03/07/1994
~";(f!} ';";';".' ".,
.,'.
\.
il' '..~ . i .
. '.~.:: I . .
;:\ -\,:' :
~ I ;~,:J . i t ~~
'. ;l: ,
~ ~ '
;~..l>,> ~.: .
~, 3~:'
'..
. i
'!
,
,
.1
'I
,"
>,
,ei "
!'. :.
"
.
.\ .
. '.
d'
/: "
,
I
'iJ
,
, .,
,~ 't'
~' " ,
r:., ;.
;, ,f.
','
.,
n:-~,%
.'1 ,.J..
.1.\
, "
~ . .'
~! '~~~.f~~I' ~
....,.~..., ...
'~," ...~'.I ~
t\~w"'; ;:! ,i~ .'
. ~~!j~+~~;:::~" ';':; >:. "
. ~,,-...,,;-I.., ",":..d
.;~~':~:tf1.\'.~' ,
i~~,iJ;.':.'.~:>< ..'
. ~"q(~7:,,,~~ ,. c
'J\JF~'." .
. .
+....
f.
'C.OMMISSIO'N
. ,
. . ~.
':,~T\' ,
. .- ":
.,
~ity Commission
',:,
~~ /t/q~
<.'J 0,
DATE
. ,~. . J~
11 ;.:
~l~t' :
:~:; ,
;t~'~::.L
;~...,'"
. :~~':;~
c, ,,~-:\~;'
'~~'~"T.,
~i\:' .
~6'';t: .. I
. !:~~~~, ~:
. ,
1Jl~Vl~
;'
,'SZ I q ~
.1
'~f'\.,
..:I.............c.
;.h,:;.
.\:..,! ".
.F~1:~I' . (
I ~":~" ~.'
T;;,ll
" ..
','.(.
~~~.:. ~:: '.
~ I~. I' ,
!.
.,;.....::..
",." }
~ i c .
, '!:jl
.: I
l';~' '. .
.4.....j1,..
, ,
\ .
'.J
.J
,
'j
"
rl"~,
~^
ACTION AGENDA
City Commission Special Meeting
Sign Variance Requests
March 7,1994 - 9:00 A.M.
I'
Reconsideration 'of Yen PinQ Chou TRE (Grandy's) for variances of (1) 86.6 sq ft to permit a
150.6 sq ft freestanding sign; (2) 3 ft to permit freestanding sign 2 ft from street right~of-
way; (3) 2 message panels to .permit 4 panels; (4) 27 sq ft to permit 91 sq ft of attached
signage; (5) 0.95 sq ft to permit 4.95 sq ft directional signs; and (6) 12.75 ft to permit a
32.75 ft in height sign to permit nonconforming signs to remain at 1698 Gulf-to-Bav Blvd, Sec
14-29-15, M&B 13.05, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-25 - #1 - Denied; #2 -
Approved; #3 & #4 - Withdrawn; #5 - Approved; & #6 - Withdrawn.
Reconsideration of William B. Wilkins, F. Bruce Lauer and Robert Jacobsen (Work America,
Inc) for variances of (1) 191 sq ft to permit 255 sq ft of freestanding signage area; (2) 2.5
ft setback to permit a sign 2.5 ft from property line at 3196 Gulf-to-Bav Blvd, Sec 16-29-16,
M&B 24.081, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-31 - Denied but given 60 days to come
into compliance.
ITEM A - (cont from 1-24-94) Mas One ltd Partnership (Barnett Bank) for variances of (1) 161
sq ft to permit a total of 270 sq ft of attached signage; and (2) .24 sq ft per ft of building
width to permit a ratio of 1.74 sq ft per ft of building width to permit nonconforming signage
to remain at 600 Cleveland St, Clearwater Tower, Lots 1 & 2, zoned UC(C) (Urban Center
(Corel. SV 93-116 - #1 - Approved variance of 23.15 square feet to permit 4 foot high
(. : channel letters; #2 - no action (noted later this request not necessary now).
ITEM B - (cont from 2-7-94) Espana Business Center for variances of (11 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 - #1 - Approved variance for 100 square feet subject to the, condition that the
current building signage area is not increased above what presently exists; #2 - Witl)drawn.
,
ITEM C - (cant from 2-7-94) Manuel & EvanQeline Kastrenakes (Pinellas Rent A Car, Incl for
variances (1) of 16 ft to permit a 36 ft high freestanding sign; (21 of 64.8 sq ft to permit a
176.8 sq ft freestanding sign to remain; and (31 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 3/21/94.
ITEM D - (cont from 2-7-94) Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III (Dimmitt Chevrolet, lnc) for variances
of (11 80.8 sq it 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 (31 12ft in distance to permit a second
freestanding sign 288 ft from a primary sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at
25485 US Hwv 19 N, Sec 32-28-16, M&B 32.02 & 32.03, zoned CH (Highway Commercial).
SV 93-42 - #1 - Approved variance of 15.03 square feet to permit a freestanding sign with
127.03 square feet of area; #2 - Approved variance of 1 foot in height to permit a sign 21
feet high; #3 - Approved.
',-
. 3/7/94
1
1. Dr. & Mrs. Robert Bialas & Drs. Joseph & Janet Fishman (Clearwater Center for Cosmetic
& Plastic Surgery) for variances of (1) 2.5 ft to permit a freestanding sign to remain 2.5 ft
from street right-at-way (Lakeview Rd): and 121 26 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of 90
sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 609 Lakeview Rd, Belleair, Blk 10, parts
at Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, & 8, together with all of Lots 4 & 5, and part of vacated alley, zoned
IL (Limited Industrial). SV 92-92 - #1 & #2 .. Approved.
"
"
r~ ITEM E - (cont from 2-7-94) Merrill Lvnch & Co. Inc (Merrill Lynch) for a variance of 2.75 ft
to permit a freestanding sign 22.75 ft to permit nonconforming slgnage to remuin at 26301
US Hwv 19 N, Countryside Village Square, Lot 6 less road on west, zoned CC (Commercial
Center). SV 93-60 - Approved.
ITEM F - (cant from 2-7-94) Romark Investments. Inc/VlIIoge 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 ~ & 2, zoned CC (Commercial Centerl. SV 93-66 - Approved.
ITEM G'. (cant from 2-7-94) Rex M.. Stephen M.. & Randv 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
signage to permit a total of 196.4 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 830
Court 5t, Aiken Sub, Blk 10, Lot 6, zoned UC(E) (Urban Center (East). SV 93-87 - Continued.
("
" ,&
2. Countryside Assoc Ltd Partnership (Village at Countryside Plaza) for variances of 1) 69 sq
ft to permit 144 sq ft of auxiliary signage area; and (2) 4 ft in height to permit an auxiliary
sign 20 ft in height to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 26210 US Hwv 19. N.,
Village at Countryside Parcel 4 Replat, Lot 3less road, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93-
44 - #1 & #2 - Denied.
3. Joseph M. Connellv. Jr (Connelly's Used Auto Rent, Inc) for variances of (1) 2.8 ft to
permit a freestanding sign 22.8 ft in height; and (2) 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign 0 ft
from street right-of-way (Drew St) to permit, nonconforming signage to remain at 1821 Drew
St, Skycrest Unit No.4, Blk F, part of Lots 1.3, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-80 .
#1 - Denied; #2 - Approved subject to the condition that the applicant will assume the cost
of moving the sign to meet the setback if Drew Street is widened.
4. Cemliz Gokcen (Prime Executive Center) for variances of (1) 11 ft in height to permit a
freestanding sign of 19 ft in height; 12) 22.7 sq ft in area to permit a freestanding sign with
an area of 46.7 sq ft; and (3) 1.2 ft setback from the required 5 ft to permit a freestanding
sign 3.8 ft from a right-of-way (Drew St) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2288
Drew St, Temple Terrace 1 st Add, Blk 0, Lots 15. 16 & 17, zoned OL (Limited Office). SV
93-92 - Continued to 4./19/94.
5. True Realty Corp (Toys URn Us) for a variance of 14.6 ft in height to permit a freestanding
sign of 37.6 ft in height to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 26286 US Hwv 19.
N. Village at Countryside, Parcel 4 Replat, Lot 2 less road on east, zoned CC (Commercial
Center). SV 93-96 - Continued to 3/21/94.
(
~../
317194
2
\,
.>
I' "1 'c'
'. .
:, I
. . .
.~ ~c' ;/ .
J ,: .
",. .
. ~
" .
(~
6. JoseDh & Bernadine Cavato (Pat-N-Polish Car Wash) for a variance of 20.35 sq ft to permit
a freestanding sign of 84.35 sq ft to permit nonconforming slgnage to remain at 1430
Missouri AVfj, S~, Duncan's A.H. Resub, part of Lot 8 less road, zoned CG (General
Commerciall. SV 93-99 - Denied.
!
I
I
,
7. Peter N. Mirchandani TRE (Maternity Warehousel for a variance of 19.5 sq ft to permit an
. attached sign of 42 sq. ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 25710 US Hwv 19.
N, See 31-28-16, M&B 14.06, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-103 - Approved.
8. Patrick H. Green (Pleasant Inn, Incl for variances of (1) 21 sq ft to permit a freestanding
sign of 71 sq ft: (2) 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign of 25 ft in height:; and (3) 2.25 ft to
permit a freestanding sign of 2.75 ft from street right-of-way (N. Ft. Harrison Ave) to permit
nonconforming signage to remain at 1744 N. Ft. Harrison Ave, North Shore Park, Blk 4, Lots
3,4, & 5, zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercial). SV 93-108 - #1 & #2 - Denied; #3. Approved
subject to the condition that by constructing a sign within the street setback pursuant to this
variance, the owner and applicant agree that no governmental agency shall be liable for the'
cost of relocating or removing the sign in the event the property is acquired by eminent
, domain, road widening, or any other public purpose.
'1
(,,,~;,.
,~
, /
'"'
9. Raman Bhula (Shoreline View Motel) for variances of (1) 7 sq ft to permit a freestanding
sign of 57 sq ft; and (2) 4.3 ft to permit a freestanding sign .7 ft from street right-ot-way
(Edgewater Dr) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1941 Edflewater Dr, Sunnydale
. Sub, Lots 39-41 less street, zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercial). SV 93-110 - # 1 - Approved;
#2 - Approved subject to the condition that by constructin'g a sign within the street setback
pursuant to this variance, the owner and applicant agree that no governmental agency shall
be liable for the cost of relocating or removing the sign in the event the property is acquired
by eminent domain, road widening, or any other public purpose.
10. Direction re request for reconsideration of SV93-05, Seares/El Capitan - Approved
reconsideration, scheduled for 4/19/94.
Adjournment - 12:14 p;m.
f:--.
~ V'
.'
3/7/94
3
Rita Garvey
. Arthur X. Deegan, II
Richard Fitzgerald
Sue A. Berfield
Fred A. Thomas
Mayor/Commissioner
Vice-Mayor/Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
;'.:<J~,::'~ .' ",. . : . ~
:./~ "~j,: .~ 1 "
'. ,
,.>
,
,
, ,
" ,
.1
,.,
.~~.~.'c . ,I': "~J:
? ~:. . ~<,
r:~.
CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
March 7, 1 994
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in special session at City Hall,
Monday, March 7,1994 at 9:00 a.m., with the following members present:
Also present:
Elizabeth M. Deptula
M.A. Galbraith, Jr.
Scott Shuford
Susan Stephenson
Interim City Manager
City Attorney
Central Permitting Director .,
Deputy City Clerk
Public Hearings were held concerning the following sign variance requests.
t',..,
. ')
,~~ '
Reconsideration of Yen Pinq Chou TRE (Grandv's) for variances of (1) 86.6 sq ft to permit
a 150.6 sq ft freestanding sign; (2) 3 ft to permit freestanding sign 2 ft from street right-
of-way; (3) 2 message panels to permit 4 panels; (4) 27 sq ft to permit 91 sq ft of
attached 5ignage; (5) 0.95 sq ft to permit 4.95 sq ft directional signs; and (6) 12.75 ft to
permit a 32.75 ft in height sign to permit nonconforming signs to remain at 1698 Gulf-to-
Bay Blvd, See 14-29-15, M&B 13.05, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-25
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing
freestanding sign, attached sign and directional sign to remain: 1) an area variance of
86.6 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a total freestanding sign area
of 150.6 square feet; 2) a height variance of 12.75 feet from the permitted 20 foot height
to allow a freestanding sign 32.75 feet in height; 3) a setback variance of 3 feet from the
5 foot setback requirement to allow a freestanding sign 2 feet from the street right-of-
way;' 4) a variance .of two message panels from the permitted two message panels to
allow a,freestanding sign with a total of four message panels; 5) an area variance of 27
square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow an attached sign with a total area
of 91 square feet; and 6) an area variance of 0.95 square feet from the permitted 4 square
feet to allow an on-site directional sign with a total of 4.95 square feet.
I.
I
The subject property is Io.cated on the northwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
and South Duncan Avenue and is in the 'General Commercial (CG) zoning district.
The new' sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in t~is zoning district.
The applicant is requesting 4 variances to. .permit the exis~ing freestanding sign to remain.
. (-./'
minSP03a.94
3/7/94
1
. '.
'I. .
'j,
. '.
'. .
}'
.;'. ,.
~ . '
..P ~
, ~, .'
. ,
r.,
. ,
These variances are for height, area, setback and additional panels. The applicant has not
provided any evidence these variance requests arise from any conditions unique to this
property.
The applicant is requesting one variance for additional attached signage area. There
are two existing attached signs with one ,sign oriented toward each street. The applicant
contends Grandy's is voluntarily removing "an all important wall sign" thereby reducing the
amount of total square footage below City allowances. This contention is not consistent
in the application of the sign regulations or with the variance being requested. The
applicant further contends that installation of significant landscaping is llprobably very
unique to Gulf-to-Bayll. However, the landscaping ,of the front of the property does not
constitute a unique condition for justification of additional si9nage. The applicant has not
provided any evidence this variance request arises from any conditions unique to this
property.
The applicant is requesting one variance to allow four on-site directional signs to be
0.95 square feet over the four square foot signage permitted. This appears to be a
minimal variance, however, the code clearly states business logos on these signs shall not
exceed 25 percent of the sign area. The logos on these signs occupy approximately 60
percent of the sign area. The applicant has not provided any evidence that this request
arises from any conditions unique to this prope'rty.
.'
Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet all of the standards for variance
approval.
ThIs item was denied at the October 29, 1993, meeting. The applicant nor his
representative were notified of the hearing in October and therefore requested
reconsideration. The City Commission approved reconsideration at their January 24, 1994
meeting.
Senior Planner John Richter explained the application and reported no reason was
given to support granting the variances. The area variance requested is more than double
what is permitted', the height is 64 % greater than what is permitted, and the attached
signage is more than 40% in excess over what is allowed.
l~.
minSP03a.94
3/7/94
...
L
"'.1" ,
"
',. .
'.
r
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant stated they wished to revise the
yariances as follows to minimize the original request: 1) reduce the variance for
freestanding sign area to 58.10 to permit a 122.10 square foot sign; 2) no change to the
setback variance; 3) withdraw the request for a variance of 2 additional message panels;
4) withdraw the variance for the attached signage area; 5) no change to the area variance
for directional signs; and 6) withdraw the request for the height variance.
Mr. Pressman pointed out the property is on a corner and submitted two photos.
He explained the applicants were willing to remove the wall sign facing Gulf to Bay
Boulevard. If the freestandi'ng sign is moved back, its visibility will be blocked. The
applicants are requesting transfer of the area allowed for wall signage from the wall to the
pole sign. .
Commissioner Thomas inquired whether any nearby exceptions were grante:d that
increased sign size from 64 square feet to 122.1 square feet. Mr. Shuford, Director of
Central Permitting, noted the applican't is requesting a sign almos,t double the size allowed
and th~ request does not appear to be justified.
Commissioner Thomas stated he has no problem with the setback of the sign nor
with the directional sign. He expressed concern that the proposed square footage is far
beyond what is permitted and suggested since the sign must be modified; it might as well I
conform to the code.
Commissioner Thomas moved to grant variances #2 to permit a freestanding sign 2
4 .'.'~ feet from the right-of-way and #5 to permit 4.95 square foot directional signs and to'deny
"v variance 1t1 for the subject property for failure to meet Sec. 45;24, Standards for
Approval, items 1-3. 5, 6 and 8. Variances 3, 4, and 6 were withdrawn by the applicant's
representative. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. '
Reconsideration of William B. Wilkins. F. Bruce Lauer and Robert Jacobsen (Work America.
Inc) for variances of (1) 191 sq ft to permit 255 sq ft of freestanding signage area; (2) 2.5
ft setback to permit a sign 2.5 ft from property line at 3196 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, See 16-29-
16, M&B 24.081, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-31
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit an existing
freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 191 square feet from the 64 square
feet permitted to allow a total of 255 square feet; and 2) a setback variance of 2.5 feet
from the required five foot. setback to allow a freestanding sign 2.5 feet from the Gulf.to.
Bay Boulevard right-of-way.
The slJbject property is located on the northeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
. and Bayshore Boulevard and is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district.
The new sign ordinance is 'being uniformly applied to all signs in this :laning district.
The applicant contends the sign's location. on the property with respect to existing
landscaping and the existing building minimizes the impact of the excessive size.
L
minSP03a.94
317/94
3
, '
. : .
.' .
'.
, .
,
~. ,'c "
. '.
.'1. t.
. t
~. . l .
~ t,
, .
('I.
However, there remains sufficient area on the site to place a sign that conforms to setback
and area 'requirements of the code. The applicant has not provided any evidence that
these variance requests arise from any conditions unique to this property.
These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area of a
freestanding sign and cannot be considered minimal requests.
A vacant lot exists to the west and FOOT offices are to the east. No businesses
are located to the south across Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The existence of this 255 square
foot freestanding sign is not in character with the signage permitted for commercial
businesses in this zoning district. The granting of these variance 'requests will detract from
the appearance of the community.
Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet all of the standards for variance
approval.
. This'item was denied at the October 29, 1993 meeting. The applicant nor his
representative were notified of the.hearing in October and therefore requested
reconsideration. The Commission approved reconsideration at their January 24, 1994
meeting.
(....
, V.1:d~
~\,:' ~.~
Neither the applicant nor their representative was present at today's meeting.'
Commissioner Thomas moved, to deny the requested variances for the subject
property for failure to meet Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-3, 5, 6, and 8.
. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously~
Carlton Ward, representing the applicant, arrived and requested the item be
reconsidered. The property is under !ease purchase. The sign has been dedicated to
UPARC and Long Center. The message on the billboard is unrelated to the use of the
. property. He requested that if a variance cannot be granted, a condition be made that
compliance will not be required until January, 1996, when other billboards come into.
conformance.
Commissioner Thomas moved to reconsider the item. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Scott,Shuford stated they have not considered this sign as a billboard. Mr. Ward
pointed out the sign advertised the Special Olympics last year and was help'ful in
participants finding the Long Center.
The Mayor expressed her opinion that the sign is offensive.
John Richter stated that the sign was not permitted as a billboard. The City issued
. a regular sign permit.
( ,
. '--~~
minSP03a.94
317/94
4
f,: ' . :
: I I r
c} : ~
~ ': . '. -, . ' ,
t- :,"..' - : ; ~ . .
~': ., ~ ~
f'.'
,
. ~ , f
. J ,
r., .
. .,
:"
, .
c
Commissioner Berfield suggested they treat it as a sign since that is the way it was
permitted.
, .
Mr.. Ward questioned the fact that the ordinance does not address the definition of
a billboard and asked how the City determines for permitting purposes whether something
is a sign or a billboard.
I
j
1
..I
. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the requested variances for failure to meet
Section 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-3, 5, 6 and 8. The motion was duly
seconded.
',!
Mr. Ward asked the Commission to consider not enforcing removal until after the
Special Olympics this summer.
Commissioner Thomas stated he was under the impression that the Special
Olympics was being discontinued due to the ADA Act but did recognize that the use of the
sign to promote two important charities should be considered as long as no changes are
made to the information on the sign. He suggested a condition be made allowing the
billboard to remain until all billboards are sunset in January, 1996.
Commissioner Deegan pointed out the Commission agreed they are not evaluating
the messages on signs and they should not be considered.
, Mr. Ward suggested August 1, 1994.
e'
", '
~"I
.I
.' .
Scott Shuford suggested that the Commission approve leaving the sign in place for
a specified length of time.
Commissioner Berfield moved to amend the motion to allow them 60 days to
comply. The seconder agreed to the amendment.
Upon the vote being taken on the amended motion; Mayor Garvey and
Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, and Fitzgerald voted" Aye." Commissioner Thomas voted
"Nay." Motion carried.
,
ITEM A - (cant from 1-24.94) Mas One Ltd Partnership (Barnett Bankl for variances of (1)
161 sq ft to permit a total of 270 sq ft of attached signage; and (2) .24 sq ft per ft of
building width to permit a ratio of 1.74 sq ft per ft of building width to permit
nonco'nforming signage to remain at 600 Cleveland St, Clearwater Tower, Lots 1 & 2,
zoned UC(C) (Urban Center (Core). SV 93-116
The applicant originally requested the following variances to allow the placement of
an attached sign on the east face of the Barnett Bank office building just below the
roofline: 1) an area variance of 161 square feet fror;n the permitted 109 square feet to
allow an attached sign with a total area of 270 square feet, and 2) a ratio variance of .24
square feet per foot of building width from the permitted 1.5 square feet per foot of .
building width to allow a ratio of 1.74 square feet per foot of building width.
. C....-
minSP03a.94
3/7/94
5
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and N.
Garden Avenue and is in the UC(C) zoning district.
r ,", '
. . ~. ,
. '
,,.
"
;.
......
{\
"
.' ,
The applicant is now requesting just an area variance of 97.04 square feet from the
permitted 109 square feet to allow an attached sign with a total area of 206.04 square
feet. .
The subject property is developed with the Barnett Bank office building. The
variance application regards the sign on the east face of the building just below the
. roofline. The applicant proposes to remove the existing 80 square foot sign, and replace it
'with a 206.04 square fo'ot sign. The existing sign is D "can"; the proposed sign will be
channel letters. According to code, using the sign area bonus for the exceptional sign
height, a 109 square foot sign is allowed.
The applicant contends that the permitted sign size of. 1 09 square feet results in an
unreadable sign and that the letters comprising the sign must be a minimum of five feet in
height to be. reada~le at the ground level. However, staff review indicates this is not the.
case. The sign on the west face of the building measures 100 square feet and is easily
read from a minimum of a quarter mile away. Further, the sign on the Sun Bank building
located directly across the street from this building is 92 square feet and is also easily read
at a distance of a quarter mite. To allow a sign for Barnett Bank that is double the size of
the Sun Bank would clearly confer a privilege upon this applicant that is not available to
others in the downtown.
ill~ . The placement of a 206.04 square foot sign is not in character with the signage
"I;) permitted for the downtown core and will detract from the architecture of the building and
aesthetics of ,the community and Clearwater's downtown.
Staff feels the applicant's request does not meet the standards for variance
approval.
John Richter explaine'd the application stating that subsequent to the submission of.
the .application, the applicant downsized his request to seek a variance of 97 square feet
as opposed to the 1 61 square feet originally requested for the sign on the east side of the
building. The new sign will be made up of channel letters and 109 square feet is not.
sufficient to permit a sign that will be readable. The sign on the west face which is 100
square feet can be read from a quarter of a mile away. He pointed out that the building
across the street has a sign that is 92 square feet and it is also easily legible at a quarter
of a mile.
Jim Powell, representing the owner, stated the existing sign is a logo sign. The
variance requested would allow for 5 foot channel letters. The sign on the east side has
three and a half foot high letters and the Sun Bank letters are four feet high. He submitted
some photos. explaining what each represented. The signs were taken from measured
distances which he indicated. He explained their name is longer than many o~hers. He
t)
minSP03a.94
3/7/94
6
, '
n .
\'i "~~~:I\.' /:. . I
r
" .
'.
,
: . ~
, .'
'.
, .
.'.
, ,
. "
~. ~ .;.';'.,
. .' ~;.c.' " <': .' l.
: "..,
.'.(\
noted the building structure has an effect on the sign and color can affect the re'adability
of the sign. He stated if they were permitted to have 4 foot high cl1annelletters, they
would need an area variance of 23.15 square feet.
Commissioner Thomas noted the square footage on the west side is under 100
square feet and if the 23.15 square foot variance matches the Sun Bank sign he has no
problem with the request.
>(
,
I
I
I
1
j
i
Commissioner Deegan noted that the request is comparable to what exists across
'the street.
Mr. Shuford felt that the reduced square footage would eliminate the need for the
ratio variance but was not able to calculate the figures at the meeting. If staff finds that a
ratio variance is still needed it will be brought back to the Commission.
. Commissioner Deegan moved to grant an area variance of 23.15 square feet to
permit 4 foot high channel letters for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24
Stan~ards for Approval, items 1 M8. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. .
(,C,
. .
ITEM 8 M (cant from 2M 7-94) 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
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 lL 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,
after the 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;
t
. f
C. ..
. "
minSP03a.94
317194
7
;'.~ < '. ,,~~jJt~-?~;t.;'~'L';~~'~'~:l:~:~['iJ:\'#'~'.'~'~L\,
:- .'
.' . I
. ~ \1' ~. ....
.' r 1 .
, .
c.. .,
, ' ,<
I.
i.'
, '
" ,
('
The area variance request of 96 square feet is extreme and cannot be co'nsidered 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.
The existence 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.
Allowable sign areas range from 24 square feet to 100 square feet along the
Belcher Road corridor, from Palmetto Street to Sunset Point Road. The 'areas are
determined by jurisdiction and zoning. '
On February 7th, the Commission continued this application to allow staff to
research the ~llowable freestanding sign areas for surrounding properties and to determine
the effect on traffic safety if the sign was located low near the ground.
,."
. 'r<~
'l',",~
Only one property in this corridor, Dollar Mini Storage, is allowed a sign with an .
area of 100 square feet. It is located approximately four-tenths of a mile to the north of
the Espana Business Center property. Two properties allowed 75 square foot signs are
. .
Cox Heating and Air Conditioning, 1,000 feet to the north, and an undeveloped property
approximately 800 feet to the south. Some properties in this corridor have sign areas
more restrictive than the 64 square feet allowed for the Espana Business Center;. Most
notably i the fire station located just to the north of the Espana Business Center, and the
Salvation Army Worship Center, located directly across the street from the Espana
Business Center, are bqth allowed signs with an area of 48 square feet.
. Regarding the effect on traffic safety if the sign is placed low to the ground: The
Acting Public Works Director reviewed the site plan submitted as part of the variance
application. The plan shows the sign is located on the south side of the driveway
entrance, 8 feet from the Belcher Road right of way. It was determined that the sign is
sufficiently set back from the Belcher Road right of way to maintain clear sight lines when
exiting the property. Further, it was dete'rmined that the sign face should maintain a
minimum clearance of 4 feet above grade in order to allow visibility of a vehicle backing
from the parking space immediatelysouth of the sign.
Scott Shuford pointed out the signs larger than 64 square feet are located in the
County. He noted that the Traffic Engineer feels the current location will not create a
problem but the sign should be a minimum of four feet above the ground to allow for
visibility. Mi. Shuford stated it was the City's policy to honor permit applications received
prior to the code change in 1985. He did not feel there was a need to change staff's
recommendation of denial and noted the height variance requested was minimal.
, .
l~'
minSP03a.94
3/7/94
8
, ,
.~
.ft.; ,
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated they have reduced their request-
to ask for an area variance to permit a 100 square foot sign. There are heavy commercial
uses in the are'a and this building has 1 3 tenants. There is severe blockage of the sigh.
Pinellas County allows signs on each right~of~way. He stated he thought the main concern
at the previous hearing was the height and they would prefer a height of eight feet above
the ground rather than the minimum of four feet.
Commissioner Deegan inquired how they proposed to reduce the size of the sign
and Mr. Pressman responded that they would remove ,the bottom seven panels.
Commissioner Thomas inquired whether businesses located in the center were.
allowed to have signs on the building's face'.
Mr: Shuford stated attached signage is permitted based on a formula that allows
1.5' square feet of signage, for each foot of linear width of a business.
In response to a question, Ms. Nisk stated each of the businesses on Belcher Road
has approximately 25 feet of frontage and on Logan Street, each has a different width.
She presently allows six square feet of signage on Logan and eight square feet on Belcher
and does not want larger signs 6n the building. Originally tenants were advised they could
have a sign on the pole sign.
g,.
..,
" ;
~.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern regarding not permitting larger signs on
the building and removing the signs of tenants from the pole sign. He commended Ms.
Nisk for voluntarily limiting signage on the building.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked whether the height would be reduced to 20 feet.
Mr. Pressman replied the height variance is no longer necessary.
. It was sugge'sted that the address be placed on the pole sign but Ms. Nisk pointed
out that each tenant has their own address and there are 13 separate addresses on both
Logan and Belcher for the building. Mr. Shuford explained an address sign of up to eight
sq'uare feet is, permitted by the code.
. Commissioner Thomas noted that the signage on the building has voluntarily been
reduced by 390 square feet and expressed concern that it would be unfair to ask the
tenants to reduce their signage on the building when the pole sign is being reduced.
Commissioner Berfield inquired as to whether the applicant was entitled to two pole signs
since the building is located on a corner to which Mr. Shuford responded that Logan Street
does not qualify for an additional sign.
Commissioner Deegan stated the p'urpose of the code is to avoid undue clutter.
The property is well kept and landscaped and the sign fits' in well. He pointed out this
center must compete ~ith surrounding businesses located in the County.
. I
.c-
minSP03a.94
317/94
9
~1:,": l r.. " .
, --
"
. 'T '. '",
c :~,~ J ..\~, c"~ " ,I c
1, '.'
V"
, .
,
c.
.Commissioner Deegan mo'ved to grant'a variance to allow a freestanding sign with
a total of 100 square feet in area subject to the condition that the building signage area is .
not increased above what presently exists for the subject property for meeting Section
45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded.
. Commissioner Fitzgerald inquired as to whether a condition should be placed on the
granting of the variance to preclude additional signage on the building in order to assure
that the signs already existing on the building wiU remain as they are.
,I
The Mayor stated she had a problem with the rationale that the property is well
,kept. She does not feel this is a valid reason to grant a variance. She feels the granting of
variances should be based on unique features. '
(~""
. , '
Ms. Nisk indicated she has no intention of selling the property at this time.
Commissioner Thomas stated he would approve the sign as it exists and feels the
applicants should not be required to do any more since the sign is being reduced in size. If
the sign were allowed to remain as it presently exists; he would be willing to limit signage
on the building. .
. The Mayor stated the purpose of the code is to reduce the number of pole signs.
. .
Commissioner Berfield inquired as to whether the sign variance remains with the
property' and if a. new owner could allow larger signs on the building. Mr. Shuford
responded that the variance goes with the land unle'ss there is a condition stating
otherwise.
Mr. Pressman indicated they would be willing to work within the 100 square feet if
a variance is granted allowing a sign of that size.
The Mayor supported permitting 100 square feet of signage with current building
signs to remain as they are. .
Commissioner Thomas, as the seconder to the original motion agreed to' the
addition of the condition that the wall signage area remain as it exists today.
Scott Shuford pointed out that the building might be split into di Herem unit sizes
allowing more occupants and suggested the Commission should grant the variance
allowing eight square feet per unit. .
Ms. Nisk stated that if two tenants share a suite, they must share the signage she
presently allows.
Upon the vote being taken on the amended motion; Commissioners Fitzgerald,
Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas voted "Aye," Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried.
I < . .
l.-:-
minSP03a.94
3/7/94
10
, I
"
c." t
:' :' ~ ,;.: . ,
~ , ' . .
.J
, . '
" . ,'.',
. , .
~..
. ITEM C ~ (cont from 2-7-94) Manuel & Evanaeline Kastrenakes IPinellas 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 Hwy 19 N, See 19-29-16, M&B 14.06,
zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-16 . .
.
.1
, I
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the meeting of March 21,
1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM 0 - (cant from 2-7-94) 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) 12 ft 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, Sec 32-28-16, M&B 32.02 & 32.03, zoned CH (Highway
Commercial). SV 93-42
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) an area variance of 80.8
square feet from the permitted 11 2 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area
of 192.8 square feet; 2) a height variance of 22.5 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow
a freestanding sign 42.5 feet high; and 3) a separation variance of 12 feet to allow a
second freestanding sign 288 feet from the primary freestanding sign. The variances are
requested to .permit the existing nonconforming signage to remain.
The subject property is developed with the Dimmitt Chevrolet auto dealership.
4' ':,
~.
The subject property is located on the east side of US 19, south of First Street, and
is in the CH zoning district.
According to the information contained in the application. the area variance is .
requested because the construction of overpasses to the north and south of the subject
property will impair visibility of the "Dimmitt Chevrolet" sign. Staff notes, however, the
code alloWs signs to be placed on properties which adjoin overpasses at elevations above
the overpass for the purpose of allowing signs to be seen from the roadway. ft should not
be necessary to provide additional sign area due to roadway and overpass construction
projects.
The applicant is requesting additional sign height due to the existence of trees in
the vicinity of the existing sign. The variance requested is to allow the sign to remain at a
height of 42.5 feet, more than do'uble the allowable height. Staff does not regard this to
. be a minimum variance. Staff expressed concerns about the prospect of losing trees in
the City. Staff feels the balance tips in favor of making the sign conform. The City's
Environmental Management Division has been asked to prepare in advance of the
scheduled public hearing on this item a report describing the probable affect of variance
denial on existing vegetation. \'
C',
. .
rninSP03a.94
3/7/94
11
. .....~~ <~. '.:' ~~,:, .
...f')
';. f'r
, I
i '
,
,. '. ~
< ~,
" .
. '
"
~~ II .' r :.
, .'~", ."
"
'l~
The sign separation variance requested is minimal and consequently, is supported
by staff. .
The granting of the area and height variances is not in koeping with other signs on
US19.
!
i
Staff feels the applicant's area and height variance requests do not meet the
standards for variance approval but the separation variance request does.
'j
.i
Scott Shuford explained the application. He requested Alan Mayberry, City
Forester, to inspect the property. The Forester stated a live oak is among the five trees
obstructing the view of the sign. The four sand pines' could be removed. Other tr'ees will
eventually block the sign. It was suggested that the sign be moved into the 40 foot
drainage, and utility easement for US Hwy 19 North which would require an easement use
agreement.
Joshua Magidson, attorney representing the applicant, stated the business does not
have a lot of signage. There is no signage on the building. It is located near the overpass
close to Enterprise Road. He disagreed that the sign should be located closer to the road
and questioned whether the'trees or compliance with the sign code was more important.
He stated his client would not u'se all the signage allowed if he could keep the existing
signs as they are now. He feels the existing sign is a good balance between the intent of
the sign code and keeping the trees.
C'-':
. "
The Mayor stated that 112 square feet is what the code allows and 192.8 square
feet is what exists. She expressed concern that the height and size are much greater than
what is permitted.
Mr. Shuford responded to a question from Commissioner Thomas and stated, that
two pole sig,ns of 112 square feet and 56 square feet are permitted for the property.
Mr. Magidson stated if they can keep the one sign as it is, they would remove the
second one.
Commissioner Thomas noted that the sign is set back 45 feet instead of five feet.
Lowering the sign to 20 feet in height puts it in the trees where it will be blocked. He
stated that the trees can be cut down and two signs are less aesthetic than one.
.1
Alan Mayberry stated that tile sand pines on the property are in a state of decline
and will continue to deteriorate. They are in a dense condition, never developed normal
crowns; are no longer vigorous, but are protected under the tree ordinance. A permit
would need to be issued to cut them down and they would have to be replaced as some of
them noyv serve buffer requirements. They could be replaced with trees that did not get
as high and therefore would not interfere with view of the sign.
, '
L...
minSP03a.94
3/7/94
12
>'.:i".:':-" -:' ,......
. \ j: +
. .i ~ of-
'/
'".""
"' "I .
"....;
, (; .'.
c', .
"
CJ.
Mr. Magidson stated Mr. Mayberry does not know when the trees will die and in
the site pla':1 review indicated a desire to keep the trees. He did not feel the applicant
should be forced to cut down the trees nor to put the sign next to the right of way.
Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Magidson whether the height of the sign or the
, square footage was more important.
Mr. Magidson stated tIle height was more important since the General Motors sign
is 127.03 square feet and the next smallest standard size is approximately 63 square feet. .
Commissioner Thomas i.nquired regarding the cost to remove the sign and the base. '
Mr. Magidson estimated it would cost approximately $2,500 to remove the base and
approximately $300 per month for the change of the product sign because if they change
their lease to a smaller sign the rent will go up.
, .
Commissioner Fitzgerald commented that any argument based on the size of
corporate sign standards would never dictate approval of a sign size variance.
Mr. Magidson again pointed out the unique factors of this site.
Commissioner Thomas asked whether the 127 square foot sign would serve the
applicant's needs at a height of 20 feet if the variances are not granted. Mr. Magidson
responded that the 127 square foot sign would actually be 21 feet high.
{' .~.~
\".:.
The Mayor agreed with staff's recommendations.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny the height and area variances and approve
the separation variance of 12 feet from the required 300 feet to allow a second
freestanding sign 288 feet from the primary freestanding sign on the property identified as
Section 32-28-16, M&B 32.02 & 32.03 for meeting Section 45.24 standards for approval
items one through eight. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Berfield commented that if the 127.03 square foot sign is used, a
height variance needs to be granted to allow the sign to be 21 feet high. She asked Mr.
Magidson if they would forego the second sign if they were only granted a variance to
have the 127 .03 square foot sign. Mr. Magidson stated they would forego the second
sign if they could keep the existing sign but would want both pole signs if the area
variance given only allows the 127.03 square foot sign.
Upon the vote being taken; Mayor Garvey ,and Commissioners Fitzgerald, Barfield
and Thomas voted "Aye." Commissioner Deegan "Nay." Matio'n carried.
Discussion ensued as to whether a motion to grant smaller area and height
variances to allow a 127.03 square foot sign at 21 feet in height could be made since the
previous motion passed.
.c'
minSP03a.94
3/7/94
13
p
I.
;1.
. ;
/: c
I.
.'
" .
\ ~ .
I::
. '.
. '
<, (
~fI\l,
~ . Commissioner Thomas moved to rescind the previous motion. The motion was.
duly seconded. ,Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas
voted It Aye, n Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Commissioner Thomas moved to grant a variance of 15.03 square feet to permit a
freestanding sign with 127.03 square feet, a variance of 1 foot to permit a sign 21 feet
high, and grant a separation variance to permit a second freestanding sign 288 feet from
the primary freestanding sign for meeting standards 1.8. The motion was duly seconded.
Upon the vote being taken; Commissione'rs Berfield, Deegan and Thomas voted It Aye,"
Mayor Garvey and Co mmissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay. n Motion carried.
ITEM E - (cont from 2-7-94) Merrill Lvnch & Co. Inc (Merrill Lvnch) for a variance of 2.75
ft to permit a freestanding sign 22.75 ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at
26301 US Hwy 19 N, Countryside Village Square, Lot 6 less road on west, zoned CC
(Commercial Center). SV 93-50
The applicant'is requesting a' height variance of 2.75 feet from the permitted 20
feet to allow a freestanding sign with a height of 22.75 feet.
The subject property is located on the east side of US 19, north of Enterprise Road,
and is in the CC zoning district.
'lLi\~
~~..
The applicant contends that the additional sign height is necessary due to the
construction of a frontage road alongside the US19 overpass at Countryside Boulevard.
Staff research reveals that the FOOT acquired additional right of way for US19 in this
location app'roximately seven years ago, causing the sign to be relocated. The right of
way width is 290 feet in front of Merrill Lynch. The right of way is evenly divided; that is,
there is 145 feot of right of way for each half of the highway. The standard width for
US19 is 200 feet, with 100 feet for each half of the highway. In effect, the right of way
, acquisition caused the sign to be located further from the centerline of the highway. Sign
permit records reveal a variance was granted February 12, 1987 to permit the relocation
of this nonconforming sign, and was subject to the con'dition that the height of the sign be
reduced to 20 feet. A permit was issued on March 10, 1987, and in spite of the condition
of approval, plans accepted with the application indicated a sign height of 22.75 feet, thus
allowing the nonconforming sign height to remain.
Although the increased right of way width places the sign further from the
centerline of US 19 than signs on other similarly zoned properties on this highway, this
circumstance alone is not cause for granting a height variance. If, however, the permitting
error described above is considered, along with the width of the right of way, a variance of
2.75 feet is a minimal request.
(
\.... '
minSP03a.94
317/94
14
".
i" I
J.
:,
, .
,.
r~ '
'.'
, .
i ; '.
.:.....
~ The existence of this 22.75 foot high sign is not totally out of character with the
~: . .,~ signs permitted for the commercial uses in the area. The granting ~ of this variance will not
bestow a special privilege upon the applicant not available to others in this zone by
establishing an advertising advantage for the applicant.
Staff finds the applicant's requ~st meets all eight standards for variance approval.
John Richter briefly reviewed the application.
Mr. Madigson was present representing the applicant but made no comment.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a height variance of 2.75 feet to allow a
freestanding sign with a height of 22.75 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 F - (cant from 2-7-94) Romark Investments. IncNi1IaQe Office Com (Villaqe 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
The applicant is requesting an area variance of .32.3 square feet from the permitted
150 square feet to allow an existing freestanding sign to remain with a total area of 182.3
I. square feet. Staff notes that the existing sign contains the address of the property which
,~} entitle's this' sign to an 8 square foot area bonus. Therefore, the area variance request of
32.3 square feet may be reduced to 24.3 square feet.
The subject property is located on the west side of US 1 9, south of Countryside
Boulevard, and is in the CC zoning district.
The existing sign faces the new US 19 overpass being constructed at Countryside
Boulevard. The overpass bonus provision would permit this sign to be a maximum of 37
feet high. The existing sign is 27 feet high. Further, the sign 'is setback a greater distance
from the right of way than the 5 feet required by code. According to the variance
application, the sign is 20 feet from the right of way. Given these circumstances, it is
staff's position that the existing sign will be a low impact sign as viewed (indeed, if able to
be viewed) from the US19 overpass.
The existence of this 182.3 square foot freestanding sign (174.3 square foot sign
excluding the address) with. a height of 1 0 feet less than permitted and a setback 1 5 feet
greater than required is in character with the signage permitted for the commercial
businesses in the area. The granting of this variance will not detract from the commercial
businesses that have conforming signs.
Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval.
'C.,.
minSP03a.94
317/94
15
-I .. ..
. i... .'
, "
-' ,
, .
.
.~:J~
r'.
Scott Shuford explained the application and stated the area variance is calculated to
be 24.3 square feet due to the fact that the address is incorporated in the sign. In
addition the business qualifies for a bonus due to the nearby overpass.
John Bozmoski, attorney representing the applicant, was present.
Commissioner Thomas inquired why a sign of 158 square feet was being permitted
in this situation versus the smaller sign on US Hwy 19 North. .
. 'j
,
. i
Mr. Shuford responded that Dimmitt, which requested variances for both area and
height, is not located in an overpass area as this sign is. In response to a question
regarding why this area is permitted a larger sign, Mr. Shuford stated the zoning on this
property provides for larger signs.
. ,
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve an area variance of 24.3 square feet from
the 158 square feet permitted (1.50 square feet for the zone plus 8 square feet for the
address) to allow an existing freestanding sign to remain with a total area of 182.3 square
feet for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1.8,
subject to the condition that the sign shall not be modified to increase the existing height
or decrease the existing setback. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
(....
, . :.)
u..,T
ITEM G. (cant from 2-7-94) Rex M.. Stephen M.. & Randv 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 signage to permit a total of 196.4 sq ft to permit nonconforming' sig"nage to
remain at 830 Court St, Aiken Sub, Blk 10, Lot 6, zoned UC(E) (Urban Center (East). SV
93-87
Commissioner Deegan moved to continue this item. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
ITEM 1t1 - Dr. & Mrs. Robert Bialas & Drs. Joseph & Janet Fishman (Clearwater Center for
Cosmetic & Plastic Surqerv) for variances of (1) 2.5 ft to permit a freestanding sign to
remain 2.5 ft from street right-ot-way (Lakeview Rd); and (2) 26 sq ft to permit a
freestanding sign of '90 sq ft to permit nonconforming slgnage to remain at 609 Lakeview
Rd, Belleair, Blk 10, parts of Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, & 8, together with all of Lots 4 & 5, and
part of vacated alley, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). SV 92-92
The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing
freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 26 square feet from the permitted 64
square feet to allow a total area of 90 square feet, and 2) a setback variance of 2.5 feet
from the required 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 2.5 feet from the Lakeview Road right
of way.
The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Lakeview Road and
Hamlet Avenue and is in the IL zoning district.
L,
minSP03a.94
317/94
j
16
, , .
,
.,
1<"
~ . c~
"
The freestanding sign on this property is an attractive wooden sign, constructed
low to the. ground, and located in a bed of landscaping. It is a ,V-shaped sign, placed
around two large live oak trees. Because it is placed around the oak trees, it extends half
way into the setback area. Further, because it is V-shaped, the sign area is calculated by
taking the sum of the two faces. If the sign faces were placed back to back, the sign
would qualify as a double faced sign, and only one face would be measured for the
purpose of determining the area. However, the aesthetics of the sign and the property
would, to some extent, be comprised if such action were required.
I
I
j
. ,
Staff finds 'the applicants' requests meet all eight standards for variance npproval.
In conclusion, it is staff's position that the above described conditions combine to
make the property and sign unique, and the variance minimal.
Commercial and professional office uses surround the subject property. The
setback and appearance of this sign is well integrated with the site landscaping, causing it
to be in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding uses. The granting of
the area variance will not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood or the City.
Scott Shuford explained the application.
Robert Bialas, owner/applicant, was present but made no comment.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve an area variance of 26 square feet to
;(>. '; allow a total area of 90 square feet and a setback variance of 2.5 feet to allow a
.~" freestanding sign 2.5 feet from the lakeview Road right of way for the subject property
for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval. items 1-8. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #2 - Countrvside Assoc ltd PartnershiD (VillaCle at Countrvside Plaza) for variances
of 69 sq ft to permit 144 sq ft of auxiliary signage area; and (2) 4 ft in height to permit an
auxiliary sign 20 ft in height to permit nonconforming slgnage to remain at 26210 US Hwy
19, N., Village at Countryside Parcel 4 Replat. Lot 3 less road, zoned CC (Commercial
. Center). SV 93-44
The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow placement of an
auxiliary' sign: 1) an area variance of 69 square feet from the permitted 75 square feet to
allow an auxiliary sign with an area of 144 square feet, and 2) a height variance of 4 feet
from the perm,tted 16 feet to allow an auxiliary sign 20 feet high.
The subject property is located on the west side of US19, north of Enterprise Road.
and is in the CC zo'ning district.
The subject property has generous frontage, in excess of 700 feet, on US 19,
thereby causing the property to qualify for a second. or auxiliary freestanding sign. The
applicant is requesting variances to allow this sign to be larger and higher than allowed by
C.,
minSP03a.94
3/7/94
17
The applicant states these variances are warranted because roadway improvements
will limit acce~s to, and viewing of, the shopping center. That is, the existing access from
Enterprise Road is going to be closed in conjunction with improvements to the ,
US 1 9/Enterprise Road intersection. The applicant points out, with the closing of the
access, advertising on this roadway will no longer be functional.
, !.
t,
'"
Ct...
code. The' applicant indicates that the freestanding sign on Enterprise Road will be .
removed and not replaced.
Staff regards. this property to be unique given its frontage on, and future lack of
direct access to, Enterprise Road. However, staff does not regard the requested variances
to be minimal. The height being requested is 25% greater than allowed, and the area is
92% greater than allowed. Further, placing more signage on one road in reciprocation for
less signage on another is a circumstance the code precludes. (Sec. 44.51 (2)(dll Further,
it is not clear that the applicant will suffer any hardship if a sign of conforming size and
height, is erected.
The placement of an auxiliary sign with a height of 20 feet and an area of 144
square feet is not in character with the signage permitted for other commercial properties
, and di,verts attention from those other uses and signs. The granting of these variances will
detract from the businesses that have conforming signs and negatively affect the
appearance of the community.
Staff feels U,e applicant's variance requests do 110t meet all of the standards for
,~'> variance approval.
John Richter stated there is no sign on, Enterprise Road and no need for the
auxiliary sign to be larger or higher than the main sign. He pointed Ollt the codes
specifically allow relinquishing signage on one street in order to erect a larger sign 011
another street. In this instance, the auxiliary sign is larger than what is allowed and is in
fact, almost twice the size that is permitted. The primary sign is permitted to be 150
square feet in area and 20 feet high. The secondary sign may be no higher than 16 feet
with an 'area of 75 square feet.
Commissioner Thomas inquired how signs containing freestanding letters are
measured. Mr. Ri'chter explained if there is a panel, the,size of the,panel is used for
measurement. He indicated the horizontal length of the message would determine the size
where there is no panel.
'1
Mr. Taylor stated that there is no access from Enterprise Road to the shopping
center. Commissioner Deegan inquired whether the auxiliary sign was needed due to the
closure of Enterprise Road and the lack of access to the property from that road. Mr.
Taylor replied that this was the case.
Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification that the primary sign was less in area
than is permitted and is at the height permitted. Mr. Richter responded this was the case.
L,
minSP03a.94
317/94
18
.,
The Mayor pointed out the applicant requests permission for a sign with 144 squa're
feet in area, in comparison to the 75 square feet permitted. There is no proven hardship.
',.
Commissioner Berfield felt it would be more advantageous to have the sign on
Enterprise Road rather than two signs on the access road.
In response to a statement from the applicant's representative, Commissioner
Fitzgerald emphasized Enterprise Road would not be closed; it simply will not have access
for northbound travelers on US Hwy 19 North.
I
.1
I
'I
I
Discussion ensued regarding' the status of Enterprise Road,
Commissioner Thomas inquired if the applicant would be prevented from' erecting a
sign on Enterprise Road in the future, Mr. Richter responded they would not.
Commissioner Deegan requested clarification as to whether there would be access
to the shopping center from Enterprise Road. Mr. Taylor indicated it was his belief that.
they would not or tl1at it would be greatly diminished,
(,
Paul Taylor, representing the applicant, stated the property is located at the
northwest corner of Enterprise Road and US Hwy 19 North and is approximately 12 acres
in size. He stated three signs ,are allowed but he is only requesting two. He did not feel
that 20 feet represented excessive height when compared to telephone poles. The
property is physically recessed from the road, He does not feel the proposal will create
sign clutter. The applicant plans to replace the sign at the north end, of the property on US
Hwy 19 North with one lowered to 20 feet and reduced in size from 192 square feet to
150 square feet. He pointed out that over 600 feet will separate the two signs. The
, stores are set back 200 to 300 feet from the road. The applicant feels the sign will
enhance the safety of traffic in and out on US Hwy 19 North and is in compliance with the
spirit of the ordinance.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the variances as requested with the
condition only 2 pole signs will be permitted on the proporty. The motion was duly
seconded.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated that the roadway is elevated at this
point but probably not more than ten feet since they are not permitted additional height.
Commissioner Thomas pointed out the great disruption of business in the area from
road construction and noted the applicant will only have two signs instead of the three
permitted. '
Upon'the vote being taken; Commissioners Deegan and Thomas voted "Aye,"
Commissioners Fitzgerald and Berfield and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion failed.
I
c/
minSP03a.94
3/7/94
19
I'
:".
i:'
, "
, "
" ,
, I
".* \.
", .
t'
j .: '. ~
.'
r, Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny the requested variances for the subject
<t, ' property for failure to' meet standards 2-8. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote
being taken; Mayor Garvey and Commissioners Fitzgerald and Berfield voted II Aye, II
Commissioners Deegan and Thomas voted "Nay." Motion carried.
ITEM #3 - Joseoh M. Connelly, Jr (Connelly's Used Auto Rent. Incl for variances of (1) 2.8
ft to permit a freestanding sign 22.8 ft in height; and (2) 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign
Oft from street right-of-way (Drew St) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at
1821 Drew St, Skycrest Unit No.4, Blk F, part of Lots 1-3. zoned CG (General
Commercial). SV 93-80
, The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow the existing
freestanding sign to remain: 1) a height variance of 2.8 feet from the permitted 20 feet to
allow a freestanding sign 22.8 feet high, and 2) a setback variance of 5 feet from the
required 5 foot setback to allow a freestanding sign zero feet from the Drew Street right of
way.
The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Drew Street and N.
Orion Avenue and is in the CG zoning district. '
I (~
The existing freestanding sign is nonconforming in two ways; it is 2.8 feet too tall,
and it lacks a setback from the Drew Street right of way. It is noteworthy that the sign
conforms to the size limitations; in fact, it is considerably undersized. In this zone. 64
square feet is allowed. The existing sign area is 37.5 square feet.
The applicant states that since the existing sign encompasses only 37.5 square
feet, perhaps a trade~off based on overall size could be approved. Though the proposed
trade~off of height for area may be tempting, staff does not believe this is consistent with
the spirit of the code and the standards for variance approval. The height variance
represents a 14% departure from the maximum allowed by code. The sign area is 41 %
less than the maximum allowed by code. Many properties on D~ew Street have altered or
replaced signs in order to conform to the height and area requirements of the code. It
would be inequitable to those who have lowered signs to meet the City's 20 foot limit, to
aliaI{\' this'sign to extend over the limit. Further, staff does not believe it would be
unreasonable to "sleeve" the existing sign in order to reduce the height. If this property
owner, or any future owner, has an interest in increasing the sign area. that is a right
allowed by code.
Commercial. office. and residential uses surround the subject property. The
existence of this 22.8 foot high freestanding sign is not in character with the sign heights
permitted for the surrounding properties. The granting of this variance will detract from
businesses that have conforming signs and negatively impact the appearance of the
community.
Staff does not. however, advocate strict enforcement of the code regarding the
setback. It is staff's position that the cost to the applicant to relocate the sign would
outweigh the benefit derived by the public as a result of relocation.
t~
minSP03a.94
3/7/94
20
, "
'J .'
,.: (
" -fl,
;~~~,+ ,/
~~
Staff feels the applicant's height variance request does not meet the standards for
variance' approval.
Mr. Shuford explained the application, stating the height can easily be reduced to
what is allowed and the sign size is smaller that whatis permitted.
The Mayor pointed out that the standard condition regarding the relocation of signs
if there is roadway construction should be included in the motion. It was the consensus of
the Commission that it should be.
Mr. and Mrs. Connelly, Jr. .stated that they would like to keep the sign as it is and
are unclear about the plans to widen cirew Street.
Commissioner Berfield moved to denv the requested height variance for the subject
property for failure to meet standards 1-8 and to approve the requested setback variance
subject to the following conditions: 1) the sign height be reduced to conform to code
within 60 days of this public hearing, and 2) that by constructing ,a sign within the sheet
setback pursuant fo this variance, the owner and applicant agree that no governmental
agency shall be liable for the cost of relocating or removing the sign in'the event the
property is acquired by eminent domain, road widening, or any other public purpose '. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
(1,.
ITEM #4 - Cenqiz Gokcen (Prime Executive Center) for variances of (1) 11 ft in height to
permit a freestanding sign of 19 ft in height; (2) 22.7 sq tt in area to permit a freestanding
sign with an area of 46.7 sq ft; and (3) 1.2 ft setback from the required 5 ft to permit a
freestanding sign 3.8 ft from a right-of-way (Drew St) to permit nonconforming signage to
remain at 2288 Drew St, Temple Terrace 1st Add, Blk 0, Lots 15, 16 & 17, zoned OL
(Limited Office). SV 93-92
. The applicant is requesting the following variances to allo.w the existing on-premise
freestanding sign to remain: 1) a height variance of 11 feet from the permitted 8 feet to
allow a freestanding sign 19 feet high; 2) an area variance of 22.7 square feet from the
permitted 24 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 46.7 square feet;
and 3) a setback variance of 1.2 feet from the required 5 fe'et to allow a freestanding sign
3.8 feet from the Drew Street right of way.
The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Drew Street and Terrace
Drive and is in the OL zoning district.
It is not clear from the application, why the City should postpone the requirement
for compliance until after the roadway is widened. The widening project does not cause
this property to be unique; other Drew Street properties that have conforming signs are'
, The applicant is requesting the existing on-premise sign be allowed to remain until
the completion of the Drew Street widening project, scheduled to begin in the spring an9
be completed in a year. No additional right o~ way is necessary for this project.
C..I
minSP03a.94
317/94
21
, ,
. .
'" ' . , -- IJ
I.
.'
,," '.
'.' '~
. ;.
~: t'
~~~
\ .
similarly situated. Because no additional right of way is needed, there does not exist the
prospect of relocating the sign again at some later date to account for future right of way
acquisition. In sum, staff can find no condition to warrant granting these variances.
It is noteworthy that a second freestanding sign (a billboard) exists on this property
in violation of the code. This violation will be handled separately from this application.
The existence of this 19 foot high, 46.7 square foot sign is not in character with
the signage permitted for the surrounding area and diverts attention from nearby 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.
Staff feels the applicant's variance requests do not meet the standards for variance
approval.
John Richter explained the application. stating that the request is to allow the sign
to remain until the Drew Street widening is complete. He stated no additional right of way
is necessary in this area and there is a nonconforming billboard on the property which will
be addressed as a separate issue.
: I
, 1
Licia Nolan. representing the applicant. stated they are requesting a temporary
variance because the County indicated on a map how dirt and bulldozers will block the
sign if 'it is lowered. Widening is anticipated to begin in July.
(
'"'
Commissioner Thomas noted if the sign is reduced to eight feet, part of it will be
blocked by a vehicle. He expressed conce'rns that the bottom of the sign should be higher
than the height of a car.
Mr. Richter suggested the item be continued as there seems to be conflicting
information from the County.
Discussion ensued on how long the item should be continued. Ms. Nolan noted
there was a possibility that tha sign could be damaged during construction.
Commis~ioner Barfield moved to continue this item to April 19, 1994. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
j
.1
ITEM #5 - True Realtv Corp (Tovs "R" Us) for a variance of 14.6 ft in height to permit a
freestanding sign of 37.6 ft in height to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 26286
US Hwy 19, N, Village at Countryside, Parcel 4 Replat. Lot 2 less road on east, zoned CC
(Commercial Center). SV 93-95
The applicant is requesting the following variance to permit the existing
freestanding sign to remain: a height variance of 14.6 feet from the permitted 23 feet to
allow a sign 37.6 feet high.
l"
minSP03a.94
3/7/94 '
I'
j
I.
22
"
J,
r,.
The subject property is located on the west side of US 19, south of Countryside
Boulevard, and is in the CC zoning district.
The applicant indicates the variance is requested due to the roadway construction
on US19 in front of this property. .That is, an overpass being constructed for the
Countryside Boulevard intersection causes the roadway to be at a higher elevation than
would be the case if there is no overpass.
Staff notes the sign code. allows additional height for signs in proximity to
. overpasses for the purpose of allowing signs to be viewed from the roadway. Specifically,
the code permits signs as high as 10 feet above the crown of the roadway on the
overpass alongside the sign. In this case, the crown of the roadway is 13 feet above the
ground elevation at the sign, and a 23 foot sign height is permitted by code.
Consequently, the code is designed to provide relief in locations where overpasses exist,
thereby eliminating the need for height variances.
The existence of this 37.6 foot high sign is not in character with the signage
permitted for the surrounding commercial areas and diverts attention from those land uses.
The granting of this variance will detract from the surrounding businesses that have signs
of conforming height and will negatively affect the appearance of the community.
Staff feels the applicant's variance request does not meet the standards for
variance approval.
d~:;) Scott Shuford explained the application, noting the applicant has been given a three
~., foot height bonus. He feels.the additional height requested is unwarranted.
Butch Jackson, representative of the owner, said that once the overpass is
. completed, visibility will be hampered. The property is located at the lower end of the
overpass and the additional height requested will allow the sign to be seen before reaching
the overpass. He pointed out the Ramada Inn, located a short distance down the road,
was granted a height variance.
Commissioner Thomas noted the applicant's sign is 30 feet tall and inquired as to
whether they would be willing to remove the giraffe head. Mr. Jackson stated the giraffe
head is very important to Toys "R" Us. The Mayor noted that the giraffe is an integral part
of the sign.
Mr. Jackson indicated he would like an additional 30 days to look into the matter.
He noted the signage on the building is blocked from view by trees.
Commissioner Deegan asked if the giraffe could be moved to the side of the sign
. from the top. Mr. Jackson responded it was necessary for him to confer with his client to
investigate alternatives.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to March 21, 1994. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.' ,
{ "
~~
. minSP03a.94
3/7/94
23
The subject property is located on the west side of Missouri Avenue, south of
Queen Street, and is in the CG zoning district.
.. ,J
\ ' .
f.;'. '.
(~
, ITEM #6 ~ Joseoh & Bernadine Cavato (Pat-N-Polish Car Wash) for a variance of 20.35 sq
ft to permit a freestanding sign of 84.35 sq ft to permit nonconforming sign age to remain
at 1430 Missouri. Ave, S., Duncan's A.H. Resub, part of Lot 8 less road, zoned CG
. (General Commercial). SV 93-9~
The applicant is requesting the following variance to permit the existing
freestanding sign to remain in a modified form: an area variance of 20.35 square feet
from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 84.35
square feet. In particular, the applicant proposes to remove the "Brushless Car Wash"
panel at the top of the sign, and the reader board located below.
The applicant proposes to remove two panels from this freestanding sign,
maintaining the 60 square foot "Pat 'N Polish Car Wash"'sign panel, and the 24.35 square
foot Texaco logo sign panel. The applicant states the business will be hurt if the Texaco
, logo cannot be maintained. The applicant also offers to forego the placement of any
attached signs if the variance request is approved.
.
It is staff's position that a 20.35 square foot variance is not a minimu'm variance.
This represents a 31.8% departure from the 64 square feet permitted. Further, the City is
not prohibiting the display of a Texaco logo. The City is simply limiting the freestanding
sign area to 64 square feet, the same limit applicable to other properties in the CG zone.
The applicant may utilize any portion of the 64 square feet to advertise Texaco products.
The offer to refrain from displaying attached signs is attractive. However, roadside signs
have a high impact on the appearance of the neighborhood and the City. In this case, the
balance goes to providing a freestanding sign in conformance with the size limitations
prescribed in the code.
It is noteworthy that the Sunshine Car Wash located on Court Street, one mile
away, which also sells gasoline and is also located in the CG zone, has placed signs in
conformance with the City's code.
The existence of an 84.35 square foot sign is not in character with the signage'
permitted for the surrounding commercial areas and will serve to divert attention from
those land uses. The granting of this variance will detract from businesses that have
conforming signs and the appearance of the community.
i
Staff feels the applicant's variance request does not meet the standards for
variance approval.
Mr. Richter explained the application, stating staff feels both the height and area of
the sign should be reduced and that the reader board and brushless car wash signs should
be removed. He pointed out that the City is not precluding the applicant t'rom displaying
the Texaco logo but simply limiting the area 6f signage permittod.
C.,
"
minSP03a.94
3/7/94
24
I; .'
..I
, ,
"
ie, ~ ,
~ I e '~ ,
," . ,
. l',
". i..'
~
Joseph Cavato stated they are requesting a 20.35 square foot variance. If they do
not keep the Texaco logo, people will not be aware he sells gasoline or accepts Texaco
credit cards.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the area variance of 20.35 square feet to
allow the Texaco logo subject to the condition the brushless car wash and reader board
signs are removed and to deny the height variance. The motion was duly seconded.
Discussion ensued regarding what signage is permitted at this location. It was
pointed out that auto dealers, which rely on company logos. are required to modify signs
in order to meet code requirements.
Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield and Thomas voted "Aye/'
Commissioners Deegan. Fitzgerald, and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay. t1 Motio~ failed.
Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the requested area variance for the subject
property for failure to meet standards 1-8. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote
being taken; Mayor Garvey and Commissioners Fitzgerald and Deegan voted "Aye,"
Commissioners Berfield and Thomas voted "Nay." Motion carried.
ITEM #7 - Peter N. Mirchandani TRE (Maternitv Warehouse) for a'variance oJ 19.5 sq ft to
permit an attached sign of 42 ,sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2571 0
US Hwy 19, N, Sec 31-28-16, M&B 14.06. zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93~1 03
,f:;:', The applicant is requesting an area variance for attached signaoe of 19.5 square
'u. feet from the permitted 22.5 square feet.to allow the existing 42 square feet of attached
signage to remain. .
The subject property is located on the west side of US 19. south of Enterprise Road
and is in the CH zoning district.
The front of this business establishment is only 15 feet wide, which substantially
limits the size of the attached sign that may be placed for identification purposes.
Applying the formula of 1.5 square feet of attached signage allowed per linear foot of
width. only 22.5 square feet of attached signage is allowed for this business. While the
request at. first appearance seems large (it represents an 87% departure from the code),
the 42 square foot sign is relatively small for a business oriented to US 19. The applicant
points out that the sign does not substantially decrease the appearance of the City and
staff agrees.
The existence of this 42 square foot attached sign is in keeping with the character
of signs for businesses on US19 and does not divert attention from other uses that front
on this highway. The granting of this variance will not detract from businesses that have
conforming signs and ~i11 not negatively affect the appearance of the community.
l~,.
minSP03a.94
317194
25
<', .
< '
.[.)< ,~
I '
~ 'c ~ ,
c:
'Staff feels the applicant's variance request meets the standards for variance
approval. .
Scott Shufo,rd explained the application and noted this business has a very narrow
storefront, therefore, only permitting a very small sign, Staff recommends that the request
be approved. ,.
Neither the applicant nor their representative was present at the meeting.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the requested area variance for the
subject property for meeting Sec. 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #8 - Patrick H. Green (Pleasant Inn. Inc) for variances of (1) 21 sq ft to permit a
freestanding sign of 71 sq ft; (2) 5 ft to permit a freestanding 8ig'n of 25 ft in height;; and
(3) 2.25 ft to permit a freestanding sign of 2.75 ft from street right-of-way (N. Ft; Harrison
Ave) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1744 N. Ft. Harrison Ave, North Shore
Park, Blk 4, Lots 3, 4, & 5, zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercial). SV 93-108
(:~:l
The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow the existing
nonconforming freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area'variance of 21 square feet from
the permitted 50 square fee,t to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 71 squa're 'feet;
2) a height variance of 5 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a sign height of 25 feet;
and 3) a setback variance of 2.25 feet from the permitted 5 feet to allow a setback of
2.75 feet from the N. Ft. Harrison Avenue right of way.
The subject property is located on the northwest corner of N. Ft. Harrison Avenue
and Pleasant Street and is in the CR-24 zoning district.
The applicant states the variances are necessary because the building located on
the property to the south obstructs the sign from the view of northbound traffic on N. Ft.
. ,Harrison Avenue. Staff has reviewed this and concludes the curvature in N. Ft. Harrison
Avenue and the lack of a setback for the building to the south combine to obstruct the
view' of the freestanding sign on the subject property. The sign first comes into the view
to northbound motorists approximately 150 feet south of the subject property. It is
important to note, however, that the lack of visibility of this sign is due to the positioning
of: a) the building to the south, b) the road, and c) the sign; it is not due to the area or
height of the sign. In light of the preceding, it is reasonable to grant the requested setback
variance. However, staff can find no unique conditions that warrant granting the
requested area and height variances. A sign 20 feet high, . with an area of 50 square feet,
will adequately serve to identify this property, as it serves to identify other properties in
this zone.
The existence of this 25 foot high, 71- square foot sign is not in character with
signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas and diverts attention from those
land uses. The granting of the area and height variances will detract from businesses that
have conforming signage and negatively affect the appearance of the community.
1
LJ
minSP03a.94
, 317194
26
"
. .
. ~. ,
"', >.,'.,..; , '
~ . '~ "t .' ; . ,
"
~
".
Staff feels the request for a setback variance meets the standards for variance
approval but the area and height variance requests do not.
John Richter explained the application. Not only does the curve in the road
obstruct the view of the sign but the building to the south also obstructs the view. He
suggested if the variances are granted the condition regarding moving the signs at the
owner's expense when they are located and the setback be included. . ,
Patrick Green stated it will create a financial problem for him if he is required to
remove the sign immediately and requested leeway in the time to remove the sign.
The Mayor indicated the size of the sign could be reduced by removing some of the
reader boards.
Mr. Shuford noted with the address included on the sign, it is eligible for an
additional eight square feet thereby reducing the variance request to 13 square feet
instead of 21 square feet allowing a sign of 58 square feet~
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a setback variance of 2.25 feet subject to
the condition that by constructing a sign within the street setback pursuant to this
variance, the owner and applicant agree that no governmental agency shall be liable for the
cost of relocating or removing the sign in the event the property is acquired by eminent
domain, road widening, or any other public purpose, to allow an additional eight square
feet for the street address to permit a sign with a total of 58 square feet and'to deny the
. t:~ height variance.
After discussion it was "noted the applicant does not need a variance for a 58
square foot sign as long as the address is included. There was no second to the motion.
Commissioner Thomas moved to denv the requested area and height variances for
failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8 and to approve a setback
variance of 2.25 feet subject to the following conditions: 1). that by constructing a sign
within the street setback pursuant to this variance, the owner and applicant agree that no
governmental agency shall be liable for the cost of relocating or removing the sign in the .
event the property is acquired by emine~t domain, road widening, or any other public
purpose, and 2) the sign be made to conform to the area and height requirements of the
code within 60 days of this public hearing. Tho motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
ITEM #9 - Raman Shula (Shoreline View Motel) for variances of (1) 7 sq ft to permit a
freestanding sign of 57 sq ft; and (2) 4.3 ft to permit a freestanding sign. 7 ft from street.
right-of-way (Edgewater Dr) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1941
Edgewater Dr, Sunnydale Sub, Lots 39-41 less street, zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercial).
SV 93-110
. The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow the existing
nonconforming freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 7 square feet from the
. .
L.,
minSP03a.94
317/94 .
27
~
. permitted 50 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 57 square feet, and
2) a setback variance of 4.3 feet from the required 5 feet to allo w a freestanding sign .7
foot from the Edgewater Drive right of way.
'~ '. <
. <
, .
;i' ... '~
,
,. ,1 ,
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Edgewater Drive and
Sunnydale Drive and is in the CR-24 zoning district.
'1
'1
I
. I
The applicant proposes to reduce the area of the existing sign from 75 square feet
to 57 square feet by removing the existing changeable message p'anel. Following removal
of the panel, the sign will measure 57 square feet; or 7 square feet larger than the
maximum allowed in this zone. Any additional alteration will require the removal of the
"Shoreline View Motel" panel.
Staff considers these variances to be minimal. The requested area variance
represents a 14% departure from the code. The 7 square foot overage will likely be
indiscernible to most observers. With regard to the setback, the cost to move this sign
back would be great in comparison to the public benefit derived from .such an action.
The existence of an 18.5 foot high, 57 square foot sign is in keeping with the
character of signage permitted for the commercial area located to the south and will not
divert attention from those land uses. The granting of these variances will not detract
from businesses that have conforming signs and will not adversely affect the appearance
of the neighborhood or the comm.unity.
..'t@
Scott Shuford explained the application and noted the applicant will remove the
reader board which will leave a sign that is 57 square feet. Staff feels the variance is
minimal and further changes beyond removing the reader board would require major
. changes to the sign. The Mayor noted one letter in opposition was received.
Ramon Shula stated he has owned the motel for ten years. Th~ sign is actually
nine feet by six feet. He will remove the reader board.
. Commissioner' Fitzgerald moved to approve an area variance of 7 square feet and a
setback variance of 4.3 feet subject to the following condition: that by constructing a sign
within the street setback pursuant to this variance, the owner and applicant agree that no
governmental agency shall be liable for tile cost of relocating or removing the sign in the
. event the property is acquired by eminent domain, road widening, or any other public
purpose, for the subject property, for meeting Sec. 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-
,8. The motion w~s duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #1 0 ~ Direction re reauest for reconsideration of SV93-05, Soares/EI Capitan
Commissioner Thomas moved to reconsider EI Capitan's request for a variance.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Shuford stated this item will be scheduled for the meeting of April 19, 1994.
(-/'
minSP03a.94 '
3/7/94
28
,"
\l/"
. ~>,\<'~,
! ' -
'f ;~,~.:::F
:, l' ;:,
~t1!<>~" '.'>-''''',.<< ,,'r;,'.,;. "., ,', .
, Yl"i:.-Li!'\7f ~q,L"i-. '..;.: . '! ~ \: ."" .
~ "a~. :.tJ',";';~~"{"~"" ',',I:
?t:'!"~r" ',,:.' ,,',~.' i.' ,,--.:
~~~;~}:>~;,-:;:> '.;, "",
'l :ti'~
j, ~',' . , I T
: I
.,
"
, ,
,',
>, ~j l
, 1.
.;
t... " / ,.
"
.1,
.' ,
., '
"
"'!....
, ,
, "
.>
.'...
:,
';-' ., '. . i ' . ~
... ,~: ' i ,
. '::
.... '!.
. !
.',
. ,
'. .
. ,
,', (,
','
.- .
~ . '
.j
""!. :
,j, ~ ,
..,
, .,
. ,I
, r ~ ,
'. > ~
,\
, .'
.,
I
. 'I ~
',.
','
.l ~
'.\
,\.':.
. ,
~ ..
I'
",
, Commissioner Deegan inquired about the status 'of the petition received from.
residents of the, Isle. of Sand Key objecting to the ~igns and flags of the Moorings.. Mr.
Shufo.rd responded, he would be getting a memo to the City Manager this afternoon.
o
The meeting adjourned at 1 2: 14 Il' m.
, . . ~ .
.J:
, ;,/;~
.,: :;~::
~ ' ,~~.."lI/
, ." :r.'.ll
~ ".: ~
.\.\'
F'/ ~
.~ ~':
". ,'.~"~
.! ~.
'/'1:,
A~EST~'r.,-~ L. '~. ,~"
~' ,Ci~y Clerk, '
~. ) : " > i '. .' . .
~.
-
, '
,'\
" .
\, "
,.
.'.
.,'
,1
"
I"
'.'
"
"
I " ~
I.
1
"
,',
, ^
I > I ':' ~
:,
. ,c ,J ~
"
..
'.1
€n\~,
:.:. 1
"" (
mlnSP03a.94
3/7/94
" '
29
c, .'
.,
, ,
,.
1
.,\
"
,,'
;:~;~~<-~::.~..~ ';,-- :'~',:", .
,-r (c"
, . IT
'-,
0,. :
.' '1,'
,
,.
,'I '
".
.. ,I'
, ~;. ; ,
c~' ,-
.r'"
,;.L
, .
I .'
"'e'
, .
, 'j
, ,
"
, .
! : ~l > ,/ \ > ";
c './ , . ~..: ~< .,
'.
, "
"
.' .
:c
CIT:-I C.OMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
March 7, 1994
The City Commission o'f the City of Clearwater met at City Hall with the following
members present: ' .
Rita Garvey
Arthur Deegan
Sue Berfield
Richard Fitzgerald
Fred A. Thomas
Mayor/Commissioner
Vice-Mayor/Comm issioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Also present were:
({,."
. :....~
.~c
Elizabeth M. Deptula
M.A. Galbraith. Jr.
Richard Paul Hull
,Miles Lance
. Janis Przywara
La Vonne Newcomer
Donna Tormeno
Janet Skinner
Chuck Santangelo
Jack Kaufman
Tom Cloud '
Cynthia E. Goudeau
Interim City Manager,
City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Legal Staff Assistant
Legal Staff Assistant
Legal Staff Assistant
Paralegal
Hildebrandt. Inc.
Hildebrandt, Inc.
Attorney hired to assist Hildebrandt, 'Inc.
City Clerk
Absent:
Robert Surette
Assistant City Attorney
The meeting was called to order at 1 :04 p.m.
The purpose of this meeting was to review Hildebrandt's audit of the Legal Department.
'Commissioner Deegan requested the Hildebrandt representative summarize what they were
aske~ to do, what they found and their recommendations.
Mr. Santangelo indicated Hildebrafldt was asked to investigate and report on the
organizational structure of the dep'artment, tts budget, work allocation and use of outside
counsel. He stated the majorfinding is the Legal Departmont needs improved management.
He indicated the staff did get along well with others. Keeping time records in order to address
the issue of whether more assistance was needed is recommended. Recommendations also
included that the Legal Department staff meet more regularly and there be an effort to deal
with the work given to outside counsel. Electronic connections for the department need to
be addressed. There needs to be better management for increased work 10,ads and more
leadership. He indicated this is not uncommon as lawyers do not receive management training.
in school. This has nothing to do with their ability as a lawyer. He stated it has been his
experience the better the lawyer, the worse the manager.
()
. mlnsp03b.94
. 1
03/07/94
:.. ~'~~i.~r.~t;',:./~~h.r/f~\vt:t,::....>i:.'.r.i<fIC4~ ..'," '
. I .
t 'i..'
t~.~~., . ~
"
~,\
Mr. Kaufman indicated a lot of the conclusions of the audit were based on interviews with
the clients, Le. the department heads, Commissioners, et cetera. He stated these were
confidential interviews.
Mr. Cloud stated he looked at several hundred cases handled by the Legal Department and
interviewed each attorney, some staff members and attorneys in the community. He stated
. he found the attorney stnff had pro-active skills that were above average. They did lack time
sheets to determine capacity of the department. The litigation updates which have been
provided show an increase in the number of cases. He referred to Mr. Surette's medicalle~ve
and stated there was a need to fill that position.
Mayor Garvey indicated the report includes a summary of the department's strengths and
its weaknesses. ' .
Commissioner Berfield referred to a statement in the report that the success of the
department depended on the City Attorney regaining the confidence of the City Commission.
She questioned what they would recommend if it was found this was not possible. Mr.
Kaufman indicated, clearly, if this cannot be done,.the City would need to look for a new City
. Attorney. . He stated he felt the possibility was there. '
(' ,
1~:
Commissioner Berfield questioned jf the Hildebrandt representatives had looked at
downsizing. and contracting out some of the Legal Department's work. Mr. Santangelo
indicated the control of outside counsel had not been good enough to determine this. He
stated the department is just not managed.
Mr. Cloud indicated he had started out in a four~member office in Orange County, which.
has now grown to fifteen individuals. He, stated the trend is to move away from outside
counsel. If the decision is to downsi2e, case loads would need to be considered; He felt there
was a need for additional help in the Legal Department, even If Mr. Surette was not on leave.
He stated, however, he had no empirical evidence to support this feeling.
Mr. Kaufman indicated there were some corporations that were doing away with their
legal departments and moving to outside counsel. He stated there was no way to measure
.' what it would take to go to outside attorneys.
Mr. . Santangelo indicated 'this was the basis for the recommendation that the Legal
Department be monitored.
Mr. Kaufman indicated other depLlrtments are going through outside counsel rather than
the Legal Department. Ms. Deptula indicated no outside counsel would be used without City
Commission approval. ,Mr. Kaufman indicated he had specifically requested information on
all the money spent for legal services and he was told this was not available. He stated other
departments are allowed to hire outside Ip.gal counsel. Ms. Deptula indicated that, to her
knowledge, all information requested by the Hildebrandt staff had been provided. Mr.
Galbraith agreed with Ms. Deptula.
c.,
'minsp03b.94
2
03/07/94
"I . '
'.
Commissioner Thomas asked several questions of the Legal Department staff members.
He questioned if they were all interviewed. They all answered affirmatively. He asked them
how long the interviews took. Mr. Lance indicated he was interviewed by Ms.' Friedler and
Mr. Cloud, the Friedler interview taking an hour, tyIr. Cloud an hour and a half. Mr. Hull
indicated he was interviewed by Mr. Santangelo and Mr. Cloud at about an hour each. Ms.
Przywara and Ms. Skinner indicated they did not recall how long it took. Ms. Newcomer
indicated her ir'terview took approximately an hour; Ms. Tormeno approximately a half hour.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if written notes were taken during the interview.' All
indicated notes were taken. Commissioner Thomas questioned if any staff members had
delivered any files to the Hildebrandt representatives. Most responded in the negative. Ms.'
Przywara indicated she had provided files, but not at the time of the interview.
c
Mr. Cloud indicated he spent a day in the Legal Department going through files.
Commissioner Thomas que~tioned which files had been reviewed. Mr. Galbraith indlc.ated the
ones he was aware of had to do with the Pope, Dimmitt and Sun Bank cases and cases listed
on the litigation .update. Ms. Przywara indicated there were others Mr. Cloud went through,
but she did not monitor which ones. Commissioner Thomas questioned a report he had
received that after the report was issued, Hildebrandt returned and went through additional
files. Mr. Cloud indicated he did return to go over a .couple'of things. Mr. Galbraith indicated
he had no additional titles to add to the list of files Mr. Cloud had reviewed.. Essentially, he
. had shown Mr. Cloud the files and .told him to help himself. He stated Mr. Cloud' was the only
individual he was aware of that had reviewed files.
(-"
Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager, reviewed a list of the materials that had been provided
to the Hildebrandt firm, which included itemized statements from some outside counsel. Ms.
Rice reported Hildebrandt did not ask for additional information.
Mr. Kaufman indic~:Jted he had been told by Ms. Friedler that the costs for outside counsel
were not all available through the Legal Department. Ms. Rice indicated the majority of those
go through the City Attorney. Commissioner Thomas asked Ms. Rice if she was aware of
anything missing from what had been requested by the Hildebrandt firm. Ms. Rice indicated
she was not.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern that Mr. Kaufman was indicating there was a
vast void in the information provided. Mr. Kaufman indicated he had never use the term vast
void, but felt he did not have complete figures based on the information provided him by Ms.
Friedler.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the firm had enough information to give an accurate
report. rylr. Kaufman indicated, regarding outside counsel, he did not have enough information
to evaluate whether there was a need for more or less.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if City staff had any estimates of outside counsel. Ms.
Deptula indicated that the bond attorney is paid out of any bond issue and the Gas System
pays their attorney. Mr, Galbraith indicated there was also an environmental lawyer for Gas
Services. Ms. Deptula indicated this 'was also charged to Gas Services. She stated one major
outside attorney was Johns Eastern, who works the City's Worker's Compensation claims.
l>
minsp03b.94
3
03/07/94
:'
.t '.., .,'
{ ..
"
'.
. .'
.,
. "
ro-'.
r: .
.. '
Mr. Santangelo indicated there appeared to be no centralized process for outside counsel
and thereforet they did 'not feel they knew the total impact. Mayor Garvey felt this was a
management issue for the City Manoger and the City Attorney to coordinate.
Commissioner Thomas referenced a statement on page 11 of the report saying
decentralization of outside counsel was virtually unheard of. Mr. Santangelo indicated the
statement was based on what the firm knew. Mr. Cloud indicatedt in general, all outside'
counsel submitted their work through a County of City attorney.
Commissioner Fitzgerald. stated he had a general question regarding whot in a law firml
manages the firm. Mr. Kaufman indicated there was no one answer to this question. Mr.
Santangelo stated firms are starting to distinguish between management and administration.
He stated Ms. Przywara does some office management for the department. He again stated
these findings are not earth-shattering, as they find this day-in and day-out in legal
departments. He statedl in the City of Clearwater, the work load has increasedl the.attorneys
are working hard and have not worried themselves regarding management of the department.
Commissioner Deegan stated on page 3t it indicates a primary weakness of the
department 'is ineffective management. He questioned how to make it effective and if certain
. . skills were essential. Mr. Santa':lgelo indicated certain skills were essential. Mr. Deegan
questioned if Mr. Galbraith possessed these skills. Mr. Santangelo indicated he did not know.
4i.'~
~~>
Commissioner Deegan referenced responses to the interview question regarding what the
interviewees thought was the purpose of the audit. The report indicated many volunteered
it was to justify firing the City Attorney. Commissioner Deegan questioned if any City
Commissioners had indicated this. Mr. Santangelo indicated they had. Mr. Kaufman indicated
seven of the' twelve people he interviewed indicuted this. Commissioner Deegan questioned
'how many Commissioners had said this. Mr. Cloud indicated this answer could not be given
without violating the Sunshine Law.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the Hildebrandt representatives felt the confidence
level could be restored. Mr. Santangelo stated it could be, if everyone was committed to that.
Commissioner Deegan referenced a comment on page 4 regardingt on occasiont the City
Commission ignored the department's advise. . He questioned if there was a difference
between ignoring versus disagreeing with the advise. Mr. Santangelo stated there was a
distinction without a diffe'rence. Commissioner Deegan felt there was a difference. Mr.
Santangelo indicated the Commission chose not to follow the City Attorney's advise.
C,:
Commis~ioner Deegan questioned a reference on page 5 indicatingt until recently, there
was not a need to focus on management. He questioned why this need was not present
before. Mr. Santangelo indicated the need manifested itself when work loads increased and
the demands of the Commission increased. Commissioner Deegan questioned why there was
not prior need. Mr. Santangelo indicated no harm' had been done. Commissioner Deegan
questioned if it was ever possible to run a department with only ten percent of the time spent
on management. Mr. Santangelo indicated he doubted it: Mr. Kaufman expressed concerns
regarding this being an exercise in semantics. He stated two to four years ago the
department needed more management but no one said it was needed. He stated is has just
now become an issue.
minsp03b.94
4
03/07/94
.'
>'.:~:Tl:::<:'.,.: :., ','.
~'. '<.
. '.
".
I' -, , ,.
(~
Commissioner Deegan questioned a reference to the Legal Department being a "collection
of sole practitioners." He questioned how this differed from a private law firm. Mr. Cloud
indicated many lawyers share office space, but are not a firm., He stated, in a firm, the clients
are the firm's clients and there is a team approach. He stated a private firm can "staff up"
when needed.
Commissioner Deegan questioned a statement that work loads were preventing the
attorney from providing qualitY representation. Mr. Kaufman indicated this was a concern 'at'
some of the attorney's that had been interviewed. Mr. Cloud indicated there were some
attorneys who indicated they could do a better job if the workload were decreased.
Commissioner Deegan referenced an opinion that the definition of the City Attorney's
responsibilities was not clearly defined. He questioned if there was any reason why the
management responsibilities need to be spelled out for a City Attorney more than for any
other department head. Mr. Kaufman felt it was necessary in the Legal environment. .
. Commissioner Deegan referenced a list of responsibilities contained on pages 13 and 14
. , .
and questioned if the Hildebrandt firm felt Mr. Galbraith was qualified to fulfill all those
responsibilities and duties. Mr.. Santangelo indicated he believed so.
,
. C'
..'"
I ~ "
, ''./
'to .
Commissioner Deegan questioned what the Hildebrandt firm would need for them to
provide empirical justification for added staff. Mr. Santangelo indicated time records would
need t<? be kept and there would need to be a better tracking system of all matters under
review. He stated there also needed to be a use of technology. Commissioner Deegan
. questioned .if the records were aVClilable, to what they would be compared. Mr. Kaufman
indicated there are norms in the legal profession. Commissioner Deegan questioned if they
had those norms. Mr. Kaufman indicated they did. Commissioner Deegan questioned if they
could anecdotally determine how the Legal Department compares. Mr. Santangelo indicated
he' had not reviewed the files.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if anyone had checked the productivity of the
department. Mr. Cloud indicated he was not aware of any productivity standards for a legal
department. Mr. Kaufman indicated the productivity used in private law firms is simply an
accounting of the number of billable hours an attorney works. Mr. Cloud indicated an
attorney must spend whatever time it takes to do the job on a particular case. Commissioner
Deegan felt, unless the time spent was used against some norm, it would be a waste of time
to track the time spent on cases.'
Commissioner Deegan questioned if there was a standard time needed to prepare a brief.
. Mr. Santangelo indicated there were no such norms.
Commissioner Thomas referred to an October 8 letter from Hildebrandt regarding what
they would do for the City in auditing the Legal Department. He questioned the reports
asse'rtion that there was no value in comparing the Legal Department to other municipal legal
'offices if work loads could not be determined. Mr. Kaufman indicated time records were not
kept.
l.,
mlnsp03b.94
5
03/07/94
"
.. .'
,-': ' rl. ~;" .
l ~. .:; ';.
II
,!
, i
\.
,'lee..: .
, ":
" "
r
Commissioner Thomas felt contradictory statements were being made. He said it was
very clear what Hildebrandt a'greed to do for the Commission. . Mr. Kaufman indicated he had
been assured the data necessary would be available. Commissioner Thomas questioned if
they re,ceived information from other municipalitie's. Mr. Kaufman indicated they did.
Further discussion' ensued on regarding the ability of the attorneys to come up with a
standard amount of time spent for certain things. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr.
Lance and Mr. Hull felt they could estimate an average amount of time spent. Mr. Lance
indicated he could on those things he does routinely. Mr. Hull indicated there are not many
repetitious tasks that he performs.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concern regarding the allegation of lack of management
and that this negatively impacts the department. He questioned what evidence the
Hildebrandt firm found of this. Mr. Kaufman indicated this was based on talking to the City
Attorney/s clients and their concern regarding the time it took to handle matters, et cetera.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the clients were saying the Legal Department was not
efficient or effective. Mr. Kaufman indicated they were and communication was not where
it should be. Commissioner Deegan questioned if this was due to lack of management. Mr.
Kaufman indicated it was. Commissioner Deegan questioned the clients that had been
interviewed. Mr. Kaufman indicated he. interviewed fifteen people within the City.
~:.:\
~~/'
Commissioner Deegan requested clarification in regard to a stutemant that non~litigation
matters found their way into a black hole. Mr. Kaufman Indicate that was to indicate nonM
litigation matters did not receive the same priority attention and they would often get lost.
Commissioner Deegan questioned jf this pertained to the preparation of ordinances. Mr.
Kaufman indicated it did. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Kaufman was convinced
this was a fact. Mr. Kaufman answered affirmatively. Commissioner Deegan questioned if
this was due to the lack of staff. Mr. Kaufman and Mr. Santangelo indicated this was not
necessarily the case.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if they agreed with the statement the Legal Department
loses or settles too many cases. Mr. Cloud indicated he did not agree with this statement,
but that there was a perception of this in the community. Commissioner Deegan asked for
examples of this not being the case. Mr. Cloud referred to the utility interest rate case,
indicating Pinellas County had handled the case differently and they had to p.ay interest
retroactively, whereas the City settled the case and was able to charge the interest forward
and not retroactively. He also referred to a case handled by Assistant City Attorney Hull in
which a skier was outside a buoy. The caso was won by the City and the City did not offer
to settle. .
1
, I
Commissioner Berrield questioned if they got any sonse of this perception from the City
family. Mr. Cloud indicated he had not. Mr. Kaufman indicated he had gotten this from some
of the City Commissioners:
(~,
Commissioner Deegan referred to the conclusion that Mr. Galbraith was not an effective
manager and that he had not shown an interest in managing. He questioned if Hildebrandt
representatives felt Mr. Galbraith could rectify this. Mr. Kaufman indicated that, subsequent
mlnsp03b.94
G
03/07/94
~
to the last evaluation and the publishing of the study, Mr. Galbraith has shown a desire and
willingness to start to rectify the situation. Mr. Santangelo stated Mr. Galbraith was a bright
individual and could learn many of the disciplines required.
Commissioner Deegan questioned deciding to use outside counsel and if it should be based
on the availability of. in.house attorneys or the need for expertise. Mr. Kaufman indicated
both. Mr. Cloud agreed.
Mr. Cloud cited the gas attorney as an example of expertise being needed and the labor
attorneys as an example of the work load being too great for on-staff attorneys.
,
i
I
'1
..
Commissioner Deegan questioned if Hildebrandt recommended any service indicat~rs. Mr.
Kaufman stated he believed so. He reported that the major criteria used for evaluation in
every study he has done has nothing to do with quality, but responsiveness.
. Commissioner Deegan questioned how to evaluate if Mr. Galbraith is able to chang~ his
style as recommended in the report. Mr. Kaufman indicated the satisfaction of the clients
,!"ould be used to make that judgement. Commissioner Deegan questioned if that was the
criteria used in the report. Mr. Kaufman indicated it had been.
Commissioner Deegan questioned how satisfied the clients were. Mr. Kaufman indicated
moderately satisfied. Mr. Santangelo indicated there needed to be a distinction between
quality of legal work versus legal service. He stated most individuals were evaluated on
service provided, not legal work.
Commissioner Deegan recommended adding a service benchmark regarding the time to '.
. respond to requests. He pointed out that one of the recommendations was that time records
be kept in 1 5.minute intervals. Mr. Galbraith's memo had indicated this would be tracked in
six-minute intervals. It was indicatod this was acceptable.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns regarding outside counsel, indicating at mid.
year budget, Mr. Galbraith was not aware he had already exceeded his budget. Mr. Kaufman
indicated he wished Mr. Galbraith had been able to answer that question as soon as it- was
asked.
Commissioner Deegan questioned what the Hildebrandt firm had found when they looked
at the attorney's mission statement, goals and productivity standards. Mr. Kaufman indicated
they had a simple mission statement' and no particular goals. He indicated some goals had
been prepared at the last minute.
Commissioner Deegan stated he did not see any of .Hildebrandt's recommendations
addressing any of these issues. Mr. Kaufman stat~d he probably assumed they would be in
Mr. Galbraith's evaluation.
Commissioner Deegan referenced malpractice being used as a standard in evaluating an
attorney. He felt an attorney could be unsuccessful without being guilty of malpractice. Mr.
Cloud indicated malpractice was the only articulated standard he could find.
L,
"
mlnsp03b.94
7
03/07/94
, ,
. ,
.. < . ~ ,I ". .. , '
.~ I > "
t' ' : ,'~ I .. c
, ~
C'
Commissioner Deegan questioned on what Mr. Cloud judged Mr. Galbraith to be an above-
average attorney. Mr. Cloud indicated the review of cases and the interviews. He stated it
was a subjective opinion. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Cloud thought the
Commission was looking for siJbjective opinions. Mr. Cloud stated he understood the
Commission was looking for his opinion. Commissioner Deegan indicated the City
Commission had not chosen Mr. Cloud; the Hildebrandt firm had. He stated he was looking
for objective opinions. Mr. Cloud stated he felt Commissioner Deegan was requesting
disinterested opinions. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Cloud had interviewed the
City Commissioners. >He indicated he had not. Commissioner Deegan questioned Mr. Cloud's
statement that he had reviewed a couple of hundred cases. Mr. Cloud indicated he had. He
said he spent part of three days going through case files, not just litigation, but also contract
files.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if there was exhaustive study of some of the files. Mr.
Cloud indicated there was. Commissioner Deegan questioned 110W much time was spent on
those that were not studied exhaustively. Mr. Cloud indicated 10 to 15 minutes.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if anyone had mentioned the Commission had to make
corrections to Sun Bank documents. Mr. Cloud indicated they had not.
Commissione.r Deegan questioned the City Attorney not giving weight to the Attorney
General's opinion. Mr. Cloud referenced an issue where the Attorney General repeated a
mistake over a ten-year period. He stated an attorney must- be able to make independent
judgement.
'(:-
Commissioner Deega~ questioned if Mr. Cloud had looked at the goals for the Legal
Department. Mr. Cloud indicated he had and they were laudable but unachieveable.
Commissioner Deegan stated he believed the Commisison had asked Mr. Cloud to make
a judgement as to the effectiveness of th~ Legal Department. He wanted to know how well
they were using their skills. He stated he did not feel this had been done. Mr. Cloud stated
he understood the Commission wanted them to evaluate the City's attorneys capabilities as
attorneys; Mr. Cloud felt Mr. Galbraith was an above average attorney.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the answer was relatively simple and there was a need for
management skills in order to address the issues.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the only person. who had reviewed legal files had
been Mr. Cloud. It was indicated this was the case. Commissioner Thomas questioned Mr.
Cloud's field 'of experience. Mr. Cloud indicated his oxpertise was in public law, land use law,
public utility law, etcetera. Cummissionm Thomas questioned if he had any bond work. Mr.
Cloud indicated he did not.
In response to a, question, Mr. Cloud indicated he managed seven attorneys.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if tl1is was a quarter of the firm. Mr. Cloud indicated it was
not;,there Ofe 40 lawyers in his firm, seven in public law. In response to additional questions
from Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Cloud inqicated the department heads of the firm meet once
a, month and, at partner's meetings, final decisions are made. He stated i,t is a team
management.
(",
!,
:-
mlnsp03b.94
8
03/07/94
" ~ .
"
:.
I'
",
, ..' ~
c'
Commissioner Thomas questioned if it was fair to say Mr. Cloud reviewed all the
. attorneys' work on a monthly basis. Mr. Cloud said it was not. While some cases are in his
department, another partner may be responsible for that ,case.
Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not paralegals were used. Mr. Cloud
indicated there was one paralegal in his department. He stated there was a higher number
of paralegals in the litigation department. Commissioner Thomas questioned'how many were
in the firm. Mr. Cloud indicated eight to ten, perhaps more.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the managing partner reviewed all the wo'rk in the
firm. Mr. Cloud indicated he did not as he has to manage his own case loads. The managing
partner attempts to be the person between the business man~ger and the rest of the
attorneys.
The meeting recessed from 3: 15 to 3:31 p.m.
Commissioner Tho'mas questioned how the Hildebrandt firm had selected Mr. Cloud. Mr.
Santangelo stated they reviewed the attorneys in the area and selected Mr. Cloud. He
indicated Mr. Cloud's selection had the okay of Ms. Rice.
t.
~o:...'i
Commissioner Thomas questioned the methodology Mr. Cloud used in selecting the files'
he reviewed. Mr. Cloud indicated he looked for broad categories such as utilities, real estate,
torts and civil rights, then zeroed in on thOSB areas. In response to additional questions from
Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Cloud indicated the files were in alphabetical order and he was
able to tell the type of case by the summary in the file. He indicated the files were easy to
find. In reviewing utility files, he looked for the agreements that were negotiated; in the real'
estate files, he checked for closing statements to see if they were in order; in civil right cases,
he looked at the types of cases filed and the results.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if there was any similarity in civil rights cases being
filed. Mr. Cloud indicated recently' police seemed to be the common factor. Commissioner
Thomas asked if he had found any suggested remedies to' address this in the files. Mr. Cloud
indicated he had not. Commissioner Thomas questioned if Mr. Cloud interviewed adversarial
attorneys. Mr. Cloud indicated he hod. Commissioner Thomas questioned if high marks were
given to Mr. Galbraith by attorneys to whom he had lost, or those against whC?m he had won.
, Mr. Cloud indicated both. He also indicated that the high marks were consistent.
Commissioner Thomas asked the Hildebrandt firm to describe the ideal structure, shape
and size of a legal department for a city the size of Clearwater. Mr. Kaufman indicated, until
they,know the time needed, cases filed, etcetera, they could not tell. He stated he did have
a gut feeling about the issue.
, ,
Commissioner Thomas stated Hildebrandt representatives were here as experts an'd were
supposed to have vast knowledge in reviewing the legal arena.. He questioned, based on their
expertise, what was the ideal makeup? Mr. Kaufman said, as an expert, it would be a
disservice to answer the question without sufficient data. He stated his gut reaction was that
they probably need one or two paralegals, more administrative support and one or two more
lawyers. Mr. Santangelo stated his feel was that they need two or three paralegals, one
If ,
~~
mlnsp03b.94
9
03/07/94
. '
:.~ < ,<I . '.
( ~'." ,
, ',J
" j
"
i.
, r:' I
f: f ~ .
";;'
r
intralevel attorney and an administrative officer. Mr. Cloud indicated he felt an administrative
person was needed, one extra paralegal and two lawyers; one with expertise in Federal district
court litigation and the other, an entry level to work with the other attorneys. Mr. Santangelo
cautioned the Commission should go slowly in adding employees to the Legal Department.
He stated their basic premise is the legal Department needed to be looked at carefully for six
months. .
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern regarding the sample of a dally time sheet that
was submitted. He thought it was an antiquated form and questioned why the Hildebrandt
firm had not recommended software packages that could be used. Mr. Santangelo indicated
they were not technology experts. Mr. Kaufman replied the time sheet is used as an input
document and is not an archaic piece of paper. Mr. Cloud confirmed legal offices still use
time sheets, but the billing is computerized. Mr. Kaufman indicated he was aware of
sophisticated legal service users, but they were only about ten percent of the law firms in the
United States.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if Mr. Cloud was a managing partner. Mr. Cloud
indicate he was a partner and department head in his law firm.
In response to a question from Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Cloud indicated he had read
the report. Commissioner Thomas pointed out there were 30 recommendations and 48
subrecommendations in the report. He .questioned if Mr. Cloud, in reviewing an attorney;
would hav~ that many recommendations on how to improve. Mr. Cloud indicated probably
not.
C'"
In response to an additional question from Commissioner Thomas; Mr. Cloud indicated he
had quarterly reviews, not annual ones. He stated that, for a brand new attorney;
recommendations for improvements may add up to 78. He sLlid he tries to limit his to three
or four big items that need to be addressed.
In response to questions regarding who reviews Mr. Cloud's work, Mr. Cloud indicated
the compensation committee and that he would not expect 78 recommendations on how to
improve.
Mayor Garvey stated she wished to emphasize the firm had reported on the strengths and
weaknesses of ' the Legal Department and the City Attorney has begun to respond to those
comments. She stated the niain recommendation was that this be reviewed in six months.
She stated there needs to be a definite emphasis on management style.
Mr. Galbraith took strong exception to tile comment in the.report that the department was
not managed and that his style was not working. He questioned if the Hildebrandt firm had
eyer performed a similar study for an office of four attorneys. The firm representatives
indicated that would be confidential information.
Mr. Galbraith questioned if the firm had any preconceived ideas. Mr. Santangelo indicated
they did not.
Mr. Galbraith questioned if time sheets were common practice for government lawyers.
Mr. Santangelo indicated they are becoming more common.
Lr
mlnspq3b.94
10
03/07/~4
Mr. Santangelo expressed concerns that no one had raised any questions on what the finn
was trying to accomplish. He stated some Commission members have corne very close to
questioning the credibility of the approach lIsed. He felt the attempt was.transparent to "kill
the messenger." He indicated there was a lot of disharmony in the City of Clearwater on this
issue. He felt there was enough meat in the report for the Commission to make a decision
and to get on with it.
;., (!.~~T, ':.': ~'
~;~' ~:<.')
" ,
I.
.' ,L
r-l
'. .
Mr. Galbraith questioned how much time firm members had spent in the City Attorney's
office. Mr. Santangelo indicated, other than Mr. Cloud, just a walk-through.
Mr. Galbraith questioned if the firm had any appreciation of the work load of Messrs.
Lance and Hull. Firm representatives indicated, according to those attorneys, it was ,heavy
and they had no reason to not beHeve them.
Mr. Galbraith questioned how, if he was to spend more time managing, he could be more
effective and efficient. Mr. Santangelo indicated Mr. Surette clearly needed to be replaced
and all members had suggested on a gut feel there needed to be more attorneys in the City
Attorney's department.
Mr. Galbraith expressed a concern he felt he was in a Catch-22 as they are saying he
nee'ds more people but it needs to wait for six months. Mr. Santangelo Indicated the firm was
looking at the process and not an event. He stated, clearly, Mr. Surette needs to be replaced.
Mr. Galbraith questioned if the firm could provide him with some measurable and
obtainable goals. It was indicated they could. Mr. Galbraith questioned if Mr. Cloud used
goals. He indicated to the best of his ability, he did.
Mr. Galbraith questioned why the firm had not contacted him when they felt the data
needed was not available and why he had received no feedback. Mr. Santangelo indicated
their obligation was to the City Commission, not the City Attorney.
(.
Mr. Galbraith indicated the report lays a lot of challenges at his feet and questioned if
there were challenges to anyone else. Mr. Santangelo indicated the City Commission, has to
want to work with Mr. Galbraith on these recommendations.
Miles Lance questioned there being no salary information in the report and matching of
position stCltements and work loads of attorneys in other cities. Mr. Santangelo stated
government attorneys are usually drClmatically underpaid and the reason they stay is their
affection for their City.
Mr. Lance indicated in response to the comment that they were a group of independent
practitioners that he and Mr. Hull consult regularly. .
Mr. Santangelo stated he wOllld provide the materials requested by the City Attorney.
Commissioner Deegan stated, the question is if the Commission is satisfied with the
report. He stated three times the Commission had taken exception to the way the proposal
was submitted and they wanted to foclls on the way the department had performed in the
(j
minsp03b.94
11
03/07/94
I'
.;.<.:1, ~>': ~~, :'. ',.,'
c:.~. +:~ I ": '.',' , <,'
..: . t
. I, ~
I
, .
,
,
" .
\ ....
"
~. '~
<
'. ,
',>
C .L, ....+
!.',
, :3f,.,
"f.el>
" ." " -I (., "J': " ,
'. ':':i:
c
past. He stated, in his opinio,n, the report does not answer that question, and the report I
should not be accepted. He stated the assignment has not been fulfilled and the Hildebrandt
firm missed to boat completely. He stated something should have been said to the City
Commission regarding the data not being available. He also did not understand why Mr. Cloud
returned to the Legal Dep"utment to review files after the report had been submitted.
Mayor Garvey disagreed. She felt they did get the information regarding past performance
and there were recommendations for the future.
Commissioner Thomas concurred with Commissioner Deegan, stating this was supposed
to have been a performance and productivity driven audit. He stated they still don't have a
handle on the true productivity and performanc.e of the Le'gal, Department. He stated the list
of managerial improvements are helpful: He stated he concurred there is a need for more
paralegals and attorneys. He was not sure he agreed with Mr. Cloud regarding the expertise
needed for the additional attorneys. .
Commissioner Thomas recomrnended ,scheduling further'discussion for the next City
Co'mmission meeting. Mayor Garvey suggested April 7 would be a better date. Commissioner
Thomas felt more expeditious action was needed. .
I '
Commissioner Deegan moved to authorize a temporary replacement for Rob Surette. 'The
motion was duly seconded. .
(")
. r
Commissioner Thomas felt there should be a permanent additional Assistant City Attorney.
Commissioner Deegan did not amend his motion. Commissioner Deegan questioned' whether
,Mr. Galbraith knew of someone who could fill in on a te~nporary basis. Mr. Galbraith indicated
he had several qualified people in mind who could do it.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Thomas moved that Mr. Galbraith institute an analysis to determine how
another paralegal would fit into his department and to hire one additional paralegal.' There
was no second.
The me'eting adjourned at 4:34 p.m.
ATTEST: Q-o'-\-L C{t/~~~ "C'-----_
,L/
mrnsp03b.94
12
03/07/94
. .
~ ,1
~ t ' : "J,., . \ ~ ~
':. ,", :',: ;' ,,<" :': :,.: ..'~ .",..:.~':.: '" :,: .:, '::,::".': ;:\:)',;;;,;" .. :'.:,,:: ',..:'> ::, ,'.::." .......,,;.. ..:.:.;. ',;.:. '. . ,:: ii, ~;,: "; ::> '..