Loading...
01/15/1993 - 9:01 am CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING January 15, 1993 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall, Friday, January 15, 1993 at 9:01 a.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Sue A. Berfield Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Commissioner Mayme W. Hodges Commissioner Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney James Polatty, Jr. Planning and Development Director Ted Clarke Planner Mary K. Diana Assistant City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order for the purpose of considering sign variance requests. ITEM A - (Cont. from 12/28/92) Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Harbor Square Shopping Center) located at 24145 US19N, Sec. 5-29-16, M&B 23.05 (Gloria Robert, Trustee/Rolf Robert Trust) SV92-29 A letter was received from the applicant's representative requesting a continuance to include a second variance. Commissioner Deegan moved to continue this item to the next available meeting (February 9, 1993). The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #1 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 801 Court St., Aiken Sub., Blk 15, Lot 19 (Stone/Desper/Patrick Media Group, Inc.) SV92-60 The applicant is requesting 1) an area variance of 536 sq.ft. to allow a total area of 600 sq.ft. for signage fronting Myrtle Street; 2) a height variance of 17.33 feet to permit a freestanding sign 37.33 feet in height; 3) a setback variance of 5 feet to permit a sign zero feet from a property line; and 4) a variance of 29 feet from the 150 foot separation requirement to permit a freestanding sign 121 feet from another such sign. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Myrtle Avenue and Court Street and is zoned Urban Center/Eastern Corridor (UC/E). A vacant commercial building exists on this site. The applicant is requesting these variances to permit an existing freestanding sign (billboard) to remain. A second freestanding sign is permitted because the subject lot fronts on two or more streets that are classified as arterial or collector streets. Signage cannot be accumulated and used on one street. The variances requested address the billboard only. Approval of any of the requested variances shall not constitute approval of any variances needed for any other nonconforming signage on the property. Denial of any of the variances requested shall not preclude the owner of the property from seeking any variances needed for any other nonconforming signage on the property. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant has not provided any evidence that these requests arise from any conditions unique to this property. Staff review indicates there are no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for this property. The request for these variances appears to be based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property. These requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height of a freestanding sign and can not be considered minimal requests. The original lease agreement for the sign began on March 28, 1981 and stated one five year term with successive perpetual five year terms. The surrounding land uses to the subject property are a professional office building to the north; Ace Liquor Store to the south; strip commercial store to the east; and Delta Foods Distributors to the west. The existence of this 37.33 foot high, 600 sq.ft. 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 commercial businesses that have conforming signage as well as the overall appearance of the community. Of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, staff finds the applicant's requests do not meet the following: 1) The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property;5) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; 6) The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. Ken Graves, attorney representing the applicant, requested the Commission reconsider their decisions of denial on the sign cases (Cengiz Gokcen, SV92-50; Larry Dimmitt Cadillac Inc. SV 92-55; Gary F. Wood and Phillips F. Wood SV92-57; Kirk Driver, Douglas J. Burns and Arthur Shimek, SV92-58 #1; Robert W. Wilson, SV92-59) he represented at the December 28, 1992 meeting. Consensus was to not reconsider the December 28th decisions. Planning & Development Director James Polatty reviewed the signage on the property and presented photographs of existing signs on the property. Attorney Graves filed a memorandum in support of the sign variance petition and is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and as such, made a part of the minutes. He said the petition is being filed to properly exhaust all administrative remedies available to the petitioner without prejudice to the petitioner's rights to later challenge the sign ordinances. The subject sign was properly permitted without the need for a variance. Discussion ensued in regard to the economic factors governing variances that existed in the code when the sign was permitted and the City Attorney said these factors still exist. Attorney Graves said the sign was properly permitted and the change in the ordinance in 1985 rendered the sign non-conforming and questioned whether the amortization period was long enough for a reasonable investment return. He found consideration of the economic factors to be critical in reviewing the request. Ron Westbury of Patrick Media stated the sign is a wood structure poster panel and was erected in 1978 and leased on a five year term continuing lease and is currently on its third five-year period at an original investment of $11,980 with a current value OF $26,420. The life expectancy of the sign is 25 years with a potential estimated income of $42,000; the removal costs are estimated at $2,500 with a salvage value of 0 and the estimated income realized to date amounts to $63,000. In conclusion, Attorney Graves pointed out the staff report reflects this sign is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas and diverts attention from those land uses and will detract from the surrounding commercial businesses with conforming signage. However, the request has been found to have met standard #7 (the variance will not adversely affect the public, health, safety, order, convenience, or general welfare of the community). In response to how the applicant addresses standards 1-6 and 8, Attorney Graves said the signs were legal and conforming in 1978 and the variance standards were essentially the same when a permit was issued. The topography or physical conditions have not changed, the regulations have changed which now make the sign nonconforming. Mr. Polatty said no additional evidence has been given by the applicant to show all standards for approval have been met. It was noted the code was adopted in 1985 to improve the visual impact on the business community. An opinion was given the economic factors are subsumed under standard #4 which states the variance is not based primarily upon the desire to secure a greater financial return from the property, and if this is the only basis for asking for the variance, it is difficult to grant because the applicant has not shown all of the standards for approval have been met. It was pointed out the burden is on the applicant to address the standards. Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the subject variance requests to permit a nonconforming sign to remain after the expiration of the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to meet Sec. 137.012(d) Standards for Approval, items 1-6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded. For the record, a statement was made a free standing sign of 64 square feet is allowed; the existing sign has an area of 600 square feet with a zero foot setback where 5 feet is required and a height of 37.33 feet where 20 feet is allowed. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. ITEM #2 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 1390 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Knollwood Replat, Blk 2, Lots 19 & 20 (Moran/Patrick Media Group, Inc.) SV92-61 The applicant is requesting 1) a variance to permit one additional property identification sign; 2) an area variance of 649.3 sq.ft. to allow a total area of 713.3 sq.ft. divided between two signs; 3) a height variance of 22 feet to allow a freestanding sign 42 feet in height; 4) a setback variance of 4 feet to permit a sign one foot from the rear property line; and 5) a variance of 94 feet from the 150 foot separation requirement to allow a freestanding sign 56 feet from another such sign. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Park Street and Hillcrest Avenue and is zoned General Commercial (CG). The applicant is requesting these variances to permit an existing sign (billboard) to remain. The variances requested address the billboard only. Approval of any of the requests shall not constitute approval of any variances needed for any other nonconforming signage on the property. Denial of any of these requests shall not preclude the owner of the property from seeking any variances needed for any other nonconforming signage on the property. Only one freestanding sign is permitted unless the subject lot fronts on two or more streets that are classified as arterial or collector streets. Signage cannot be accumulated and used on one street. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant has not provided any evidence that these requests arise from any conditions unique to this property. Staff review indicates that there are no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for this property. The request for these variances appears to be based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property. These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height of a freestanding sign and can not be considered minimal requests. The lease for the sign is now in the 11th year of the 15 year agreement originating on December 1, 1981. The surrounding land uses are the Studio Shop (Custom framing and art supplies) to the north; a vacant commercial building and laundromat to the south; multiple family apartments to the east; and strip commercial to the west. The existence of this 42 foot high, 700 sq.ft. 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 conforming signage as well as negatively affect the overall appearance of the community. Of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, staff finds the applicant's requests do not meet the following: 1) The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property;5) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; 6) The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. Mr. Polatty reviewed the request and presented photographs of the existing signs on the property. Ken Graves, attorney representing the applicant, filed a memorandum in support of the sign variance petition containing the same testimony as was presented for the previous case and is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and as such, made a part of the minutes. Mr. Polatty said no additional evidence has been presented to change staff's analysis that this request fails to meet the standards for approval. William Moran, owner of the property, said he purchased the property with the existing sign in 1984 for the additional income. The income realized from the sign has helped him meet expenses. He felt existing signs should be grandfathered. In summary, Attorney Graves said action by the City without the consideration of all business relationships is in error and interferes with contractual associations. It was noted one freestanding sign is allowed on the property. This sign does not meet height requirements and there is no request for a variance in this application and Attorney Graves stated this request was for the billboard only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny the subject variances to permit nonconforming signage to remain after the expiration of the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to meet Sec. 137.012(d) Standards for Approval, items 1-6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 2320 Sunset Point Rd., Sunset Point Estates, Blk B, Lot 18 & part of Lot 17 (The Southland Corp./Patrick Media Group, Inc.) SV92-62 The applicant is requesting the 1) a variance to retain a second freestanding sign; 2) an area variance of 600 sq.ft. to allow a total area of 664 sq.ft. divided between two signs; 3) a height variance of 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign 40 feet in height; and 4) a variance of 84 feet from the 150 foot separation requirement to allow a freestanding sign 66 feet from another such sign. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Sunset Point Road and Atlantis Drive and is zoned General Commercial (CG). A vacant commercial building exists on the subject property and the property identification sign appears to be abandoned. The applicant is requesting these variances to permit an existing sign (billboard) to remain. The variances requested address the billboard only. Approval of any of the requests shall not constitute approval of any variances needed for any other nonconforming signage on the property. Denial of any of these requests shall not preclude the owner of the property from seeking any variances needed for any other nonconforming signage on the property. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant has not provided any evidence that these requests arise from any conditions unique to this property. Staff review indicates that there are no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for this property. The request for these variances appears to be based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property. These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height of a freestanding sign and can not be considered minimal requests. The lease for the sign is now in the second year of a five year agreement term beginning on July 1, 1990. The surrounding land uses are Little People's Place Pre-School and a single family residential subdivision to the north; Sunset Coachman Center and professional offices to the south; Sunset Point Family Restaurant to the east; and Flowers Bakery Thrift Store to the west. The existence of this 40 foot high, 600 sq.ft. 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 conforming signage as well as negatively affect the overall appearance of the community. Of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, staff finds the applicant's requests do not meet the following: 1) The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property;5) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; 6) The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. Mr. Polatty submitted photographs of existing signs on the property and reviewed the request. There is an existing freestanding sign on the property which is permitted and this sign is not part of this request. Ken Graves, representing the applicant, filed a memorandum in support of the sign variance petition containing the same testimony as was presented for the previous case and is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and as such, made a part of the minutes. He said there is a potential remaining income of approximately $243,000. For the record, it was mentioned regarding standard #5, a letter in opposition was received from an area resident is opposed echoing sentiments why this standard has not been met. It was pointed out another letter in opposition has been received. It was noted the 1985 sign code was adopted to improve the aesthetics of the community. Attorney Graves reviewed the surrounding land uses and felt the sign was not was detrimental to those type uses or uses typical along that area. A statement was made signs may not be detrimental to the immediate area; however they can be to the community at large. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the subject variances to permit nonconforming signage to remain after the expiration of the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to meet Sec. 137.012(d) Standards for Approval, items 1-6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #4 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 211 S. Missouri Ave., Hibiscus Gardens, Blk L, Lot 8 (Community Pride Child Care Center of Clearwater, Inc./Patrick Media Group, Inc.) SV92-63 The applicant is requesting 1) a variance to retain a second freestanding sign; and 2) an area variance of 300 sq.ft. to allow a total area of 348 sq.ft. divided between two signs. The original application depicted the property identification sign with the incorrect dimensions and location. The applicant has amended the plan to show the correct information. Because of uncertainties about the size and location of this sign at the time of application, staff advertised for a maximum area variance of 300 sq.ft. to allow a total area of 348 sq.ft. To allow all existing freestanding signs to remain, a variance of 267 sq.ft. is needed instead of the 300 sq.ft. requested. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Missouri Avenue and Franklin Circle and is zoned Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). The applicant is requesting these variances to permit an existing sign (billboard) to remain. Only one freestanding sign is permitted unless the subject lot fronts on two or more streets that are classified as arterial or collector streets. Signage cannot be accumulated and used on one street. The variances requested address billboard only. Approval of any of the requests shall not constitute approval of any variances needed for any other nonconforming signage on the property. Denial of any of these requests shall not preclude the owner of the property from seeking any variances needed for any other nonconforming signage on the property. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant has not provided any evidence that these requests arise from any conditions unique to this property. Staff review indicates that there are no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for this property. The request for these variances appears to be based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property. These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area of freestanding signs and can not be considered minimal requests. The lease for the sign is in the 10th year of a 15 year lease that began on April 1, 1982. The surrounding land uses are a day care center to the north; professional offices to the south; YWCA Center to the east; and City Hall Annex parking lot to the west. The existence of this 32.8 foot high, 207.75 sq.ft. 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 conforming signage as well as negatively affect the overall appearance of the community. Of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, staff finds the applicant's requests do not meet the following: 1) The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property;5) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; 6) The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. Mr. Polatty reviewed the request and presented photographs of the existing signs on the property. Ken Graves, representing the applicant, filed a memorandum in support of the sign variance petition containing the same testimony as was presented for the previous case and is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and as such, made a part of the minutes. He said there is a potential remaining income from the sign of approximately $117,000. It was pointed out only one 48 square foot freestanding sign is allowed on the property. Martha Skeleton, Executive Director of Community Pride Child Care Center, said they bought the property in 1990 from the Y.W.C.A. They have the rights to the lease for the sign until it expires in 1997 at which time it will not be renewed. Community Pride believes in the intent of the sign code and is opposed to this variance being granted. She indicated the Y.W.C.A. is also opposed to the variance. Attorney Graves said it is difficult for his client's business if he cannot obtain a variance. He indicated there are nationwide standard sign sizes. He expressed concern future changes in regulations could affect other businesses such as day care. A statement was made the Commission gives careful deliberation to changing regulations regarding restricting and allowing uses. Attorney Graves said he was referring to the amortization issue. A question was raised regarding the lease not being renewed on the billboard and whether renewal of the lease has any bearing on the estimated potential income remaining, and it was indicated it did not. It was questioned how figures regarding potential income are calculated if it is known the lease will not be renewed. Attorney Graves said it is anticipated the current owners will not renew the lease and the lease has not been assigned to Community Pride Day Care. He acknowledged the possibility of the lease not being renewed and said assumptions have to be made regarding life expectancy. Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the subject variances to permit nonconforming signage to remain after the expiration of the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to meet Sec. 137.012(d) Standards for Approval, items 1-6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 2198 NE Coachman Rd., Sec. 12-29-15, Pinellas Groves SE 1/4, part of Lot 16 (Community Pride Child Care Center of Clearwater, Inc./Patrick Media Group, Inc.) SV92-64 The applicant is requesting 1) a variance to allow a second freestanding sign fronting NE Coachman Road; 2) an area variance of 600 sq.ft. to allow a total area of 728 sq.ft. divided between two signs; 3) a height variance of 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign 40 feet in height; and 4) a variance of 58 feet from the 150 foot separation requirement to allow a freestanding sign 92 feet from another such sign. A second freestanding property identification sign fronting on Belcher Road exists on the property and is permitted by code. The subject property consists of a strip commercial center located at the northwest corner of NE Coachman Road and Belcher Road and is zoned General Commercial (CG). Both roads are classified as arterials. The applicant is requesting these variances to permit an existing sign (billboard) to remain. The variances requested address the billboard only. Approval of any of the requests shall not constitute approval of any variances needed for any other nonconforming signage on the property. Denial of any of these requests shall not preclude the owner of the property from seeking any variances needed for any other nonconforming signage on the property. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant has not provided any evidence that these requests arise from any conditions unique to this property. Staff review indicates that there are no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for this property. The request for these variances appears to be based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property. These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height of a freestanding sign and can not be considered minimal requests. The lease for the sign is now in the 8th year of the a 15 year agreement term that began from the date the sign was constructed in 1985. The surrounding land uses are a professional center and professional offices to the north; a strip commercial center to the south; single family residential to the east; lawn and garden center to the west. The existence of this 40 foot high, 600 sq.ft. 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 conforming signage as well as negatively affect the overall appearance of the community. Of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, staff finds the applicant's requests do not meet the following: 1) The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property;5) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; 6) The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. Mr. Polatty reviewed the request stating a freestanding property identification sign fronts on Belcher Road and is permitted and another existing permitted freestanding identification sign fronts on N.E. Coachman Road. He presented photographs of the existing signs. Ken Graves, attorney representing the applicant, filed a memorandum in support of the sign variance petition containing the same testimony as was presented for the previous case and is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and as such, made a part of the minutes. Attorney Graves pointed out the surrounding uses included a nursery, strip centers, Coachman Plaza and a lounge and felt the sign was not detracting to this particular area in the City of Clearwater. He thanked the Commission for their consideration in all the cases he has presented and he indicated he may be representing one more client in a billboard variance. It was restated in 1985 the sign ordinance was passed to limit the size and locations of signs to protect the aesthetics of the community. It was pointed out one free standing sign is allowed for this location. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the subject variance requests to permit nonconforming signage to remain after the expiration of the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to meet Sec. 137.012(d) Standards for Approval, items 1-6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Patrick Media was commended for the professional manner in which the requests were handled. The special meeting scheduled for January 28th was rescheduled to February 9, 1993 at 9:00 a.m.