Loading...
09/28/1993 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING September 28, 1993 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at the Main Library, 100 N. Osceola Avenue, Tuesday, September 28, 1993 at 10:07 a.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Sue Berfield Commissioner Fred A. Thomas Commissioner Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Scott Shuford Central Permitting Director Mary Kathryn Diana Assistant City Clerk Public hearings were held on the following sign variance requests: ITEM A - (Cont. from 3/25/93) 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 This item was continued from the last Commission sign variance meeting to allow staff time to work with the applicant. A request has been received from S & R Property Management, Inc. requesting another continuance as the subject property is in receivership. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the next scheduled meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM B - (Cont. from 3/25/93) 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 is requesting the following variances: 1) an area variance of 144 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a total area of 208 square feet for a freestanding sign; 2) a height variance of 15 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a sign 35 feet in height; and 3) a street right-of-way setback variance of 5 feet from the 5 foot minimum setback to allow a freestanding sign zero feet from the right-of-way. The drawing provided by the applicant shows the sign setback from the property line 43 inches. Subsequent meetings with the applicant's representative revealed this dimension is actually measured to the sign pole. This means the sign overhangs the right-of-way approximately 3 inches. The Public Works Department considers any overhang into the right-of-way a hazard and has 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 southeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Yelvington Avenue and is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. These variances are requested to permit the existing freestanding sign 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 variance 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. These requests are based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to retain the existing sign. 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 include a discount auto parts store to the north; single family residential to the south; a television repair shop to the east; and a pancake house to the west. The existence of this 35 foot high, 208 square foot sign located zero feet from the street right-of-way 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. Staff finds of the eight standards that must be met for variance approval, the applicant's request does not fully meet the following standards of approval: 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. Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director, said the request involves a freestanding sign and staff feels the sign can be relocated on the property in conforming fashion. He said to grant the height variance would create a competitive advantage for this applicant. Mayor Garvey pointed out a freestanding sign is permitted at this location; however, the current sign exceeds what is allowed by code. John Carassas, representing the applicant, submitted a revised drawing which changes the request slightly. He said Mr. Connell has owned this plaza for a long time. He felt the sign ordinance did not properly address small shopping centers containing many small businesses. Mr. Carassas said it was difficult to locate the small businesses in the plaza if not listed on the sign due to the speed of traffic on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. He requested the sign remain in the same location with Connell Plaza listed at the top and identifying the businesses by numbers diagonally located on the panels. Mr. Shuford said an area variance would still be required. He said one option would be to reduce the sign to meet the 20 foot height limit and display the address across the top panel. Mr. Carassas commented panels are being removed as shown in the revised drawing. He said they only want to leave the top four panels. He expressed concern that displaying the address across the top panel would not give the plaza the identification needed. Mr. Shuford said the revised drawing reflects approximately a 48 square foot top panel and indicated the additional panels would also be added into the calculation for it. Mr. Carassas said he would agree to not put anything else on the panel except a 2 foot by 1 foot square number. Mayor Garvey questioned whether it would be possible to put the address "1625" on one panel. Commissioner Berfield asked if staff was including the top of the sign in their calculations and Mr. Shuford said this portion of the sign would just add to the height. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford said there is a special provision for street numbering that would allow an additional 8 square feet because of the size of the property. In response to a question, Mr. Carassas said the height of the sign was not being reduced; the panels were being removed. It was pointed out the drawing incorrectly reflected the height of the sign to be 24 feet. Mr. Carassas said they were trying to work with the present sign to save money. Discussion ensued in regard to cutting a section of the steel pillars out of the center of the sign and replacing the top in the same position making the sign lower. Mayor Garvey did not favor denying the setback variance due to the size of the plaza. Commissioner Thomas felt having the numbers coming down on the sign at an angle would be very misleading and felt having the numbers located across the top of the sign would give better identity. Discussion ensued in regard to whether a hardship existed. Mr. Carassas said this is a small plaza which needed identification to separate it from other businesses that are well known in the community. Commissioner Thomas moved to deny an area variance and a height variance for failure to meet Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-4, 6 and 8; and to approve a setback variance of 5 feet from the 5 foot minimum setback to allow a freestanding sign zero feet from the street right-of-way for the subject property. In response to a question from Mr. Carassas, Mr. Shuford said removing the roof structure above the sign would allow 2 additional feet of height. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #1 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Drew Plaza) located at 1880 Drew St., New Marymont Sub., Blk B, Lot 1 (Ferris) SV92-31 The applicant is requesting a setback variance of 5 feet from the 5 foot setback requirement to permit an existing freestanding sign zero feet from the Drew Street and Corona Avenue right-of-way lines. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Drew Street and Corona Avenue and is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. The applicant proposes to reduce the height from 23.5 feet to 19.5 feet where 20 feet is permitted, the area from 72 square feet to 58 square feet where 64 square feet is permitted, and the number of panels from three to two where two panels are permitted of the freestanding sign to conform with the sign regulations while maintaining the existing location zero feet from the property line. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant contends that moving the sign post back 3.5 feet could interfere with the parking lot entrance from Corona Avenue and would cause the loss of one parking space. This variance request can be considered a minimal request because all other requirements are being met. The surrounding land uses are single family residential to the north and a strip commercial shopping center to the south, east and west. Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval. Mr. Shuford reviewed the request and indicated staff is recommending approval of the setback variance. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford said the name of the business on the middle panel is First American Title. The City Manager stated for the record that his wife works for this company indicating he has had no involvement in this variance application. He said she did not work at this particular office. The applicant confirmed that the photographs of the sign presented reflected the existing signage. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve a setback variance of 5 feet to permit a nonconforming freestanding sign to be setback zero feet from Drew Street for the subject property for meeting Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #2 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (American Speedy Printing) located at 1238 Cleveland St., R.H. Padgetts Estate Sub., Replat of Lots 20 & 21, W 40' of Lot 4 (Saroodis) SV92-32 The applicant is requesting this item be continued. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the next scheduled meeting regarding sign variance requests. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Clearwater Beach Garden Apartments) located at 14-20 Somerset St., Clearwater Beach Revised, Blk 1, Lots 1-5 (Orange Belt & Gulf Coast Redevelopment) SV92-33 The applicant is requesting a variance to permit an existing freestanding sign to be used for an existing nonconforming motel use located in a residential zone. Nonconforming uses in residential districts are permitted one 24 square feet attached sign. The subject property is located on the north side of Somerset Street, approximately 150 feet west of Mandalay Avenue and is in the Multiple Family 20 Residential (RM-20) zoning district. The existing freestanding sign is 24 square feet in area, 8.5 feet in height and is setback 1.83 feet from Somerset Street. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. This entire block of Somerset Street, from the intersection of Mandalay Avenue west to the Beach, is occupied by nonconforming motel/apartments. The subject property is located at the far west end of the street adjacent to the beach. The existing freestanding sign is only partially visible from the intersection of Mandalay Avenue. Any signage attached to the building would not be viewable from Mandalay because of existing trees along the north side of Somerset. The combination of the nonconforming uses along the entire block, the specific location of this motel, and the ineffectiveness of any attached signage creates conditions unique to this property. The surrounding land uses are single family residential to the north; apartments to the south; condominiums to the east; and the Gulf of Mexico to the west. Staff reviewed the option of rezoning this area from RM-20 to another zoning district that might bring the uses and signs into conformance with the Code. However, a closer look at the Beach Commercial (CB) and Resort Commercial (CR-24 & CR-28) districts revealed that this is not a viable option. The CG district would not permit a freestanding sign on this property without variances for the 5 foot required sign setback and for a freestanding sign where the principal structure is less than 15 feet from the street. Additionally, the CB district would permit commercial uses inappropriate for this area. The CR 24 & 28 districts would not permit this freestanding sign without a variance for the 5 foot required sign setback. Also, this entire block contains less than two acres of contiguous area and does not meet the minimum of four contiguous acres intended in the code. Therefore, this variance request is considered the minimum to overcome the hardship. Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval. Mr. Shuford said the request involves a freestanding sign that serves a nonconforming motel use which is not permitted. He said staff feels the combination of nonconforming uses in that general area and the specific location of the motel create a hardship and unique condition on the applicant. He said staff is recommending approval of the existing sign. Mr. Shuford presented photographs of the existing signage which were verified by the applicant's representative. Steven Watts, representing the applicant, said the property is unique and the motel has been there for a long time. He said it is difficult to see the sign due to the trees in the surrounding area. Mayor Garvey asked if the variance requested would go with the use of the property, and Mr. Shuford responded it would. Mr. Shuford said the Commission may want to give direction regarding freestanding signs for nonconforming uses. Commissioner Deegan felt an attached sign would be totally ineffective on this property due to the trees on Mandalay Avenue. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a variance to permit a freestanding sign to be used for a nonconforming use in a residential zone for the subject property for meeting Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #4 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Walgreens) located at 1685 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Gulf-to-Bay Shopping Center, Lot 3 (Bruno) SV92-34 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit 3 existing attached signs to remain: 1) an area variance of 223.5 square feet from the permitted 115.5 square feet to allow a total of 339 square feet of attached sign area; and 2) a ratio variance of 2.9 square feet of attached signage per one linear foot of building width (2.9/1.0) from the permitted 1.5/1.0 ratio to permit a total ratio of 4.4 square feet of building signage per one linear foot of building width (4.4/1.0). The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Duncan Avenue and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and is in the Commercial Center (CC) zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant contends that the restaurant located on the out parcel directly between the store and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard blocks the visibility of the attached signage and that a larger sign is needed. The subject property is located in a shopping center. This shopping center has a freestanding sign on Gulf-to-Bay with the Walgreens Pharmacy logo. Because the building is setback over 300 feet from Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, visibility is not impaired by the restaurant on the corner. The applicant has not provided any evidence that these variance requests arise from any conditions unique to this property. These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area of attached signage and can not be considered minimal requests. The surrounding land uses are Grandy's Restaurant to the north; single family residential to the south; Town Centre Professional Office Complex to the east; and Shopping Center, single family to the west. The existence of these attached signs with a total of 339 square feet is not in character with the signage permitted for the commercial businesses in the area. The granting of these variances will detract from the commercial businesses that have conforming signage, permit an unfair advertising advantage to the applicant, and negatively affecting the overall appearance of the community. Staff finds of the eight standards that must be met for variance approval, the applicant's request does not fully 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; 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. Mr. Shuford said staff does not see a visibility problem for this site from Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, did not find this to be a unique situation or feel there was a hardship on the applicant. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford said staff viewed the sign from different areas to see if there was a visibility problem. No one was present to represent the applicant. Commissioner Thomas moved to deny the requested variances to permit nonconforming signage to remain on the subject property for failure to meet Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-3, 5, 6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Breezeway Motel) located at 602 Poinsettia Ave., Mandalay Unit 5 Replat, Blk A, part of Lot 5 (Jillich/Breezeway Inc.) SV92-35 The applicant is requesting a continuance. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the next scheduled meeting for sign variances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Eunice Hubbard said she wanted to go on record as being in favor of the request. Commissioner Deegan pointed out staff's recommendation is to approve the request. ITEM #6 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Orthopaedic Surgery Center of Clearwater) located at 1528 Lakeview Rd., Sec. 23-29-15, M&B 21.04 and Gates Knoll, Lot 18 & vacation (Reconstructive Associates) SV92-40 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit two existing freestanding signs to remain, and one existing attached sign to be modified for a nonconforming use in a residential zoning district: 1) a variance of two additional signs to permit a total of three signs for a nonconforming use in a residential district; 2) an area variance of 32.4 square feet from the permitted 24 square feet to allow a total area of 56.4 square feet; and 3) a variance to permit two freestanding signs to remain where such signs are not allowed. Nonconforming uses in residential districts are permitted one 24 square foot attached sign. The applicant has two existing freestanding signs (which are proposed to remain) and one existing attached sign (which is proposed for modification). The subject property is located approximately 600 feet east of Highland Avenue and is in the RM-28 zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. Traveling eastbound, the Lakeview Road right-of-way decreases from 83 feet to 66 feet at the eastern property line of the subject property. This boundary is also the beginning of the single family residential area. The net effect is the orthopaedic center building is setback from the road further than the adjoining properties. The signs are setback approximately 35 feet from the edge of the road. Access to the center is provided by a semicircular driveway. The area between the drive entrances is heavily landscaped with shrubs and multiple large live oak trees. The existing freestanding signs are integrated into the existing landscape and match the architecture of the building. The combination of the irregular right-of-way pattern and the existing landscaping with the older live oak trees combines to create a condition that is unique to this property. The attached signage is not viewable from the road and only serves to give direction to clients that have already entered the property. Staff recognizes the basic need for this establishment is to have the minimum property identification from the street. This variance request is considered the minimum request to overcome the hardship. The surrounding land uses are Kalmia Condominiums Unit 4 to the north; single family residential to the south and east; and Kalmia Condominiums Unit 7, Ambrosia Restaurant to the west. The two 12 square foot freestanding signs are architecturally integrated with the building and landscaping and appear to provide a good transition from the commercial uses on the west to the residential uses to the east and is in character with the surrounding land uses. The granting of this variance will not detract from the surrounding residential uses or negatively impact the overall appearance of the community. Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval. Mr. Shuford said this request involves a nonconforming use limited to a single attached sign. He said prior to 1985 doctors' offices were allowed in multi-family residential zoning districts. He felt the setbacks and integration of the signs into the existing landscaping and architecture create a unique situation for the applicant. Barbara Schultz, representing the applicant, submitted a letter from Kalmai Condominium Association #7 supporting the application. She said the lighted signs are attractive and provide safety at night. The granting of the variance would provide an opportunity for all the doctors in the building to be identified. Ms. Schultz verified photographs of the existing signage. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern the photographs of the sign did not reflect whether there was a visibility problem in viewing the signs from the street. Mr. Shuford responded staff had visited the site. The City Manager recommended in the future staff take photographs from the street. Mr. Shuford said there was a lot of vegetation in the area. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a variance of two additional signs to permit a total of three signs for a nonconforming use in a residential district; an area variance of 32.4 square feet to allow a total area of 56.4 square feet; and a variance to permit two freestanding signs to remain where such signs are not allowed for the subject property for meeting Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #7 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Ramada Inn) located at 26508 US19N, Sec. 30-28-16, M&B 43.03 (Hinely Associates Ltd.) SV92-41 The applicant is requesting an area variance of 55 square feet from the 50 square feet permitted to allow an existing freestanding sign with a total area of 105 square feet. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of US19 and Countryside Boulevard and is in the CR-28 zoning district. This property has an existing freestanding sign for the Arigato Japanese Steak House. This sign received variance approvals for the proximity of the sign to face US19 instead of Countryside Boulevard and a sign height variance of 10 additional feet. This sign is not part of this request. The subject sign is located on US19 at the Countryside Boulevard overpass now under construction. The surrounding land uses on US19 are zoned CC which allows freestanding signs up to 150 square feet The applicant proposes to move the existing sign to meet the five foot setback requirement and raise the height of the sign to 30 feet. The existing sign face is to be used; however, the existing reader board below the main sign is not included as part of this application and must be removed. The use of the existing sign and reduction of sign area make this request the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship and allow a reasonable use of this property. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. This site is the only property in the vicinity with the CR-28 zoning designation. Except for the Ameri-Life office tower to the north (General Office), all properties in the vicinity along US19 are zoned CC. The CC district allows a freestanding sign a maximum of 150 square feet. This irregular zoning pattern creates an unfair advertising advantage to those businesses surrounding the subject property and is a condition unique to this property. The surrounding land uses are Ameri-Life Office Tower professional offices to the north; Village Office and Toys "R" Us to the south; US19 overpass (under construction) to the east; and Countryside Foot & Ankle Center, and Great Western Credit Corporation to the west. The existence of this 30 foot high, 105 square feet sign is in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas and will not divert attention from those land uses. The granting of this variance will not detract from the surrounding businesses that have conforming signage and will not negatively affect the overall appearance of the community. Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval. Mr. Shuford pointed out this property is zoned CR-28 and is surrounded by commercial. He indicated the surrounding properties are permitted much larger signage. Mayor Garvey questioned whether this property should be rezoned and Mr. Shuford responded rezoning would be in keeping with the area; however, would not meet the 4-acre standard minimum for rezonings. He also indicated rezoning would involve a lengthy process. Mayor Garvey questioned whether a rezoning should be reviewed. Mr. Shuford said an administrative rezoning could be pursued with a 112 square foot sign being allowed in a highway commercial zoning district. Boyd Hippenstall, representing the applicant, said they are proposing to remove the changeable copy reader board. He said the additional square footage of sign area is being requested to allow the Ramada to advertise in a similar manner as the surrounding properties. He said there are other motels on U.S. 19 that are zoned highway commercial and are in direct competition with the Ramada. He said because of the addition of the overpass on U.S. 19 it is important the Ramada is identified. Mr. Hippenstall verified photographs of the existing signs. In response to whether the requested variance would address the needs of the motel, Mary Goodman, representing the Ramada, indicated it would. Mr. Shuford indicated the entrance directional signs would be brought into conformance if necessary. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve an area variance of 55 square feet to permit a freestanding sign with a total of 105 square feet for the subject property for meeting Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, Items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mayor Garvey asked if there would be any objection to proceed with a rezoning and Ms. Goodman said she would be happy to discuss this with staff. The City Manager said the impacts of a rezoning would first need to reviewed. ITEM #8 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Clearwater Bay Motel) located at 1824 N. Ft. Harrison Ave., North Shore Park, Lots 1-3, part of 4 and land on N, less street r-o-w (DiPaolo) SV92-46 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit an existing freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 30 square feet from the permitted 50 square feet to allow a total area of 80 square feet; and 2) a setback variance of 5 feet from the five foot setback requirement to allow a sign zero feet from the N. Ft. Harrison Avenue right-of-way. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of N. Ft. Harrison Avenue and Venetian Drive and is in the CR-24 zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant contends that the road changing direction in front of the motel, the location of the swimming pool directly behind the sign, and large trees and landscaping off site that block the view of the sign combine to create conditions unique to this property. Staff finds these conditions do combine to create a unique condition for the setback variance request. However, these conditions are not unique to the area variance request. The area variance request is extreme and can not be considered a minimal request. The surrounding land uses are The Kentuckian Motel to the north; Live Oak Apartments (across Venetian Dr.) to the south; Lawn Bowls & Shuffleboard Complex, and single family (across N. Ft. Harrison Ave.) to the east; and one and two family residential to the west. Commercial, residential and recreational uses surround the subject property. While the setback variance may be justified, the existence of this 80 square foot freestanding sign is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding land uses. The granting of the area variance will detract from the surrounding commercial businesses that have conforming signage, permit an unfair advertising advantage to the applicant, and negatively impact the overall appearance of the community. Staff finds the request for a setback variance meets all eight standards for variance approval. Staff finds the request for an area variance does not fully 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. Mr. Shuford said staff felt a setback variance would be justified due to the site design. He found the existing area of the sign to be excessive and indicated removing the reader board sign would bring the sign area into compliance. Franca Di Paolo, applicant, verified the location of the property on the area map and the photographs of the signs. She said there is a swimming pool in the center of the property; and if the sign is relocated, their identity would be lost. Mr. Shuford said staff if requesting that only the reader board panel be removed. Ms. Paolo felt the reader board sign was necessary to compete with the other motels in the area and indicated the reader board was their means of advertising. Mr. Shuford pointed out a small vacancy sign could be added. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford said no variances have been requested by other motels along Ft. Harrison. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve a setback variance of 5 feet to allow an existing freestanding sign to remain zero feet from the N. Ft. Harrison Avenue right-of-way for the subject property for meeting Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, Items 1-8 subject to the following conditions; the freestanding sign must meet the height and area requirements and a sign permit to replace the sign area shall be obtained within one month from the date of this public hearing and to deny the area variance of 30 square feet for failure to meet Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, Items 1-3, 5, 6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #9 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Alley Rehbaum & Capes Insurance, Inc.) located at 2433 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Sec. 18-29-16, M&B 42.04 (Alley, Rehbaum & Capes, Inc.) SV92-47 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit an existing freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 16 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a total of 80 square feet; 2) a setback variance of 5 feet from the required five foot setback to allow a zero foot setback from the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard right-of-way; and 3) a setback variance of 2.67 feet from the five foot setback requirement to allow a 2.33 foot setback from the Edenville Avenue right-of-way. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Edenville Avenue and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and is in the CG zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. In addition to the sign exceeding the height, area, and setback requirements, the sign also rotates. The applicant has agreed to reduce the height and stop the rotation of the sign to comply with the regulations. The variance requests are for setback and area. A 7.5 square foot Century 21 sign exists as a bottom third panel between the sign posts. This sign is not shown on the drawing and is not mentioned in the application. Since this sign is not part of the request, it must be removed to comply with sign regulations. A "billboard" sign exists on the roof of the building. The City Attorney has reviewed this sign at the request of staff and ruled this sign to be a lawful, nonconforming sign that is allowed to remain through the amortization period ending January 19, 1996 (Ord. #4753-88). Regarding the setback and area variance requests, the applicant contends relocation of the sign would reduce the amount of parking. A triangular landscape island exists on this corner. Site inspection indicates there is enough room to meet the setback requirements without the loss of any parking spaces. The applicant has not provided any evidence that either the setback variance requests or the area variance request arise from any conditions unique to this property. These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and setback of a freestanding sign and can not be considered minimal requests. The surrounding land uses are Western Auto Store to the north; a single family residence to the south; Sunny Grove Mobile Home Park to the east; and Skylit Motel to the west. The existence of the proposed 80 square foot sign that encroaches into two right-of-way setbacks is not in character with the signage permitted for the commercial businesses in the area. The granting of these variances will detract from the commercial businesses that have conforming signage, permit an unfair advertising advantage to the applicant, and negatively impact the overall appearance of the community. Staff finds of the eight standards that must be met for variance approval, the applicant's request does not fully 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. Mr. Shuford indicated there is room on the property to relocate the sign without interfering with parking on the site. Cynthia Fletcher, representing the company, said she had submitted a letter prior to the meeting requesting a continuance. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to the next scheduled meeting for sign variances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Deegan referred to a billboard sign referenced in the agenda item that will have to comply in 1996 and asked whether the notification process for all persons having such signs was sufficient. It was indicated staff has been giving sufficient notice for signs that are required to come into conformance. ITEM #10 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Highland Hills Medical Center) located at 1108 & 1112 Highland Ave. S., Sec. 14-29-15, Highland Hill, Lots 13 & 14 (Jackson III, Stelnicki) SV92-72 The applicant is requesting a continuance. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the next scheduled sign variance meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #11 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Dimmitt Cadillac) located at 25191 US19N, Sec. 32-29-16, M&B 32.10 (Richard R. Dimmitt) SV92-73 The applicant is requesting a height variance of 16.5 feet from the 20 foot permitted height to allow an existing freestanding sign to remain with a total height of 36.5 feet. The subject property is located on the east side of US19, approximately 100 feet south of Third Avenue and is in the CH zoning district. This property has been the subject of several sign variance requests, the most recent of which was identical to this request. This request was conditionally approved on August 15, 1991 to allow the sign to remain until October 13, 1992 at which time the applicant could reapply for the variance. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. A 40 foot drainage and utility easement exists across the US19 frontage of the property. The applicant states the combination of trees, poles and power lines along with the 40 foot additional setback creates a condition unique to this property. Site inspection confirmed the existence of four live oak trees planted at or near the 40 foot drainage and utility easement. These trees range from 15 to 25 feet in height. While these trees provide landscaping for the site, they also are in the vision line of the existing sign. However, the Public Works Department will permit signs in the drainage and utility easement with the posting of a bond to guarantee the removal of the sign. Since the sign may be placed in this easement, staff finds the relocation of the sign would increase visibility without the need for a height variance. Staff finds no unique conditions for this property. This variance request for sign height is extreme and can not be considered a minimal variance. The surrounding land uses are Dimmitt Chevrolet to the north; Prestige Park Office Center to the south; single family residential to the east; and Stratford Village Multi-Family Apartments, Executive Center Office Park to the west. Since the sign can be relocated into the easement, staff finds no grounds for the granting of this variance. The granting of this variance will detract from any of the commercial businesses that have conforming signage and negatively impact the overall appearance of the community. Staff finds of the eight standards that must be met for variance approval, the applicant's request does not fully 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. Mr. Shuford indicated the sign could be relocated closer to the right-of-way within the 40-foot utility easement. He felt the applicant was creating his own hardship. Gordon Schiff, attorney representing the applicant, said the original variance was granted by the Commission. He verified staff's photographs depict the sign; however, expressed concern not one of the photographs was from an angle of approaching traffic. He said the view of visibility was distorted and felt the photos should be disregarded. He said he is proceeding with a full reservation of rights under the Florida and Federal constitutions and laws and their participation shall not constitute a waiver of any of the rights including due process, takings of property without full compensation, vested rights, etc. Mr. Schiff said the property is located on U.S. 19 which is a myriad of high speed traffic and additional rights-of-way. The property is in excess of 7 acres which he found to be considerable relative to the zoning district. He said there are numerous obstructions in the area and presented photographs of various views of the property from U.S. 19. He pointed out the photos were taken in 1991 and show obstructions consisting of a Florida Power easement and power lines and other signs and large trees. He found the line of site to be clearly relevant. Commissioner Fitzgerald, referring to one of the above photographs, asked the distance from the sign when the photo was taken. Mr. Schiff felt this particular photo was taken from approximately 1/8 mile away. He said aesthetics are very important to Dimmitt Cadillac in developing their property indicating there is only one sign on 7 acres of property. He said the building is setback considerably and there are no signs attached to the building. John Fornshell, Dimmitt Cadillac, expressed concern that under the General Motors franchise agreement a sign must be maintained on the property which conforms to their standards. He said the business, as an automobile dealership, is a regional type business drawing from a very large area. He found the sign to be critical due to their clientele coming from all over the state. He said another sign had been removed a couple years ago stating this is the only identification sign on the property. He said the wreath and the crest of the Cadillac dealership is very recognizable and felt it important to have it at a certain height in order to have visibility. Mr. Fornshell felt the existing sign was the minimum necessary to identify Dimmitt Cadillac. He pointed out a good portion of their dealership's income comes from service, parts sales, etc. and there are no signs to indicate any of these services. Mr. Schiff summarized by saying purchasers of automobiles do so on an occasional basis indicating this dealership is a regional attractor. He felt the intent of the sign code is being met by having only one sign on the property even though there are numerous services involved. He said this request is identical to the request approved by the Commission approximately a year and a half ago. There have been no changes in circumstances on the property; the only difference is U.S. 19 has been improved where traffic flows better and it is more difficult for passer-bys to identify the business. He indicated there are three buildings on this property and felt having only one sign is minimal. He said to move the sign into the right-of-way, as suggested by staff, would not work due to the numerous poles. He did not feel this would be a better aesthetic treatment of the property. The City Manager clarified staff was not suggesting the sign be moved to the right-of-way but to the utility easement. Discussion ensued in regard to the applicant being allowed additional signage due to the multiple businesses on the site. Mr. Shuford indicated the applicant would be allowed additional attached signage. Mayor Garvey asked if the street address was listed on the sign, and Mr. Fornshell responded the street address is listed on the used car building. He found the trademark of the wreath and crest to be more recognizable than the street address. Commissioner Deegan questioned if lowering the sign to the height of the sign that was removed, would serve the minimum identification purpose. Mr. Fornshell said he did not know but said under their franchise they did have to maintain a cadillac sign. Commissioner Thomas asked the height of the sign that was removed and Mr. Fornshell said it was approximately 17 feet in height. Commissioner Thomas asked the rationale in establishing a 20-foot sign height on U.S. 19 and Mr. Shuford said he was not familiar with what went into the 1985 sign code which established a 20 foot height as a typical height for highway and general commercial. He said there was a provision to allow a 24-foot height for 150 square feet of area. He said the update to the code that occurred in 1992 eliminated the 24 foot height due to the Commission being pleased with the aesthetics of 20-foot sign heights. Commissioner Thomas asked what height the county allowed on U.S. 19 and Mr. Shuford said he believed 20 feet was their maximum. Commissioner Fitzgerald pointed out exception is taken when there is an obstruction such as an overpass. Commissioner Thomas said from a visual point of view he had a problem with a 20-foot height as it was difficult to see due to the traffic on U.S. 19. Mayor Garvey commented the sign itself attracts people not the height. Commissioner Berfield asked if relocating the sign in the drainage and utility easement has been considered and Mr. Schiff replied this would cause it to be obstructed by poles and oncoming traffic. Commissioner Thomas asked if Dimmitt has investigated leasing billboards and Mr. Madgison did not know if this type of advertising would go along with the image and/or program at the Dimmitt Cadillac site. Commissioner Thomas felt Dimmitt had less signs than allowed and believed 20 feet was an inappropriate height designation for U.S. 19. He recommended allowing a 36 foot height along U.S. 19. Commissioner Deegan said this is an area of automobile dealerships and felt a 20-foot height would serve the purpose of identifying the business. Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the requested variance to permit nonconforming signage to remain on the subject property for failure to meet Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, Items 1-4, 6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield and Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted "aye;" Commissioner Thomas voted "nay." Motion carried. The meeting recessed from 11:35 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ITEM #12 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Angies Around the Clock) located at 725 Cleveland St., Gould & Ewing's 2nd Add., Blk 12, Lots 1 & 2 (Chaconas) SV92-74 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit existing attached signs to remain: 1) an area variance of 60 square feet from the permitted 48 square feet to allow a total of 108 square feet of attached signage oriented toward Cleveland Street; and 2) an area variance of 2 square feet from the permitted 48 square feet to allow 50 square feet of attached signage oriented toward Myrtle Avenue. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Cleveland Street and Myrtle Avenue and is in the (UC(C)) zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The request for a 2 square feet variance on Myrtle Avenue is considered to be the minimal variance since it involves only a 2 square feet increase in area; without this minimal variance, the sign will have to be substantially modified. On the other hand, the request for a 60 square feet variance of attached signage on Cleveland Street is not a result of any particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved in creating a hardship for this property. The request for this variance is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property through the display of signs of greater area than signs permitted for other businesses. The variance request for 60 square feet of attached signage is extreme with regard to the permitted area of an attached sign and can not be considered a minimal request. The surrounding land uses are Trickel Jewelers to the north; Discount Auto Repair to the south; Avis Rent-a-Car to the east; and Travel Lodge Motel to the west. The applicant wishes to retain 50 square feet of attached signage oriented toward Myrtle Avenue and 108 square feet of attached signage oriented toward Cleveland Street, an arterial with a high volume of tourist traffic. The existence of the 108 square feet of attached signage facing Cleveland Street 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. The variance of 2 square feet on Myrtle Avenue is considered minimal and will not detract from the appearance of the community. Regarding the 60 square feet area variance request, staff finds of the eight standards that must be met for variance approval, this request does not fully 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. Staff finds the request for the 2 square feet area variance meets all eight standards for variance approval. Mr. Shuford said staff considers the variance of 2 square feet on Myrtle Avenue to be relatively minimal and is recommending approval; however, staff does not feel the existence of the 108 square feet of attached signage facing Cleveland Street is justified. No applicant or representative of the applicant was present for this request. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the sign facing Myrtle Avenue was eliminated, could the square footage allowed for this sign be combined for one sign. Mr. Shuford said combining the signage on frontages is not allowed but felt it might be a suitable compromise. Mayor Garvey recommended pursuing options with the applicant. Commissioner Deegan moved to continue the item to the next scheduled meeting for sign variances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #13 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Clearwater Marketplace Shopping Center/One Stop Auto Parts) located at 1520 McMullen Booth Rd., South Oaks Fashion Square, Lot 1 (Goral Tov, Ltd.) SV93-46 This item was withdrawn. Mayor Garvey expressed concern regarding the Commission speaking to the applicants prior to the hearing. The City Attorney recommended staff make all contacts with the applicant outside the public hearing process. The City Attorney recommended the Commission keep a log if in contact with any parties regarding applications outside the public hearing process to prove the contact is not prejudicial. Discussion ensued in regard to what is considered to be a prejudicial contact and the City Attorney said this has not been clearly defined. He said it is important the Commission keep notes and share information. Commissioner Thomas asked if the standards for approval were mandated by state statutes or established by the Commission and the City Attorney said the standards were created by ordinance. Commissioner Thomas felt if these standards were dealt with in their purest form, there would be very few variances granted. He asked the Commission to consider the majority of the standards being supported for the granting of a variance. Commissioner Deegan said he has always had a problem with the subjective interpretation of what is unique and Mr. Shuford said a copy of variance standards could be requested from other local governments. He suggested also contacting the Planners' Advisory Service. There was discussion regarding an upcoming agenda item regarding administrative variances. Commissioner Berfield asked how many more additional applications for sign variances were pending due to the amortization period having expired and Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice said approximately 64. Commissioner Deegan asked the status of the automobile dealerships who had their variance requests continued. Mr. Shuford said one has been approved; the others have not come back. The City Manager said Lokey will be coming in for a rezoning. Mr. Shuford said sign enforcement has been done on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and U.S. 19 and some sign violations have come before the Code Enforcement Board. Mayor Garvey asked if a time frame should be given for compliance, and Mr. Shuford said a time period could be placed on future variance requests as a condition. If they do not comply within the specified time, the code enforcement process can be started. Commissioner Thomas said regarding the standards of approval he would like to research standards for other cities of a comparable size to the City of Clearwater and would like to have a total review of the standards. Mr. Shuford suggested also contacting sign manufacturers. Commissioner Deegan referred to other signs that are not in compliance and have not requested variances and Ms. Rice said code enforcement will be pursuing these. Commissioner Deegan said when the amortization period expired in October 1993 a reasonable length of time was given to apply for variances. He said a year has now gone by and the reduced rate of $50 should halt at the end of October 1994. Mayor Garvey recommended waiting until the end of the year. Commissioner Thomas said he would like to expedite the notification process for nonconforming signs and Ms. Rice pointed out everyone has already been notified. The City Manager said staff has systematically gone through the City on a geographic basis. Ms. Rice said Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and U.S. 19 were done first because it was felt that had the most visual impact. She said she would send the Commission a schedule indicating how long enforcement will take. The City Manager said a lot of people voluntarily complied. The City Manager asked direction regarding review of the standards for approval. Consensus was to review. The City Manager asked direction regarding code enforcement of signs. Consensus was to first enforce those signs that have already gone through the variance process and have been denied and then expedite getting all signs into conformance and to discontinue the $50 variance fee. Commissioner Berfield suggested the code enforcement staff inform those who have not yet requested variances for their nonconforming signs that the $50 fee is going to be raised. The City Manager recommended keeping the $50 fee until the entire City has been measured and then set the cut-off date for the $50 fee. Ms. Rice said she would get with staff regarding time frames. Other Commission Action a) Appointment of Community Consensus Steering Committee Deputy City Manager reported staff has suggested five citizens plus a media liaison, a facilitator, historian and technical advisor. She said she had provided a list of recommendations from the Clearwater Coalition of Homeowners, the Chamber of Commerce and Leadership Pinellas. Ms. Rice said Commissioner Deegan and Bill Schwob have already been appointed by the Commission and a meeting has been scheduled for October 7, 1993 to begin the project. Commissioner Berfield asked if there would be any fund raising and Ms. Rice said the budget has already been set. Commissioner Deegan recommended Anthony Salmon as the historian to document the entire community process. The City Manager asked if it mattered that all the individuals who are recommended for the committee live in the City, and Ms. Rice said she only recommended individuals who did. Discussion ensued in regard to the historian keeping records of the whole process and Ms. Rice said the meetings will be public and minutes taken. Ms. Rice indicated a psychologist doctoral student well rounded in demographics and statistics will work with the technical expert. Commissioner Deegan felt whoever pulls the statistical sample should be a member of the steering committee. Ms. Rice recommended Janice Case for technical advisor indicating she is willing to serve. Mayor Garvey submitted Holly Duncan's name. Commissioner Deegan asked if Ms. Case had experience pulling statistical samples and the City Manager felt she could do it. Consensus to appoint Janice Case as technical advisor, and Anthony Salmon as historian. Mayor Garvey recommended Jiffy Johnson, who has contact with all the media. Commissioner Thomas felt Anne Garris would do a good job as she has been in the media and has contacts. Discussion ensued in regard to the individual selected for this category being familiar with and still being objective to city issues. Mayor Garvey asked if she should approach Jiffy Johnson and Commissioner Deegan felt Ms. Johnson would be capable. Consensus to call Ms. Johnson to see if she is interested in the media category. Discussion ensued regarding Commissioner Deegan being the Commission liaison and Ruth Ann Branson being the facilitator; however, it was pointed out she is not local and may not be available for all meetings. Commissioner Deegan said if Dr. Graves feels there should be someone local to conduct and facilitate the meeting, he would recommend Judy Hackett. Ms. Rice said Dr. Graves can be consulted to see how he feels. Ms. Rice recommended selecting individuals geographically around the City. Mayor Garvey referred to her memo recommending Steven Bils, Annette Patterson, Naomi Williams and John Slater indicating she had taken into account the geographic area. Commissioner Thomas asked if the five individuals should consist of one appointee from each Commissioner. Ms. Rice said she was trying to just come up with a number and have a representative from different areas of the City. Discussion ensued in regard to the different geographic areas in the City. Mayor Garvey felt there should be a diversity of ages recommending Steven Bils and Ms. Rice said he had asked if he could serve the City in some way. Commissioner Thomas asked if the Commission had one specific person they would like to see on the committee. Commissioner Deegan did not want to have people appointed by individual Commissioners but to have names submitted with the Commission reaching a consensus. Commissioner Fitzgerald recommended Naomi Williams, who is a registrar for the junior college and lives in downtown Clearwater. Commissioner Berfield recommended Attorney Elizabeth Mannion who has been very active in the League of Women Voters and lives on south beach. Her business is on Drew Street and Commissioner Berfield said she has expressed an interest in serving. Commissioner Thomas recommended Bob Bickerstaffe as he has lived in Clearwater a long time. Commissioner Fitzgerald commented there is the "silent majority" who need to be tapped into. He said the problem is trying to find those people who normally do not participate. Commissioner Berfield asked if the committee will have input into the survey and Commissioner Deegan said they will help enlist the survey with each having a different job to do. They will gather suggested issues. Concern was expressed in having someone that might be controversial on the committee. Commissioner Thomas felt even if someone was controversial he did not feel this would skew the survey. Commissioner Deegan said there will be discussions by the steering committee regarding what the relevant priorities are, proper wording, etc. He said the committee will have some say in structuring the survey. Commissioner Berfield questioned if people who are actively involved in the City are not selected, will they have the background information necessary. Commissioner Deegan felt new people are needed; however, they should have knowledge of the happenings of the City. Ms. Rice felt the people that have been recommended are aware of what is going on in the City. Commissioner Thomas said he would like to have a representative from the "silent majority" as that group makes up the "true majority." Commissioner Deegan recommended Ray Wyland from the Del Oro area. Concern was expressed he worked for the Building Department during difficult times. Commissioner Deegan withdrew his name. Mayor Garvey recommended Duane Houtz who lives in downtown Clearwater and James Alpelt whose address was not known. It was pointed out he was in Leadership Pinellas and his office is in downtown Clearwater. Commissioner Thomas recommended Vito Nigrelli from the Morningside area. Other names mentioned were James Wilson, Frank Mason, James McCurtain, Dr. Szafranski and John Hoover. Commissioner Deegan supported James McCurtain. Consensus was to appoint the following members to the Community Consensus Steering Committee: Stephen Bils, James H. McCurtain, Elizabeth Mannion, Vito Nigrelli, Tony Salmon, Bill Schwob, Bob Bickerstaffe and Naomi Williams. Commissioner Deegan pointed out the Commission will be meeting with the steering committee on October 7, 1993. b) Consider Contract with Clearwater Housing Authority (CHA) to Administer the SHIP Program Commissioner Deegan, CHA Chairman Howard Groth and Debra Vincent met on September 22, 1993, to finalize the agreement to administer SHIP funds. The agreement is in the format of the Community Development Block Grant agreement previously approved by the Commission. The two basic modifications include changes in the length of the contract and in section 10 which requires quarterly reports on progress toward SHIP goals. It is important this agreement be finalized as soon as possible as 40 percent of the first year funds must be committed by November 30, 1993. Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice reviewed the changes. The term of the agreement is set for two years due to two years funding involved and can be extended up to five additional years. She said part of the year has already gone by indicating the fiscal year for the government ends June 30, therefore, the agreement will go to June 30, 1995. She said the CHA would report quarterly. CHA Chairman Howard Groth said he is looking forward to another successful partnership with the City. Commissioner Deegan referred to paragraph 10 regarding a final report being submitted by the Public Service Agency within 45 days after the end of the contract term. He pointed out this will not be done the first year because the initial term of the contract is two years but every year after June 1995. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the agreement between the City of Clearwater and the Clearwater Housing Authority to administer the SHIP Program. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Manager asked the Commission to let him know who planned on attending the World Series. The City Attorney pointed out a special meeting was not necessary for the adult use ordinance. The meeting adjourned at 1:37 p.m.