allowed. Staff is to work. with
applicant regarding attached signage.
, ,
3. Pauline Roohie (Alco Center) for a variance of 4 ft to permit a freestanding sign with a 1
. ft street setback to permit nonconforming signage, to remain at 2416 Gulf-to~Bay Blvd, Sec
18-29-16, M&B 13.02 & 13.03, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 92-45
The subject property is located on the north side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, west of
Kilmer Avenue and is in the CG zoning district. '
There are ,currently two freestanding signs on this property. The sign at the
southeast corner of the property is proposed to be removed. The other sign, located at
the southwest corner of the property, which is larger than allowed by code, is proposed to,
be reconstructed utilizing the existing poles. The existing poles, however, do not meet'the
setback requirement.
The property is developed with a parking lot in the front, accessible from Gulf-to-
Bay Boulevard. The lot contains 12 spaces. In the event the sign setback requirement is
strictly applied, the sign w'c,uld be relocated to the east by four feet, causing it to be
placed in the parking lot and creating the loss of a parking space. The removal of a
parking space would cause a hardship to the property owner. Further, the build,ing is
'(/
minSPO 1 b. 94
1/24/94
10
Staft finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval.
. I,~ .'c ~ 1 j .',
r~' ).'" .
. >' ~
t' :
iX,. "
. ~. . J . :
('.
constructed with no setback from the west side property line, which causes the lack ota
, setback for the sign to be inconsequential.
A sign having a conforming area one foot from the side property line appears to be
in character with the signage permitted for the nearby commercial businesses. The
granting of this variance witl not detract from the businesses and properties that have
conforming signage and will not negatively impact the appearance of the community.
Mr. Shuford explained the request and presented photographs of the existing signs
on the property.
Frank Sewell.representing the applicant, verified the photographs of the existing
signage presented by staff. He said the large sign has been on the property for 25 years.
He indicated the proposal is to erect a modern plastic faced sign with an aluminum
structure using the existing steel poles which are encased in concrete. On the buildings .
each merchant has a small sign attached to the fascia board of the building and on the
east side of the property is a freestanding sign which staff has recommended to be
removed. Mr. Sewell said they would like to build a new sign following staff's
recommendation.
'('1
......>
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a setback variance of four feet to permit a
freestanding sign with a 1 foot setback for the subject property as Section 45.24
standards for approval have been met, subject to the following conditions:' 1) the
freestanding sign at the southeast corner of the property shall be removed within 60 days
of the date of this public hearing, and 2) ,the subject sign shall comply with all height and
area requirements within 60 days of the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimous'ly.
4. Affiliated Aqencies. Inc (C-21 Condon-Meek. Inc) for a variance of 5 ft to allow a
freestanding sign zero ft from property line to permit nonconforming signage to remain at
1211 Court St, Hibiscus Gardens. Blk R, Lots 11-16, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV
92-69
The applicant is requesting a setback varianco of 5 feet from the property line
abutting Court Street to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain in its present
location. '
T,he subject property is locateq on the south side of Court Street, east of Lincoln
Avenue, and is in the' CG zoning district.
This sign complies with the size and height requirements of the sign code. The lone
nonconformity is the setback. In order to meet the setback, it would be necessary to
reposition the sign ,to the south where a driveway currently exists. To relocate the sign in
the driveway would obstruct and disrupt the vehicular circulation on the property. Also, it
would cause an unnecessary hardship on the applicant.
(;
minSPO 1 b. 94
1 /24/94
11
\'
,
+ ~~.
'. ~: . J
.' ~ .
, ,
".,' "J
(~
It is noteworthy that a second freestanding sign la billboard) exists on this property ,
in violation of the code. This violation will be handled separately from this variance
application.
I
I
\
i
The granting of this variance will not detract or adversely affect nearby uses that
have conforming signs, nor will it adversely impact the overall appearance of the
community.
-I
,I
\
i
Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval.
'!
, ,
~'
, }T4" ,..~
. ".J
5. lakeview Oaks Condo for a variance of 11.6 sq ft to allow a freestanding sign of 75.6
sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of 7 year amortization
period at '600, 610 & 620 lakeview Rd, Lakeview Oaks Condo, zoned IL (Limited
Industrial). SV 92-79
Mr. Richter explained the request. In response to a question regarding the second
freestanding sign (billboard) on the property, Mr. Richter believed the City is in the process
of issuing notices of violation for the 20-25 billboards in violation of the code.
Mr. John Meek, Jr., applicant, noted the parcel of property the billboard is on isin a
separate legal entity. In response to a question, he said he has already removed the four
small panels from the bottom of the sign.
Commissioner Barfield moved to approve a setback variance of five feet to allow a
freestanding sign zero feet from a property line for the subject property as Section 45.24
standards for approval have been met. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The subject property is located on the north side of lakeview Road, east of S. Ft.
Harrison Avenue and is in the IL zoning district.
This sign complies with height and setback requirements of the sign code.
However, the sign face, as defined by code, does not conform to the size limitation. Sign
face is defined as "the part of the sign that is or can be used to identify, display, advertise,
communicate information, or for visu~1 representation which attracts or intends to attract
the attention of the public for any purpose". In this particular case, applying the definition
to the existing sign, the sign face is 8.4 feet vertically and 9 feet horizontally. However,
not all of the sign face is currently being used for advertising purposes, nor would it be
p~Hticularly desirable to use all of the face for advertising. This is because the lower
'portion of the sign face is in close proximity to the ground and the existing landscaping
obstructs the visibility of this portion of the sign from the Lakeview Road right-of-way.
Further, this being the case, it would cause an unnecessary hardship on the property
owner to require that the sign be altered to conform to code.
The granting of this variance will not detract or adversely affect nearby uses that
have conforming signs, nor will it adversely impact the overall appearance of the
community.
!.
()
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
12
'(>
Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval.
. . " ,I . :, I
, 1, ~ '
j: ,'.
t.: f.\
" ,
, .
~ ;'j,: ~
f,,' .;
.".1<. .
.", \,' . ~. , J~
Mr. Shuford explained the request and presented photographs of the existing
signage on the property.
Warren Hughes; representing the applicant, verified the photographs of the existing
signage. He agreed 'with the condition the landscaping in front of the sign be continually
maintained.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the 75.6 square footareo measurement of the
sign. Mr. Shuford responded the structure face of freestanding signs is included in the
calculations.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve an area variance of 11.6 square feet to
a"lIpw a 75.6 square foot freestanding sign for the subject property as Section 45.24
,standards for approval have been met, subject to the condition the landscaping in front of
the sign be continuously maintained. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
C' :)
'.-
. 6. Ernest'R. & Lvdia J. Malke (Ritz Resort MotIDl for variances at (1) 4.5 ft setback to
allow a freestanding sign 0.5 ft from street right-ot-way (5. Gulfview Blvd); (2) 5 ft
setback to allow a freestanding sign 0 ft from street right-of-way (Fifth St); and (3) 4 s'q ft
to allow a freestanding sign of 54 sq ft to permit nonconfor~ing signage to remain at 355
S. Gulfview Blvd, Lloyd-Whits-Skinner Sub, lots 71 & 120. zoned CR 28 (Resort
Commercial). SV 92-84
, , .
The subject property is located on the north side of Fifth Street, bounded by S.
Gulfview Boulevard on the west and Coronado Drive on the east. The property is in the
CR-28 zoning district.
, If the signs were relocated to meet the setback standards. it would be necessary to
remove two parking spaces (one for each sign). It would be possible to relocate the
Coronado Drive sign back approximately two faet without affecting the parking and
thereby coming closer to meeting the setback standards. but the positive effect to the
public would be marginal in comparison to the cost incurred by the private property owner
to accomplish thi~.
Given that the sign on Coronado Drive is undersized by 7 square feet, staff reg~rds
the request for an additional 4 square feet on the S. Gulfview Boulevard sign to be
reasonable as well as minimal. '
, ,
,
I
I
The granting of these variances will not detract from the surrounding businesses
that have conforming signage nor will it negatively affect the overall appearance of the
, community.
Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval.
L,
l>
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
13
This item was withdrawn.
'.': ,~\' I
"
.t
..~ ~ ,
C'+';
Mr. .Richter explained the request and presented photographs of the existing
signage on the property. ' .
. Ernest Malke, owner, verified the photographs of the existing signage presented by
staff. He said the motel has been in business for 23 years and is situated on a corner lot.
He indicated moving the sign back would create a hardship as two parking spaces and
visibility going south on Gulfview Boulevard would be lost.
In response to a question, Mr. Shuford indicated there is a small restaurant sign on
Coronado Drive which it is believed was erected without a permit. Mr. Malke said he
would 'remove the sign.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a setback variance of 4.5 feet to allow a
freestanding sign 0.5 feet from the S. Gulfview Boulevard property line, 5 feet setback to
allow a freestanding sign zero feet from the Fifth Street property line and an area variance
of 4 square feet to allow a' freestanding sign of 54 square feet for the subject property as
Section 45.24 standards for approval have been met~ subject to the conditions that (1)
neither sign shall be permitted to increase in area; and (2) the small restaurant sign on
Coronado Drive shall be removed immediately. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. '
7. BarQer Interests (Peaches) for variances of ,(1) 13.2 sq ft to permit a total of 163.2 sq ft
attached area signage (Enterprise Rd frontage); (2) 1 attached sign to permit 6 attached
signs and of 3 wall signs to permit the 6 signs to be of the same type (US 19 frontage);
(h\ and (3) 91.2 sq ft to permit 233.7 sqft attached area signage (US 19 frontage) to permit
'-.. I nonconforming signage to remain at 26034 US Hwy 19, Darryl's Sub, Unplatted Lot 1, .
less road right-of-way, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 92~94
8. Chevron USA. Ino (Chevron & Dunkin Donuts) for variances of (1) 1 freestanding sign
to permit a total of3 such' signs; (2) 86.25 sq ft freestanding sign area to permit a total of
263.9 sq ft of such sign area; and (3) 6 ft in height to permit a 26 ft high freestanding
sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 23988 US Hwy 19 N, Blackburn's Sub,
part of Lot 1, and part of vacated Barrett Rd, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 92-95
It should be noted that the applicant's request regarding the area variance is for
86.25 square feet; however, staff finds that the actual variance should be 64.7 square
feet.
The subject property is located on the southwest corner of US 19 and Sunset Point
Road and is in the CH zoning district. There are two freestanding business establishments
on this property, a Chevron service station and a Dunkin Donuts restaurant.
The property is owned by Chevron 'U.S.A. and a portion of the property is leased to
Dunkin Donuts. Since the property has frontage on two major thoroughfares, the code
allows, two freestanding signs, one on each. However, because there are two freestanding
( .1
~Ir
minSPO 1 b. 94
1/24/94
14
hi ~ .
c . ~ .
'1
'1 ,I
; ,
I", . t
" ,
I.
C: '
businesses fronting on US 19, the applicant is requesting that each be permitted a sign for
US19. Two new signs are proposed for the Chevron station, which is the corner business.
One will be placed along Sunset Point Road and will meet all code requirements. The
other will be placed along US19, and will replace the existing high.dse sign. However,
before the Chevron sign can be replaced, the Dunkin Donuts sign would need to be
removed, or a variance granted.
, .
The property is unique because these businesses function as two separate entities ,
with'separate buildings and parking. It would pose an extreme hardship for either business
to lose an identification sign along US19. However, there does not appeal to be grounds
for allowing the Dunkin Donuts sign to be higher than other signs in the area or in the City.
The applicant contends the sign will cause a traffic hazard if lowered to meet the City's
height limitation. In the event the sign is lowered, a portion of the sign panel would be ,
positioned ten feet over a paved portion of parking lot. The City Traffic Engineer indicates
that fourteen feet is the appropriate minimum clearance and recommends that, if the sign
if lowered to ten feet o'ver grade, the traffic island below the sign be extended either by
painting and placing flex posts, or curbing.
While the existence of the Dunkin Donuts' signs is in character with the signage
permitted for the surrounding commercial uses, the additional height of this sign is not in
character with other freestanding signs. The granting of the height variance will detract
from the surrounding businesses that have signage conforming to the height requirements,
permit an unfair advertising advantage to this establishment,' and negatively impact the
overall appearance of the community.
(:
'.
~.
With regard to the height variance request, staff feels the applicant's request does
not meet the standards for variance approval.
Mr. Richter e~plained the request and presented photographs of the existing
signage on the property.
Earl Wesson, representing Chevron USA, verified the photographs of the signage
presented by staff. He stated the property is platted as one lot. Dunkin Donuts has a 20
year lease which will expire in September 1994. Both businesses want to attract
customers on U.S. 19. Mr. Wesson said Chevron would be allowed a sign on Sunset Point
Road; ,however, felt it would not help to attract any traffic from U.S. 19. The DOT has
'submitted right.of-way acquisition plans for U.S. 19 which right-of-way will go through the
middle pump island canopy in front of the Chevron station. Mr. Wesson indicated Chevron
is planning to raze both buildings and develop a new facility on the property. The two
businesse~ will cease to exist as two entities. Chevron will not be entering into a long
term lease with Dunkin Donuts upon the expiration of their lease. DOT's plan is scheduled
for 1996~1997. He said the existing Dunkin' Donut sign projects over a vehicular access .
, .
area.
In response to a question, Mr. Wesson said he agreed with staff's
recommendations except for denial of the height variance. .
, ()
minSPO 1 b. 94
1/24/94
15
:i . ,
j c> . '~
Ii
, ,
j. .
i:'
o
.
Commissioner Thomas indicated the Metropolitan Planning Council recommended to
not go forward with the acquisition of the Sunset Point Road/U.S. 19 section at this time
due to the cost. The funds were diverted to other roadway systems.
, Mayor Garvey questioned whether it is possible for Chevron USA to condition
renewal of the Dunkin Donut lease on the lowering of their sign.
,
i
i
I
'l
i
I
I ~
Commissioner Berfield questioned where the Chevron sign on Sunset Point Road
would be placed and Mr. Wesson said it would be placed at the northwesternmost portion
of the property as there is no landscaped area anywhere near U.S. 19. '
'I
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve variances of one freestanding sign to
permit a total of three such signs; 64 square feet freestanding sign area to permit a total
of 176 square feet of such sign area for the subject property as Section 45.24 standards
f9r approval have been met, and to deny a 6 foot height variance for failure to meet Sec.
45.24 standards for approval, items 1) The variance requested arises from a condition
which is unique to the property in question and is neither ordinarily or uniformly applicable
,to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner,
predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the execution of a building
permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be
situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The pa'rticular physical
surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict
application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary
hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the
(.:: ", unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable use of the
'iJ.:, ' land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant
to secure a greater financial return from the property; 5) The granting of the variance will
not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the property is located; 6) The granting of tile variance will not
impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the
appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish
or impair the value of surrounding property; 7) The variance desired will not adversely'
affect the public health, safety, order convenience, or general welfare of the community;
and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of
th!s development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
9. Ruth A. Davis. TRE/First National Bank CW, TR (Chain Wheel Drive. Inc) for a variance
of 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign to be located 0 ft from side property line at 1805
Drew St, Skycrest Sub Unit No.4, Blk F, part of Lot 3 and all of Lot 4, zoned CG (General
Commercial). SV 92-96
The applicant is requesting a variance of 5 feet from the 5 foot setback requirement
to allow a new freestanding sign Z/3ro feet from the east side property line. The new sign
will replace an existing freestanding sign that exceeds the height, area and setback
requirements.
l"
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
16
I'
.1' ." .
I; .
.:: ~ >".
. \
, ,
.'
~ '., ~) ..
. .
, ,
;;;J. L" . .
~ :. ~f' ~ , . . > .
n
"
The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Drew Street and Venus
Avenue and is in the CG zoning district.
There is very little available space in the front of this store to place a freestanding
sign. Most of the frontage is used for parking. Only a small area at the east end of the
store is available to accommodate a sign without causing the removal of a parking space.
It is noteworthy that the parking spaces are nonconforming because they are "back out"
spaces and are partially located within the Drew Street right~of~way. Removal of any of
the parking spaces would have a negative effect on the business. The area at the east end
of the store where there are no parking spaces is where the existing sign is located.
.,
I
Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval.
The building is located on the east property line. The lack of a setback for the sign
is inconsequential given the location of the building.
\'
Mr. Shuford explained the request and presented photographs of the existing
signage on the property.
. t;l
Thomas Jessup, business owner"verified the photographs of the signage presented
by staff. He stated if the sign is relocated to meet the side property line setback, he
would lose parking spaces. In response to a question, Mr. Jessup said he has contracted
for a new sign which will conform with the allowable square footag'e.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a setback variance of 5 feet to allow a
new freestanding, sign zero feet from the side property line for the subject property for
meeting Section 45.24 standards for approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously. '
The meeting recessed from 11 :03 a.m. to 11: 15 a.m.
10. John & Christina Stathas (Sandpiper Motel) for variances (1) of 12.5 sq ft to permit a
total of 62.5 sq ft freestanding signage area; (2) of 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign to
remain 0 ft from street right.of~way; (3) to permit a freestanding sign in Beach Commercial
Zone without 15 ft minimum building setback; (4) ,of 16 sq ft of attached sign area to
permit a total of 64 sq ft; and (5) to permit a roof mounted sign to permit nonconforming
signage to remain at 400 East Shore Dr, Barbour-Morrow Sub, Blk B, Lots 12-14, zoned
CB (Beach Commercial). SV 92-100
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit an attached roof
mounted sign and a freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 16 square feet
. from the 48 square feet permitted to allow an attached sign with a total area of 64 square
feet; 2) a variance to allow a roof mounted sign where such signs are prohibited; 3) an
area variance of 12.5 square feet from the 50 square feet permitted for a freestanding sign
to allow a total area of 62.5 square feet; 4) a setback variance of 5 feet from the required:
5 foot setback to allow a freestanding sign zero feet from the Poinsettia Avenue right-of~
way; and 5) a variance to allow a freestanding sign in the Beach Commercial zone on a
L/
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
17
: ~i
f
... -. . \
'.
!'
~ '.. .
; . ~ . .
, :: ~. t' >
th,
property where the buildings do not have a 15 foot setback from the right-of.way. A third
sign, attached to the roof of the north building, is not part of tl1i's variance application and
must be removed to comply with the sign regulations.
. The subject property is located on the north side of Marianne Street, between East
Shore Drive and Poinsettia Avenue, and is in the Beach Commercial zoning' district.
I
, 1
!
"
',j
, J
Variances Nos. 1 and 2, regard the roof sign that identifies the motel to the one
way westbound traffic entering Clearwater Beach. Because of the windows, the
'architectural design of the building prohibits the placement of an attached wall sign on the
east facade. Also, because the buildings are not fully back 15 feet from Marianne Street
and East Shore Drive, a freestanding sign cannot be placed at this corner without a
variance.
Staff recognizes the importance and need for an identification sign oriented to the
westbound traffic on Marianne Street. The architectural design and existing setbacks
co'mbine to create a unique condition for the placement of a sign at this location.
However, this is not justification for an additional area variance of 16 square feet and
consequently, it is staff's position that,lt is appropriate to dow'nsize this sign. As the
applicant considers ways to downsize the sign to conform, staff encourages the applicant
to con'sider some alternatives to placement of the sign on the roof, specifically, locating
the sign over the canopy at the main entrance, or requesting a variance to allow a
, freestanding sign of conforming area and height at the corner of Marianne Street and East
Shore Drive.
("
'~
"
'.
Variances Nos. 3, 4 and 5, regard the freestanding sign oriented to Poinsettia
Avenue. Staff observes there is difficulty placing a sign oriented to Poinsettia Avenue.
Both the southern building and the middle building are less than one foot from the right.of-
way, leaving little room for placement of a viewable sign. Also, the architectural design of
the buildin'g leaves little opportunity for placement of an attached wall sign. While these
factors combine to create a unique condition for placement of a freestanding sign zero feet
from the Poinsettia Avenue right-at-way, these factors are not justification for granting
12.5 square feet of additional area. Furthermore, drawings accompanying the variance
application show this freestanding'sign extends 4.5' feet into the Poinsettia Avenue right~
of-way. The City Engineer has directed staff to not allow any portion of a sign to
overhang into City right-of-way. If this sign Is permitted to be placed on this property with
a zero foot setback, it should be reduced in size to 50 square feet and removed from the
right-of-way.
, I
,
, These signs, as proposed, are not in character with the signage permitted for the
surrounding commercial uses. However, if the freestanding sign is moved out of the right-
of-way and the area of both signs is reduced to the permitted amount, the signs will, in
general, be in character with signage in the area.
Staff finds that the request for variances to allow a freestanding sign with a zero
foot setback and a roof sign meet all eight standards for variance approval.
L,
minSPO 1 b. 94
1/24/94
18
c..
, With regard to the request for area variances of both signs. staff feels these
requests do not meet the standards for variance approval.
'11II . '. ' ~.' .
~ . ~;;
t
h"
, : '! . ~
Mr. Richter explained the request and presented photographs of the sign age on the
property. Mayor Garvey asked why staff is recommending the roof sign. Mr. Richter
responded it is difficult to identify this property to motorists due to the architecture of the
building. He said staff would prefer the applicant obtain a variance for a freestanding sign
in lieu of the roof sign~ '
Mayor Garvey questioned if a roof sign is necessary to identify properties for
people coming across the causeway. should staff be encouraging all hotels and motels to
have roof signs. Mr. Richter said the sign is for identification once on Clearwater Beach.
Mr. Richter said there is a freestanding sign on Poinsettia Avenue; however, it does not
provide identification from Marianne Street.
Mr. Shuford noted many options were reviewed for this site and it was felt the roof
sign would be the best means of identification. He noted the layout of the property is
unique and believed there w,as clear justification for a roof sign.
Mr. Konstantine Statas, representing the applicant, verified the photographs of the
signs presented by staff. He indicated the number of windows in the facility do not allow
for an effective wall sign. He said the current roof sign on East Shore Drive and Marianne
Street is very important to attract business. Mr. Stathas indicated his willingness to
consider placing an attached sign over the porch and reducing the area of the freestanding
,~~ sign on Poinsettia Avenue.
Mayor Garvey asked if the motel's neon sign is being removed and Mr. Stathas
indicated it was.
Commissioner Thomas said the roof sign concerns him from a safety standpoint.
He asked how long the sign has existed. Mr. Stathas indicated for at least 15 years and
has sustained Hurricane Elena and the No Name Storm and did not find it dangerous from
a safety standpoint.
In response to quentions. Mr. Stathas indicated he would consider a mounted r'oof
sign over the porch, reducing the area of the freestanding sign 'and modifying it to prevent
. the sign fror)'l encroaching into. the right.of-way on Poinsettia Street.
Commissioner Thomas questioned having the sign extend over the right-of-way as
it has for many years. Mr. Shuford said staff is recommending the sign be moved as it
constitutes a safety problem by extending over the right-of-way.
A question was raised whether there was enough area to move the sign back and
Mr. Stathas indicated there was sufficient space between the buildings.
Commissioner Deegan noted he 'was not concerned with the freestanding sign
rem~ining as it is. Commissioner Thomas said his main concern was the roof sign.
L/
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
19
.. '....
,
~ ~ I t :',~.'
~ I"
'\ I
i ,
r~
'F(",!
",
l)
Mr. Stathas requested 15 months to address the freestanding sign on Poinsettia
Street if the variances for this sign are denied.
Discussion ensued in regard to the roof sign and majority consensus was to allow.
the applicant to address removing the sign and designing a new one. In response to a
question, it was indicated a new sign conforming with the allowable square footage would
be mounted on the top of the porch on East Shore Drive.
Commissioner Thomas noted he did not see a problem with leaving the freestanding
sign on Poinsettia Street alone. In response to a question, it was indicated the sign
extended over the parking area.
, Commissioner Deegan said the intent of the code is to remove visual clutter and felt
this would be accomplished by removing the roof sign.
Commissioner Thomas m'oved to approve variances of 12.5 square feet to permit a
total of 62.5 square feet freestanding s;gnage area; of 5 feet to permit a freestanding sign
to remain zero feet from street right-of-way; and to permit a freestanding sign in the beach
commercial zone without a 15 foot minimum setback as Section 45.24 standards for
approval have been met and to deny a variance of 16 square feet of attached sign area to
permit a total of 64 square feet and a roof mounted sign at the subject property for failure
to meet Section 45.24 standards for approval, items 1) The variance requested arises from
a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither ordinarily or
uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the
property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. 'Any mistake made in tile execution
, of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be
considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular
physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the
strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to
overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in 112 for the purpose of making reasonable
use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the
applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; 5) The granting of the
variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in
the neighborhood in which the property is located; 6) The granting of the variance will not
impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the
appearance of the community, substantially increa~e the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, ondanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish
or impair the value of surrounding property; 7) The variance desired will not adversely
affect. the public health, safety, order convenienc:e, or general welfare of the community; ,
and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit' and intent of
this development code. The motion was duly seconded.
. \
Commissioner Barfield expressed concern in allowing the freestanding sign without
a 15 foot setback especially when the sign exceeds the allowable square footage and
extends over the right-of-way. She asked tllat the signs be addressed separately.
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
20
'.
,,'
1 '
,-~
o
Commissioner Thomas withdrew the motion on the floor. The seconder concurred.
(...
\ . , .~ 1
,:'1
...,r
Commissioner Berfield moved to deny variances of 16 square feet of attached sign
area to permit a'total of 64 square feet and a roof mounted sign, for the subject property,
for failure to meet Section 45.24 standards for approval, itoms 1) The variance requested
arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither ordinarily
or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor createti by an action or actions of the
property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the execution
of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be
considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular
physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the
strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to
overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in 112 for the purpose of making reasonable
use of the land; 4) The request for a'variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the
applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; 5) The granting of the
variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in
the neighborhood in which the property is located; 6) The granting of the variance will not
impair an adequate supptyof light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the
appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish
or impair the value of surrounding property; 7) The variance desired will not adversely
affect the public health, safety, order convenience, or general welfare of the community;
and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of
this development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve variances of 12.5 square feet to permit a
total of 62.5 square feet freestanding signage area; of 5 feet to permit a freestanding sign
to remain zero feet from a street right-of-way; and to permit a freestanding sign in the
beach commercial zone without a 15 foot minimum setback for the subject property as
Section 45.24 standards have been met. The motion was duly seconded and upon the
vote being taken, Commissioners Deegan and Thomas voted "aye;1t Commissioners
Fitzgerald and Berfield and Mayor Garvey voted Itnay." Motion failed.
Commissioner Berfield asked the applicant if he was willing to bring the
freestanding sign into conformance regarding the square footage and move it out of the
right~of-way. Mr. Stathas agreed and requested, additional time.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve variances of 5 feet to permit a
freestanding sign to remain zero feet from a street right-of-way and to permit a
freestanding sign in the beach commercial zone without a minimum 15 foot setback for
the subject property as Section 45.24 standards for approval have been met, subject to
the conditions that all signage shall be brought into compliance and the encroachment into
the, Poinsettia Avenue right-of-way shall be eliminated within 1 5 months of the date of this
public hearing and to deny a variance of 12.5 square feet to permit a total of 62.5 square
feet for the subject property for failure to meet Section 45.24 standards for approval,
items 1) The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in
ll':
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
21
. .,
J, '
, , .
I..
, '
"
~. .
::,: ~'
("
(,,;)
". \'t~
....
If, ,I
~,
, '
question and is neither ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district n'or created
by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any
mistake made'in the execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit
of a 'permit shall not be considered to be situations which support the granting of a
variance; 2) The particular physical surroundings, shap'e or topographical conditions of the
property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code
would result in an unnecessary hardship' upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the
minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the
purpose of making reasonable use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based
primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the
property; 5) The granting of the variance will not 'be materially detrimental or injurious to
other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; 6)
The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to
adjacent property, detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety
in any way, or substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; 7) The
variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, order convenience, or
general welfare of the community; and 8) The granting 'of the variance desired will not
violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
, ~
"
j
. I
:r
Commissioner Deegan indicated staff had been requested to work with DOT to see
if a sign could be erected on the approach to the causeway indicating where the motels "
are located. Mr. Shuford said a request had been made; however, DOT expressed' concern
in creating a precedent for other businesses on Clearwater Beach.
, ,
Discussion ensued in regard to placing a sign on City property identifying the areas
where motels/hotels are located and it was indicated staff will research its feasibility.
" '
Commissioner Thomas said it is his understanding the previous city manager had
formally requested from the DOT that SR 60 end at the causeway at the Beach Diner and
the City take back ownership from that point to the Gulf. Staff is to research.
11. Thomas E. & Barbara E. Soares (EI Canitan Restaurant & Lounqe. Incl for variances of
(1) 0.5 ft to permit,a freestanding sign 4.5 ft from property line; and (2) 227.2 sq ft to
permit 291.2 sq ft in area of attached signage to permit nonconforming signage to remain
at 2525 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, See 18-29-16, M&B 41.04. zoned CG (General Commercial). SV
93-05
'I
The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
and Bypass Drive, and is in the CG zoning district.
The applicant proposes to remove the top panel of the existing freestanding sign
and reuse the existing sign poles to support the remaining sign panel, which will be moved
up to a height ot' 20 feet. The existing poles' are located 4.5 feet from the Gulf to Bay
Boulevard right-of-way. Accordingly, the setback variance request is for 0.5 foot, which is
indeed minimal. It should be noted, however, there is a contradiction in the application
minSPO 1 b. 94
1 /24/94
22
;....'.~..;..~")~. E': . .f
t' '.' <.,
;. . J, I
, "
,',
I':.
. . \ ". ::.. J.
, ~, . " . .'. '.
~.; :,. . .,
::~.~ ..' i j
,~
, ..
regarding the area of this sign. There exists a statement on the applicant's sign drawing
specifying the described modifications will causo the sign to conform to the area and
height requirements. Yet, the sign panel proposed to remain is shown as 6 x 12 feet; or
72 square feet. If the dimensions are accurate, in order for this panel to conform to the
64 square foot maximum, this panel will require some m'odification.
/
1-
I
,
!
I
!
As grounds to support the variance request for attached signage; the applicant
contends the building "sits in a hole". Altliough the building elevation is lower than the
street, site inspection revealed that the building is completely visible from the street and
, the grade differential does not justify the area variance. The app,licant states the business
in under Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Since the cost of replacing these signs appears to be a
primary concern, this variance request appears to be based primarily upon the desire of the'
applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property.
Commercial and professional office uses surround the subject property. The
existence of the 291.2 square feet of attached signage is not in character with the signage
permitted for the surrouryding uses. The granting of 'the' ar~a variance will detract fro m the
businesses that have conforming signage, permit an unfair advertising advantage to this
applicant, and negatively impact the overall appearance of the community.
Wit~ regard to the request for an area variance, staff feels this request does not
meet the standards for variance approval.
.,,,,'
1(..
. 4?~\
~"
Mr. ,Shuford explained the request and presented photographs of the existing signs
on'the subject property ~
'Thomas Soares, owner and' operator of the restaurant, verified the photographs of
existing signage presented by staff. He proposed to remove the words "restaurant" and
"buccaneer" from the attached sign on the building and to remove the top panel of the
existing freestanding sign. He noted the building is setback a good distance from the road
and is situated in a hole.
Mr. Shuford noted the freestanding sign will have to be reduced in height and
square area and it was noted the applicant has indicated a willingness to reduce the sign.
, ,
A question was raised if the words nresta'urant" and "buccaneer" are removed from
the attached sigJ:}, will the sign be in conformance. Mr. Shuford reviewed the calculations.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve a 'setback variance of 0.5 foot for the
subject property as Section 45.24 standards for approval have been met, subject to the
condition that the area of the freestanding sign not exceed the 64 square feet permitted.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued in regard to staff's and the applicant's calculations and it was
recommended t,he request tor the attached sign be continued to get the precise
measurements on what is being proposed., .
i.,
~,
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
'.
. . . .
,. . '.~.' .
. ,.......! .
,:'" "I
.. .
,~ .
. . I.
'.
'I
, ,
r'/:. :', ~..{ ,
'. .
~ : ~ ~ " , . .,
, '
I' .. ....
, '
r~
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue, the request for an area variance for the
attached sign to the scheduled meeting of February 7, 1994. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unan!mously.
12. Lakeview Professional Village Condo Assn, Inc for a variance of two directory
information signs to permit two nonconforming signs to remain at 516 Lakeview Rd,
Lakeview Professional Villag'e Condo, zoned IL (Limited Industrial), SV 93~28
. ;
The applicant is requesting a variance to permit two directory information signs.
Because the property contains less than 25,000 square feet of floor area, no such signs
w,ould be allowed without the variance.
, i
i
t
The subject property is located on the north side of Lakeview Road, east of S. Ft.
Harrison Avenue, and is in the IL zoning district. The variance is requested to allow the
replacement of two directory signs, one of which presently stands on the north side of the
complex and one which stood on the,south side prior to 'destruction caused by a vehicle.
The subject property is developed with a one-story office complex containing ,
approximately 12,000 square feet of floor area. The property is accessible from either
, Lakeview Road or S. Ft. Harrison Avenue. According to the site plan accompanying the
application, both proposed signs will be located away from public ,streets and will be,
oriented toward drives internal to the development. It is cle'ar from the site plan that the
signs will be plac'ed to direct people located on-site, not to attract the attention of or
otherwise advertise to those located off-site.
(!..)
Each sign is 20 square feet in area and will be in scale and proportion to' the
development,on this site and other properties in the neighborhood.
Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval.
Mr. Richter explained the application and prasented photographs of the existing
signage on the property.
,
Christopher Puen verified the photographs of the signage presented by staff.
Mr. Shuford noted one of the directory signs had been hit by a car and the
applicant wants to have h reconstructed.
I
I,
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a variance to permit two directory
information signs for the subject property as Section 45.24 standards for approval have
been met, subject to the condition that the signs sl1all be positioned in accordance with
the site plan that accompanies the variance application. The motion was duly seconded
~nd carried unanimously.
,
"
~J
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
24
"
I . ,
~
'I~'~:7
1 "
'.
l .,;
,-.
,'. ",
,":, <.; "
J'
" .;
.,
13. Burdines Real Estate Ine/Federated Deot Stores for variances of (1) 185 sq ft of
attached signage to permit 335 sq ft of such signage on east building face; and (2) 185 sq
ft to permit 335 sq ft of attached signage on south building face to permit nonconforming
signage to"remain at 20505 US Hwy 19, 17-29-16, M&B 31.02, zoned CC (Commercial
Center). SV 93H37
r.,
!
,
,.
/'
j
,
The subject property is located on the southeast corner of US 1 9 and Gulf to Bay
Boulevard, in the Clearwater Mall and is in the CC zoning district.
i,
~ .
I
!"
The applicant contends that due to the physical layout of the building, the size of
these signs is essential for proper identification of the business. However. these signs are
directed to the interior of the parking lot and the maximum size of 150 square feet wlll
adequa~ely identify the building entrance. There are other major tenants within this mall
and other malls, and staff regards Burdines to be similarly situated to the others. The
applicant hes not provided any evidence these requests arise from conditions unique to
this property. Furtherrryore. staff does not regard the request to be minimal.
Clearwater Mall consists of retail stores. The existence of these two 335 square
foot wall signs is not in character with the signs permitted for th~ other stores in this mall.
. The granting of these variances will detract from the commercial businesses that have
conforming signage, permit an unfair advertising advantage to the applicant. and
negatively impact the appearance of the community.
Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for varian'ce
approval.
Mr. Shuford explained the request noting the sign facing Gulf~ta-Bay Boulevard is a
conforming sign due to the sign bonus provisions and a variance (#2) is not required for
this sign; The other two signs face internally into the parking lot. He pointed out Gayfers
was allowed to keep their main sign visible from Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and the area
variance for the other two signs were denied. Gayfers has reapplied for reconsideration of
a sign variance.
Mayor Garvey questioned whether the applicants can come back if their variances
have been denied. Mr. Shuford said he was not sure if there was a time frame to bring the
signs into compliance when a prior request was denied. He recommended placing a time
frame to bring signs into compliance on future requests.
Mr. Mark Schaefer. representing the applicant, verified the photographs of existing
signage on the property presented by staff. Mr. Schaefer said there is a parameter road
that runs around the back of the mall which is setback a great distance from Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard.' He indicated if the signs are reduced to 150 square feet, because of Burdines'
logo, the sign will be out of proportion with the massive wall on the south and east
elevations.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the most important sign to Burdines is the one
facing Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Mr. Schaefer respond~d it is.
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94 ",
25
"''"'''''"'
~ . '.
,
",
'~
,~.>
l:
,I
Discussion ensued in regard to a bypass road not being considered a major
thoroughfare. Mr. Shuford said it is not considered a true public right-of-way and is not
counted towards any sign bonus allowance. It was noted the Burdines sign at the
entrance of the mall from U.S.' 19 is not part of this request and Mr. Shuford said he
would to research the status of that sign. He indicated it could have been regarded as
allowable signage and eligible for a bonus.
In response to a question, Mr. Larry Evans, representing Burdines, responded he
feels very strongly about keeping the signs on the east and south sides of the building;
however, felt they could meet the requirements.
Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the requested variances to the square
footage on the east and south wall signs for the subject property for failure to meet
Section 45.24 standards for appr'oval, items 1) The variance requested arises from a
condition which is unique to the property in Question and is neither ordinarily or uniformly
applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner,
predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the execution of, a building
permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be
situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular physical
surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict
application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary
hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the
unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable use of the
land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant
to secure a greater financial return from the property; 5) The granting of the variance will
not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the property is located; 6) The granting of the variance will not
impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the
appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish
or impair the value of surrounding property; 7) The variance desired will not adversely
affect the public health, safety, order convenience, or general welfare of the community;
and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of
this development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
A question was raised when Gayfers reapplies for a variance, if the full application
fee is charged. Mr. Shuford responded they paid the full fee the first time as the $50 fee
schedule was not in place. They would pay $50 to reapply. A question was raised if a
refund was m'ade to those applicants that applied before the $50 fee schedule was in
place. Mr. Shuford said refunds have been made. A request was made to check to see
what Gayfers paid. It was felt if an applicant reapplies, they should pay the full fee. Mr.
Shuford believed improved coordination of code enforcement with sign variance actions
,would address variances coming back before the Commission.
Commissioner Thomas he did not understand if a variance is denied, how an
applicant can have a rehearing before the same board again. Mr. Shuford said there is
provision establishing a time frame when a substantially similar application can be
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
~;~ '.< " '.
" II'
. ~' i ,- .
'. ~ . j .
, ;
:.....
,.
,C'
considered again. In response to a question, the City Attorney said there is no rule that
specifically allows a rehearing. He said he would not stop enforcement just because the
applicant is requesting a rehearing. . .
Mr. Schaefer asked what the time frame is for conformance. Mr. Shuford said the
Community Response Team will be contacting them to establish a time frame.
The meeting recessed from 12:30 p.m. to 1 :04 p.m.
14. Wonderful Familv USA, Inc (Forbidden City Restaurant) for variances of t 1) 12 ft in
height to permit a freestanding sign of 32 ft; (2) 78 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of
190 sq ft; (3) 2.3 sq ft to permit a directional sign of 6.3 sq ft; (4) 4 ft in distance to
permit a freestanding sign 1 ft from south and east property lines; and (5) permit a
directional sign with a logo/name that occupies more than 25 % of sign area t 1 sq ft) to
permit nonconforming signage to remain at 25778 US Hwy 19 N, See 31-28.16, M&B
14.05, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-41
The applicant is requesting tl1e following variances: 1) a variance of 12 feet in
height to allow a freestanding sign 32 feet in height; 2) a variance of 78 square feet in
area to allow a freestanding sign containing 190 square feet; 3) a variance of 2.3 square
feet in area to allow a directional sign containing '6.3 s'luare feet; 4) a setback variance of
, 4: feet to allow a freestanding sign 1 foot from both the south and east property lines; and
5) a yariance to allow a directional sign with a logo/name that occupies more than 25% of
the sign area.
C'"
The subject property is located on the west side of US19N and is in the CH zoning
distrl ct.
According to the variance application, the variances are necessary due to the US 19
'roadway construction. However, it is not clear from the application how this construction
affects these signs. Staff review of the property indicates that a conforming 112 square
foot sign, 20 feet high, and positioned 5 feet from the property line, would appropriately
serve to enable passing motorists to identify the property, and would not confer a special
privilege on this property owner that is not available to other property owners in this zone.
The applicant has not provided any evidence these requests arise from any conditions
unique to this property, and staff review indicates there are no particular physical
surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved to create a hardship for this
property owner.
The granting of these variances will detract from the surrounding businesses that
have conforming sign age and will negatively affect the overall appearance of the
community.
. Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance
approval.
L."
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
27
f,"'
,.' 'J, (~~ '. . '"
.. ~ '
j . i ':, '~
~. '+-~" . . '
(1I.....
\. '
C':,
. 'j
'r'-;'
-
~
Mr. Richter explained the request and presented photographs of the existing
signage on the property. , ' ,
Vincent DeMattia, representing the applicant, verified the photographs of the
signage presented by staff. He said due to the construction on U.S. 19 the sign was
relocated approximately 80 feet further back on the property. Reducing the height of the
sign would cause visibility problems. He presented photographs of the sign taken from
approximately 100-500 feet away from different directions. Mr. DeMattia said they would
have no problem with removing the changeable message portion of the sign which would
substantially reduce the overall area of the sign. He said they would like to keep the
structure the same size but would reduce the advertising area on,the entrance sign and
would like to keep the present height of the main sign.
,I
I
,'I
'\
!
',j
I
1
"
I
In response to a question. Mr. Richter said the directional sign is used for
advertising and is oversized. He did not find the height o.f the sign to be a problem.
Mr. DeMattia said h~ would be willing to reduce the size of the directional sign
, indicating his concern is the main sign. '
In response to a question. Mr. Richter stated a directional sign is limited to the
logo/name being 25 % of the area of the sign.
, Commission Deegan moved to deny the variances (#3 and #5) for the entrance sign
for the subject property for failure to meet Section 45.24 items 1) The variance requested
arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither ordinarily
or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the
property owner, predecessor in title. or the applicant. Any mistake made in the execution
of a building permit' or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be
considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular
physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the
strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to
overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable
use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire 'of the
applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; 5) The granting of the
variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in
the neighborhood in which the property is located; 6) The granting of the variance will not
impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the
appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the .danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish
or impair the value of surrounding property; 7) The variance desired will not adversely
affect the public health, safety, order convenience. or general welfare of the community;
. and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of
this development code. The motion was duly second~d and carried unanimously.
, I
Mayor Garvey said there was a difference between the photographs that staff
presented and those that the Mr. DeMattia presented.
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
28
, t.
;)::<'
It
,: .
'. ~.
" (.
, ,
r.o ,', ,','
"..:.,..
c",< I:
, ,0
Commissioner Fitzgerald noted he is very familiar with the area 'and indicated the
trees shown in the photographs ore somewhat misleading and did not feel they were an
impediment to the visibility of the sign.'
, Mr. DeMattia indicated the curvature of the road when heading south going through
Enterprise Road makes it difficult to see the sign until almost on top of it. He noted there
is also a billboard sign (Executive Center) that blocks the lower part of the restaurant's,
sign. In response to a question, he said the photographs were taken from north of the
corner of the Dimmitt property and from the center divider pn U.S. 19.
Concern was expressed the current sign detracts from the surrounding businesses
that have conforming signage.
Discussion ensued in regard to the differences between staff's and Mr. DeMattia's
photographs regarding the trees presenting a visibility problem. A suggestion was made to
,continue this portion of ,the request to compare photographs.
There was also discussion regarding there being no visibility problem with locating
the restaurant when traveling north on U.S. 19. Mr. DeMattia responded this is currently
the case; however, reducing the sign in height will create a visibility problem.
Mr. Shuford pointed out the applicant's request includes the removal of the bottom
panel on the freestanding sign. In response to whether the top portion of the sign
measured 190 square feet. Mr. Shuford indicated it did. '
tJ,,;.~
:'cl
,
Discussion ensued in regard to whether the trees surrounding the restaurant could
be trimmed and Mr. Shuford indicated they may be located on private property. Mr.
Shuford believed staff's photographs were taken from the property and did not provide a
, road view angle to see if the trees do present a visibility problem.
Discussion ensued as to whether any height variances had been granted on U.S. 19
ifi the past on property adjacent to the restaurant. Commissioner Thomas asked if any
exceptions to the 20 foot sign height on U.S. 19 have, been made due to this type of
topography. Mr. Shuford said none that he is aware'of only those businesses that were
, near an overpass. Commissioner Thomas also questioned if there were any exceptions
made to square footage due to topography. Mr. Shuford responded Suncoast Inn which
, was' setback off the road due to an access road. They were allowed a larger and taller
'sign. The Mayor noted the' property was definitely treed.
In response to a question, Mr. DeMattia said keeping the current height of the sign
would be a priority over square footage. He noted that DOT relocated their sign 80~90
feet back on the property when they bought the front parcel of land. A question was
, raised as to why the sign was not brought into conformance when it was moved by DOT.
Mr. DeMattia said he was not sure. 0'
I:
," "
"'-....:...t
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
,29
'.
~:~; :::.. ::' c j
t. ....
,;
t;,C I
, )
"
, '
C~\
Mrs. Karen Wei, owner, said DOT contracted with the Heath Sign Company to
relocate the sign. A question was raised if DOT violated the code by not getting a permit.
The City Attorney responded he was not aware of the procedure followed at' that time.
Mr. Shuford said a sign relocation permit would have been required and he will investigate
to see if one was issued. He said previous staff may have believed since this situation
was not caused by the property owner they allowed them to get the full benefit during the
amortization period. Commissioner Thomas found it improper to wait for the amortization
period because the DOT was paying to relocate the sign as part of the right-of-way
acquisition. ' '
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue the request to the scheduled meeting of
February 7, 1994. The motion was duly seconded.
Mr. DeMattia asked the Commission to consider allowing the sign to come under
the grandfather c1ause"because the DOT relocated the sign. It was noted 'there is no
grandfather clause relating to signs.
Commissioner Deegan suggested considering allowing a taller sign if the area of the
sign is brought into conformance. Concern was expressed it still would not meet the
requirements with other signs that have conformed.
Discussion ensued in regard to staff researching the record to see what took place
wnen'the sign was relocated by DOT and to review the photographs.
t;,..,
,,'
.. ,.'
Upon the vote being taken on the motion on the floor to continue this, item to
February 7, 1994, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Thomas requested staff work with the applicant regarding
alternatives. '
15. Great lakes Property, Inc (Cambridqe Apartments) for variances of (1) 65,.25 sq ft to
permit 89.25 ft of freestanding signage area; (2) 18 ft in height to permit a 24 ft high
sign; and (3) 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign 0 ft from street right-of.way to permit
nonconforming signage to remain at 21227 US Hwy 19 N, See 17-29-16, M&B 22.02,
zoned RM-24 (Multi-Family Residential). SV 93-61
The subject property is located on the east side of US 19. between Drew Street and
Gulf to Bay Boulevard and is in the RM-24 zoning district.
The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district.
The applicant contends that the frontage road providing access to the site causes an
additional setback from US 19. Furthermore, the commercial zoning of the surrounding
properties allows larger signs. Although the frontage road does cause the sign to be
setback further from US 19, this is not the only property located on the frontage road and
this location does not constitute a unique conditIon to this property.
l~.:
minSPOl b.94 ,
1/24/94
30
t'
. '
)'
.'~
~.,~+~ I r~..
. I !
~ ." ,'..,
~
In support of the height variance request, the applicant contends the future
, overpass at Drew Street will allow the existing sign height. Initial plans for this overpass
are not scheduled until late 1995. Th~ height bonus provisions do not include future
construction.
The applicant has not provided any evidence these requests arise from any
conditions unique to this property. These requests are extreme with regard to the
permitted area, setback and height of a freestanding sign and cannot be considered
minimal requests for the RM-24 zoning district.
'j
The existence of this 89.25 square foot, 24 foot high sign with a zero foot setback
is not in character with the signage permitted for the RM-24 zoning district. The granting
of these variarjces will permit a sign that is larger than is permitted in any residential
zoning district and some commercial districts. This is not consistent with signage
permitted for other multiple family developments on US19 and would permit an unfair
advertising advantage to this property: Also, this' sign detracts from the surrounding
commercial businesses that have conforming signage for their zoning districts and will
negatively impact the overall appearance of the community.
, Staff finds that of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, the
applicant's request does not meet all the standards for approval in Section 45.24.
Mr. Shuford explained the application and presented photographs of the existing
signage on the property. .
'1~ Mr. Rich Hardwick. representing the applicant, verified the photographs of the
signage presented by staff. When the sign was blown down due to a storm. it took four
months to get it replaced with a temporary sign. During those four months, the
occupancy and rental income fell approximately 15 percent. He believed good signage on
, U.'S. 19 is critical for a business being successful. Mr. Hardwick said the 'project was built
22 years ago' and has struggled for many years. He felt modifying the existing signage to
meet code will hurt business significantly. The location of the property is unique as it is
approached from an overpass and is setback, further than other properties in the area due
to a service road. Allowing only a 6~foot high sign for this type project on a road such as
U.S. 19. he considered to be a hardship. He indicated DOT may be taking approximately
38 feet of the property for right~of.way and requested the sign stay as it currently is until
then. In response to questions. Mr. Hardwick responded 6 months to 1 year is the length
of a typical lease and there was approximately a 35 percent turnover last year. In
response to when the sign was originally erected. Mr. Hardwick said about 15 years ago
and the original sign was reduced by 30 percent. He said the "No Name" storm blew
down one face of the sign and expressed concern in the amount of time it took to replace
the sign.
Commissioner Barfield asked if it was kno'wn the sign was nonconforming when the
portion that blew down was replaced. Mr. Hardwick said he knew indicating a variance
had already been filed.
c',
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
31
.
. .
Mr. Shuford said, traditionally the City does not distinguish between sign
requirements for different zoning classifi cations based upon thoroughfare. requirements.
He noted an RM-24 zoning district on U.S. 19 would not be created any differently than
one located on Clearwater Beach.
i~'. .~., -. ~ .:
;: >
, . ,
.'. !
f'~(.:;.. . ~ ,"
. .
. .~ t .~,~ ;. ~'. ~ ~ ; .
. . .. .,' ,. . ~ :. I.";,,.,
c~
Commissioner Thomas asked if there is any data that shows an apartment complex
on a heavy roadway such as U.S. 19 has no commercial value. He questioned whether a
high customer volume should be looked upon as commercial property when it comes to
signage. '
Mr. Shuford noted the applicant's sign is 4 feet higher than what a business would
be allowed to have at this location.
Discussion ensued in regard to the possibility of an overpass being constructed at
Drew Street and U.S. 19.
Commissioner Deegan felt the surroundings were ~nique in this area and to limit
this complex to only a 6-foot sign made no sense because this is as much a business as
the neighboring car dealership: He felt the applicant should be allowed a sign 20 feet in,
height.
Mayor Garvey suggested listing the street number on the top of the sign.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve variances of 65.25 square feet to permit
4:"~ an 89.25 square foot sign; 14 feet in height to permit a 24 foot high sign; and 5 feet to
~: permit a freestanding sign zero feet from a street right-of-way for the subject property as
Section 45.24 standards for approval have been met, subject to the conditions (1) a sign
permit to modify the sign shall be obtained within 45 days of the date of this public
hearing and (2) the sign shall be completed in accordance with the variances granted
within 3 months of the date the sign permit is obtained. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
16. Fusco Com & John S. Tavlor. III (Sunshine MJ!ill for a variance of 4 ft in height to
permit a 24 ft freestanding sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1200 S.
Missouri, Ave, Sec 15-29-15, M&B 34.01 together with Sec 22-29-15, M&B 21.01, 21.02
& 21.12, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93-62
The subject property is located on the west side of Missouri Avenue, south of qruid
Road and is in the CC zoning district. The variance is requested to permit the
reconstruction of the existing freestanding sign which is substantially nonconforming to
height' and area requiremonts.
Sunshine Mall is located on approximately 40 acres of land. According to the
application, the Mall has the capacity to house 86 businesses. Because the property is
located in the CC zoning district, the Mall is allowed a 150 square foot freestanding sign,
the largest freestanding sign size allowed in the City. According to the sign diagram
accompanying the application, the steel beams that support the existing sign are proposed
,l~.
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
32
.' I
~. ".
., I
.,/
..
I
, '
"
':,J .
"
r
"'. .
tq be used to support the new sign. The diagram shows the beams separated by ten feet.
In effect, this sets the sign width at ten feet. Given the ten foot width, in order to take
advantage of the 1 50 square foot size entitlement. the sign must measure 15 feet
vertically. If the 20 foot height limit was to be ,strictly observed, the sign would stand
clear of the ground by only 5 feet. Staff contends it would be out of scale to place a sign
of this size with only 5 feet of clearance over grade. It is staff's position that the 9 feet of
clearance proposed is more appropriate for this ten foot horizontal, fifteen foot vertical
sign. Nine feet of clearance would improve sight visibility for vehicular traffic as well. ,
Because the Sunshine Mall property is approximately 40 acres in size with almost
2,000 feet of frontage along Missouri Avenue, the additional 4 feet of sign height will be
in scale with the Sunshine Mall property and will not adversely affect other properties in
the area. '
Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval.
Mr. Richter reviewed the application and presented photographs of the existing
signage on the property.
Kay Vega, General Manager of Sunshine Mall, verified the photographs of the
existing signage presented by staff. . She stated having the sign clear the ground by only 5
feet would place the reader board into the bushes and would create a hardship in trying to
advertise the promotions the mall is having.
(.
. "
Commissioner Thomas asked the height of the Clearwater Mall sign that was
redone and Mr. Richter believed 'the sign was greater than 20 feet in height. Mr. Shuford
noted the Countryside Mall has a taller sign and that was in relationship to the overpass.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter said the code used to allow signs of 150 square feet
or greate'r to have a height of 24 feet to bring both into proportion.
h, response to questions, Mr. Richter said the reader board would impact on both
the height and square footage of the sign and the sign poles would be 24 feet high after
the sign is modified. Mr. Richter noted two years ago Sunshine Mall. under the 1985
code, would not have needed a variance for this sign.
In response to a question,' it was indicated an amendment was made in 1991 to
conform with the countywide sign code of requiring signs of 150 square feet a 20 foot
maximum height. Mr. Shuford said prior to that time; certain classifications allowed signs
more than 150 square feet in area to go up to 24 feet in height.
Commissioner Thomas asked if granting the subject height variance will impact
future requests and expressed concern in setting a precedent. Mr. Richter said each case
needs to be considered individually and indicated Sunshine Mall has demonstrated this sign
is unique in that the sign will measure substantially more vertically than horizontally. Mr.
Shuford noted the mall has a unique topography in that it slopes downward.
L
I
..
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
33
Ci:."'t
/,
, ,
, ,
J.
t' '
}./~:. ".: .
"
(~
, ,
Commissioner Deegan found the need to try and identify the individual businesses
and promotional events in the mall to be justification for allowing the sign. He felt a
precedent would be set; however, supported the req~est due to the unique situation.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a height variance of 4 feet to permit a '
freestanding sign 24 feet high for the subject property as Section 45.24 standards for
approval have been met. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
I
I
I
J
,
The subject property is'located at the northwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard
and US 1 9 and is in the CH zoning district.
17. M. H. Corson, Jr. TRE (Howard Johnson) for variances of (1) 430.5 sq ft to permit a
freestanding sign of 542.5 sq ft; (2) 28 ft in height to permit a freestanding sign of 48.5 ft
in height; (3) 1 message panel to permit 3 message panels; (4) 4 ft in height to allow a
freestanding sign of 24 ft; and (5) 15.26 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of 127.26 sq
ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 20788 US Hwy 19 N, See 18-29-16,
M&B 14.12 & 14.121, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-64
()
The applicant has not provided any evidence these requests arise from aiW
conditions unique to this property which are not already accounted for in the sign
regulations. The existence of the US 19 overpass to the east of this property is unique,
but the sign regulations recognize and account for this circumstance. Specifically, the
regulations allo~ a sign height of ten feet above the crown of the roadway. (Sec.
44.54(2)) In addition, the applicant offers no evidence of any unique conditions or
hardship that would give rise to granting variances for the sign size or the number of
message panels.
These requests are extreme and cannot be considered minimal requests.
"
The existence of these oversized signs is not in character with the signage
permitted for the surrounding 'commercial areas and diverts attention from those land uses.
The granting of these variances will detract from the surrounding businesses that have
conforming signage as well ~s negatively affect the overall appearance of the community.
Staff feels the applicant's request does not meet the standards for variance
approval.
Mr. Shuford reviewed the application and presented photographs of the existing
signage on the property. Mr. Shuford said the applicant is allowed a 10 foot height bonus
on U. S. 19 due to the overpass which would permit a total height of 30 feet, 6 inches.
"
,
Richard Grist, representing the applicant, verified the photographs presented by
staff. He said if the height is reduced, the sign will be difficult to see in both directions
when going over the approach to the overpass. He said the two lower reCider board panels
can be removed and the top panel redesigned. Mr. Grist said 'the motel also advertises the
restaurant on the 'Iower panels of the sign on U.S. 19.
",.. '
~..
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
34
~) i ... . f +
c... ~. h: .
~. { , .
, .. ~ ~
, '. S~.~ ;:'
~ . t .
~
."
( ,
0,
,.
.1 'to',..'
l Discussion ensued in regard to redesigning the top portion of the sign to include
\ ..'. ' both businesses. It was noted if the motel sign is required to be reduced to the permitted
allowance of 1,12 square feet, the restaurant's identification would be taking up part of
this allowable square footage. A suggestion was made that an additional 20~25% of area
could be added to the bottom of the sign to advertise the restaurant.
sign.
, ,
There was discussion rp.garding advertising Howard Johnson's and Mr. Pat's on one
" Commissioner Thomas supported adding an additional 30 square feet to the sign on "
U.S. 19 to allow for' notification of the restaurant.
Commissioner Thomas moved to deny a 4 feet height variance for the freestanding
sign on Gulf.to.Say Boulevard for the subject property for failure to meet Section 45.24
standards for approval; items 1), The variance requested arises from a condition which is
unique to the property in question and is neither ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the
zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in
title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the execution of a building permit or work
performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be situations which
support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular physical surroundings, shape or
topographical c'onditions of the property involved and the strict application of the' '
provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the
applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary
hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable use of the land; 4) The
If,;:,.~ request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a
~,.i.') greater financial return from the property; 5) The granting of the variance will not be
materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood
in which the property is located; 6) The granting of the variance will not impair an
adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the appearance of
the communitv, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, endanger the public safety'in any ":lay, or substantially diminish or impair
the value of surroundiryg property; 7) The variance desired will not adversely affect the
public health, safety, order convenience, or general welfare of the community; and 8) The
granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this
development code. The motion was duly seconded.
In response to a question, Mr. Shuford responded Mr. Pat's is not allowed a
separate sign under the code as it is part of the Howard Johnson's development.
,
'i
. ,
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Grist said there will be two different businesses on the property and he wants
to combine both businesses on one sign.
Commission Thomas moved to approve an ar,ea variance of 30 square feet to
permit a freestanding sign of 142 square feet for the purpose of allowing two business
names to appear on the sign as Section 45.24 standards for approval have been met,
(.0/
minSPO 1 b. 94
1/24J94
35
~'I ~. "'.... ~ r,
,y)y. :',
) , :
, ,
I.
"
. .
01:.....
(',
',.
f" .
qh:
( , .
\r.;,
, ,
.'
:,'~ <,,' . < , jr.'
\".'" ,t .:.'
subject to the condition the signs be brought into compliance within 90 days of the date of
this public hearing and to deny a 15.26 square foot area variance for the freestanding sign
on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and a variance of one message panel on U.S. 19 for the subject
property for failure to meet Section 45.24 standards for approval, items 1) The variance
requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither
ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions
of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the'
execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not
be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular
physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the
strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to
overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable
use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the
applicant to secure a greater financial retl/rn from the property; 5) The granting of the
variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in
the neighborhood in which the property is located; 6) The granting of the variance will not
impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the
appearance of the community, substantially ,increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish
or impair the value of surrounding property; 7) The ,variance desired will not adversely
affect the p!.Jblic health, safety, order convenience, or general welfare of the community;
and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of
this development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
18. Vlasta Stahle (Val's Fine Foods) for variances of (1) 37.2 sq ft to permit 101.2 sq ft of
attached signage to remain; and (2) 3 attached signs to allow a total of 6 attached signs
to permit nonconforming signage to rem~in at 1736 Drew St, Drew Terrace Sub, Lot 43,
zoned CG (G~meral Commercial). SV 93-76
Tl:1e applicant 'is requesting the following variances to permit the existing attached
signage to remain: 1) an area variance of 37.2 square feet from the per~itted 64 square
feet to allow a total area of 101.2 square feet of attached signage; and 2) a variance of 3
attached wall signs from the permitted maximum of 3 signs of any single type to allow a
total of 6 such signs. . .
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Drew Street and Jupiter
Aven~e and is in the CG zoning district.
, ,
The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district.
,The applicant contends the signs are needed to assist motorists on a street which has high
speed traffic. The speed limit on Drew Street is '35 miles per hour. The applicant has not
provided any evidence these requests arise from any conditions unique to this property.
These requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and number of '
attached signs and cannot be considered minimal requests.
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
36
I, '
.~. t. ~
1 "
, '
'.' .
',C.l_ l'
,,'
:,,1
t,.~; '" c.
'/\i.1 " . "
, '
: .'.. <
'., , . '.
",
(~
.' ~..
The existence of six attached wall signs with a total area of 1 01 .2 square feet is
not in character with the signage permitted for the' surrounding businesses. The granting
of these variances will detract from the commercial businesses that have conforming ,
signage, permit an unfair advertising advantage to the applicant, and negatively impact the
overall appearance of the community., '
Staff feels the applicant's request does not rn'eet all of the standards for variance
approval.
Mr. Richter explained the application and presented photographs of the existing
signage on the property. In response to a question. Mr. Richter said the' property is
allowed a total of 64 square feet in 'signage.
,.
,', ...
-'
Mr. Mark Stahle, representing the appljcant, verified the photographs presented by
staff. He said the intent in placing the signs on the building is to assist in locating the ' ,
b'uildirig. The attached signs provide a better indicator than the pole sign. The business is
a destination type business with people coming a long way because of the store's unique
product line. Customers have indicated the attached signs make the building easier to
locate. Mr. Stahle sai~ 'the building has no windows and would be difficult to identify
wi~hout the attached signs. He said the signs depict what line of products are sold inside.
Discussion ensued in regard to combining products on the same sign and
eliminating other products to meet the allowable 64 square feet of signage. A suggestion
was made that the applicant work with staff in designing his signs to bring them into or
closer to compliance with code.
Commissioner Deegan moved to continue the request for the applicant to work with
staff to see how the lettering on the signs can be rearranged to comply with the
requirement of three attached signs for a total of 64 square feet or close to that amount. .
The motion was duly seconded.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter said the 64 square feet in area is what is
allowed for the entire bunding.
Upon the vote being taken on the motion on the floor to continue this item, the
motion carried unanimously.
19. U-Haul Co West Coast Florida. Inc IU-HAUL) for variances of (1) 96.8 sq ft in area to
permit a freestanding sign of 160.8 sq ft; (2) 11 ft in height to permit a freestanding sign
of 31 ft in'height; (3) 5 message panels to permit 7 message panels; and (4) 21.4 sq ft in
area to permit 85.4 sq ft in area of 'attached signage to permit nonconforming signage to '
remain at 201 S. Missouri Ave, Hibiscus Gardens, Blk L, Lots 1-6, part of Lots 7, 11 & 12,
zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-77
The applicant ;s requesting a continuance.
if.. ,i
. ~
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
37
'!. >
i: :,;', '
" '
..
... I,.
. .
"..,i{,.:>" :.',
I '
p
C~\
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue the request to the scheduled meeting of
February 7, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ;
20. First Florida Bank. N.A. (Barnett Bank) for variances of (1) 43.5 sq ft to permit a total
of 67.5 sq ft of attached signage on the west elevation; and (2) 49.5 sq ft to permit a
total of 73.5 sq ft of attached signage on the east elevation to permit nonconforming
signage to remain at 1499 Gutf-to-Bay B\vd, Bou\evard Heights, Blk J, Lots 9-17 less road
& Lots 21-23, zoned OL (Limited Office). SV 93-96 .
The applicant is r9questing the following variances to enable replacement of
attached signs: 1) an area variance of 43.5 square feet from the permitted 24 square feet
to allow attached signs with a total area of 67.5 square feet on the west elevation, and 2)
an area variance of 49.5 square feet from the permitted 24 square feet to allow a total
area of 73.5 square feet on the east elevation.'
The subject property is located at the five-way intersection of Gulf to Bay
Boulevard, Highland Avenue and Court Street. It is developed with a four story office
building. The property is zoned for office use, however, within limited Office zones, ,
typically small single story buildings are found, not multi-story buildings. Also, other
properties to the east and northwest on Gulf to Bay Boulevard are developed with smaller
buildings on ,smaller properties, but are allowed more attached sign .area 164 square feet).
Staff feels these conditions combine to make the property unique. In, addition, staff
review of this application included an inspection of the property and it was found that the
existing 24 square foot signs are small in relation to the scale of the building. It is staff's
(f:', position that the requested variances are in keeping with the scale of the building, and is
'....,. minimal given the location of the property, subject to the condition that no freestanding
signs be erected on this property.
The requested 67.5 and 73.5 square foot signs will be in character with signs
,permitted for other properties fronting on Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The, granting of these
variances will not detract from the surrounding businesses that have conforming signs,' nor
will they negatively affect the appearance of the 'community.
Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval.
Mr. Richter explained the application and presente,d photographs of the existing
signage on the property.
Mr. James Powell, representing the applicant, verified the photographs presented
by staff. He believed the existing logo signs on the building were not clearly readable. He
submitted photographs of the signs taken from various distances.
Mr. Richter noted there, is freestanding sign on the property.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve an area variance of 43.5 square feet to
allow attached signs with a total area of 67.5 square feet on the west elevation and an
area variance of 49.5 square feet to allow a total area of 73.5 square feet on the east'
'll'"
minSPO 1 b. 94
1/24/94
38
j
, I
r
r
, .'
. I ~ ~
(~{~ :\
", " \ I( -!. . ~
I .;-
I j >'
. ,
I .
, i
"
. '.
.' <
. 1'" .
l~'IT..'; .::;': ~'.:.;
" . ~ . ."j . ~
. .'....~ ,.,," .... t: ~ .
(',
elevation for the subject property as Section 45.24 standards for approval have been met,
subject to the condition that no freestanding signs (other than directional signs) be erected
on the property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
'I
I
21 . Mas One Ltd Partnershio (Barnett Bank) for vari ances of (1) 1 61 sq ft to permit a total
of 270 sq ft of attached signage; and (2) .24 sq ft per ft of building width to permit a ratio
of 1.74 sq ft per ft of building width to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 600
Cleveland St, Clearwater Tower, Lots 1 & 2, zoned UC(C) (Urban Center (Core). SV 93-
116
The applicant is requesting a continuance.
Commissioner Deegan moved to continue this item to the scheduled meeting of
March 7, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
"
22. Direction reqarding reconsideration of sign variance Cases Nos. SV 93~25(Grandy's'
and SV 93~31 (Work America, Inc.l.
, The above referenced requests for sign variances were denied on October 29,
1993. Neither the applicant nor the representative of the applicant was present for either
case.
F(~\ \
~, ~~.
In case SV-25 (Grandy's), the applicant and representative, Todd Pressman, were
sent notice of the hearing on October 18th. A letter was received from the applicant's
representative on November 23, 1993, informing us that he had recently relocated his
office; .however, did not specify the exact date of the change.
In case SV-93-31 (Work America, Inc.) the applicant was sent a notice of the
hearing on October 18th; however, the representative, Carlton Ward, inadvertently,' did not
. receive notice.
Both representatives in the above cases are asking that their requests for a variance
be reconsidered.
,
I
I,
Commissioner Thomas moved to reconsider the above cases at the meeting of
February 7, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
23. Ameement for Renovation of Ice House (630 Drew Street)
The City Attorney reported the lee House agreement incorporates the proposed
changes agreed upon by the Commission last Thursday evening. He noted a due date of
Januwy 28, 1994 for the owner to secure the east and south sides of the property against
unauthorized entry.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if .the City is abandoning its effort to demolish the
Old Ice House. The City Attorney responded only if the owner fails to obtain a building
permit in a timely manner.
Li
. minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
39
. :
,
. ,
L '.. ~
, . ~ T
'.' ..
I~ d.L
t ',! c f . .' .1.
}, . :.t: <' :' '.
" ~ '+.,
.
-.'
"
.
'. ,
'"
,
, '
-i't': . ",
:."~":L .... ,
'.'!; .,
.' ':',,"
~'
Commissioner Thomas asked why the provisions o'f paragraph 2.e., regarding the
certificate of occupancy, were not included in the paragraph 3. Suspension of Demolition
Effort. The City Attorney suggested taking out the reference to all subparagraphs so that
paragraph 3 reads ttprovided that Owner complies with the provisions of paragraph 2
above, the City will suspend, etc." "
In response to Commissioner Thomas' question. the City Attorney said 2.c. covers
the interior of the building and includes by refer,ence all code requirements that apply to
the property such as storm water detention, landscaping, etc.
Commissioner Berfield asked how the interior of the building is covered under 2.c.
Mr. Shuford responded the life safety codes will have to be met and the designated use
will determine interior construction requirements. .The City Attorney said the City will
expect the same level of detail required by others in redoing an old building. '
(,",
. ,
",
, Vie Chodora, Assistant Director of Central Permitting, said the idea generated at the
previous nleeting was t.o address the exterior of the building fir::;t. '
. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern there is nothing to force the owner to
complete the building once it is structurally repaired. The City Attorney said the owner
will be contractually obligated to proceed to completion by April 17, 1995. Commissioner
Thomas said he saw no penalty clause in the agreement for failure to complete the project.
The City Attorney said 2.e. provides a $1 OOiday penalty for failure to complete the design
improvements by January 16, 1995 and have a CO issued by April 17, 1995. Mayor '
Garvey questioned if $1 OO/day is a standard penalty for a private individual doing
construction. Mr. Chodora indicated it was standard.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern once the building is structurally sound
the owner could let it sit for a long time without finishing the rest of it. Commissioner
Deegan noted the City still has the right to demolish the property if a CO is not issued. He
felt the owner should waive his right to defend against demolition and felt page 3,
paragraph 4, last sentence, contradicts paragraph 2.
Commissioner Thomas believed the City would give up their right to demolish once
, ,
the building is made structurally sound.
The City Attorney believed the owner would not agree to delete the language
regarding the waiver of any defense in regards to demolition.
Discussion ensued regarding the owner making the building permanently structurally
sound by January 16, 1995 and addressing the aesthetics of the building by April 17,
1995. The City Attorney believed the owner would not agree to the building being
demolish~d if the deficiency is cosmetic rather than structural. Mr. Shuford indicated the
designed improvements are defined and include a new roof and windows, repair of the
facade and would be tied into the interior improvements as part of the overall 'plan.
'1.
~.,
,~"
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
40
,I.,: <
~'V:: ~ ,
..~. \ ~
:.: .~, ' " ," -I ~ '+:: ,f' : t.
>'4 ,.
,~i ,l,~ :.,' _~:':.," "
"
!.):?';:; '..'..', ..::,,".'
. ,
..
:' !
. . ~
: '
:~ , ' , ; "
:, 1,'
. , "
. I',
) .
, ,.
('1
Mr. Shuford said structural integrity is defined under the designed improvements in
the contract and noted the contract states the designed improvements will be substantially,
completed by January 16. 1995. .
, i
I
I
" i
I
I
I
.1
J
1
i
I
Concern was expressed the agr'eement provides the building could not be
demolished as long as it is structurally sound and did not address the appearance of. the
envelope of the building when occupied. Mr. Shuford noted the contract defines the
design improvements which indicate the building will not only be structurally sound but
will have a finished exterior. '
Commissioner Berfield felt language should be added to the contract addressing the
finished ,look of the building. '
The City Attorney noted when plans are submitted for a building permit. there is a
certain level of detail required. Commissioner Thomas asked if paragraph 2.b. covers this
and Mr. Chodora responded it did. Commissioner Thomas suggested adding the language
in paragraph 2.b. to paragraph 4. as a stipulation. The City Attorney suggested using
design improvements as it is a defined term and including a reference to 2.b. also.'
Commissioner Thomas suggested adding a stipulation to the contract that would
, require the envelope of the building to be completed as a finished struc,ture.
Discussion ensued in regard to the owner not receiving any money back from their
deposit until the building is structurally safe on a permanent basis.
(""
"
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the owner gives up his waiver of any defense
of demolition what assurance would the City have they would carry out their obligations to
obtain a CO. The City Attorney said it is a contractual obligation. Commissioner Deegan
questioned whether the owner should be asked to waive any defense of demolition until
everything is completed as noted. I '
Kathy Oarbar said the owner has an affidavit of compliance on the building. She
said Mr. Schiller wants to enter into an agreement to address the aesthetics of the
building.
His intent is to finish the building and get a certificate of occupancy.
, i
Mr. Chodora said the owner has complied with Municipal Code Enforcement Board
action; however, the roof still needs to be addressed.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern regarding subversion of the agreement.
In response to a question. Ms. Darbar said she has not yet read th~ agreement.
Comrnission'er Deegan suggested leaving the agreement alone and relying on the
$100 per day penalty. He felt the intent was to move forward.
(....
minSPO 1 b.94
1/24/94
41
"
'/
-/
"!l!\""(~~,,,,: i;,,( "I' '!: ~ t '.' .
>'If'r,,.t''~~~J;''''''1~,'''' ,.'. j..."
~,~;1\ ')~7:,' " " " ,
II ,
, ,
.' > -. ~,
- '.
.' ;.
.... ,. ;1
,~ '>.
..< t '..' j :
, ,
o.'i.: ,-,. '. .","'. .." ..
J:;,,~:D ~~f,:;:~,.', ',',' . ,':. ;' ,
:,~/':<':::;':.>,<~' :1>;;,/:"1 ::.. ,
. .' ,"'." ,/
~.~;i i:::\;: /:;~,;t'/hi;)',b::L;.;:" ,'.,:'"
"
'"
, '
I: I
.' ,
, .
"
, ;
,
J,',
d
, , .
Commissioner Deegan moved to accept the subject agreement with the following
chan,ge on page 3, paragraph 3, deleting the reference to subparagraphs 2.a., 2.b., .2.c.,
and 2.d. and adding reference to paragraph 2. There was no second.
"
".~
' .'
, ,.~~ .
, .
, Commissioner Thomas moved to accept ,the agreement with the addition in
paragraph 3 as previously stipulated to provide for all subparagraphs' 2.a., 2.b., 2.c., 2.d.
and 2.e. and on page 4, paragraph 4 of the escrow agreement, add the language "shall'
continue until completion of the design improvements as described in paragraph 2.b.1t The
motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Fitzgerald,
Berfield, Deegan and Thomas voted lIaye;lI Mayor Garvey voted IInay.II' Motion carried.
," ~, .
, ,
,', .
The meeting adjourned at 3:5,9 p.m.
ATTEST:' (I; .^~ z. & !)o"
, ',,~, City Clerk
. ,
oner
;'. .
.~ .: ~
: :,,',p;~~
'.,,~t,
"
-,'
..I'
. ~ I : .
. ; ~ ",
..I
.. ,I
L
I,
"
, i
'0"':"
, ,
, ,
minSP01 b.94
1/24/94
42
. ,'\
, : ~