Loading...
02/09/1993 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING February 9, 1993 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall, Tuesday, February 9, 1993 at 9:00 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 1/15/93) 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 Planning & Development James Polatty reported the applicant's representative is asking for a continuance. Patrick McGuire, attorney representing the applicant, said he would like to continue the request to review the code and possibly refine the request. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue the request to the scheduled meeting of February 23, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #1 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Trickel Jewelers) located at 714 Cleveland St., Gould & Ewing's 2nd Addition, Blk 14, Lots 8, 9 & 10 less street (Trickel) SV92-42 The applicant is requesting an area variance of 70 square feet. of attached sign area to permit a total of 166 square feet divided between two signs. The total area of the signs is 160.7 square feet requiring a variance of 64.7 square feet instead of the 70 square feet requested. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Myrtle Avenue and Cleveland Street and is in the Urban Center/Core zoning district. The applicant is requesting the variance to permit the existing attached signs to remain. 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 this variance appears to be based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property. This variance request is extreme with regard to the permitted area of attached signage permitted for corner lots in this zoning district and can not be considered a minimal request. The surrounding land uses are Commercial to the east and north; Commercial-Restaurant to the south; and Commercial-Retail to the west. The existence of 160.7 square feet of attached signage is not in character with the 96 square feet permitted for the UC(C) zoning district. The granting of this variance will detract from the surrounding businesses that have conforming signage as well as negatively affecting the overall appearance of the community. This sign does not appear to meet the criteria for the 50% sign area bonus provision for attached signs in the Urban Center Core District in Sec. 134.012(a)(2). Of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, staff finds the applicant's request does 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; 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 submitted photographs of three attached signs existing on the property. Donald McFarland, attorney representing the applicant, questioned how the request did not meet variance standard #6. He said the business has existed in downtown Clearwater for at least 40 years and has been at its current location for at least 20 years. He felt the sign, erected in 1978, was not objectionable, garish, obscene or inappropriate. He said the three signs identify the business, located on a corner lot, from different directions. He pointed out there was no sign on the west face of the building. He said there are few successful businesses left in the downtown and found the signs helpful. He said the applicant is not seeking a financial return but wants to avoid losing identity. Mr. Polatty indicated the application fails to meet standard #6 in that the size of the sign detracts from the appearance of the community. It was noted the signs exceed the allowable square footage and the intent of the 1985 sign ordinance was to improve the aesthetics of the community. In response to a question, Mr. Polatty indicated there are three signs on the property with two being oriented towards Cleveland Street. He said allowable attached signage can be divided into at least three signs for any allowable attached signage oriented towards one street. Discussion ensued regarding the building being visible through the letters; and it was indicated if only the percentage of the building that is blocked by the letters is considered, the overall square footage of the sign would be less. An opinion was expressed the signs are not obtrusive or garish, are well designed and fit in with the decor of the building. Concern was expressed in setting a precedent for signs of this nature. It was felt to calculate individual letters of signs would be difficult to do on a City wide basis. Concern was also expressed other businesses have been required to reduce their signage, some of which was similar. It was indicated these type requests need to be viewed in the entirety of the sign code as it applies to the City as a whole. The five sided building was found to be a unique situation. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a variance to permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of the seven year amortization period of 64.7 square feet to permit a total of 160.07 square feet of attached signage to retain three existing signs for the subject property for meeting Sec. 137.012(d) Standards for Approval subject to the condition that the signs shall remain the same, and if the signs require changing or replacing, the request would come before the Commission for approval. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Hodges and Mayor Garvey voted "aye;" Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "nay." Motion carried. The City Manager requested direction regarding calculating the area of a sign when it consists of raised letters. No direction was given as it was felt each property is unique and each request should be looked at individually. ITEM #2 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 24145 US19N, Sec. 5-29-16, M&B 23.05, Harbor Square Shopping Center (Robert/Patrick Media Group, Inc.) SV92-66 This item was withdrawn. ITEM #3 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Sunshine Restaurant) located at 624 S. Missouri Ave., Maryland Sub., Blk B-4, Lot 9, part of Lots 7 & 8 and a portion of the vacated r-o-w of N. Pine St. (Peter Nichols) SV92-67 The applicant is requesting an area variance of 8 square feet to permit the modification of an existing freestanding sign. The subject property is located on the west side of Missouri Avenue, approximately midway between Turner Street and Druid Road and is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. The applicant is requesting this variance to permit an existing freestanding sign to be reduced in area and height and relocated to meet the setback requirements. The existing sign is comprised of three separate sign faces. The main sign face with the restaurant name has an area of 72 square feet A 16 square feet sign face with the message "Home Cookin" is attached to the top of the main sign and a 10 square feet face is below. The existing sign overhangs the property line .1 feet. The applicant proposes to remove the sign faces above and below the main sign and move the entire sign to meet the setback requirements. The applicant states the sign face is only one year old. The City Code allowed face changes to nonconforming signs; however, the applicant did not obtain the required permit for the face change. The surrounding land uses are commercial and auto sales to the north; commercial to the south; professional offices to the east; and multiple family residential and Sunshine Manor to the west. The existence of the proposed 72 square feet sign meeting the setback requirements and having a reduced height of 15 feet can be considered a minimal variance from the permitted area of 64 square feet for this zoning district. The relatively new sign face is a factor for consideration in this case even though no permit was obtained for its installation. Staff finds the request meets all standards of approval. Mr. Polatty reviewed the request and submitted photographs of existing signage on the property. He said the applicant will remove the reader boards and relocate the existing freestanding sign to meet the setback requirement. Discussion ensued in regard to the applicant making a reasonable change which will improve the aesthetics of the community and the request being minimal. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a variance to permit nonconforming signage to remain after the expiration of the seven year amortization period of 8 square feet to permit a total of 72 square feet of property identification signage for the subject property for meeting Sec. 137.012(d) Standards for Approval subject to the following conditions: 1) The requisite building permit shall be obtained within six months of this public hearing; and 2) The subject sign shall not exceed 15 feet in height and shall meet all setback requirements. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #4 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Julie's Seafood & Sunsets) located at 351 S. Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub., Lot 70 (Julie Nichols) SV92-71 The applicant is requesting a variance of 3.75 feet from the 5 foot required setback to allow a freestanding sign to remain 1.25 feet from the front property line. The subject property is located on South Gulfview Boulevard, 60 feet north of Fifth Street and is in the Resort Commercial "Twenty Eight" (CR 28) zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant states the Building Department marked the most recent permit application with the required 5 foot setback but the inspector did not catch this and passed the sign for final approval. While staff errors are specifically exempted as a justification for granting a variance, there are other relevant factors which support this request. The existing outdoor dining area creates a particular physical hardship upon the owner to relocate this sign. The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship. The existence of this sign encroachment 3.75 feet into the 5 foot setback is consistent with previous setback variances granted for signs. The surrounding land uses are residential/motel to the north; motels to the south; to residential to the east; and Clearwater Beach to the west. Staff finds the request meets all standards of approval. Mr. Polatty reviewed the request and submitted photographs of the existing sign indicating the sign is under the allowable square footage and height. He said the sign pole meets setback requirements; however, the overhang of the sign does not. It was noted a permit was obtained and the sign was approved by staff; however, there was an error in execution of obtaining a permit. He said the sign pole is in the middle of the seating area and to move the sign back would create a hardship as the seating area would have to be changed. Attorney Donald McFarland, representing the applicant, said the sign was erected in 1989. He said the sign had been destroyed in a wind storm and again replaced with the approval of staff. He said along Gulfview Boulevard there are several old properties with little setback; and if the sign is moved back, a substantial portion of the sign will be blocked by a neighboring business. An opinion was expressed this is a unique situation and a minor request. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve a variance to permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of the seven year amortization period of 45 inches to permit a freestanding sign 15 inches from the property line for the subject property subject to the condition there shall be no modifications to the subject sign that would require additional variances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 1200 S. Ft. Harrison Ave., Sec. 21-29-15, M&B 12.01 & 12.02 (Morton F. Plant Hospital Association, Inc.) SV92-89 The applicant is requesting variances of 1) 191.1 square feet to permit a sign 241.1 square feet in area; and 2) 16.7 feet to permit a sign 36.7 feet in height. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of South Ft. Harrison Avenue and Jeffords Street and is in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning district. The applicant is requesting these variances to permit an existing sign (billboard) to remain. 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. Staff inspection revealed the content of the sign was directing traffic to the Morton Plant Hospital Emergency Room. The Public Works/Traffic Engineering Department has contacted the FDOT regarding the placement of the appropriate directional signs in the South Ft. Harrison Avenue right-of-way. These directional signs would be located to be adequately viewable from both the northbound and southbound lanes. The actual request for the signs must come from the City. Professional office uses exist to the north and south along the west side of Ft. Harrison Avenue. Light industrial and commercial uses exist along the east side of Ft. Harrison Avenue. The existing 35.7 foot high, 241.1 sq.ft. sign is not in character with the area and detracts from the surrounding land uses. 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; 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 submitted photographs of the existing sign. Attorney Harry Cline, representing the applicant, said the applicant is seeking to retain an existing billboard on the west side of Ft. Harrison Avenue. He said the hospital wants to retain the sign for identity and direction for the emergency room facilities. Attorney Cline said the emergency room has in excess of 40,000 patients per year and the sign aids these patients in locating the facility. He said the facility is not visible from the arterial streets. Due to the uniqueness of the environment, the sign offers safe and quick transit to the facility. He said a large number of the patients are tourists. The sign is totally on the hospital's property and there is no intrusion into any residential environment. There is only one sign in the entire corridor to identify this facility. Jan Hatcher, Director Support Service Director at Morton Plant Hospital, stated many victims requiring immediate attention bring themselves to the hospital and visibility is important to promptly direct them to the emergency facility. She said before the sign was donated to the hospital many people had difficulty in locating the facility. In response to a question, Attorney Cline stated the sign is owned by the hospital and was donated by the previous owner. He said prior to the sign, there had been many inquiries as to the location of the facility. A question was raised if the City can regulate the message on the sign. The City Attorney said the applicant can make a commitment to limit the message. An opinion was expressed the message of the sign was critical for public health and safety. It was felt consideration should be given to this type of sign for this function. A question was raised if there are other directional signs to the emergency room on Fort Harrison Avenue, and it was indicated there is a small lighted sign by Sweat's Florist. Ms. Hatcher said the small sign on Fort Harrison was not an effective sign and a suggestion was made to remove it. In response to a question, it was indicated the large billboard sign was donated to the hospital and has contained the same message for approximately 4 years ago. The sign is repainted and maintained on a regular basis. Mr. Polatty pointed out under the new sign code a 50 square foot sign would be allowed. In response to whether another "emergency" sign exists across the street on the east side of Fort Harrison, it was indicated that sign was not directional for the emergency room. A question was raised if the statistics of the emergency room changed dramatically since this sign was erected. It was felt the sign has made the facility easier to find. It was noted the purpose of the sign was not to increase the number of visits but to provide direction. It was questioned whether a taller sign with less square footage would accomplish what the present sign does. Ms. Hatcher indicated the present size of the sign contributes to the success of controlling the traffic flow to the emergency room. Concern was expressed the request was not minimal and it was felt the sign advertised more than directed. Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the variance requests to permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to meet Section 137.012 (d) Standards for Approval, items 1 thru 3, 5, 6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued in regard to the Commission being amenable to other options to identify the facility. A billboard sign was not found to be aesthetically pleasing to the community. It was noted that allowing a larger sign for the facility was only considered because of its emergency nature. Concern was also expressed in not being able to regulate the message on the sign. The City Attorney responded the sign is on hospital property and is in line with an identification and/or directory sign. Upon the vote being taken, the motion and carried unanimously. McIntyre v Whitacre, et al The City Attorney requested a special meeting be set to request authorization for employment of outside counsel in the McIntyre v. Whitacre, et al lawsuit. The retention of private counsel is authorized in the code in cases where it is determined that representation by the city attorney would be inappropriate or that a conflict of interest exists. He said his recommendation is based upon the potential for a conflict of interest on Officer Whitacre's part which could result in the disqualification of any attorney who undertakes to represent all of the defendants. In response to a question, the City Attorney responded he selected Robert Walker because of his experience in handling civil rights cases. The case requires that an answer be filed within the next three weeks and Mr. Walker will need an adequate opportunity to review the case and prepare an answer. A special meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 1993, following the work session. Dunedin Pass Concern was expressed in not going forward with receiving public input on Dunedin Pass on February 18, 1993, as a lot of interest has been generated and a number of groups had sent notices regarding this issue. It was noted the Marine Advisory Committee had requested this item be rescheduled to bring attention to state agencies regarding vehicular traffic and habitat concerns. Public input on the Pass has been tentatively rescheduled to April 15th. Discussion ensued regarding placing this item back on the February 18th agenda. There was a request to continue the item and another request to place it back on the agenda. Discussion ensued in regard to Commission policy of honoring Commissioners' requests to agenda or to continue an item and it was questioned which would take precedence. Consensus was to receive public input on Dunedin Pass at the City Commission Meeting of February 18, 1993, and to schedule formal discussion at a later date with all relevant parties in attendance. Discussion ensued in regard to Jericho House and it was noted staff will be attending a meeting tonight to see what direction to take. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m.