Loading...
03/28/1993 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING March 25, 1993 Prior to the special meeting commencing, the City Manager announced there had been a break in the 14-inch sewer force main under the Clearwater Pass Bridge and emergency repairs are underway which are estimated at $40,000-50,000. He said the entire line including the subaqueous crossing is being investigated. An agenda item will be forthcoming at the conclusion of the repairs. The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall, Thursday, March 25, 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 2/23/93) Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Monaco Motel) located at 648 Poinsettia Ave., Mandalay Unit No. 5 Replat, Blk 84A, Lots 16 thru 20 (Addise, Inc.) SV92-48 The applicant is requesting variances 1) to permit two above roof signs where roof and above roof signs are prohibited; 2) of 45 square feet to permit a total area of 101 square feet of attached signage; and 3) 3.54 feet to permit a freestanding sign to be setback 1.46 feet from a street right-of-way. The property is the site of the Monaco Motel which has two existing nonconforming above roof signs and an existing freestanding sign that does not meet setback requirements. The wall signs, attached to the structural walls, are unique to the architecture of the building. A nonconforming freestanding sign is located on the south property line along the Royal Way street frontage. The subject property is located on the west side of Poinsettia Avenue, north of Royal Way. The property is in the Resort Commercial "Twenty Four" (CR 24) zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. While the sign aesthetics are in character with the surrounding area, the total area and number of above roof signs are extreme and not considered minimal. The applicant has not provided evidence of any hardships created for compliance of the freestanding sign. The surrounding land uses are residential apartments to the north and to the east; GTE Exchange to the south; and vacant land to the west. The existence of two above roof signs with a total area of 101 square feet is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas. Because of the unique nature of the structure design and the area of the attached signage, staff considers allowing one of the above roof signs acceptable. The freestanding sign can comply with the new sign code by moving the sign away from the street right-of-way. Of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, staff finds the applicant's requests for an area variance of attached signage and a setback variance for the existing freestanding sign 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; 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. Planning & Development Director James Polatty reviewed the request and submitted photographs of the existing roof and freestanding signs on the property. Adrian Berrell, owner, said the existing roof signs are part of the building and have been there for approximately 35 years and to remove them would detract from its appearance. He said he was not aware the freestanding sign was nonconforming until six weeks ago. In response to a questions, Mr. Polatty indicated if the roof signs are removed, the freestanding sign will still be nonconforming as it is located too close to the right-of-way. Mr. Berrell indicated if the freestanding sign is moved back, the pole would hit the roof line. Questions were raised regarding whether the wall signs were considered to be part of the structure, whether a taller freestanding sign might be workable or whether a freestanding sign would be necessary if an above roof sign is allowed. Mr. Berrell indicated he needed identity from Mandalay Avenue. Discussion ensued in regard to continuing the item for staff to review the options with Mr. Berrell. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue the item to the next scheduled meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #1 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Viking Motel) located at 124 Brightwater Dr., Bayside Sub. No. 2, Lot 52 (Guyette) SV92-43 The applicant is requesting variances of 1) 3.47 square feet to allow an existing freestanding sign with a total area of 59.47 square feet; and 2) 5.0 ft. to permit an existing freestanding sign zero feet from a street right-of-way. The application was received prior to the October 13, 1992 deadline for compliance with the 1985 sign regulations. The 1985 freestanding sign area requirements allowed a maximum of 56 square feet. The new sign code allows a maximum of 50 square feet. However, if the sign is to be significantly altered in order to meet setback requirements, it seems reasonable to require the sign be brought into full compliance with the current regulations. Field inspection revealed the dimension between the sign poles is only 3 feet instead of the 3 feet 3 inches shown in the sign drawing. The adjusted total area for freestanding signage is 58 square feet instead of the 59.47 square feet originally shown. An area variance of only 2 square feet instead of the 3.47 square feet is needed. The removal of the 2 square feet. "Vacancy" sign or removal of 2 square feet from the reader board would bring the existing sign into compliance with the 1985 area requirements. A survey shows the existing sign extending 2.09 feet into the right-of-way. The Public Works Department considers signs that overhang into the right-of-way a hazard and have consistently opposed similar requests. The Public Works Department has reviewed this particular application and can not recommend approval of this sign overhanging the public right-of-way. The subject property is located on the north side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 335 feet east of Hamden Drive and is in the CR 28 zoning district. These variances are requested to permit an existing freestanding sign to remain. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant contends that his building setback is closer to the road than the surrounding motels. The roof of the building is approximately 16 inches from the interior edge of the sign and prevents the sign from being moved away from the property line. However, the existing sign height can be increased from 14.5 feet to 20 feet, placing the sign above the roof of the building. The sign may be relocated to the east and away from the building, increased in height, and/or decreased in area to comply with code. There are no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for this property. The building setback does not create a hardship and is not a condition unique to this property. The setback variance request from the street right-of-way is extreme and can not be considered a minimal request. While the area variance can be considered minimal, the applicant has not provided evidence of any hardships; also, if the sign is to be significantly altered in order to meet setback requirements, it seems reasonable to require full code compliance. The Viking Motel is surrounded by other motel/apartments located along the entire length of Brightwater Drive. The existence of this sign zero feet from the right-of-way setback and the overhang into the public right-of-way further detracts from those land uses. The granting of these variances will allow this sign to block the view of other motel signs and detract from the appearance of the community. 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; 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 submitted photographs of the existing freestanding signs on the property. Jan Guyette, owner, said to bring the sign into compliance it would have to moved onto the lawn and felt it would not be readily visible. Discussion ensued in regard to a height of 20 feet being allowed and Ms. Guyette indicated the property is oddly shaped and moving the sign back and raising it above the roof line would not work. The pole of the sign would hit the building and the sign would be in the walkway. Discussion ensued in regard to going to a single pole sign versus the existing double pole sign to get it closer to the building. Ms. Guyette felt the pole would still hit the building. Discussion ensued regarding other options. Mr. Polatty indicated the sign could be located at either side of the walkway. It was felt the sign should be moved out of the right-of-way and it was felt needed visibility could be obtained by going to a taller sign. Ms. Guyette said she was not aware the sign was nonconforming when she purchased the property and asked when she would have to bring the sign into compliance. It was indicated the intent of the sign ordinance adopted in 1985 was to beautify and improve the aesthetics of the community and it was felt the seven year amortization period was sufficient time. A letter was received from adjacent property owners objecting to the sign blocking their view. In response to a question, Ms. Guyette stated she purchased the property in February 1992. Mr. Polatty said notification regarding nonconforming signs was sent in April 1990; and in response to a question, he indicated the occupational license application provides for a standard notification of the sign code and changes. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny the requested variances for the subject property for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval of the Land Development Code, items #1-#6 and #8. The motion was duly seconded. A question was raised if an area variance of 2 square feet is a minimum variance and whether it was appropriate to say the request did not meet the minimum standard. It was pointed out, if the area variance is denied, a new sign will be needed. Commissioner Fitzgerald amended his motion to deny a 5 foot setback variance for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards of Approval of the Land Development Code, items #1-#6 and #8 and to approve an area variance of 2 square feet to permit 58 square feet of total signage area for the subject property. The seconder accepted the amendment. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. ITEM #2 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (North Beach Motel) located at 657 Mandalay Ave., Mandalay Unit No. 5, Blk 84, Lots 7 & 8 (Basic) SV92-49 The applicant is requesting variances 1) to permit a freestanding sign to remain in the Beach Commercial zoning district where building setback is less than 15 feet thereby prohibiting a freestanding sign; and 2) of five feet to allow a freestanding sign zero feet from the street right-of-way. The subject property is located on the east side of Mandalay Avenue, approximately 200 feet south of Somerset Avenue, and is in the CB zoning district. The existing freestanding sign overhangs the sidewalk 6 feet into the public right-of-way. The height of the sign is 8 feet from the sidewalk to the lowest portion of the sign. The Public Works Department considers signs that overhang into the right-of-way a hazard and have consistently opposed similar requests. The Public Works Department has reviewed this particular application and can not recommend approval of this sign overhanging the public right-of-way. The sign regulations do not allow freestanding signs in the CB district for properties with less than a 15 foot structural setback. The North Beach Motel has two 2-story buildings setback 10 feet from the front property line. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant has not provided any evidence 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 retain the sign at the existing location. The sign regulations allow attached signs in the CB district to contain a maximum of 48 square feet in area. As an alternative, the subject sign could be relocated as an attached sign projecting from the building wall without the need for any variances. These requests are extreme with regard to the permitted type of signage and setback location of the sign and can not be considered minimal requests. The surrounding land uses are the Coca Cabana Motel/Restaurant to the north; the Royal Canadian Motel to the south; and multiple family residential to the east and west. The existence of a freestanding sign where none is permitted is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial and residential areas. Also, the zero foot setback and the overhang of the sign into the public right-of-way further detracts from those land uses. The granting of these requests will detract from the surrounding businesses that have conforming signage as well as negatively affecting the overall appearance of the community. 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; 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; 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. Planning & Development Director James Polatty reviewed the request and submitted photographs of the existing freestanding signs on the property. Nacelle Basic, owner, said he purchased the motel in 1988 and there was no indication the sign would have to be moved. He said he would like to remove the freestanding sign and attach a sign to the roof line above the offices. It was questioned whether there was enough roof to attach a sign and Mr. Basic felt the roof could support it. Discussion ensued in regard to the location of a roof sign and Mr. Basic indicated the sign would be on the balcony in line with the office and would not protrude into the sidewalk. Questions were raised if the request is denied, can the applicant locate the sign at the roof line and will it conform to code. A question was raised whether a roof sign requires a variance, and Mr. Polatty pointed out this sign would not be considered a roof sign if it is located just above the office. It was indicated the building has adequate setback for the sign. Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the requested variances for the subject property for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval of the Land Development Code, items #1-#4, #6 and #8 with the understanding staff will assist the applicant in properly locating a sign. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 20865 US19N, Sec. 17-29-16, M&B 23.06 (Public Storage Crescent Fund, Ltd./Public Storage Management, Inc.) SV92-87 The applicant is requesting variances of 1) 32 square feet to allow a total area of 144 square feet; and 2) 15.1 feet in height to allow a freestanding sign 35.1 feet in height. The variances are requested to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain. The subject property is located on the east side of US Highway 19 north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, and is in the CH (highway commercial) zoning district. Access to the site is from the northbound entrance ramp from Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard to US Highway 19 North. The applicant states these variances are necessary to overcome the hardships created by the existence of a 43.2 foot billboard located immediately to the south and the elevation difference created by the US19 overpass. The survey provided shows the elevation of the centerline of US19 declining along the frontage of the property from 65.3 feet to 58.8 feet. The ground elevation of the sign is 55.0 feet. Staff finds the elevation of US19 not significant for requesting these variances. The proximity of the existing billboard to the south is not a condition that is unique to this zoning district or any other properties along US19. 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 surrounding land uses are the Road Way Inn to the north; Perkins Restaurant to the south; Park Place Business Park to the east; and Sweethearts Adult Club to the west. The existence of this 35.1 foot high, 144 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 variances will detract from the surrounding businesses that have conforming signage as well as negatively affecting the overall appearance of the community. 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; 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; 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. Planning & Development Director James Polatty reviewed the request and submitted photographs of the existing freestanding signs on the property. A question was raised whether the Roadway Inn sign is in conformance with the code, and Mr. Polatty said he did not know. Paul Haglett, representing the applicant, said his client operates a mini storage on the site and the nature of this business warrants the necessity of a sign. There is a large turnover of tenants and visibility and accessibility are extremely important to maintain their current business level. He said they draw customers from the immediate neighborhood indicating those who choose a mini storage facility select one close to their home. He submitted photographs and an aerial taken from U.S. 19 leading up to and across the overpass at Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. He indicated if the sign were lowered to conform, it would be invisible to traffic until one is almost directly on top of the sign. He said the topography, the overpass and the surrounding vegetation and signs are factors that should allow them to qualify for the variances. He indicated the square foot area of the sign only exceeded the allowable signage by approximately one foot in either dimension and found this amount of area to be insignificant. It was indicated if the location of the business is not known, it would be easily passed by anyway. Mr. Haglett indicated it is difficult to drive to the property because of the service road. He felt selecting a mini storage facility was not on impulse and one becomes familiar with this type facility in the area by driving by it on a frequent basis. A question was raised if the sign is being used as an advertising sign, and Mr. Haglett said it is a location sign letting people know where the site is located. Discussion ensued in regard to the Countryside Mall sign and the overpasses at SR 580 and Countryside Boulevard. It was indicated this was a unique situation in that the overpass had a roller coaster effect with the sign being located at the bottom of the loop. An opinion was expressed those wanting to use a mini storage normally know the location of the facility. Discussion ensued in regard to whether a hardship existed due to the topographic conditions and physical surroundings. It was noted the photograph that was submitted taken from the crest of the overpass shows the sign being almost flush with the railing on the overpass and it was felt to lower the sign would put it below the line of sight. It was pointed out the overpass was in existence before the building and the applicant is requesting an area variance in addition to a height variance. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a height variance of 15.1 feet from the 20 foot height permitted to allow a freestanding sign 35.1 feet in height because of a condition unique to that particular property, namely the presence of the overpass, and to deny the requested area variance for the subject property for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval of the Land Development Code, items #1-#4, #6 and #8. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Fitzgerald, Deegan and Hodges voted "aye;" Mayor Garvey voted "nay." Motion carried. ITEM #4 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Hooters Restaurant) located at 2800 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Sec. 17-29-16, M&B 13.07 (Limited Properties, Inc.) SV92-101 The applicant is requesting an area variance of 13.88 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a total of 77.88 square feet of freestanding signage. The freestanding signage consists of two sign faces. The main sign face contains 61.88 square feet. A 16 square feet changeable reader board is located directly beneath the main sign face. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Hampton Road and is in the CG (general commercial) zoning district. This variance is requested to permit an existing freestanding sign to remain. All attached signage on this property conforms to the current sign regulations. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant has not provided any evidence this request arises 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. This request appears to be based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to retain the reader board under the main sign face. The freestanding signage could be brought into compliance if the 16 square feet reader board were removed. The surrounding land uses are single family residential to the north; Clearwater East Shopping Center to the south; Hungry Panda Express and motel to the east; and a commercial/strip shopping center to the west. The existence of this 77.88 square feet 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 affecting the overall appearance of the community. 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; 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; 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. James Polatty, Planning & Development Director, reviewed the application and presented photographs of the existing freestanding sign and reader board. Neil Kiefer, representing the applicant, said Hooters started in Clearwater and is located on one of its main arteries. With the widening of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, the front portion of the property was removed and had to be restructured. He said at this time they expanded the property into two parcels taking the property immediately to the east from the corner of the intersection. He indicated this allowed for better accommodation of traffic flow and parking. The two parcels contain approximately 56,000 square feet. He said the existing sign is a freestanding pole sign and the reader board adds 16 feet causing it to be nonconforming. He said focus should be directed to the size of the sign in comparison to the size of the entire tract of property. Mr. Kiefer indicated this property is allowed two freestanding signs according to the code and referenced Section 134.009(4) which reflects lots fronting on two or more streets (Hampton Road and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard), functionally classified as collector or arterial streets, are allowed the permitted signage for each frontage but cannot be accumulated and used on one street in excess of that allowed. He said a "reader" sign is not defined in the code; what is defined is a "changeable" message and felt this defines the purpose of his reader board. He said these type signs were exempt from the permitting requirements provided the number, area and other limitations are satisfied. Mr. Kiefer said with the widening of the road, the line of sight has been reduced and traffic speed has been increased creating a unique situation for this property. He said this store is the model used for other franchisees and the changeable message sign has been integrated all over the country. Mr. Polatty responded changeable messages are permitted on signs; however, these messages need to be included when calculating the overall size of the sign. He said the applicant would be allowed a second freestanding sign on Hampton Road. He said there have been trade-offs where one larger freestanding sign is allowed instead of the two. In response to a question, Mr. Polatty said the square footage of the two allowable freestanding signs could not be combined and used for one freestanding sign. A question was raised regarding exempt signs, and Mr. Polatty said changeable messages are exempt signs. Mr. Kiefer said their freestanding sign without adding in the reader board is under the 64 square feet allowed. He felt the language in the code is confusing as to whether there is any limitation on the size of changeable message signs. The City Attorney said he did not see in the code an area limitation on changeable messages. It was indicated it was clearly the intent of the Commission when the sign ordinance was adopted to regulate size of signage. A recommendation was made to continue the item to research the code to see if there is a wording glitch that needs to be addressed. Mr. Kiefer expressed concern in continuing the item as he felt a code amendment could work, after the fact, against the applicant. It was felt more research was needed. The City Attorney suggested that approving the variance with the condition that a second pole sign not be allowed on Hampton Road would preclude a second pole sign. If action is deferred and a conclusion is reached their sign is conforming, they would not need a variance and could come back with a request for a second pole sign. Mr. Polatty said Section 43.12, which sets up sign standards, reflects the more stringent requirement in the code would govern and supports the intent of the code. There was discussion regarding possible glitches in the code due to republication. Again, a recommendation was made to continue the item. It was felt the item should be dealt with as suggested by the City Attorney and the language regarding the sign code clarified later. Mr. Kiefer indicated he was in agreement with the condition of no second pole sign. An opinion was given that a second freestanding sign on Hampton Road would not be as offensive as the larger sign on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a variance of 13.8 square feet to allow a 77.88 square foot freestanding sign for the subject property as this request meets Section 45.24 Standards for Approval of the Land Development Code, items #1-#8 subject to the condition there shall be no additional freestanding sign erected on the property. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield and Deegan voted "aye;" Commissioner Hodges and Mayor Garvey voted "nay." Motion carried. ITEM #5 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Joyce Fuller Interiors) located at 616 E. Druid Rd., Magnolia Park, Blk 27, Lots 8 thru 10 (Joyce Elaine Fuller, Trustee) SV92-102 The applicant is requesting an area variance of 41.8 square feet from the 24 square feet permitted to allow a total area of 65.8 square feet of attached signage. The subject property is located on the north side of Druid Road, approximately 420 feet west of Myrtle Avenue, and is in the OL zoning district. The variance is requested to permit the existing attached signage to remain. City occupational license records indicate Joyce Fuller Interiors began business at this location during the 1981-82 fiscal year. In November of 1983, this property was part of a larger area rezoned from General Commercial to Professional Service. The Professional Service District was later renamed Limited Office (OL) District which exists today. This action caused Joyce Fuller Interiors to become a nonconforming use in the OL district. All signs were permitted under the commercial zoning district. This is a situation unique to this property in the OL zoning district. Abutting the subject property to the north, is the CG zoning district. One block to the west is also a CG zoning district. Across the railroad tracks to the east, the zoning changes to CN (neighborhood commercial). With the odd zoning pattern in this area, the attached signs on this structure will not adversely impact any of the adjoining properties. The applicant states that a freestanding directional sign for delivery trucks and an attached sign on the west side of the building have been removed leaving only the two attached signs on the south and east facades of the building. The front entrance to the showroom is located on the east side of the building. The sign attached to the east facade serves to identify the business to patrons approaching from the east. The building identification can not be seen until crossing over the railroad tracks less than 100 feet from the property. Since the freestanding sign has been removed, the sign attached to the south facade serves to guide the large delivery trucks to the loading dock and to identify the building. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The subsequent rezoning of the property from CG to OL creates a condition that is unique to this property. Staff review indicates the elevated railroad tracks to the east create the need for adequate business identification for westbound traffic. The surrounding land uses are a vacant lot to the north and east; Druhill Professional Office Center to the south; and Taylor Associates Personnel Consultants to the west. While the overall square footage of the attached signage is not in conformance with OL zoning, the freestanding sign has been removed from the property. The remaining attached signs are viewable only from a close proximity to the property and do not violate the intent of the development code. The granting of this variance will not detract from the surrounding conforming land uses or the overall appearance of the community. Of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, staff finds the applicant's request meets all of them. Planning and Development Director James Polatty reviewed the application and presented photographs of the existing signage. Joyce Fulmer, owner, said she agrees with the conditions for approval of the variance. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve an area variance of 41.8 square feet of attached signage to permit a total of 65.8 square feet of attached signage for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval of the Land Development Code, items #1-#8, subject to the following conditions: 1) the variance shall expire upon any change of use; and 2) there shall be no freestanding signs allowed for this property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #6 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (McDonald's) located at 1860 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Sec. 13-29-15, M&B 23.05 (McDonald's Corp.) SV93-04 The applicant is requesting the following: 1) an area variance of 6.92 square feet from the permitted 24 square feet to allow a menu board with a total area of 30.92 square feet; and 2) a setback variance of 3.71 feet from the 25 foot setback to allow a menu board 21.29 feet from the Gulf-to-Bay right-of-way. The subject property is located on the north side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard between the intersections of Pegasus Avenue and Corona Avenue and is in the CG zoning district. The variances are requested to permit the existing menu sign to remain. The applicant states the drive through menu board is positioned to allow vehicular traffic to maneuver around the existing building without conflict to the access drives and to the pedestrian traffic entering and exiting the building. The physical location of the existing building, the driveway for the drive through, the vehicular access drives to the property, and the pedestrian traffic patterns establishes the variance request for 3.71 foot setback as a condition unique to this property. The applicant further states that McDonald's is in the process of building a new store at this site with construction scheduled to begin in the third or fourth quarter of this year. If these variance requests are granted and future redevelopment of this site does occur, these variances should expire and the new development be required to meet the development code. Site inspection indicates the existing structure and circulation patterns create a hardship for the location of the menu sign on this property. In addition to the menu board, a small sign advertising the special meal combination deals was "clipped on" to the top of the sign. This "clipped on" sign exceeds the height and area requirements and should be removed. The size of the restaurant's existing freestanding sign has been reduced to meet the current code requirements. However, the sign did not pass electrical inspection. A $25.00 fee must be paid before another final inspection can be made and final approval granted. The surrounding land uses are P.S. Hodges Accounting Offices, Clearwater Blueprint and multiple family residential to the north; retail/strip commercial stores to the south; Captain John's Mens Hairstyles and Hairpieces to the east; and Texaco Gas Station/Mart to the west. This site is well landscaped along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard except for a 55 foot area that has been tiled located directly in front of the menu board and drive through. By providing screening/landscap ng along the front of the property, the menu board will be screened from view and will be in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas. The granting of the area variance will not detract from the surrounding businesses that have conforming signage or negatively affect the overall appearance of the community. Of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, staff finds the applicant's request for the setback variance meets all of them. Planning & Development Director James Polatty reviewed the request and presented photographs of the menu board for McDonald's. He said the applicant is in the process of building a new store at the site and recommended, if the variances are granted and future redevelopment of this site does occur, the variances should expire. Mr. Polatty said it is his understanding the building will be torn down and rebuilt. In response to a question, Mr. Polatty indicated "clip ons" are small signs that list the specials and were attached to the top and to the bottom of the main sign. Bobby Mott, representing the applicant, submitted a site plan indicating the store will be torn down and rebuilt to conform to code. He said the new building will be constructed on the west side of the property. It was pointed out the recommendation is to approve the requested variances with two conditions and Mr. Mott said the project is already in the permitting process. A question was raised as to what the purpose was for condition #1 and Mr. Polatty said this condition was directed towards having the landscaping benefiting Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard by extending it across the front. It was questioned whether staff should be attaching a condition that has to do with overall beautification of the site. Mr. Polatty said the purpose of the sign code is to enhance the beauty of the City and felt there was a connection between the two. Mr. Mott said they attempted to relocate the sign to meet setback requirements but was difficult due to traffic and pedestrian concerns. An opinion was expressed landscape hedging should not be required as part of a sign variance request. A question was raised in regard to menu board signs and Mr. Polatty said there is a special provision that allows menu boards for certain types of business. Mr. Mott said the applicant would remove the "clip-on" signs and it was indicated this is addressed in the code. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve an area variance of 6.92 square feet from the permitted 24 square feet to allow a menu board with a total area of 30.92 square feet and a setback variance of 3.71 feet from the 25 foot street setback to allow a menu board 21.29 feet from the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard right-of-way for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the following condition any redevelopment for the construction of a new store on this site shall cause these variances to expire and the new development shall conform to the development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #7 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Connell's Plaza) located at 1621-1627 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Longview Sub., Lots 22, 23, & 26 (Pauline Connell, Trustee) SV93-06 The applicant has requested a continuance of this item. Commissioner Deegan moved to continue this item to the next scheduled meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Manager requested waiting until the work session to schedule another sign variance meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:37 a.m.