02/07/1994 (2)
~~}!1 '~l.).~lf, :~\:'; . J ~:~: '. ~:t;'
'~"1~1,S':':"'\ . , . ,'" . : i
~~!, ,~;".~~; : ~' . '.
c/' I
--: ~. ":.
~. ~ . r
r , t' ~ ; .
~~:~\\'.
. 'I ~.,
. ,
"I.
"l,- ." .
't.i?~ ~ ii .
l' ,.' i.
i'(.~..'..'(,.
;'1
~. ~ i
"
',',
.'
t /'IT .
"1-,_.' .
'f,.. /f. J
'. ",_;1;,
\:;Jl
1 \~. .
1 " .,
J' ~,'.
;<.:;:(, .r ".
\'~;:\;;~'~~':/;.~..~(',:f;i?;; ;:~~~:~"/I\; ',:.::'h'>.,t.:..:., ."..;
,.
...
!
,
J "
. .
~.f
. ,"
, J
'"
J
., ,
;'/ '."
c'-:,.i.
,
,
'J
'1
<', ~ ...
~.' ~ ~...:t:~.~I;..,..'
. i.'.Jr" I~' , '.
I~it"':. '.
--:r-'rIU",,=-t. 10":.1- " I
~~t;Yf~f,::.. :. '" ,
,.
"
'CO.MMISSI'ON
City Commission
"
,;
.~. L'119~
.,.
DATE'
I,
,
".
'. IJ . '~ '
~~~(.
.~~;,:
. ,
~:;.:~~:
<....,
. ";;0;(:"
'.~'~
'\ ~.9f Q.
:r:!\:
i;')::' ,
\~.1{i
~t 'I:':.. ~'. '
r;~ ~~.. ~
'""';U'" .
.' ..
'. ,
~'
...... . T ~
i-~~~/ _
;~l::
"
." ,
., i
",
'.
'.
"'Til
. ,,<,
. '~:~c'..:: t'
..
.f
.)
, ~.t. ~..
"
I.
. .~./.c \.
" .
.;...".
"
:<..
"
,;
, ,
~: .
l>t
" "
L
..1_.
,.
. ,u!\\
~t :
ACTION AGENDA
City Commission Special Meeting
Sign Variance Requests
,Monday, February 7, 1994 - 9:00 A.M.
ITEM A - (continued from 10-29-93) Ace G & H Hardware Co (Curtis Bros. Furniture) for
variances of (1) 2 above roof signs; and (2) 156 sq ft to permit a total of 220 sq ft of
attached signage area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1463 Gulf-ta-Bav Blvd,
Boulevard Heights, Blk F, Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, zoned CG (Genoral Commercial). SV 93-14
Approved a variance to retain the attached projecting above roof sign and an area variance
of 32 square feet to allow a total of 96 square feet of attached signage subject to the
. following conditions: 1) the attached projecting "Curtis Bros. Furn." sign shall not extend
more than 20 feet above grade nor exceed 32 square feet in area; 2) no freestanding signs
shall be allowed on this property; and 3) the above roof sign on the east face of the building
shall be made to conform.
.'
ITEM 8 - (continued from 11-09-93) Aubrev Maclean'TRE/Clearwater Trust (Poston's Art
Supplies and Crafts, Inc) for variances of (1) 326.5 sq ft to permit a total of 476.5 sq ft of
attached sign area; and (2) 1.57 sq ft per ft width of business to permit 3.07 sq ft per ft to
permit nonconforming signage to remain at 20505 US Hwv 19 N, See 17-29-15, M&B 32.02,
zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93-32 - Denied # 1 &. #2; Approved an area variance of
194 square feet to allow" attached signs with a total area of 344 square feet, and a ratio
variance of 0.72 square feet of attached sign area per 1.0 linear foot of building width to
allow a ratio of 2.22 square feet of sign area per 1.0 linear foot of building width.
ITEM"C - (continued from 01-24-94) Esoana Business Center for variances of (1) 96 sq ft to
permit 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 - 168B Belcher Rd N, Cle"arwater Industrial Park, part of Lot 14, zoned IL (Limited
Industrial), SV 92-78 - Continued to 3/7/94.
ITEM 0 - (continued-from 01-24-94) Thomas E. & Barbara E. Soares (EI Capitan Restaurant
& Lounge, Inc) for a variance of 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-Bav Blvd. See 18-29-16, M&B
41.04, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-05 - Denied.
I
I
I
1
ITEM E - (continued from 01-24-94) Wonderful Familv USA. Inc (Forbidden City Restaurant)
for variances (1) of 12 ft in height to permit a freestanding sign of 32 ft; (2) of 78 sq ft to
permit a freestanding sign of 190 sq ft; (3) of 2.3 sq ft to permit a directional sign of 6.3 sq
ft; and (4) of 4 ft in distance to permit a freestanding sign 1 ft from south and east property
lines to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 25778 US Hwy 19 N, Sec 31-28-16, M&B
14.05. zoned CH (Highway Com!TIercial). SV 93-41 - Denied #1, #2 and #4. Note: #3 was
denied at the 1/24/94 meeting.
l.-
2/7194
1
.:
"
r'
ITEM F - (continued from 01-24-94) Vlosta Stahle (Val's Fine Foods) for variances of (1) 37.2
sq ft to permit 101.2 sq ft of attached signago to remain; and (2) 3 attached signs to permit
a total of 5 attached signs to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1736 Drew St, Drew
rerrace Sub, Lot 43, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93- 76 - Withdrawn bV applicant.
ITEM G - (continued from 01-24-94) U-Haul Co West Coast Florida. Inc (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 parmit 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). ~93. 77 . Denied #1,
#,2" #3 & #4.
"
...
'1. Valentinos Koumoulidis (Mr. Submarine) for variances of (1) 4.1 7 ft to, permit a
/ freestanding sign .83 ft from a side (west) property line; (2) 3 ft to permit freestanding sign
2 ft setback from a street right-of-way; (3) 24.5 sq ft to permit 88.5 sq ft freestanding sign;
(4) 13.17 ft in height to permit a 33.17 ft high freestanding sign; and (5) 293.9 sq 1t'to
permit a total of 357.9 sq ft of attached sign area to permit nonconforming signage to remain
at 1010 Cleveland St, Sarah McMullen's Subt Blk 3, part of Lot 9, zoned UC(E) (Urban Center
(East). SV 92-97 - Approved #1 & #2; Denied #4; and Continued #3 & #5.
If .,
~:~..
2. Perkins Clearwater ltd (Perkins Family Restaurant) for a variance of 8.94 ft in height to
permit a sign 1 8.94 ft in height above the existing grade of the US 19 overpass to permit
nonconforming signege to remain at 2626 Gulf~to-BaY Blvdt See 17-29-16, M&B 23.07, zoned
CH (Commercial Highway). SV 92-99 - Approved height variance of 8.46 feet. '
3. Richard O. Davison (Bay Area Neuro Muscular) for a variance of 7 ft in sign height to
permit a 27 ft freestanding sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1450 Gulf-to-
Bav Blvd, Knollwood Raplat, Blk 3, Lot 13, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 9'3-13 -
Continued.
4. Manuel & Evanaeline Kastrenal<es (Pinellas Rent A Car, Ine) for variances (1) of 16ft to
permit a 36 ft high freestanding sign; (2) of 64.8 sq ft to permit a 176.8 sq ft freestanding
sign to remain; and (3) to permit a second allowable freestanding sign to be oriented to same
street as primary freestanding sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 19206 US
Hwv 19 N, Sec 19-29-16, M&B 14.06, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-16 -
Continued to 3/7/94.
5. Arthur H. & Marv L. Bruno (Clearwater Mattress Co, Inc) for variances of (1) 294.46 sq
ft to permit a total of 354.46 sq ft of attached signage area; and (2) one permanent window
sign to permit 4 attached signs of the same type to permit nonconforming signage to remain
at 1259 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Gulf-to-Bay Shopping Center, Lots 3 & 4, zoned CC (Commercial
Center). SV 93-19 - Continued to 3/21/94.
l"
2/7194
2
(~
,
6. Halil(n ProDerties (Clearwater Mattress Co, lnc) for variances of (1) 15 ft to permit a
freas~anding sign 35 It in height; (2) 2 above roof signs where such signs are prohibited; (3)
12 sq It to permit 120 sq ft of attached sing area on North face of business; and (4) 1 50 sq
ft to permit 229.5 sq It of attached sign area on East face of business to permit
nonconforming signaga to remain at 20258 US Hwy 19 N, See 18~29-16. M&B 44.01, zoned
CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93~22 ~ Continued to 3/21/94.
7. United Dominion Realty Trust (Bay Cove Apts) for a variance of 5.5 ft in height to permit
2 freestanding signs of 11.5 It in height to permit nonconforming sign age to remain at 19135
US Hwy 19 N, Sec 20-29-1 6, M&B 23.04, zoned RM 24 (Multi-Family Residential). SV 93-27
- Approved.
8. Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III (Dimmitt Chevrolet, Inc) for variances of (1) 80.8 sq ft to permit
a freestanding sign of 192.8 sq ft; (2) 22.5 ft in height to permit a freestanding sign of 42.5
ft in height; and (3) 12ft in distance to permit a second freestanding sign 288 ft from a
primary sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 25485 US Hwy 19 N, See 32-28-
16, M&B 32.02 & 32.03, zoned CH (Highway Commercial).
SV 93-42 - Continued to 317/94.
9. $tratford Villaae Aoartments Ltd for a variance of 3 ft to permit a freestanding sign height
of 9 ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 25350 US Hwv 19 N, Sec 31-28-16,
M&B 41.02, zoned RM 28 (Multi-Family Residential). SV 93-45 - Withdrawn.
(;,
10. Fred Good TR & F. Mardell Good TR (Good Rental) for variances of (1) 22.6 sq ft to
permit 86.6 sq ft of attached signage area; and (2) 3 ft to permit a 2 ft setback for a
freestanding sign (Missouri Ave right-of-way) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at
1420 Missouri Ave.. 5, A.H. Duncan's Resub of Clara E. Duncan's Sub, part of Lot 5 less
street, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-49 - Approved #1 & #2 subject to the
following condition: No modification shall be made to the freestanding sign to increase the
sign area.
11. Merrill Lvnch & Co. Ine (Merrill Lynch) for a variance of 2.75 ft to permit a freestanding
sign 22.75 ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 26301 US Hwv 19 N,
Countryside Village Square, Lot 6 less road on west, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93-
.QQ - Continued to 3/7/94.
12. Searstown Partners ltd/Sears Roebuck & Co (Hancock Fabrics) for a variance of 40.8 sq
ft to permit 172.8 sq ft of attached sign area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at
1279 Missouri Ave 5, F.E. Hanousek's Sub, part of Lots 11 & 12, zoned CC (Commercial
Center). SV 93-57 - Approved.
13. Steohen F. & Marsha S. Dickey (Rehabworks, Ine/Doctor's Walk-In Clinic) for variances
of (1) 1 freestanding sign to permit 2 such signs; (2) 198 sq ft to permit a total of 248 sq ft
of freestanding sign; (3) 1 ft to permit 2 freestanding signs to be located 4 ft from a street
right-of-way; and (4) 3 ft to permit sign to remain 2 ft from a side (north) property line to
permit nonconforming signage to remain at 26810 & 26812 US Hwy 19 N, Sec 30-28-16,
M&B 43.01 ,'zoned OG (General Office). SV 93-59 - Denied #1; Approved #2 for 86 square
feet to allow one pole sign with '8 total of 136 square feet; Approved #3 & #4.
l,
"
2/7/94
3
r.'~
),
14. ClJrtis A & Marian Jackson (Clearwater Outboard) for variances (1) of 209.6 sq ft to
permit '273.6 sq ft of attached signage; (2) to permit a roof sign where such signs are
prohibited; and (3) of 4 attached signs to permit 9 attached signs to permit nonconforming
signage to remain at ~03 Missouri Ave $, Hibiscus Gardens, Blk V, Lots 6, 7,8, 9A, 98 & 10
less street, zoned CG (General Commercial). ~V 93~60 - Continued to 3/21/94.
15. Marks & Gilllss. Inc/Marks Holdina Co. Inc (Ken Marks Ford) for variances of (1) 37.5 sq
ft in area to permit a freestanding sign of 149.5 sq ft; (2) 144 sq ft in area to permit an
auxiliary sign of 200 sq ft; (3) 8 ft in height to permit an auxiliary sign of 20 ft in height; and
(4) 18 ft in distance to permit an auxiliary sign with a distance of 282 ft from ttle primary sign
to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 24791 & 24825 US Hwv 19 N, Ken Marks
Ford, Blk A, Lot 1 together with Ken Marks Ford 1 st Add Sub, Lot 1, zoned CH (Highway
Commercial). SV 93~65 ~ Continued to 3/21194.
1 6. ~omark Investments. Inc/Village Office CorD (Village Office Park) for a variance of 32.3
sq ft to permit a freestanding sign area of 182.3 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to
remain at 26338 US Hwy 19 N, The Village at Countryside, Replat of Lot 1, Lot 4 Replat, Lots
1 & 2, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93~66 ~ Continued to 3/7/94.
(,.';
17. Criterion Centre Prooerties/Criterion Center. lnc for variances of (1) 22.8 sq It to permit
a primary freestanding sign of 72.8 sq ft; (2) 205 ft to permit an auxiliary sign 95 ft from a
primary sign; {31 20.6 sq ft to permit an auxiliary sign of 20.6 sq ft; and (4) 5.3 ft to permit
an auxiliary sign of 5.3 ft in height to permit nonconforming signaga to remain at 29605 US
Hwy 19 N, Criterion Centre Condo, Phase I, II & III, zoned OG (General Office). SV 93~67 .
Approved #1. #2 & #3 subject to the condition that the northernmost sign on this property
be removed within 60 days following this public hearing.
18. Fusco COrD & John S. Tavlor. III (JC Penney) for a variance of 1 sign to permit 4 signs
of the same type to permit nonconforming signage to remain at J 200 Missouri Ave, See 15~
29~ 15, M&B 34.01 together with See 22~29~ 15, M&B 21.01 f 21.02 & 21.12; zoned CC
(Commercial Center District) and RM 28 (Multi.Family Residential). SV 93~78 - Approved.
19. Clearwater Prooertv Graue/David Mandelbaum & Craia Jacobs (K-Mart & Payless Shoes)
for a variance to permit 2 freestanding signs where 1 is permitted to permit nonconforming
signage to remain at 21 00 ~ 2130 Gulf~to-Bav Blvd, See 13-29-1 5, M&B 14.03 & 14.031,
zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-83 ~ Approved subject to the condition that tho
existing nonconforming signs be made to conform within 60 days of this public hearing.
20. ~ex MOl SteDhen M.. & Randy R. Barbas (R.J. Automotive) for variances of (1) 1 wall sign
to permit a total of 4 wall signs; and (2) 132.4 sq ft of attached sign age to permit a total of
196.4 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 830 Court St. Aiken Sub, Blk 10,
Lot 6, zoned UC(E) (Urban Center (East). SV 93~87 ~ Continued to 3/7/94.
(
.....
2/7/94
4
21. William P. Wriaht (Bay Area Prosthetics) for a variance of 3.3 sq ft of attached signage
to permit a total of 27.3 sq ft of attached signage to permit nonconforming sign age to remain
at 1267 Court St; Hibiscus Gardens, Blk Q, Lots 31 ~35, zoned OL (Limited Office). SV 93~88-
Approved. .
. '.~'~ '.<
I C , . ~ C ~'.
, ..'~
~. .
L":-;' 1,~*.'
'":..";,1
~: 1 : '
'. .;1.
:~!
C:~. ~',: :,':
. " ~'..',
,", \'V\ '
~~ ~:,~.::c;
~: ~;1:n;( 'i;:.' .' , J . I .' '~ '
oj; 7 ~; ...."-,1. ' i.!.j '/, 1'" . I I I
J :l' . "', c t ; t.:,~ , ~ ~ ,'. c/ _ ~ ~ :'~
~~~:~, :l.':~."'<>,\ ; ~'t:I.:: 1/ i'; 1\
'~J;f~">';. >' '.' . t. ~. ~t.~: ). < . ~ J:1
~\;:"!/i~!.\>'/:~~:>'; <, ;. "::"," '.', :~" ; ';"
~~,~'.rrc~" /' " . ..I/,<j.._c>.~.,." . ~~
t~!'?{: >'.; '.>,;:,~~"'::}::,,"':, . " " .
!.::....r>,~,/ ; :1~...I...\T.~:~~l;~~.~.~}l..~ ~.~~:i~. :'..'('" .' c. ':' t
.' 'if<....t1(., ~-:.( ~,'f.' ~:.>,...i(",.\';I'.~ ,,(,I} ~'~'~":": '1, ,',.. p.. "
St:ti. Jd41'~ ,,'~'r."1(;'~ ' ~:: J;. :,', \:t ~~':'.? ~.~:~~;;~f,~~.~(,; to"i\' ':1/''':. Vcj.:.t-::~ '-, ~t.; .:.~ :.:~" f~ f
': "I
\.'
"
. ,
. \ ~
,
, '
. 'J
,"
.,'
"
" ~
: ~ ' ~.
, : -:\"/~'
. ,
. ,I
... ~!~
, '
, r,
: ,:"~
1'i~;
"""
',J~J
"
:'
',-
~ I 4"
:l
. ,
.'
:1'
'.... .
I'
" ~
I..,
, I
~. ,
..
,
:::':"1).
fl .~l'~,~,;)
I ., . . "
,
22~ Ice House 'Agreement - Accept draft #4 88 submitted by Tim Johnson on the c~nditJon
It'ls 's~gned by 2/14/94.
"
.f
,
~~ .,t
. Adjourn
1 :58 p.m.
'1'"
, ,
JO'
'.1
, ..
; ~
. '
.... \
."
.,"
y::::,.;..."
>\..<
"
.,
"
c;
, ,.'
"'.
','
.
'.
I ~ . 'c'
. ~
, "
'.J
,. "
'.'
.....
"
.,';
',.
, .
"
?: ~ ,/ . \ <" ~,
.:,
''", ,
, r
! .
..~;-" .
,~(/
.,
,.
"'n.
. ,
.', ,..
':j' .
:, :'61fl\
:.. >: '-:/
. ,
"
1
.J...
"
'.
/. '
"
, I
.Cj,
.,
, .
j.
.'"!.
': !
.,
I
, .
":','c
" '
'. ,)
. ,
'"
,',
'.
....
,",
" ~
'"
I,
,
I' J,
"'.
" CI
,.
". ,
i,
.'
. "
.J
" ,
(W'::I,"
~/
'.
2/7/94
. '~
5
, e,
, .
','
J..'.::.;;:./..<.... .,' ~
,. .
, .
(I
'.
t,l:.t ,~,. I i. .
:.-: \4.,.
... . , . ,~
.' -::. T'!~' ;,'."1 ~.
i' " : '". , ... j: ;.: ~'. .. .
c\
CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
. ,February 7, 1994 '
The City Commission of the City of Clearwf;lter met in special session at City,HalL
Monday, February 7, 1994 at 9:00 p.m., with the following members present:
Rita Garvey
Arthur X. Deegan, II
Richard Fitzgerald
Sue A. Berfield
Fred A. Thomas
Mayor/Commissioner
Vice-Mayor/Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
,
'Also pre'sent:
Elizabeth M. Deptula
M.A. Galbraith. Jr.
Scott Shuford
John Richter
Susan Stephenson
Interim City Manager
City Attorney'
Central Permit'ting Director
Senior Planner
Deputy City Clerk
Public Hearings were held concerning the following sign variance requests.
C"""~
.,'
ITEM A - (continued from 10-29-93) Ace G & H Hardware Co (Curtis Bros. Furniture) tor
variances of (1) 2 above roof signs; and (2) 156 sq ft to permit a total of 220 sq ft of
attached signage area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1463 Gulf-to-Bav
Blvd, Boulevard' Heights, Blk F, Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV
93-14
The applicant is requesting the following variances'to permit two existing above
roof signs and one attached sign to rer:1ain: 1) a variance to retain two above roof signs
. wher'e above roof signs are prohibited, and .2) an area variance of 156 square feet from the
permitted 64 square feet to allow a total of 220 square feet of attached signage. The two
above roof signs are oriented toward Gulf to ,Bay Boulevard and the attached sign is
orierited toward the parking lot and San Remo Avenue.
,
! .
These variances were continued at the meeting of October 29, 1993, in order to
give the applicant an opportunity to work with staff to' revise the variances. The applicant
and staff have reviewed the signs and the property, and propose the following:
1) Treat the attached p'roiecting sign as a freestandi'na sign. The property is presently
. without a freestanding 'sign because the building is located in close proximity to the Gulf to
Bay Boulevard right of way. In effect, the "Curtis Bros. Furn." sign that projects from the
front face of the building substitutes for the non.existent freestanding sign. In order to
c~
. minSP02a.94
2/7/94 .
.1
1.
.. .
:' :f :+~~ <. '.,
I. ,',
\ .
Ii
'. b.~
~ ' l I I
i I ~ ~ ;, i, .
, ('.
. "'
. , .
r
make the sign more closely conform to the rules applicable to freestanding signs, the
applicant has agreed to remove the top panel of the sign, thus bringing the sign height
down to 20 feet. Upon removal of the top panel, the sign will have an overall area of 32
square feet, which will not exceed the allowable area for freestanding signs in this zone.
2) In addition to the attached oroiectinq sian. allow 64 sauare feet of attached sianaae.
This building qualifies for a total of 64 square feet of attached signage. Since the
projecting sign is proposed to be viewed as the equivalent of a freestanding sign, staff
recommends that the area of the projer.ting sign not be counted against the area allowed
for attached signage. The existing "New/Pre-owned Furniture" sign will be removed from
above the roof line.
The recommended motion for variance approval reflects the negotiation between
staff and the .applicant. .
The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard
and San Remo Avenue and is in the CG zoning district.
("
.;..
The property is unique because properties within the CG zoning district typically
have freestanding signs. This property is developed with the building located four feet off
of the Gulf to Bay Boulevard right of way, virtually eliminating the opportunity to place a
freestanding sign. The lack of a freestanding sign imposes a hardstlip because,. absent a
freestanding sign, the property is placed 'at a competitive disadvantage for identification
from Gulf to Bay Boulevard. To overcome this, it is recommended the attached projecting
sign be regarded as the freestanding sign for this property and, in addition, the full
complement of attached signage, 64 square feet, be allowed. The applicant and staff are
agreeable to this solution.
Staft finds that of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, the
applicant's requests meet the standards.
. Kevin Gordon, representing the owner, stated they will take one panel of the
projecting sign off, paint over the painted wall sign, and all the horizontal signage will be
removed and replaced with a 64 square foot attached sign.
Commissioner Thomas moved to aporove a variance to retain the attached
projecting above roof sign and an area variance of 32 square feet to allow a total of 96
square feet ot' attached signage for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24
Standards for Approval, items 1 ~8 subject to the following conditions: 1) the attached
projecting "Curtis Bros. Furn. II sign shall not extend more than 20 feet above grade nor
exceed 32 square feet in area; 2) no freestanding signs shall be allowed on this property;
and 3) the above roof sign on the east face of the building shall be made to conform. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
(j
minSP02a.94
217/94
2
.~ . ,. , '>.
( . ~ . ,..
. ~. c
, "
!:
/,:.,' '
('\
C.,
~~+ .i
.u~
.,I
,
/
'I
(
.'
I ,
" .
'.
,
'.
,.
ITEM B - (continued from 11-09-93) Aubrev Maclean TRE/Clearwater Trust (Poston's Art
Supplies and Crafts, Incl for variances of (1) 326.5 sq ft to'permit a total of 476.5 sq ft of
attached sign area; and (2) 1.57 sq ft per 'ft width of business to permit 3.07 sq ft per ft
to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 20505 US Hw'{.19 N, See 17-29M15, M&B
32.02, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93-32
This application was cont{nued from the Commission' meeting of November 9,
1993, in order to allow staff the opportunity to review the manner in which other
storefronts on the west side of this building would be identified with signs, and to likewise
review Gayfer's and Firestone in this mall and J.e., Penney's in Countryside Mall.
, i
j
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit an attached 320
square foot sign to remain on the west wall of the Poston's store: 1) an area variance of
326.5 square feet from the permitted 150 square feet to allow attached signs with a total
area of 476.5 square feet, and 2) a ratio variance of 1.57 square feet of attached sign
. area,per 1.0 linear foot of building width (1.57/1> from the permitted 1.5/1 ratio to allow a
ratio of 3.07 square feet of sign area per 1.0 linear foot of building width (3.07/1).
The subject property is located on the southeast corner of US 19 and Gulf to Bay
Boulevard and is in the ce zoning district.
In response to the Commissfon's questions concerning certain other businesses:
On December 19, 1991, the Commission granted a variance to Gayfer's to allow a 342
. square foot sign on the north wall of the store. In addition, Gayfer's is permitted to
. identify building entrances on other building faces; however, a variance application is on
file with the City because the existing signs are larger than allowed by code.
. ,
The Firestone store will be permitted signs on the north wall and west wall because the
store fronts on both Gulf to Bay Boulevard and US19. The size of these signs will be
determined based upon bvilding width and, additionally, each sign wi'" be allowed a 25%
area bonus due to building setback.
The other storefronts on the west side of the Poston's/Firestone building will be allowed
signs on the west building face. The size of. these signs will be determined based upon
building width and, additionally, each sign will be allowed a 25% area bonus due to
building setback.
J.e. Penney's in Countryside Mall is allowed signs on the north and south building w~lls
because the building faces Countryside Boulevard and SR5S0. The size of these two signs
is determined based upon building width and building setback. Also, a sign is allowed on
the east building ,face to identify the building entrance that exists there.
Regarding the Poston's sign, the business is unique because it is a major tenant of
the Malf, yet it is located separate and apart from the Mall promenade. Given this
condition, it. would be appropriate to identify Poston's with a sign on the west wall of the
store. However, staff does .not support variances to allow a sign as large as the 320
mlnSP02a.94
2/7/94
3
,
:. .! ~.: :1~/"'~ I
.~ ,,'
, ,
, . ;"l
. ~:.,. 'I' . .
, -.l'.
~ 0 t.: ~
.: ,~
, '
. ,
c~.
square feet that exists. The maximum attached sign size in the CC zoning district is 150
square feet. Additionally, because the building is positioned 150 feet from the right of
way, a 25% area increase would be in order. In short, staff recommends that the sign not
exceed 187.5 square feet.
The placement of a 187.5 square foot wall sign would be in scale with the building
and in character with other conforming signs in this zone.
,Marlene Santavicca, representing Poston's, concurred with staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve an area variance of 194 square feet to
allow attached signs with a total are of 344 square feet, and a ratio variance of 0.72
square feet of attached sign area per 1.0 linear foot of building width to allow a ratio of
2.22 square feet of sign area per 1.0 linear foot of building width. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM C - (continued from 01-24-94) Espana Business Center for variances of (1) 96 sq ft
to permit 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
(C,
.. i~
. ,
The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow an existing "freestanding
sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 96 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to
allow a total freestanding sign area of 160 square feet; and 2) a height variance of 3.33'
feet from the permitted height of 20 feet to allow a total freestanding sign height of 23.33
feet.
The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Belcher Road and Logan
Street and is in the IL zoning district.
',"
The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district.
The applicant states the present sign was approved by the City on October 14, 1985
which was afterthe effective date of the new sign ordinance. The applicant's permit
verifies the date of sign permit issuance. It is reasonable to assume' that application for
this sign was made prior to the October 13, 1985 deadline date for the new sign
ordinance to take effect. 'The issuance of the sign permit confirms the City has taken the
position of accepting this as a legal nonconforming sign. However, even if the sign permit
was issued in error, that mistake is not considered grounds for the granting of a variance.
The applicant has not provided any evidence that these variance requests arise from any
conditions unique to this property.
The area variance request of 96 square feet is extreme and cannot be considered a
minimal request. Although the 3.33 height variance request may be considered minimal,
the height variance will not be necessary if the area of the sign is reduced to comply with
the regulations. '
c.
minSP02a.94
2/7 /94
4
~<\,::,I '. ~ ':',,0. ..'
~, ,,,:,.; ~, 4' , t
t, ",/'
I
I
.l. 0
"
.t .'
J .
..'
i:'i.~:~':.:,.~, <./~, "}.' :.
; .
" ,
.C:
The exist.ence of this 23.33 foot high, 160 square foot. sign is not in character with
the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas and diverts attention from
those land uses. The granting of these variance requests would detract from the
commercial businesses that have conforming signage, the residential areas~ and negatively
impact the overall appearance of the community.
Staff feels the applicant's request does not meet all of the standards for variance
approval.
\
I
,I
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated this is an unusual site in that the
use resembles General Co mmercial rather than Limited Industrial. There are 1 3' separate
tenants in the building and there are no other buildings in the area 'with multiple uses.
There are County, enclaves in the area including the adjacent parcel. He submitted two
photographs of the site indicating the volume of traffic. He submitted three additional
photographs showing how the sign is blocked from view by people traveling southbound.
He requested the Commission consider a condition that the existing sign be reduced to
, 100 square feet in area which would 'also eliminate the need for a height variance.
Discussion ensued regarding trees blocking the view of the sign and whether
lowering the sign would create a traffic hazard.
John Richter indicated the sign needs to be setback five feet. A comparison was
made of nearby s;gnage.
(""
.. '.:
.....
Mr. Pressman indicated dealing with the setback would not be a problem but
reconfiguring the entire sign would create a financial burden on the applicant.
Commissioner Deegan stated financial hardship cannot be the primary reason for
granting a variance. He indicated he felt Mr. Pressman made a good argument for allowing
a sign no more than 100 square. feet in area.
The Mayor stated she felt the City was trying to set a standard that they hoped the
,County would follow.
Commissioner Deegan stated this lot is zoned differently than ~he surrounding area
and consideration should be given to the applical1t's willingness to compromise.
I'
I
, Commissioner Thomas inquired as to what the County rules were for signage and
the type of zoning in this area. Mr. Shuford stated their requirement was probably in the
neighborhood of 1 00 square feet.
Mr. Pressman stated the County allows 150 square feet and a height of 25 feet.
The Mayor pointed o~t what was granted to Connell Plaza on GulLto Bay Boulevard
and indicated she did not feel there should be an ability to list all tenants in a plaza.
c>
minSP02a.94
2/7/94'
5
,:":..~j~~::'~"',. "."."
)~~:> ~. ;''':,
, I
- , .
I .
~H:,.~,: 'f""':>"","'~' ,>' , , "
.~,:;~~ ~.~",. .. - (:: ,~ '. ~ . ,~,
r;
Commissioner Thomas pointed out this is more an issue of sign size due to the
obstruction created by the trees. .
Valerie Nisk, representing the applicant. stated the whole project 'was built around
the trees.
Discussion ensued regarding the Long Center sign and the view of this sign being
b'ocked by trees.
Mr. Pressman again indicated they were willing to reduce the size of the sign and
lower the height.
"
Mr: Shuford suggested the item be continued to allow the Traffic Engineer to
investigate whether lowering of the sign would create a traffic hazard.
The Mayor indicated she would also like staff to investigate what is allowed by the
County code.
Commissioner Thomas suggested staff meet with tbe applicants' representative to
work out a satisfactory solution.
Ms. Nisk indicated she did not want to move the sign and desired to leave it in. its
existing location.
:E~
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to March 7, 1994. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. '
ITEM D - (continued from 01-24-94) Thomas E.' & Barbara E. Soares (EI Capitan Restaurant
& Lounge, Inc) for a variance of 227.2 sq ft to permit 291.2 sq ft in area of attached
signage to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2525 Gulf-ta-Bav Blvd. See 18-29-
16, M&8 41.04, zoned CG {General Commercial}. SV 93-05
The applicant is requesting the following variance to permit the existing attached
signage and the existing poles for the freestanding sign to remain: an area variance of
227.2 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a total area of 291.2 square
feet of attached'signage. A setback variance was approved on January 24, 1994.
'{
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.
T~e applicant proposes to remove tlie top panel of the existing freestanding sign
and re-use the existing sign poles to support the remaining sign panel, which will be
moved up to a height of 20 feet. There is a contradiction in the application regarding the
area of this sign. There exists a statement on the applicant's sign drawing specifying the
described modifications will cause the sign to conform to the area and height
. (~
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
6
'.' , "
,
,
" .
; :;"": ~ I
: \, . 0:
,
I. .
. '
c
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 requi~e some modification.
As grounds to support the variance request for attached signage, the applicant
contends the building "sits in a hole". Although 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 applicant states the business
is 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 surrounding uses. The granting of the area variance will detract from the
businesses that have conforming signage, permit an unfair advertising advantage to this
applicant, and negatively impact the overall appea~ance of the community.
Staff feels the applicant's request does not meet the standards for variance
approval.
(~. '.
. "
.>
Mr. Shuford stated if the words on the sign are moved closer together, the sign will
be approximately 144 square feet. The business is entitled to a 25% bonus in area which
would permit a sign of approximately 80 square feet. He pointed out 144 square feet is
still considerably larger than what is permitted but the zoning across the street allows 150
square foot signs. The power line easement creates a logical dividing line, the sign is
visible, and he therefore recommends the area variance be denied.
No one was present to represent the applicant.
Commissioner Deegan moved to deny an area variance Of 227.2 square feet for
failure to meet standards 1-'8. The 'motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM E - (continued from 01 M24-941 Wonderful Familv USA, Inc (Forbidden City
Restaurant) for variances (1) of 12ft in height to permit a freestanding sign of 32 ft; (2) of
78 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of 190 sq ft; (3) of 2.3 sq ft to permit a directional
. sign of 6.3 sq ft; and (4) 0 f 4 ft in distance to permit a freestanding sign 1 ft from south
and east property lines to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 25778 US Hwv 19
N, See 31-28-16, M&B 14.05, zoned CH (Highway Commercial!. SV 93.41 .
, '
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) a variance of 12 feet in
height to all6,w 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 square feet; and 4) a setback
variance of 4 feet to allow a freestanding sign 1 foot from both the south and east
property lines.
'l",'
h
minSP02a.94
217/94
7
, ,
. . " ~. J
. . :', ':: "','
.;r"j ",
i";': ,
r .."~. '0 ~ I
I' ,
" i' :
". ':~{
, . ..>J
"
Ci'
Variance #3 for, an area variance for a directional sign and a previously listed
variance #5 regarding the logo on this sign were denied on January 24, 1994.
, The subject property is located on the west side of US 1 9N and is in the CH zoning"
district. '
According to the variance application, the variances are necessary due to the US 1 9
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 tq 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 thesa '.'ariances will detract from the surrounding businesses that
have conforming signage and will negatively affect the overall appearance of the
community.
, '
Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance
approval.
,(,..,
, .
.~
John Richter stated staff researched the visibility on this sign. Approaching
northbound, the sign came into view approximately 1,500 feet away and was visible
above another sign. Approximately 1,100 feet south of the property, there is a clear view
of the sign but if the sign were lowered to 20 feet, it would not be seen earlier than 1, 1 00
feet south of the property.
There is a' brief view of the sign approximately 540 feet north of it which is blocked
480 feet north of the sign by trees until it comes back into view again 270 feet north of
the sign. If the sign were lowered, it would not be visible at the 540 foot mark.
He'discussed the matter with the Traffic Engineer who stated that at a speed of 50
miles' per hour, there would not be sufficient time to slow down and make the turn when
traveling southbound.
(
!
It was noted no representative of the applicant was present.
The Mayor indicated she felt this might be a good policy to put into effect.
Commissioner Thomas suggested that notices to owners be sent certified mail with
,a return receipt requested indicating the owner had received notice of the meeting.
l..
minSP02a.94
217/94
8
. ," "',
~ '. : ":' ~: }
'~; ~,>'~ ~
, "
)i
. L
"
,
'"I
,', ,','
"
. .
to
f.;: ~< :'.'
i .' -: r', { ;, '.' ~ .' ~ '. . . ,
~ . <
i .,.', ~ , ' . I.
. C.''''
, ,
, '.
Commissioner Barfield questioned why a speed limit of 50 miles per hour was'
selected when the speed limit at this location is 55. The Mayor indicated' that most people
are traveling at approximately 40 miles per hour in this area.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated there seemed to be no problem with the northbound
lane but southbound the sign was obstr~cted by a curve in the road, a building and trees.
,
I
i
!
Commissioner Thomas stated that if the size and height of the sign are reduced, it
will be difficult to see it.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter indicated a permit was issued for this sign by
DOT. A variance was granted to locate tne sign 1 foot from the property line on the
condition that it conform in 1992.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny the requested variances for the subject
property for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1 ~8. The motio'n
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The applicant's representative appeared later in the meeting.
, I
I
, .
Commissioner Berfield moved to reconsider the previous motion to deny the
requests. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr: Richter again reviewed the visibility distances for the sign.
, . (~...'
Karen Wei stated they are located on a curve and because the sign is difficult to
see, there are freque~t accidents where cars turn into their business.
Commissioner Thomas again inquired why the sign was not required to conform
when DOT paid to relocate it. John Richter responded that DOT obtained a permit t6
relocate the sign and a variance was granted by the Development Code Adjustment Board
on the condition the sign be brought into conformance in October 1992.
Mr. Shuford pointed out that everyone involved should have been aware of the
condition that the sign be brought into conformance.
f
f
I
,
1,
Commissioner Thomas inquired of Ms. Wei as to whether she was aware of the
condition to which she responded she was not.
: .
Commissioner Thomas stated that he had not heard anything in the additional
discussion that shed a different light on the matter.
Commissioner Deegan moved the deny the requested variances for the subject
property for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. T~e motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. '
(;
. minSP02a.94
2/7/94
9
c i
. J. '.
. .
;1
.'
.~ . '.'
.,
,
t ;~. , . .
I '
.' "
I'
C',
ITEM F - (continued from 01-24-94) 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
'permit 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
Withdrawn by applicant.
ITEM G - (continued from 01-24-94) 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 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 is requesting the following variances to permit the existing attached
a'nd freestanding signage to remain: 1) an area variance of 96.8 square feet from the
permitted 64 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with a total area of 160.8 square
feet; 2) a height variance of 11 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a freestanding
sign height of 31 feet; 3) a variance of 5 message panels from the permitted maximum of
2 message panels to allow a freestandiJig sign with a total of 7 message panels; and 4) an
area variance of 21.4 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow attached
sigmige with a total of 85.4 square feet.
I
.. ,
,
. . ,
(..
'0'1
Je'
, The subject property is located on the southeast. corner of Pierce Street and
Missouri Avenue and is in the CG zoning district.
The applicant states this signage has existed for 12 years and has not been a
problem but has not provided any evidence these requests arise from any conditions
unique to this property. He has indicated tho removal of these signs will create, a great
hardship. Since the cost of replacing these signs is the primary concern. these requests
, appear to be based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial
return from the property. ,
These requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area. number of message
panels, and height of a freestanding sign, and the area for attached signage. These
requests cannot be considered minimal requests.
L
I
The existence of the 31 foot high, 160.8 square foot freestanding sign with seven
message panels and the 85.4 square feet of attached signage is not in character with the
signage permitted for the surrounding commercial, and professional office uses. 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 meet all of the standards for variance
. approval. .
L
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
10
, I ~ . '. . ~
>, .
r ~, .' .". f, ". jI
{~~
, Mark Scime, representing the applicant, stated the parcel is' surrounded by, large
buildings that have been built to the property line. The business has been there since
1976, and the existing sign is a standard sign for U~Haul. A reduction in height will create
difficulty for the applicant. ' '
It was pointed out that this particular facility is one of the slowest in the area.
They feel the location is unique due to the tall buildings in the area. He suggested they be
allowed to retain the U-Haul sign and remove the reader board and hitch panels which
would reduce the signage to 80 square feet on the pole. There is 100 square feet of
signage on the building. SomB of that signage would be removed even though that same
signage is what e'xists on 18 other buildings in Florida.
The Mayor pointed out that the pole sign is permitted five feet from the right of
way and their sign is set back nine feet from the right of way.
In response to a question, John Richter stated each letter in the word U-Haul is
consi~ered a sign panel.
Bob Mayer of U~Haul stated that many people do not know that U-Haul provides all
the services they do and having signs on the building listing their services reminds the
public of this fact.
(H,
~..:,
Commissioner Thomas inquired as to what were the most important services to be
listed on the building. It was his feeling that the freestanding sign was more of an issue
and he is not in support of the height. He indicated they have not been granting variances
as to area on the Missouri Avenue corridor.
, ,
; (
Mr. Scime requested the Commission evaluate the law and see if there are.
circumstances that would substantiate a variance. He stated they wish to do what is in
the best interest of everyone concerned.
Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the requested variances for the subject
property for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval. items 1-6 and 8. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #1 - Valentinos Koumoulidis (Mr. Submarine) for variances of (1) 4.17 ft to permit a
freestanding sign .83 ft from a side (west) p'roperty line; (2) 3 ft to permit freestanding
sign 2 ft setback from a street right-of-way; (3) 24.5 sq ft to permit 88.5 sq ft
freestanding sign; (4) 13.17 ft in height to permit a 33.17 ft high freestanding sign; and
(5) 293.9 sq ft to permit a total of 357.9 sq ft of attached sign area to permit
nonconforming signage to remain at 1010 Cleveland St, Sarah McMullen's Sub, Blk 3, part
of Lot 9, zoned UC(E) (Urban Center (East). SV 92.97 ,1
;
I
'I
i
The applicant is requesting thee following variances to allow the existing
freestanding sign and attached signs to remain: 1) a setback variance of 4.17 feet from
the required five foot setback to allow a freestanding sign 0.83 foot from the west side
property line; 2) a setback variance of 3 feet from the required five foot setback to allow a
I'
( "
,"-,
minSP02a.94
217/94
i
j'.
,
11
~ >~ .'} \
, '
freestanding sign 2 feet from the Cleveland Street right of way; 3) an area variance of
("'.' , 24.5 square fest from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an
area of 88.5 square feet; 4) a height variance of 13.17 feet from the permitted 20 feet to
allow a freestanding sign 33.17 feet high; and ,5) an area variance of 293.9 square feot
from the permitted area of 64 square feet to allow attached signs with a total area of
357.9 square feet.
The subject property is located on the north side of Cleveland Street, west of
Greenwood Avenue, and is in the UCE ~oning district.
According to the application, the applicant is willing to bring the signs into
compliance with the code, but there is "no room" to do so.
C"
-'c :.
.....
The building on this property is located within a foot or two of the Cleveland Street
right of way and the west side property line. The site is small and most of the area is
paved. As a result, there is very little opportunity to place a freestanding sign in a
conforming fashion. Only a small portion of pervious ground surface exists at the
southwest corner of the property, where the existing freestanding sign is located. These
conditions give rise to granting tile setback variances being requested. However, there are
no conditions unique to this property that warrant' granting the area or height variances.
The building is.a one storybuildihg, and the sign could be lowered to comply with the
height IimJt and still be viewable to motorists on Cleveland Street over the top of the
building. Further, the applicent has not provided any evidence the area or height v~riance
requests arise from any conditions unique to this property. There is "room" to place 64
square feet of attached signs on the building, the building afready accommodates'more
than five times that. A variance to permit attached signs with an area five times the
maximum area permitted by code is not a minimum variance.
The existence of a freestanding sign 33 feet high and 88.5 square feet in area, and
attached signs 1 50 squa're feet in area, is not in character with the signage permitted for
the surrounding commercial area and diverts attention from those land uses. The granting
of this variance will detract from businesses that have conforming signs as well as
negatively affect the appearance of the community.
,
, Staff finds that of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval; the
applicant's setback variance requests meet all eight, however, the requested area
variances and the height variance do not meet the standards.
Henry Saydi stated they cannot move the sign due to the size of the lot. He has no
problem with meeting the height requirement.
David McComas, representing the applicant. stated there appears to be a
discrepancy in the square footage of the sign. Mr. Shuford explained the square footage
was determined using a survey drawing and stated it includes two sign panels. Mr
McComas felt that the area of the signage needed to be verifieu and that some of the
signage could be removed. '
t ,
'"-,
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
12
{'. ,_:
} ~" .,'
, .;',
. l-.. c .;0. .... ".',.
'c
; ::,,/10:"
, ~ I I' .
..<' , ,
, l
, I,
,\
r.:
C"
The Mayor suggested the applicant work with staff regarding the area of the
~ignage but that the Commission approve the setback variances.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a setback variance of 4.17 feet to allow
the freestanding sign 0.83 foot from the west side property line and a setback variance of
3 feet to allow the freestanding sign 2 feet from the Cleveland Street right of way for the
subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Berfield suggested they reduce the size of the sign to 64 square feet
and come back if necessary regarding the height.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt indications were that the applicant might be able to'
meet code as to area.
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue-variance request #3 and #5 as to area to
allow the applica'nt to work with staff to solve the problem. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. .
Commissioner Thomas moved to deny the height variance request for failure to
meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items '-8. The motion was duly seconded
and ca~ried unanimously.
fl"i
"-,.
ITEM #2 . Per,kins Clearwater Ltd (Perkins Family Restaurant) for a variance of 8.94 ft in
height to permit a sign 18.94 ft in height ab~ve the existing grade of the US 19 overpass
to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2626 Gulf.to.8av Blvd. See 17-29-16, M&B
23.07, zoned CH (Commercial Highway). SV 92-99
The applicant is requesting the following variance to permit the existing
freestanding sign oriented to US19 to remain: a height variance of 8:94 feet from the
permitted height of 10 feet above the overpass to allow a freestanding sign 18.94 feet
above the overpass. It should be noted that, based upon a survey drawing that
accompanies the application, the top of the sign is positioned 18.46 feet above the crown
of the road. Accordingly, the actual variance should be for 8.46 feet, not 8.94 feet. The
application, however, is suitable to be heard by the Commission despite the slight
differenr.e between the applicant's request and the survey drawing because the
Commission can grant a lesser variance than is requested without necessitating
renotification and readvertising. The overall sign height from grade, according to the
survey, is 41.66 feet.
The applicant contends that the additional sign height is necessary to alert
motorists when to .exit the US 19 interchange. However, the applicant has not provided
any evidence that this request arises from any conditions unique to this property which are
,The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard
and US 19 and is in the CH zoning district.
l..
minSP02a.94
. 2/7/94
I
.1'
13
"
'.
; ".
" ,
G.
C',.,.
. c'
{. .
'-...
,.
. ,
I,'
'. .:;': :',",;
; ,
. . ~.
not already accounted for in the sign regu'lations. The existence of the US19 overpass to
the west of this property is unique, but the sign regulations recognize and account for this
circumstance. Specifically, the regulations allow a sign height of ten feet above the crown
of the roadway (Sec. 44.54(2)).
Staff research shows that on September 14, 1989, the Development Code
Adjustment Board denied a height variance to allow the continuation of a 41 foot high sign
beyond the October 13, 1992, compliance date., The decision was appealed to a State-
appointed Hearing Officer. In an order dated February 12, 1990, the Hearing Officer
upheld the decision by the Board, and concluded the Final Order with the following~ "It
was shown that the primary reason Petitioner is seeking this variance is to secure
continued economic benefits from this nonconforming sign, and this is not a valid basis for
approval of this request. 11
The existence of this 41 .66 foot high sign, 1 8.46 feet above the overpass, is not in
character with the signage in this area, 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.
I
Staff feels the applicant's request does not meet the standards for variance
approval.
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, 'stated the sign is on Gulf to Bay
Boulevard and US 19 and on the building. There is a roller coaster effect on the overpass.
There is a pole sign on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and another on LJS 19 and generous
wall signage on walls facing both roadways. When the site was purchased signage 'needs
were evaluated by both the Perkins Site Development Team and a sign company from
Daytona. In order to be able to exit, the sign must be seen from 1100 feet from the north
and approximately 2000 feet from the south.
The sign is located at the latter part of the crest of the hill. He is permitted to have
an additional pole sign on Gulf to Bay Boulevard'. His signs are smaller than what is
permitted. There is a 750% reduction in' wall signs on Gulf to Bay Boulevard from what is
" allowed. He demonstrated on a photograph how the sign is ohscured due to the overpass.
Commissioner Thomas cpointed out that it is too late to turn off US 19 once you are
on the overpass.
In response to this statement, Mr. Pressman indicated that the sign can be seen
. from near Seville Boulevard which would allow for ingress/egress at that point.
Commissioner Thomas inquired as to the visibility southbound.
Edward Lechner stated he bought the business in the 1970's a(ld had profe'ssionals
determine the size and height of the sign needed in order for it to be seen.
minSP02a.94
217/94
14
,
. ..... .....;h;~;....(~I~.i:;.~.>l';s~.~;!J.;).t;~.;'.rl._'~;.;~, ...,..~.~.".~__~
" . . ,.
"
"
t;::'{~f:'\'!''''' ,-' ,
. .,
, ' ~, <
',> .
[~ ' , . ~
..'
,'.
.. ,
. ! ~ f c. .' .
~ . .."'"l ' '. ". . ,
jk.:';....':',;..:.:.:',.c .: '~" ".", :.<:' ,..'
c
Commissioner Thomas stated the sign would be at the guardrail if it were dropped
six feet. .
The Mayor stated they had not gronted variances greater than 10 feet near
overpasses.
Mr. Shuford stated that Howard Johnsons was denied a height variance,how'ever,
the public storage facility and Countryside Mall did receive variances.
Commissioner Thomas pointed out that Howard Johnsons was given a variance as
to the size of the sign.
,c.
Mr. L~chner stated that on March 25, 1993, the storage facility adjacent to the
subject property was given a height variance due to the roller coaster effect of the
overpass.
Commissioner Berfield inquired as to whether the apartment complex nearby was
permitted a higher sign. Mr. Shuford responded that he believes they received a height
.variance but it was not related t,o the overpass. . .
Commissioner Thomas moved to grant a variance of 8.46 feet in, height to permit a
sign 18.46 feet above the overpass for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24
Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded.
C""
, "
~>-'
The Mayor pointed out there is no way to get off the overpass once you are on it.
, Commissioner Serfield noted tourists would turn off at Clearwater Mall if they could see
the signs.
Commissioner Deegan stated that if the sign is visible at Seville Boulevard, tourists
would turn off there.
Mr. Shuford suggested that if the Commission chose to grant a variance, they
include a condition that there be no increase in area.
Commissioner Deegan disagreed and stated he felt the hardship stood on its own
and they should not be restricted to their existing signage which is less than what is
'permitted. ' 0
'I"
Commissioner Thomas agreed that the hardship stands on its own.
. Discussion ensued regarding tl~e fa'ct that the height is needed for the sign to be
seen at a sufficient distance to allow you to turn off US19.
The Mayor cautioned the Commission that car dealers use the argument that their
signs need to be seen from a distance. Commissioner Deegan stated the Commission
needs to be consistent and they used the same rationale for the public storage on the
adjacent parcel. '
('.>
minSP02a.94
217194
15
"
, ,
:j :', ;
: ~. .:>~. ...
., ',4 t" ~ I :.
'. ,
. .~' I.
r:
Upon the vote being taken the motion carried unanimously.
ITEM #3 - Richard 0.' Davison (Bay Area Neuro Muscular) for a variance of 7 ft in sign
. height to permit a 27 ft freestanding sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at
1450 Gulf-towBav Blvd, Knollwood Replat, Blk 3, Lot 13, zoned CG (General Commercia!).
SV 93-13
The applicant is requesting a height variance of 7 feet from the permitted 20 feet to
allow the existing 27 foot high freestanding sign to remain.
The subject property is located on the north side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, west of
Remo Avenue, and is in the CG :zoning district.
The ,existing freestanding sign has two panels. The top panel is to be retained and
the bottom panel is to be replaced.
, This building is positioned approximately 24 feet from the Gulf to Bay Boulevard
right of way. The buildings on the adjoining.lots are positioned with virtually no setback
from Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Given the location of the adjoining buildings, the message
, panels' on the freestanding sign must be located eabove the roofline of the adjoining
buildings in order to be seen from, Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Based on staff's inspection of
this property, the existing sign is presently visible above these rooflinesand, it appears, if
the existing sign was lowered it may cause some of the existing message area to become
obstructed by the adjoining buildings. However, the vertical dimensio'n of the new bottom
, ".,: :', panel proposed for the sign is smaller than the existing panel. The existing panel measures
"11... 6 feet vertically, and the proposed panel measures 1.7 feet vertically. This causes staff to
believe that the requested variance is not a minimum variance because there will be more
space between the bottom of the sign and the ground. If the variance is approved as
requested, the bottom of the sign would be 4.3 feet higher above the ground than is
'presently the case. Staff believes a minimum variance would be to allow the bottom of
the proposed sign to be at the same height as the existing sign. Accordingly, a minimum
variance would be 2.7 feet to allow a sign with a height of 22.7 feet.
A 22.7 foot high sign is higher than permitted for the surrounding commercial uses,
but to require the sign to be lowered to comply with code may render a portion of the
message area to be obstructed by. the buildings on adjacent properties.
,
1
!'
Staff finds of the eight standards for variance approval. the applicant's request
does not meet standard #3. However, if the request was reduced by 4.3 feet, staff finds
that the variance would meet all eight standards.
" Richard Davison submitted four photographs of the sign. He is .willing to conform
to the code with regard to the area of the sign. He needs the variance for the height so
that the sign can be seen when traveling in a northwesterly direction because it is blocked
by an adjacent building and the setback of the sign. '
l"
minSpo.2a.94
217/94
16
Ie
"
. "
~;~Jf~"::'" .:/ .
I,
.,; '. . ';' ,
: , ~
,;
. . ~ .
'I : e
.." I "'.
L,
d>
, ,"
L,
.\' . . "
, ,
1,1., ';l' ;:
~:t},~. .', '. ,;"
, "
:. . .
~ '. , '
. ".f
. ., H'
, ,."
o
, Commissioner Berfield inquired as to whether the sign could be moved closer to the,
stree~. Along the same line, the Mayor noted that the sign may be within five feet of the
right of way and the existing sign is seven feet from the right of way.
Mr. Davison stated that the height would allow the sign to be visible but he did not
feel that the setback would.
, I
'j
,I
J
i
']
The Mayor suggested that if the sign were closer to the street and lowered in
,height, it might be more visible.
. Mr. Davison stated there is' a large planting by the sign and if the sign were lowered
and moved closer to ,the street, it would have only 1/3 to 50% visibility.
Commissioner Thomas stated he felt it would have to encroach into the setback in
order to be visible but he did agree that it should be lowered. He stated that moving the
pillars would be a big issue.
The Mayor stated she felt it would allow more visibility than presently exists. Mr.
Davison again stated he was agreeable to conforming to the setback and the area but
desired to retain the sign height.
I
. i
Th,e Mayor stated she felt the height allowed by the code was appropriate but
suggested they allow him to come back with a proposal.
C"'\ Mr. Davison noted it would not be practical to move the clump of trees in order to
relocate the sign.
Commissioner Thomas noted that the sign cannot be seen due to the building next
door.
Discussion ensued regarding what height and location would allow the sign to be
seen.
I, '
Mr. Shuford stated that the roof of the building and the mansard block the view but
a reduction in height wOllld ,make it more visible.
i
,:
, ,
"
Commissioner Thomas suggested reducing the height.
.,:
Mr. Shuford suggested the applicant get someone to investigate what the
appropriate height would be and that possibly the sign could be offset on the poles,
allowing it to be positioned closer to the road.
Commissioner Thomas suggested the applicant work with staU to come up with a
proposal.
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to allow' the applicant to' ,work
with staff. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously,
(;-
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
17
~..<;~,::~~,'t'
.. .'" I 4~ . ,: .::
IT, .
i ~ ',t' I"
,
. ,
, e
I'
.' .
. "
;<:\;:;':',:}, ,',,:;-,,', '. I'
..;
: :;,:.~ ':~:
, I
or:
The meeting recessed from 11 :05 to 11 :15 a.m.
ITEM #4 - Manuel & Evangeline Kastrenakes (Pinel1as Rent A Car, Inc) for variances (1) of
16 ft to permit a 36 ft high freestanding sign; (2) of 64.8 sq ft to permit a 176.8 sq ft
freestanding sign to remain; and (3) to permit a second allowable freestanding sign to be
oriented to same street 'as primary freestanding sign to permit nonconforming signage to
remain at 19206 US Hwv 19 N, See 19-29-16, M&B 14.06, zoned CH (Highway
Commercia!). SV 93-16
I
. !
.l
.j
1
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to 317/94. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #5 - Arthur H. & Mary L.'Bruno (Clearwater Mattress Co, lnc) for variances of (1)
294.46 sq ft to permit a total of 354.46 sq ft of attachedsignage, area; and (2) one
permanent window sign to permit 4 attached signs of the same wpe to permit
nonconforming signage to remain at 1659 Gulf-to-Bav Blvd, Gulf-to-Bay Shopping Center,
Lots 3 & 4, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93~19
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to ,3/21/94. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
c~'
ITEM #6 - Helika Properties (Clearwater Mattress Co,. lnc) for variances of (1) 15 ft to
permit a freestanding sign 35 ft in height; (2) 2 above roof signs where such ~igns are
prohibited; (3) 12 'sq ft to permit 120 sq ft of attached sing area on North face of
business; and (4) 150 sq ft to permit 229.5 sq ft of attached sign area on East face of
business to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 20258 US Hwv 19 N, Sec 18-29-
1~, M&B 44.01, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-22
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to 3/21/94. The motion was
duly seconded and' carried unanimously.
ITEM #7 - United Dominion Realty :rrust (Bay Cove Apts) for a variance of 5.5 ft in height
to permit 2 freestanding signs of 11.5 ft in height to permit nonconforming signage to '
remain at 19135 US Hwv 19 N, See 20-29-16, M&B 23.04, zoned RM 24 (Multi-Family
Residential). SV 93-27
The applicant is requesting a height variance of 5.5 feet from the permitted 6 feet
to allow two freestanding signs with a height of 11 .5 feet.
The subject property is located on the east side of US 19, across from Ham
Boulevard, and is in the RM-24 zoning district. The vClriance is requested to permit the
two existing freestanding signs to remain. .
Unlike most properties fronting on US19, this property is developed with a
residential use. Because of the reside'ntlal use, more restrictive sign regulations apply.
l~
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
"
18
, .
, ~ l : '. I. .
'.
;:. l'-.
. I ~ . u
I: .
, ,
't'e,.'",,' ',' Fe,. I .:'J.
: . ., (.';:, ~ d~ .: 'f ::"~ l
..
("\
Whereas most properties on US 1 9 are allowed a sign area of 11 2 square feet and a height
of 20 feet, this property is allowed a sign area of 24 square feet and a sign height of 6
feet. This circumstance causes the property to be unique and gives rise to granting the
requested ,variance, which staff considers minimal.
The existence of these two 24 square foot, 11.5 foot high signs are in character
with the signage permitted for other properties located on US 19. The granting of this
variance will not detract from businesses and properties that have conforming signs and
will not negatively affect the appearance of the community.
Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval.
Gregory Duggan, represen~ing the applicant, was present, but made no comments.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a height variance of 5.5 feet to allow two
freestanding signs with a height of 11.5 feet for the subject property for meeting Section
45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1 ~8. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
ITEM #8 - Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III (Dimmitt Chevrolet, Jnc) for, variances of (1) 80.8 sq ft
to permit a freestanding sign of 192.8 sq ft; (2) 22.5 it in height to permit a freestanding
sign of 42.5 ft in height; and (3) 12 ft in distance to permit a second freestanding sign
288 ft from a primary sign to permit nonconforming signag8 to remain at 25485 US Hwv'
19 N, See 32-28-16, M&B 32.02 & 32.03, zoned CH (Highway Commercial}.
C'. \ SV 93-42
"
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to 3/7/94. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #9 - Stratford Village Apartments Ltd for a variance of 3 ft to permit a freestanding
sign height o'f 9 ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 25350 US Hwv 19 N,
See 31-28-16, M&B 41.02, zoned RM 28 (Multi-Family Residential). SV 93-45
This item was withdrawn at. the request of the applicant.
ITEM #10 - Fred Good TR & F. Mardell Good TR (Good Rental) for variances of (1) 22.6 sq
ft to permit 86.6 sq ft of attached signage area; and (2) 3 ft to permit a 2 ft setback for a
freestanding sign (Missouri Ave right-at-way) to permit nonconforming signage to remain
at 1420 Missouri Ave S, A.H. Duncan's Resub of Clara E. Duncan's Sub, part of Lot 5 less
street, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-49
Commissioner Barfield moved to continue this item to March 7, 1994. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Mayor noted that Item 1/10 had inadvertently, been continued to another
meeting and requested a motion to reconsider the item.
'(',e
.J>'
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
19
(,\
There are two attached signs, both are located on the north face of the building.
The "Good Rentals" sign measures approximately 73 square feet, and the "We Rent Most
Everything" sign measures approximately 13 square feet. Together, the attached sign area
is approximately 86 square feet, or approximately 22 square feet in excess of the area
permitted. Both signs are low impact signs because the visibility is substantially
diminished due to the location of the building to the north. Furthermore, staff observes
that the overall signage for the property is generally unobtrusive because, not only are the
attached signs marginally viewable, but the area of the freestanding sign is substantially
less than allowed by code. The freestanding sign is 29.2 square feet, or 34.8 square feet
less, than allowed. In this case, given the low impact of the overall signage for this
property, and the relatively small freestanding sign, staff considers this variance request to
be minimal.
::,:' .: ,<':- ',.
" ,
'. ~ c
" ,
,,'
, .
, , '
;"
l\
Commissioner Thomas moved to reconsider Item 1/10. The motion was duly
secondede and carried unanimously.
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing
freestanding and attached signs to remain: . 1) an area variance of 22.6 square feet from
the permitted 64 square feet to allow attached signs with a total area of 86.6 square, feet,
and 2) a setback variance of 3 feet from the 5 foot roquired to allow a freestanding sign 2
feet from the Missouri Avenue right of way.
The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Missouri Avenue and
Queen Street and is in the CG zoning district.
.The'visibility of the freestanding and the attached signs is limited due to the
location of. nearby buildings. The building directly to the north (across Queen St.) is
approximately five feet from the Missouri Avenue right of way. The existing setback of
the freestanding sign is needed to provide visibility of the sign to southbound traffic.
Furthermore, the subject property has nonconforming parking that requires v~hicles to
back out into Missouri Avenue and Queen Street in order to egress the site. Currently,
cars parked in front of the building on Missouri Avenue are able to cross the parking lot
and exit onto Queen Street, thereby eliminating the dangerous back-out onto heavily
travelled Missouri Avenue. If the freestanding sign pole is moved to meet the setback
requirement, the access from the front parking area to Queen Street would be obstructed.
Commercial and residential uses surround the subject property. The overall signage
,for the Good Rental property is low impact, and is in character with the signage permitted
for the commercial businesses in the area. The granting of these variances will not detract
from businesses that have conforming signs and will not adversely impact the appearance
of the community.
Staff finds the applicant's'request for a setback variance and an area variance
meets all eight standards for variance approval. '
".L:
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
20
~ . I , . i
~::<~>;,~:: ,;" 'I'
~ c _ , .
,
.' "
...,~ .
. .
, '
, .' L
" .~
c~
John Richter stated visibility is restricted by buildings in the area and if the sign
were moved back, it would restrict vehicular movement on the property. He noted the
signs are low impact and the variances minimal.
Steve Good stated he did not wish to move the sign as it will be difficult to see.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve an area variance of 22.6 square feet to
allow attached signs with a total area of 86.6 square feet and a setback variance of 3 feet
to allow a freestanding sign 2 feet from the Missouri Avenue right of way for the subject
property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the
following condition: No modification shall be made to the freestanding sign to increase the
sign area. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #11 - Merrill Lynch & Co, Inc (Merrill Lynch) for a variance of 2.75 ft to permit a
freestanding sign 22.75 ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 26301 US Hwv
19 N, Countryside Village Square, Lot 6 less road on west, zoned CC (Commercial Center).
SV 93-50 '
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to March 7, 1994. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. '
(".
'. '
. '\
. "'
ITEM #12 - Searstown Partner,s Ltd/Sears Roebuck & Co (Hancock Fabrics) for a variance
of 40~8 sq ft to permit 172.8 sq ft of attached sign area to permit nonconforming signage
to remain at 1279 Missouri Ave S, F.E. Hanousek's Sub, part of Lots 11 & 12, zoned CC
(Commercial Center). SV 93-57
The applicant is requesting an area variance of40.8 square feet from the permitted
132 square feet to allow the existing attached sigllage to remain with a total of 172.8
square feet. The maximum area permitted is based upon a building frontage of 88 feet.
The subject property is located on the east side of Missouri Avenue between
Jeffords Street and Lakeview Road, and is in the CC zoning district.
The applicant states this store is setb'ack 375 feet from Missouri Avenue and that a,
building at the front of the parking lot obstructs the view of the subject property.
Although the building is setback from Missouri Avenue, the sign bonus provisions do not
permit attached signs to exceed the limitation of 1.5 square feet of area per 1.0 linear foot
of building frontage. Other adjacent stores in this shopping center are also setback the
same distance from Missouri Avenue and, therefore, this setback cannot be considered a
unique situation to this store. Additionally, staff does not regard, the existence of a
building at the front of the parking lot to be a condition that warrants granting a variance
for a larger sign.
The exis'tence of this 1 72.8 square foot attached sign is not in character with the
signage permitted forthe commercial businesses in the area. The granting of this variance
will detract from commercial businesses that have conforming signs, permit an unfair'
c....
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
21
J ..
,>
f".. ;
, ;
. "
. (, '
,
".
"
.. .~ h
;, i~::'{" }.,'.
, ,
Ii
"
, "
.' '. ~ ',.
"
o
advertising advantage to the applicant, and neg atively impact the overall appearance of the
community. '
John Richter stated they are permitted 1.5 square feet of sign area per 1.0 linear
foot of building frontage which would permit a sign of 132 square feet. The width of the
business does not permit an area bonus for distance from Missouri Avenue.
Kathleen Milton, representing Hancock Fabrics, stated that they are set back
co'nsiderably from Missouri Avenue and are blocked by the Bob Evans Restaurant located
in the parking lot adjacent to Missouri Avenue.
, ,
In response to a question from Commissioner Deegan regarding whether a large
building with a continuous set of several businesses in one building should be looked at in,
the same manner with regard to the ratio of 1.5 square feet per linear foot, Mr. Richter'
stated 'that the 1.5 square foot sign area per building width is a design and proportion
issue. Commissioner Deegan felt the intent was to apply this criteria to a free standing
building. '
Mr. Shuford noted that there would be a danger of having all the signage on one
end of the building as opposed to it being more evenly spaced out on the overall width of
the building. '
('
, ..,I
"
Commissioner Deegan noted that the store is set way off the road and it is not a
hardship 01) the neighborhood nor is it obtrusive.
,
Ms. Milton noted that there is no longer a Searstown sign ~hich had been there for
many years~ Hancock has been in this location for 1 8 years and their advertising used to
include the fact that they were located in Searstown but now they use the wording
"Formerly Searstown."
Commissioner Thomas stated he had no problems with the sign and Commissioner
Berfield noted there is no indication that this business is there.
Commissioner Deegan'moved to approve a variance of 40.8 square feet to permit
172.8 square feet of attached sign area to remain for, the subject property. The motion
was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken Commissioners Deegan, Fitzgerald,
Barfield, and Thomas vote'd'''Aye;'' Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried.
ITEM #13 - Stephen F. & Marsha S. Dickey (Rehabworks, lnc/Doctor's Walk-In Clinic) for
variances of (1) 1 freestanding sign to permit 2 such signs; (2) 198 sq ft to permit a total
of 248 sq ft of freestanding sign; (3) 1 ft to permit 2 freestanding signs to be located 4 ft
from a street rightpof-way; and (4) 3 ft to permit sign to remain 2 ft from a side (north)
property line to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 26810& 26812 US Hwv 19
N, Sec 30-28-16, M&B 43.01,' zoned OG (General Office). SV 93-59
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the two existing
freestanding signs to remain: 1) a variance of 1 freestanding sign to permit 2 such signs
l.
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
22
, .
.,. "i..' >
,J.
0, ~.~
:;", ~ :. :
,"J.'
, .
1"; ~...
" "
r
where only 1 freestanding sign is permitted per property; 2) an area variance of 198
square feet of freestanding sign area to permit a total of 248 square feet, rather than the
50 square feet limitation; 3) a variance of 1 foot in distance to permit two freestanding
signs to be located 4 feet from a street right of way, rather than the 5 foot setback
required; and 4) a variance of 3 feet in distance to permit a freestanding sign to remain 2
'feet from a side (north) property line where a 5 foot setback is required.
The subject property is located on the west side of US 19, north of Countryside
Boulevard, and is in the General Office zoning district.
(~il
Most properties on US19 are assigned a commercial zoning classification. This
property, however, is assigned an office zoning classification. As a result, more restrictive
sign regulations apply to this property than most other pruperties on US19. Commercial
properties on US 19 are commonly permitted a 112 square foot freestanding sign. This
property is allowed a 50 square foot freestanding sign. This being the circumstance, staff
may look favorably upon a request for a minimum variance to allow a sign somewhat
larger than the 50 square feet permitted by code. However, staff does not regard a
request for two signs totalling 248 square feet to qualify as a minimum variance.
The applicant indicates that the businesses on this property rely on visibility, and
that the overpass currently under construction in front of this property will diminish the
visibility of the signs. However, staff finds that these are not conditions unique to this
property. Most all busine~ses in the City rely on visibility. In this particular case, the
construction of an overpass will not preclude the placement of a viewable sign. The sign
regulations allow a freestanding sign with a height ten feet above the crown of the
adjoining roadway on the overpass.
"
The existence of these two nonconforming 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 businesses that have
conforming signs as well as negatively affect the appearance of the community.
Mr. Shuford stated the sign code may need amending to accommodate
circumstances similar to this situation.
Lisa Smithson, representIng the applicant, stated they wish to retain the signs as
they were built since one was placed in 1988 and the other one in 1992. She feels they
need a high degree of visibility as business has deteriorated since the overpass
construction began. She indicated the appraised value of the property has also decreased
with the construction of the overpass. She expressed concern that if there is only one
pole sign, it might indicate an affiliation between the two businesses which is not the
case.
Commissioner Deegan inquired as to how similar situations rega'rding signage for
two businesses situated on one piece of property had been handled in the past.
L.,
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
.23
, "
..' ~ \ < ,"\ > r... j- .
L ~! . t
"
I,' .
~. L t
jI
,
,
f":l ", .' . J, '
;i>.,"': .,>; ..c .\,.".,:
, , ".
.' ~ J
~ ~ :..~l.
r
Mr. Shuford indicated he could not recall a situation where two freestandi~g signs
have been permitted unless they had ample frontage. They have allowed face changes.
Ms. Smithson stated there must have been a precedent in the past or there would
not be two pole signs on the property now.
Commissioner Thomas inquired as to why this area was different than the situation
with Perkins and Mr. Shuford responded the zoning is diffe'rent and he suggested that
possibly the c,ode should allow for bonuses for signs on US 19. '
Commissioner Thomas stated that the owner should determine how the signage is
allotted on one pole sign but felt that the square footage should provide for the fact that
the sign is located on US 19. .
I
Mayor Garvey cautioned they should make sure they do not over~allow signage on
US19.
Commissioner Thomas felt they should grant a variance to permit. one 136 square
foot sign.
Commissioner Deegan noted that the nature of the neighborhood has changed due
to the overpass construction.'
Ms. Smithson stated both businesses are being financially hurt due to t~e reduced
{:I' sign requirements.
. 1
. ,
~
Commissioner Deegan stated it was reasonable to allow one pole sign with 136
square feet a~ its present l,ocation.
Commissioner Thomas noted that. the sign may be 3 feet higher than it presently is.
The Mayor clarified that one 136 square foot sign will be permitted.
Commissioner- Thomas moved to .Q.p,prove an area variant;:e of 86 square feet to
permit a freestanding sign with a total area of 136 square feet, a variance of 1 foot to
permit a free standing sign 4 feet from U.S. 19 street ROWand a variance of 3 feet to
permit a free standing sign tu remain 2 feet from a side property line for the subject
property; and denied variance request #1 for failure to meet standards 1-8. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. '
j.
It was pointed out that the variances granted would allow the Walk-In Clinic sign to
remain. It was suggested the reader board on that sign be, changed to serve as the'sign
for Rehabworks.
c.
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
24
"
, '
" .
. ~ . J
,. . ~
(""\
'.,
ITEM #14 - Curtis A & Marian Jackson (Clearwater Outboard) for variances '(1) of 209.6
sq ft to permit 273.6 sq ft of attached signage; (2) to permit a roof sign where such signs
are prohibited; and (3) of 4 attached signs to permit 9 attached signs to permit
nonconforming signage to remain at 603 Missouri Ave S, Hibiscus Gardens, Blk V, Lots 6,
7, 8, 9A, 98 & 10 less street, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-60
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing attached
signage to remain: 1) an area variance of 209.6 square feet from the permitted 64 square
feet to allow a total area of 273.6 square feet for the attached wall and roof signs; 2) a
variance to allow a roof sign where roof signs are prohibited; and 3) a variance of 4
attache~ signs from the permitted 5 attached signs to al,low a total of 9 attached signs.
The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Turner Street and
Missouri Avenue and is in the CG zoning district.
The applicant states this business sits in a depression in,Missouri Avenue and has
no freestanding sign. While it is true this business and the surrounding area is located at
the base of a decline in Missouri' Avenue, the elevation of this business location is not a
condition unique to this property. Further, a freestanding sign is permitted at this
property, and is an option the applicant may wish to consider.
(".
i. .',
\......: :;
The existence of these eight attached signs and one attached roof sign with a total
. area of 273.6 square feet is not in character with the signs permitted for the commercial
businesses in the area. The granting of these variances will detract from the commercial
businesses that have conforming signs, permit an unfair advertising' advantage to, the
applicant, and negatively impact the overall appearance of the community.
John Richter stated there are many depressions in roadways throughout the City
and that the variance request is not minimal.
Robert PerLlche stated there is no room in front of the property to place a pole sign.
He stated Clearwater Outboard identifies the name of the business and the signage on the
building was there when he purchased it. He expressed a willingness to reduce the
attached signage but he needs Clearwater Outboard on the front and on the side. He feels
a roof'sign is the only type of sign that can be seen due to the location.
',[
The Mayor inquired as to whether an awning sign is legal and Mr. Shuford stated he
. would have to investigate this.
Commissioner Thomas asked the applicant what he needed to identify his business
knowing that the code allows a 64 square foot sign.
. ,
Mr. Peruche indicated a sign on the side that says boats and a sign to the south
that lists either Checkma'te or Mercury would be needed.
Mr. Shuford indicated staff would work with the applicant and the adjacent awning
business owner to resolve the sign issue.
C"',
e ,-
minSP02a.94
,
2/7/94
25
The meeting recessed from 12: 15 p.m. to 1 :00 p.m.
~'~,;.. './; ~,.' .> t t;,.
o
Commi,ssioner Thomas noted that there is extensive signage on this building. Mr.
'peruche stated that the signs he has are a franchise necessity but they will work with the
code. ' , ,
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to 3/21/94. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
!TEM #15 - Marks & Gilliss, Inc/Marks Holding Co, Inc (Ken ,Marks Ford) for variances of
(1) 37.5 sq ft in area to permit a freestanding sign of 149.5 sq ft; (2) 144 sq ft in area to
permit an auxiliary sign of 200 sq ft; (3) 8 ft in height to permit an auxiliary sign of 20 ft in
height; and (4) 18ft in distance to permit an auxiliary sign with a distance of 282 ft from
the primary sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 24791 & 24825 US Hwv
19 N, Ken Marks Ford, BI k A, Lot 1 together with Ken Marks Ford 1 st Add Sub, Lot 1,
zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-65
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to March 21, 1994. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
(,: "
. i
......:..
ITEM #16 - Romark Investments, Inc/Villag8 Office Corp (Village Office Park) for a variance
of 32.3 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign area of 182.3 sq ft to permit nonconforming
signage to remain at 26338 US Hwv 19 N, The Village at Countryside, Replat of Lot 1, Lot
4 Replat, Lots 1 & 2, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93wGG '
,
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to Marcil 7, 1994. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
"
ITEM #17- Criterion Centre Properties/Criterion Center, lnc for variances of (1) 22.8 sq ft
to permit a primary freestanding sign of 72.8 sq ft; (2) 205 ft to permit an auxiliary sign'
95 ft from a primary sign; (3) 20.6 sq ft to permit an auxiliary sign of 20.6 sq ft; and (4)
5.3 ft to permit an auxiliary sign of 5.3 ft in height to permit nonconforming signage to
remain at 29605 US Hwv 19 N, Criterion Centre Condo, Phase I, II & III, zoned OG
(General Office). SV 93-67
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) an area variance of 22.8
square feet from the permitted 50 square feet to allow a primary freestanding sign with an
area of 72.8 square feet; 2) a distance separation variance of 205 feet from the required
300 feet to permit freestanding signs with a 95 foot separation; and 3) a variance to
permit an auxiliary sign with an area of 20.6 square feet and a height of 5.3 feet on
property that does not have 500 feet of frontage on one right of way.
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of US 1 9 and Northside
Drive and is in the OG zoning district. The variances are requested to permit two of the
existing three freestanding signs on this property to remain. The applicant indicates on the
application that the sign at the north end of the property will be removed.
C.'
minSP02a.94
217/94
26
(. ,'. "
j "
J, '.,' ,
.," ~ c
, ,
. "
: ,
.,
: /1 ~.
ril; I .' ~
. ,......
j
, ,
r Most properties fronting on US19 are assigned commercial zoning. This property,
~., ~, however, is assigned office zoning. As a consequence, this property has more restrictive'
sign allowances than most other US 19 properties. Commercially zoned properties on
US19 are typically allowed a minimum of 112 square feet of sign area. This property is
allowed 50 square feet. The variance requests are to allow the applicant to retain a total
of 93.4 square feet of sign area. In light of the fact that this property is developed with a
nonresidential use and the signs the applicant is requesting to retain have a cumulative
area less than the minimum allowed for other nonresidential properties on US 19; staff
'considers the property unique and the variance requests minimal.
The.existence of these two signs with a cumulative area of 93.4 square feet is in
character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial area. The granting of
these variances will not detract from businesses that have conforming signs or the
appearance of the community.
Staff fin'ds the applicant's 'requests meet all eight standards for variance approval.
Mr. Shuford stated .the property is only eligible for one freestanding sign as its
frontage is not 300 feet. He noted the signs are less than the allowable height and the
variances are minimal. '
, j
'j
j
('
.. ",
J
Timothy Kerwin, representing the owner, 'stated he feels they meet the criteria for
the granting of a variance. It is a small parcel of land and they have eliminated the
northe~nmost sign.
The Mayor noted that the signage fits well with the" site.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the requested variances for the subject
property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items '-8, subject to the
condition that the northernmqst sign on this property be removed within 60 days following
this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #18 - Fusco Corp & John S. Taylo~, III (JC Penney) for a variam:e of 1 sign to permit
4 signs of the same type to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1200 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 District) and RM 28 (Multi-Family Residential). SV
93.78
The applicant is requesting a variance of , attached wall sign from the permitted
maximum of 3 attached signs of the same type to allow a total of 4 attached wall signs.
, The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Missouri Avenue and
Druid Road and is in the CC zoning district. '
The applicant contends this JC Penney store is uniquely situated at the "rear" of
the Sunshine Mall. Three of the attached wall signs serve as directional entrance signs
, C_
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
27
(,
Mr. Richter stated that it is on a load supporting parapet wall which is permitted.
~e
"
,,' t
; :
f:'
which are viewable primarily from the interior parking lot. The fourth sign is placed high
on a parapet wall on the east building facade oriented to Missouri Avenue. This is the only
sign that is visible from Missouri Avenue. the location of the store at the rear of the mall
creates a unique condition to this property. '
This request is the minimum to overcome the hardship of having an attached sign
visible from Missouri Avenue and a directional entrance sign on the other three walls of
this store.
The existence of the fourth attached wall sign is in character with the signage
permitted for the commercial businesses in the area. The granting of this variance' will not
detract from the comm,ercial businesses that have conforming signs and will not negatively
impact the appearance of the community.
. l,t
Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval.
John Richter reviewed the item.
Tim Johnson, attorney representing the applicant, again made note of the fact that.
the J C Penney Store is located at the back of the mall and stated that all four signs are
the same.
Commissioner Deegan inquired as to whether the sign in question was above the
roof line. '
In response to a question as to what a parapet wall is, Vie Chodora stated it is a
wall located above the roof line which is used to hide the roof itself.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the requested variance for the subject,
property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #19 ~ Clearwater Property Group/David Mandelbaum & Craig Jacobs (K-Mart &
Payless Shoes) for a variance to permit 2 freestanding signs where 1 is permitted to permit
nonconforming signage to remain at 2100 - 2130 Gulf-to-Bav Blvd, See 13-29~1 5, M&B
14.03 & 14.031, zoned CG (General Co mmsrci al). SV 93-83
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow two freestanding signs 20 feet high
and 64 square feet in area where only one freestanding sign is allowed of such height and
area.
The subject property is located on the north side of Gulf to Bay,Boulevard, east 0.1
Gunn Avenue and is in the CG zoning district.
c.
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
\
l.
(
28
:, .
"
'I-
; :
, I'
,,' '~.," '
~'-
There are presently two freestanding signs on this property, one for K-Mart and one
for Payless Shoe Source. Both signs' are oversized and too tall. Also, the property is
limited to one freestanding sign, not two. The applicant requests to retain two signs on
the property, and proposes to reduce the size and height of both signs.' Under the CG
zoning assigned to the property, the one sign allowed would be permitted an area up 'to 64
square feet. The applicant requests that each of the signs be permitted an area of 64
square feet.
Both businesses on this property are'located within separate freestanding buildings,
have separate driveway access to Gulf to Bay Boulevard and have separate parking and
landscaping. In effect, the physical development of this property gives the appearance
that each business is situated on a separate property. - Given these circumstances. staff
considers the property unique.
The existence of two 20 foot high, 64 square foot signs is in keeping with the
character of signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas. The granting of this
variance will not detract from businesses that have conforming signs or the appearance of
the community.
Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval.
,'C,"
Scott Shuford the parcel occupies an entire city block and the request is for a
freestanding sign for each of the businesses. He recommended if the variances ar~
granted, the signs be brought into conformance within 60 days meaning that both signs
will conform in both area and height. He noted that the property has been platted as one
parcel.
Gregory Davis, representing the applicant, was p,resent but made no statement.
Commissioner Thomas noted that each bu'siness would qualify for a sign if the
Payless Shoe Store had been platted as an out parcel.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the requested variance for the subject
property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the
condition that the existing nonconforming signs be made to -conform within 60 days 'of this
public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IrEM #20 - Rex M., Stephen M., & Randy R. Barbas (R.J. Automotive) for variances of (1)
1 wall sign to permit a total of 4 wall signs; and (2) 132.4 sq ft of attached si9nage to
permit a total of 196.4 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 830 Court St,
Aiken Sub, Blk 10, Lot 6, zoned UC(E) (Urban Center (East). SV 93-87
The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow the existing attached
signage to remain: 1) a variance of.1 wall sign from the permitted 3 wall signs to allow 4
wall signs, and 2) an area vuriance of 132.4 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet
to allow 196.4 square feet of attached signs.
G
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
29
I
f
I
I
'I
I
, '
t' ~
, "
.) i-.-I
~ ,<;:' ~<
}'
. I
~t.,
The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Court Street and
Prospect Avenue, an~ is .in the Urban Center, Eastern Corridor zoning district.
The applicant contends that these variances are necessary because the building is
located 75 feet from the street, thereby rendering signs of conforming size difficult to
read.. Staff notes that attached sign sizes permitted by the sign code are based upon the
setb,ack of the building from the street. The fact that this building is located 75 feet from
the street is not unique to this property. Further, the requested area variance is triple the
area allowed by code: A request of this magnitude is not minimal.
The existence of attached signs having an area of 196.4 square feet 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
businesses that have conforming signs and from the appearance of the commlmity.
John Richter noted that the code takes into account a large setback from the right
of 'waV but 75 fee~ is Ie;ss thaI') the distance that allows extra square footage.
Connie Thomas, the owner, stated the business was purchased in September 1993
and the signs are the only form of advertising.
"
Commissioner Thomas inquired as to whether or not the seller, informed them that
the signs were in violation of the City code. He suggested the applicant deal with a sign
company to determine how to properly identify the business.
CJ".:,>
';,"'1
'I
Mr. Shuford noted that a 60 square foot freestanding sign is allowed in this zone.
The Mayor stated she did not wish to encourage installation of a pole sign.
Commissioner Berfield moved to co'ntinue this item to March 7, 1994. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #21 . William P. Wright (Bay Area Prosthetics) for a variance of 3.3 sq ft of attached
signage to permit a total of 27.3 sq ft of attached signage to permit nonconforming ,
signage to remain at 1267 Court St/ Hibiscus Gardens, Blk Q/ Lots 31-35. zoned OL
(Limited Office). SV 93~88
The applicant is requesting an area variance of 3.3 square feet from the permitted
24 square, feet to allow 27.3 square feet of attached signage.
The subject property is located on the south side of Court Street, east of S. Lincoln
Avenue, and is in the OL zoning district. The variance is requested to permit the existing
attached'signage to remain.
Within OL districts, 24 square feet of attached signage is permitted by code. This
building is 40 feet in width, and currently has 27.3 square f~et of attached signage. Staff
observes that the existing signage is in scale with the building. Commonly, attached
c'
minSP02a.94
217/94
30
". . .J, ,," ,
~ .r~.t'~ l /. ~
~l. '~: J . ) j
,',
II
"
, ,
:'; . j;
: I ~'
, ,
. .J,
f
:':~c
:: ;;.:, ..'. ..
. ,I';':
"r'
, "
o
signage is provided on the basis of 1.5 square feet of area per one linear foot of building
,width. This building has less than one squaro foot of signage per foot of building width.
, ,
The existence of attached signs with an area of 27.3 square feet is in keeping with
the character of signage for the surrounding land uses. The granting of this variance will
not detract from businesses and properties that have conforming signs. A variance of 3.3
square feet can be considered a minimal r~C1uest.
Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval.
Mr. Shuford noted that the sign is in scale to the building and no ratio variance is
needed. The request is minimal.
Bill Wright, representing the applicant, was present but made no comments.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the requested variance for the subject
property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards,for Approval, Items 1-8. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Mayor commended staff for the manner in which they have handled the sign
variance requests.
ITEM #22 - Ice House Agreement
, /.~'-:
,('
The City Attorney stated that Mr. Johnson faxed 'a letter to him on February 3,
1994.
Tim Johnson, attorney representing the owner of the Ice House, stated on January
20" he thought they had a deal and sent the revised agreement to the City Attorney
thinking they had accommodated every issue. At another meeting on the following
Monday, more changes of a material nature were submitted. He indicated his client would
not agree to the City having th13 right to tear the building down at any time prior to the
renovation being completed.
Mr. Johnson stated a building inspector had filed an. affidavit of compliance in
. November stating the building was safe.'
, Vic Chodora, Assistant Director of Central Permitting, clarified that the building was
declared temporarily safe.
Mr. Shuford further clarified that until there is a roof on the building, it can not. be
declared permanently safe.
Mr. Johnson stated an affidavit was fil~d January 20 which says the building is
safe. Mr. Shuler wlll meet the original deadlines which call for,submission of plans by
April 15, commencement of building by May 31 and completion by Janu'ary 16, 1995.
c:.
2/7/94
minSP02a.94
31
. ,
;,
I
,
"
.'
" .c.
< ~+.
#.~:' ". ' ..'
:':</. .' ..'."
, '
"
~ ~ ~
"..' .
r'
. Commissioner Thomas pointed out that the building was merely declared
temporarily safe and that an ordinance should be drafted to deal with this type of
structure. He felt the agreement had a loophole. In response, Mr. Johnson stated he
disagreed with this.
Commissioner Thomas stated he desired to work with Mr. Johnson's client to
complete the building and that the changes made were an effort to remove the loophole.
A provision was added that 90 days after the envelope was completed, that the interior
was also to be completed.
Mr. Johnson noted that if the building is not occupied by April 17, 1995, his client
would be required to pay a $100 per-day fine and that if it is not occupiable on that date,
th~ City can impose that fine.
The Mayor noted, she is not concerned about occupiable but would like the building
presentable. She did not feel the clause was fair that allowed the City to tear the building
down at any time. '
;",
Mr. Johnson stated the $100 per day fine had been an added provision should the
building not be occupiable by April 17, 1995.
"
,
(,.~
,(11
- ...,.
Commissioner Deegan inquired as to what changes were suggested at that
subsequent meeting and the City Attorney responded that there was a change to page 3,
paragraph 2. Commissioner Doegan inquired as to whether this was a substantial change
and the City Attorney responded it is.
, Mr. Johnson explained that the change on paragraph 3 stated that until the building
was totally complete, there was a threat that the City could .tear the building down. He
also indicated that para'graph "e" was added which states the building must be completed
on time. '
, ,
Commissioner Berfield indicated she felt there was no reason for paragraph "e" as
the building would be safe.
I
Mr. Johnson gave a chronology of the agreement and noted that on January 24,
. ,the Commission made two changes to the agreement sent to the Commission on the 21 st,
which are not acceptable to his client.
Commissioner Deegan stated they had draft #3 and asked Mr. Johnson to do a
draft #4 with some suggested changes.
Commissioner Thomas noted that Mr. Johnson agreed that liability ceased once the
structure ~as safe which would relieve his client of completing the building.
, '
Mr. Johnson stated that the waiver of defenses went away when the building is
safe. The contractor is still exposed to a $100 per day penalty if the building'is not
completed.
l_.
minSP02a.94
2/7/94
32
; ~ j,.
.1 ~ ~.
t .~ .
, ,
cO,
,.,
~r~t;:~(:\' ~~, ,;.;,,;
.I. '~ _ .
. J :
" . (
. .
, ,
. ."
,
, "
'. . . .
~~. 1. '. ! ~' ,
, :.
, . ;f
, j "
.....~~j,..' ,~ ,\~." '.;, ,".
[..11:.., , :
,?,'.:.c>: ',"';.. .'
~': . 'i' . :' .: :. ~ .;'. .' ."
I " ,,'
, ,
, ,
:~t< :< :':' .
" r
I . J I' : ,:
. ,
"1' t
, ,
,
,.,' .
.. f' c. ~ .
.. f' .
" ,,J
:1.
t t .....
i~~,:;:i'>K;:X>;iL;;;M~}4f,;>',:,,:' '.... t;" ,'" .
I'
I'
"
, .
, .'
" ,
. '
,',
, .
~
\:' ,I,
. ,The first effort to redraft did not'seem to agree, with what the Commission thought
they had 'agreed to at the meeting of January 21. He suggested draft #4 as Mr. Johnson
, had originally submitted it should be resubmitted. .,
The Mayor noted that Mr. Johnson's client does not want to get halfway through
the proje,ct and then have the project torn down. '
.,
Discussion ensued regarding the Commission's desire to bring this matter to a
conclusi,on in a timely manner with a signed agreement.
';.'.
(..'
Commissioner Thomas moved to accept draft #4 as drafted by Mr. Johnson, on the
condition that the document is signed by February 14, 1994. The motion was duly
seconded and carried'unanimously.
f'.
<.<,r." ,
Interim City Manager Betty Deptula announced they were scheduling a dinner on
:March 7th for the Chamber and the Phillies front office. She noted the social hour will
begin at 6:30 p.m. withd,in,ner being served at 7:30 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 1 :58 p.m.
, ,
"C""'"
, ~ " '\
. '.'i
r' ..i'
I. '
, \
. ,
ATTEST'_~~ E, lb. ~.,
, ' City Clerk
" .
-
'/
, I
"
, ,
,
. .
X' .
"': ~ c'. ,
t~;:>.! '.
Ie
> j ~.
, :
, ,
. ,
"
,
" ,
"
'!
, '
I'
minSP02a.94
. "
2/7/94
I;'
33
c, .
'.:' .
, .'
"