Loading...
10/29/1993 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING October 29, 1993 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall, Friday, October 29, 1993 at 11:12 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 Thomas Commissioner Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager Robert J. Surette Assistant City Attorney Susan Stephenson Deputy City Clerk Prior to starting the scheduled public hearings, the City Manager suggested that the meeting of November 15 be canceled as no agenda items have been scheduled for that meeting. Discussion ensued regarding Commissioner Deegan's formal request to rearrange the agenda order to schedule Commission Discussion Items and Other Commission Action earlier in the meeting in order to clear these items off the agenda. There was also discussion on whether or not to cancel the meeting of November 15. The Mayor suggested that if the Commissioners were willing to concede that items would not be needed two weeks in advance, the meeting could continue to be scheduled at this time. The City Manager suggested that he could split the items scheduled for the 18th, scheduling some of them on the 15th, thereby making those meetings shorter and implementing the rearrangement of the agenda per Commissioner Deegan's request. Commissioner Deegan stated he had specifically requested the agenda be rearranged at the November 1 meeting. The Mayor expressed concern regarding the agenda rearrangement pointing out that Citizens to be Heard on Items Not on the Agenda had been moved to later in the meeting and the suggested rearrangement would push that even later into the meeting. Commissioner Deegan pointed out there are too many presentations per meeting and he requested there be only one presentation per meeting. His request to rearrange the agenda order was to clean up the backlog. He expressed concern that the Keene Road presentation could take several hours. The City Clerk stated she was advised that this presentation would only be approximately 20 minutes. The Mayor suggested that rather than rearrange the agenda, the backlog items could be scheduled for the November 15. Commissioner Deegan stated he requested the backlog items be scheduled for the November 1 meeting. Commissioner Thomas moved that the agenda for the November 1 meeting be arranged to schedule Commission Discussion Items and Other Commission Action after the Consent Agenda for this one meeting only. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas voted "Aye;" Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried. Public Hearings were held on the following sign variance requests: ITEM A - (Cont. from 9/28/93) Variances to Sign Regulations for property (American Speedy Printing) located at 1238 Cleveland St., R.H. Padgett's Estates Sub., Replat of Lots 20 & 21, W 40' of Lot 4 (Saroodis) SV92-32 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit an existing, nonconforming sign to remain: 1) a variance to permit an attached, above roof sign that extends one foot above the roof line; and 2) a variance of 17.75 square feet to permit a total area of 50 square feet of attached signage. (NOTE: the area of attached signage is the combination of the 48 square foot main sign and a 2 square foot window sign. A portion of the main sign extends above the roof line). The subject property is located on the north side of Cleveland Street, approximately 160 feet west of Lincoln Avenue and is in the Urban Center/Eastern Corridor (UC/E) zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant states the business will be moving shortly and the cost of replacing the sign will create a hardship. Surrounding land uses are: to the north - parking lot, multiple family residential; to the south - Popeye's Restaurant, Cleveland Plaza Shopping Center; to the east - Charlie's Italian/American Restaurant; and to the west - strip commercial shopping center. The existence of this 48 square foot above roof sign is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas. Richard Lauinger stated he is requesting a continuance to consider the variances because he is trying to sell the business. The existing sign is a franchise sign and the purchaser may want to operate independently. The sign was in compliance 12 years ago when it was installed. He cannot afford to replace the sign and it cannot be lowered. In response to a question by Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Lauinger stated he did not have a potential purchaser. Discussion ensued that the possibility of sale of the business was too open ended with no potential buyer. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this request for 120 days. The motion was duly seconded. Mr. Shuford clarified that the sign extends approximately 1 foot above the roof line. Mr. Lauinger inquired as to whether the Commission would grant the height variance if he reduced the size of the sign by removing half of it making it 24 square feet in size which is less than the 32.25 permitted. Commissioner Thomas withdrew his motion and Commissioner Berfield withdrew her second. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a variance to permit an attached above roof sign that extends one foot above the roof line for the subject property for meeting Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the condition that within one month of the date of this public hearing the applicant shall reduce the existing sign size to 24 square feet. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM B - (Cont. from 9/28/93) 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 the following variances to allow two existing freestanding signs to remain: 1) a variance to permit an auxiliary sign on property where 500 feet of frontage is not provided; 2) an area variance of 7 square feet from the 25 square feet permitted to provide a total of 32 square feet for an auxiliary sign; 3) a height variance of 2 feet from the permitted 20 foot height to allow freestanding sign height of 22 feet and a height variance of 12 feet from the permitted 10 foot height to allow auxiliary sign height of 22 feet; and 4) a setback variance of 5 feet from the five foot setback requirement to permit both signs to be zero feet from a street right-of-way. The subject property is located on the west side of Poinsettia Avenue, between Juanita Way and Bay Esplanade and is in the CR-24 zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The nature of the tourist attraction areas of Clearwater Beach creates a mix of unique uses. The subject property has frontage on Bay Esplanade, Poinsettia Avenue and Juanita Way and is located approximately 120 feet east of Mandalay Avenue. The existing signs are placed at the northeast and southeast corners of the property. The surrounding zoning districts are composed of an irregular pattern with Open Space/Recreation to the north and south, Beach Commercial to the west, and Public/Semi-Public to the east. Surrounding land uses are: to the north - City's soccer field; to the south - City's parking lot/tennis courts; to the east - Chapel by the Sea Church; and to the west - Camelot Motel. Directly to the west, between the subject property and Mandalay Avenue, is the Camelot Motel. The Camelot Motel is a nonconforming, two story structure that has been built approximately five feet from the property line. This close proximity of Camelot Motel to the road and to the subject property makes the existing sign setbacks and heights necessary for them to be seen from the street. The subject property is the site of a privately owned motel located one block from Mandalay Avenue. Because of the existing irregular zoning pattern, the surrounding land uses, and the existing nonconforming structures, the granting of these variances will not have a negative impact upon the surrounding properties nor will it detract from the appearance of the community. Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval and suggests a condition that no attached signs be allowed. Louis Bakkalapulo, attorney representing the applicant, stated this is a family business and the signs have been there for 15 years. Visibility of the motel is blocked by the adjacent building which has minimal setbacks. The existing signs provide the only visibility to Mandalay where most of their business is generated from. His client has no problem with the condition that there be no attached signs. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a variance to permit an auxiliary sign on property where 500 feet of frontage is not provided; an area variance of 7 square feet to provide a total of 32 square feet for an auxiliary sign; a height variance of 2 feet to allow freestanding sign height of 22 feet; a height variance of 12 feet to allow auxiliary sign height of 22 feet; and a setback variance of 5 feet to permit both signs to be zero feet from a street right-of-way for the subject property for meeting Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-8 subject to the condition that there shall be no attached signs identifying the property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM C - (Cont. from 9/28/93) 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 has changed his request from variances for both area and setback to a setback variance to permit an existing freestanding sign to remain: 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 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 request is for setback. 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 cannot be considered minimal requests. Surrounding land uses are: to the north - Western Auto Store; to the south - Single Family Residence; to the east - Sunny Grove Mobile Home Park; and to the west - Skylit Motel. 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. The Mayor stated that on her site visit she had great difficulty seeing the numbers. It is important that businesses put their street numbers on their store fronts. Mr. Shuford indicated there is a utility mail out that will be distributed shortly reminding people that it is a City law to identify their property. Mr. W. A. Waters, Jr. , Chief Executive Officer of Alley, Rehbaum & Capes, Inc., stated the sign was damaged by a car in late 1988. A permit was obtained and the sign was moved and repaired at a cost of approximately $9,000. They can stop the revolving of the sign, reduce the height, and solve the square footage issue. However, due to the fact that the sign is located in a triangular planter it would be difficult to relocate and might cause the loss of a parking space in addition to being a considerable expense. They have always attempted to comply with City ordinances. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a setback variance of 5 feet from the required 5 foot setback to allow a zero foot setback from the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard right-of-way and a setback variance of 2.67 feet from the required 5 foot setback to allow a 2.33 foot setback from Edenville Avenue right-of-way for meeting Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, subject to the following conditions: (1) the free standing sign shall be brought into conformance with all other sign code requirements within 60 days from the date of this public hearing and (2) the billboard sign on the property shall be removed on or before January 19, 1996 in accordance with Ordinance 4753-88. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM D - (Cont. from 9/28/93) 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 foot variance on Myrtle Avenue is considered to be the minimal variance since it involves only a 2 square foot 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 foot 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 cannot be considered a minimal request. Surrounding land uses are: to the north - Trickel Jewelers (across Cleveland St.); to the south - Discount Auto Repair; to the east - Avis Rent-a-Car (across Myrtle Ave.); and to the west - Travel Lodge Motel. The applicant wishes to retain 50 square feet of attached signage oriented toward Myrtle and 108 square feet of attached signage oriented toward Cleveland, an arterial road with a high volume of tourist traffic. The existence of the 108 square feet of attached signage facing Cleveland 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. The variance of 2 square feet on Myrtle is considered minimal and will not detract from the appearance of the community. Regarding the 60 square foot 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 foot area variance meets all eight standards for variance approval. The applicant was not present for the hearing. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve an area variance of 2 square feet to permit a total of 50 square feet of attached signage oriented toward Myrtle Avenue for the subject property for meeting Sec. 45.24, Standards of Approval, items 1-8 and to deny an area variance of 60 square feet to permit a total of 108 square feet of attached signage oriented toward Cleveland Street for failure to meet Standards of Approval, items 1-6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM E - (Cont. from 9/28/93) 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 Mr. Shuford stated the applicant had written a letter requesting a 60 day continuance of this item and staff has no problems with the request. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item for sixty days. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #1 - 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) SV92-72 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit an existing freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 6 square feet from the permitted 24 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with a total area of 30 square feet; 2) a setback variance of 0.75 feet from the permitted five foot setback to allow a freestanding sign 4.25 feet from the Highland Avenue right-of-way; and 3) a height variance of 1.4 feet from the permitted height of 8 feet to allow a total height of 9.4 feet. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Jeffords Street and Highland Avenue and is in the OL zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The area variance request may be supported by the fact that the address of the property is displayed as part of the sign message. The sign code permits as exempt signage a maximum of 6 square feet for address signs for non-residentially zoned properties. The setback variance request is due to an existing hedge that surrounds the sign. This hedge contributes to the interior landscaping and the aesthetics of the sign. Relocating the sign to conform to the setback requirements would require removal of the interior landscaping around the sign. The location of this hedge around the sign creates a condition unique to this property. Surrounding land uses are: to the north - professional office, single family residential; to the south - professional office (across Jeffords St.); to the east - Highland Pines Nursing Manor (across Highland Ave.); and to the west - single family residential. While the request for a setback variance is due to the unique condition of the existing hedge surrounding the sign, the area variance can be considered a unique condition only if the numbered address is painted a color which is better contrasting to the blue background. Under the sign bonus provisions, this property is eligible for a maximum of 6 square feet of signage area allotted to the address of the property. The existing sign area may be "reduced" by regarding the address portion of the sign as exempt, thereby reducing the area requested. Painting the address numbers a color better contrasting with the blue background would better distinguish the address from the remainder of the sign message. Since the address sign is not located at the top of the sign, where it could otherwise be allowed in addition to the maximum height of this freestanding sign, the associated height variance would be considered minimal. The existing, nonconforming height of this sign may then be regarded as having been increased by the exempt address sign area to a height which may otherwise be allowed. The granting of these variances are minimal in nature and will not detract from the surrounding professional offices. Staff finds that of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, the applicant's requests meet all eight. Commissioner Deegan questioned whether or not the bonus area was for the address being placed on top of the sign rather than being a part of the sign. The Code was researched and it does not specify that the address must be placed on top of the sign although Mr. Shuford felt the Commission had previously indicated a preference for the address to be separate rather than a part of the sign. Commissioner Deegan asked for clarification on why the numbers needed to be painted a different color as he felt the white stood out. It was stated that by painting them a different color from the remainder of the text on the sign would make them stand out more as representing the address. Dr. Jackson stated the sign represents two offices and feels it is more aesthetically pleasing to have one sign instead of two. He indicated he was willing to paint the numbers a different color to make them stand out from the rest of the sign. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve an area variance of 6 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with a total area of 30 square feet; a setback variance of 0.75 feet to allow a freestanding sign 4.25 feet from the Highland Avenue right-of-way; and a height variance of 1.4 feet to allow a sign 9.4 feet in height for the subject property for meeting Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-8 subject to the condition that the address numbers are painted a color better contrasting to the blue background. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #2 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (U STOR 'N LOCK) located at 18946 US19, Sec. 19-29-16, M&B 41.03, 41.04 & 41.06 (Engelhardt/Nichols/END Enterprises) SV92-83 The applicant is requesting a setback variance of 5 feet from the 5 foot setback requirement to permit a freestanding sign zero feet from the US19 right-of-way. The subject property is located on the west side of US19, approximately 500 feet south of Harn Boulevard and is in the Highway Commercial (CH) and General Office (OG) zoning districts. This variance is requested to permit an existing freestanding sign to be modified to comply with all code requirements except setback requirements. The existing freestanding sign on this site exceeds the allowable height, area and setback requirements. The applicant proposes to reduce the height and area to comply with code requirements. The Traffic Engineer had indicated that relocation of the sign will not result in a traffic problem. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. At the entrance from US19, the property frontage is 60 feet in width. A 20 foot wide building is set in the center of the property with a 20 foot wide one-way entrance on the north side of the building and a 20 foot wide one-way exit on the south side. The applicant contends strict adherence to the 5 foot setback requirement would cause the sign to reduce the one-way exit width and create a dangerous situation. The Traffic Engineer has reviewed the plan submitted by the applicant and concludes the proposed new sign will reduce the exit width 15 feet. This width is an acceptable width for the one-way traffic exiting the site. Staff finds the applicant has not provided any evidence this variance request arises from any conditions unique to this property. Although this request may be considered minimal, there are no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved that create a hardship for this property. Staff generally feels a setback variance is in order when all other requirements are met but in view of the substantial changes being made to the sign it is felt that the sign should come into full compliance. Surrounding land uses are: to the north - Denny's Restaurant; to the south - Bay Park Executive Center (professional office); to the east - Imperial Cove (multiple family) - across US19; and to the west - Florida Power Corporation R.O.W. 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 location of the proposed new sign with a zero foot setback from the right-of-way is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas and diverts attention from those land uses. Since the applicant is bringing the area and height of the sign into compliance, it is reasonable to have the sign setback comply as well. Staff finds that of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, the applicant's request does not meet the following: 1) The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable use of the land; 6) The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. Steve Engelhardt stated the property was developed in the 1970's. They will modify the size and height of the sign at a cost of approximately $5,000 but feel that relocation of the sign to meet the setbacks will create a safety hazard. He presented several photographs showing a Ryder truck entering which indicates that there is little room to maneuver due to the narrowness of the driveway. Failure to grant the variance will increase the congestion and he feels the requirements for granting a variance have been met. Mr. Shuford stated due to the pictures submitted by the applicant demonstrating the safety hazard he would recommend that the requested setback variance be granted. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a setback variance of 5 ft. from the 5 ft. setback requirement for the subject property for meeting Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, subject to the condition that the sign shall be brought into compliance with all other requirements of the sign code within 60 days from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Variance to Sign Regulations for property (Bay House) located at 644 Island Way, Island Point, No. 1 Condominium, Bay House Unit 501 (Island Point #1 (Bayhouse) Condominium Assoc.) SV92-86 The applicant is requesting a variance to permit an existing attached sign to remain. This request is for an area variance of 21.68 square feet from the permitted 42 square feet to allow a total area of 63.68 square feet. The subject property is located approximately 170 feet southwest of Harbor Passage and 75 feet west of Island Way and is in the RM-28 zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The existing building is a seven story structure with an overall height of 77 feet with a 265 foot setback from Island Way. The sign is 32 feet above grade level. Located between the building and Island Way is a parking lot for the surrounding condominiums. Most of the parking spaces are covered and several large trees landscape the parking lot. The applicant contends the deep setback of the building behind the parking lot is a condition unique to this property and further contends the additional area is necessary for public safety to locate this building. Staff finds other high rise condominiums in the vicinity with similar setbacks and does not consider these conditions to be unique to this property. Although landscaping and covered parking exists between the building and the road, the building is high enough for an attached sign to be seen from the street. Staff finds there are no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved which create a hardship for this property. Since the building is set back 265 feet from the road, an 18 square foot bonus for sign area is permitted for this site. This variance request is for 21.68 square feet in addition to that bonus. This request is extreme with regard to the permitted area of an attached sign and cannot be considered a minimal request. Surrounding land uses are: to the north - 650 Island Way Condominium; to the south - 610 Island Way Condominium; to the east - Single family residential (across Island Way); and to the west - Clearwater Harbor. Multiple family condominiums and single family residential uses surround the subject property. The existence of this 63.68 square foot sign is not in character with the signage permitted for the condominiums in the area. The granting of this variance will detract from the condominiums that have conforming signage and negatively impact the overall appearance of the community. Staff finds that of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, 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; 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 that he wanted to take this opportunity to discuss the issue of attached signage on multi-family residential property. The ordinance is not clear whether it is specifically allowed but it is not disallowed. He requested the Commission provide staff with some direction in this matter. Mayor Garvey stated the request before them might be too much square footage but they should determine what would be sufficient for the future. She questioned why condominiums needed large signs if they are owned by individuals. Mr. Shuford pointed out that some condos operate more as a resort condominium where people stay for a short time period. Commissioner Thomas questioned that there is a law against short term rental. The City Manager stated the law is not very clear. Discussion ensued that it would be better to clarify the ordinance than increase the size of signs and that they should not be treated like hotels and motels. Dick Boblenz, representing the applicant, stated the sign has been there for a long time. The subject sign is not attached but is painted on the building itself. A good portion of the sign is a picture which takes up approximately 27 square feet. In addition, the street numbers take up approximately an additional 4 square feet. Commissioner Thomas stated it is a small sign for a large building and it is not obnoxious. It is a clean simple sign. Commissioner Deegan noted that the sign is aesthetically pleasing. Mayor Garvey indicated that she felt the sign was not offensive and the sailboat added to its appeal. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the requested variance for 21.68 square feet to allow a sign with a total area of 63.68 square feet for the subject property for meeting Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Shuford noted that the sign was in scale to the building. He stated staff would work from the direction given and propose an amendment to the sign code. Mayor Garvey suggested they investigate how a sign fits with the setback for commercial centers and work on that basis. It was suggested they establish a maximum but allow a bonus. She inquired as to whether a logo is considered a sign. Mr. Shuford explained that if the logo is used on their letterhead and it is promoted it is considered an advertisement. If it is something that is separate it is treated as art. He noted an interesting situation regarding a Municipal Code Enforcement Board case regarding art vs. signage and merchandise vs. signage. The City Manager inquired as to whether he should schedule the issue of short term rentals in residential zones for discussion due to the interest both in favor and against. Discussion ensued regarding enforcement. It was the consensus of the Commission that short term rentals in residential zones be scheduled for discussion. ITEM #4 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 814 Chestnut St., Aiken Sub., Blk 15, Lots 7 & 8 (Cheek) SV92-103 The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow an existing freestanding sign to remain: 1) a height variance of 2 feet from the 20 foot height requirement to allow a freestanding sign 22 feet in height; and 2) a setback variance of 4.5 feet from the 5 foot requirement to allow a freestanding sign 0.5 feet from the Chestnut Street right-of-way. The subject property is located on the north side of Chestnut Street, approximately 250 feet east of Myrtle Avenue and is in the Urban Center Eastern Corridor (UC(E)) zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. Chestnut Street is one-way eastbound. The existing building is located on the site approximately 5 feet from the street right-of-way and 2 feet from the west property line. The existing sign is located on the east side of the building. The position of the sign behind the building combined with the one-way street direction of the traffic combine to create a condition unique to this property. The spatial relationships of the sign and the existing building make the present location of the sign best suited to this site. The 5 foot setback and the pitched roof on the building would block the sign from the view of the eastbound traffic. To the west, 2 live oak trees planted on the adjacent property contributes to obstructing the visibility of the sign. The position of these trees eliminates the alternative of any attached signage. These particular physical surroundings create a hardship for this property. These variance requests may be considered minimal to overcome the hardship. Surrounding land uses are: to the north - Overseas Precision Castings; to the south - Cameron & Barkley Lighting Center; to the east - Florida Family Medical Center; and to the west - Stetler & Associates, Inc. This sign is located on Chestnut Street, a one-way eastbound street. The granting of these variance requests will not detract from the commercial businesses that have conforming signage and will not negatively impact the overall appearance of the community. The Mayor pointed out that vegetation can be cut down if that is what is hampering visibility of the sign but she has no problem with granting the variance. Mr. Shuford stated that the new tree ordinance requires that vegetation be maintained but Commissioner Deegan interjected that vegetation suggests something other than large trees. He submitted photographs that indicated that the landscaping and the sign are incorporated. The Mayor suggested that if the landscaping is part of the sign, there should be a condition that if the landscaping is removed the sign must be moved to meet setback requirements. There was discussion on limiting the size of the sign to the existing 40 square foot because of opposition to a 64 square foot sign which would be permitted. The City Manager suggested that if the applicant wishes a sign larger than the 40 square foot existing sign they should come into compliance. Commissioner Deegan commented that he would grant the variance even if the sign were the allowed 64 square feet. Staff finds that of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, the applicant's requests meet all eight. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a height variance of 2 feet to allow a freestanding sign 22 feet in height and a setback variance of 4.5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 0.5 feet from the Chestnut Street right-of-way for the subject property for meeting Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-8 subject to the condition that the applicant shall obtain all required sign permits within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken Commissioners Fitzgerald, Deegan, Berfield, and Thomas voted "Aye;" Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried. ITEM #5 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (4 Oaks Motel) located at 2061 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Sec. 13-29-15, M&B 42.02 (Di Berardino) SV93-01 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit an existing freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 26.61 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a total area of 90.61 square feet; 2) a height variance of 2 feet from the permitted 20 foot height to allow a total 22 feet of freestanding sign height; 3) a setback variance of 5 feet from the 5 foot requirement to allow a zero foot setback; and 4) a sign panel variance of one panel from the permitted two panels to allow a freestanding sign with three panels. The subject property is located on the south side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, approximately 650 feet east of Hercules Avenue and is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. 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. The applicant proposes to remove one sign panel from the existing sign. However, the variance requests for the number of sign panels, sign area and sign setback are extreme in number and magnitude and cannot be considered minimal variances. Although the request for the 2 foot height variance may be considered minimal, if the other variances are denied or modified enough to cause substantial modification to the existing sign structure, then the height of the sign should be brought into compliance. The applicant has not demonstrated any hardships other than the cost of replacing the sign face. Surrounding land uses are: to the north - Gulf-to-Bay Pawn; to the south - Carlisle Lincoln Mercury; to the east - Carlisle Lincoln Mercury; and to the west - Blockbuster Video, Blimpie, Supercuts, Gentle Dental Care (strip commercial). This sign is located on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, a very high exposure corridor with a high volume of tourist traffic. The four existing nonconformities combine to create a sign that 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 commercial businesses that have conforming signage and negatively impact the overall appearance of the community. Staff finds that of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, 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. The Mayor stated she felt the request was not a minimum request and should be denied. Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the requested variances for the subject property for failure to meet Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #6- Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Curtis Bros. Furniture) located at 1463 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Boulevard Heights, Blk F, Lots 2-6 (Ace G&H Hardware Co/Geist) SV93-14 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit two existing above roof signs and one attached sign to remain: 1) a variance to retain 2 above roof signs where above roof signs are prohibited; and 2) an area variance of 156 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a total of 220 square feet of attached signage. The 2 above roof signs are oriented toward Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and the attached sign is oriented toward the parking lot and San Remo Avenue. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and San Remo Avenue and is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant states the site has frontage on three streets and the City owns a small triangular traffic island with a large tree that blocks 60 percent of the view of existing signage. The building has the primary frontage on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard; however, the entrance of the building faces De Leon Street. This existing entrance orientation is unique only in that some directional signage may be needed to direct customers to the entrance of the building. The applicant has not provided any evidence that these variance requests arise from any conditions unique to this property. These variance requests are extreme in the magnitude of area and type of signs and cannot be considered minimal requests. Surrounding land uses are: to the north - Kyle's Clockshop, strip commercial; to the south - Multiple family residential; to the east - Sherwin Williams Paint Store; and to the west - Tri-County Sales, vacant office, multiple family residential. These signs are located on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, a very high exposure corridor with a high volume of tourist traffic. The combination of the type and area of these variance requests would allow signs that are 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 commercial businesses that have conforming signage and negatively impact the overall appearance of the community. Staff finds that of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, 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. Kevin Gordon, representing the applicant, stated that it would be a financial hardship to replace the sign. There is a large tree in front of the store that blocks the sign. He has been working with the Traffic Engineer to get signage indicating Gulf-to-Bay goes off to the right rather than calling it 60 West. They are willing to paint over the 56 square foot sign that is painted on the building. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to whether or not one of the four foot panels could be removed. The Mayor suggested the applicant continue to work with staff and come back with an alternative proposal. Discussion ensued regarding what would be acceptable to the Commissioners. It was determined the applicant should work further with staff and come back with a proposal. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue the request. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Manager stated staff had met with DOT regarding on-street parking on Cleveland Street and the City will be redesigning the signage at the intersection where Court and Gulf-to-Bay split within 90 days. ITEM #7 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Grandy's Restaurant) located at 1698 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Sec. 14-29-15, M&B 13.05 (Yen Ping Chou) SV93-25 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing freestanding sign, attached sign and directional sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 86.6 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a total freestanding sign area of 150.6 square feet; 2) a height variance of 12.75 feet from the permitted 20 foot height to allow a freestanding sign 32.75 feet in height; 3) a setback variance of 3 feet from the 5 foot setback requirement to allow a freestanding sign 2 feet from the street right-of-way; 4) a variance of two message panels from the permitted two message panels to allow a freestanding sign with a total of four message panels; 5) an area variance of 27 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow an attached sign with a total area of 91 square feet; and 6) an area variance of 0.95 square feet from the permitted 4 square feet to allow an on-site directional sign with a total of 4.95 square feet. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and South Duncan Avenue and is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant is requesting 4 variances to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain. These variances are for height, area, setback and additional panels. The applicant has not provided any evidence these variance requests arise from any conditions unique to this property. The applicant is requesting one variance for additional attached signage area. There are two existing attached signs with one sign oriented toward each street. The applicant contends Grandy's is voluntarily removing "an all important wall sign" thereby reducing the amount of total square footage below City allowances. This contention is not consistent in the application of the sign regulations or with the variance being requested. The applicant further contends that installation of significant landscaping is "probably very unique to Gulf-to-Bay". However, the landscaping of the front of the property does not constitute a unique condition for justification of additional signage. The applicant has not provided any evidence this variance request arises from any conditions unique to this property. The applicant is requesting one variance to allow four on-site directional signs to be 0.95 square feet over the four square foot signage permitted. This appears to be a minimal variance, however, the code clearly states business logos on these signs shall not exceed 25 percent of the sign area. The logos on these signs occupy approximately 60 percent of the sign area. The applicant has not provided any evidence that this request arises from any conditions unique to this property. These variance requests are extreme with regard to the setback, height, number of message panels and area. The magnitude and number of variances requested cannot be considered minimal requests. Surrounding land uses are: to the north - professional office; to the south - Georgio's Restaurant, Shopping Center; to the east - Carfinders, Inc. (used car sales); and to the west - Spinal Health Center, Chiropractic Services (medical offices). These signs are located on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, a very high exposure corridor with a high volume of tourist traffic. The combination of height, setback, number of panels and area of these requests create signs that are 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 commercial businesses that have conforming signage and negatively impact the overall appearance of the community. Staff finds that of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, 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; 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. No one representing the applicant was present. Commissioner Thomas noted this used to be the site of a Steak N Shake and has been rebuilt. He asked staff if the square footage was based on the outer frame or the letters. Mr. Shuford stated they measured the entire sign at the top of the pole. Discussion ensued regarding which way a sign should be measured. If the sign is painted on the side of a building it is acceptable to measure just the letters but if the background is different from the rest of the building, the entire sign would be used to calculate the area. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the requested variances for the subject property for failure to meet Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-3, 5, 6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. (See 3/7/94) ITEM #8 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Work America, Inc.) located at 3196 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Sec. 16-29-16, M&B 24.081 (Wilkins, Lauer, Jacobsen) SV93-31 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit an existing freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 191 square feet from the 64 square feet permitted to allow a total of 255 square feet; and 2) a setback variance of 2.5 feet from the required five foot setback to allow a freestanding sign 2.5 feet from the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard right-of-way. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard and is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant contends the sign's location on the property with respect to existing landscaping and the existing building minimizes the impact of the excessive size. However, there remains sufficient area on the site to place a sign that conforms to setback and area requirements of the code. The applicant has not provided any evidence that these variance requests arise from any conditions unique to this property. These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area of a freestanding sign and cannot be considered minimal requests. Surrounding land uses are: to the north - Eunice Little, Inc. (Realtors Exchangors); to the south - Tampa Bay (across Gulf-to-Bay); to the east - FDOT office; and to the west - vacant lot. A vacant lot exists to the west and FDOT offices are to the east. No businesses are located to the south across Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The existence of this 255 square foot freestanding sign is not in character with the signage permitted for commercial businesses in this zoning district. The granting of these variance requests will detract from the appearance of the community. Staff finds that of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, 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; 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. Two letters of support were received. No one representing the applicant was present. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the requested variances for the subject property for failure to meet Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-3, 5, 6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. (See 3/7/94) ITEM #9 - Temporary Use of Stepps Building The City Manager stated there is a proposal to make certain modifications to the Stepps Building so that it can be used as a temporary shelter for the homeless. Commissioner Deegan stated that the task force is trying to find staff to handle the administration of the shelter. December 1 is a target date to implement this. The cost is down to approximately $18,500 since only the first floor will be renovated. Commissioner Deegan moved that the Stepps building be used as a temporary shelter for the homeless and that $18,502 be appropriated for renovations, including labor. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Fitzgerald inquired as to whether the task force had looked at any other facilities outside of Clearwater. Commissioner Deegan responded that this has not been done. There has not been a task force meeting recently but he posed the question to several members and was asked to point out that the business people in the downtown area are concerned that something be done as they fear the homeless may break into their buildings. Whatever action the City takes in establishing a shelter may well act as a magnet to those homeless not presently in the City. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if anyone else was providing funding and the response from Commissioner Deegan was that he could not go to the others until he could tell them what Clearwater is willing to do. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern about establishing a shelter at the entry way to downtown. Commissioner Deegan stated that the task force has been looking at other locations for a permanent shelter. One possibility is the Carpenter House at 504 Seminole. It is .6 acres zoned RM-8. In response to a question from the Mayor regarding who would run the program, Commissioner Deegan stated Barbara Green would oversee the preparations. Barbara Green's Board would have to approve this as being an extension of her facility. The CRA will have to approve the use of the property if the City agrees to provide the money for the renovations. Operational expenses will be through donations. The City Manager stated he had received a $5,000 request from the Law Enforcement Fund to operate the shelter. In response to a question from the Mayor Commissioner Deegan stated when the Task Force met, the Police Chief made mention of these funds and stated he would ask the City Manager to dedicate those funds for this purpose. Winter is almost here and this would demonstrate the feasibility of the concept of a homeless shelter. The proposal will provide overnight shelter. He pointed out that the Carpenter House had been used previously for up to 30 persons recovering from substance abuse or duly diagnosed homeless persons and the County supported that effort. They are working on how much the total cost will be to run the shelter for the two month period but cannot come up with costs until they know if they will have a building and whether there will be rent to pay. The City Manager stated the financial side has not been addressed yet as they do not have a clear understanding of all the costs involved. Commissioner Thomas stated he is opposed to having the shelter at the gateway to the City but since it is a temporary issue he will support it. The task force was established based on information they acquired regarding how Orlando was dealing with this problem. He pointed out that the Orlando shelter is a stark building with only fans and no air conditioning and he wants assurance that the task force is looking closely at the Orlando methodology. Commission Deegan stated that the shelter being considered by the task force would never be on the scale of that in Orlando. In addition, when the task force inquired about visiting they were told they would have to pay $500 to tour the facility. He reported that Barbara Green will be doing a talk there and she will report back on any information she is able to obtain. The task force is looking into a case management approach and providing referral services, etc. Five different categories of homeless have been identified. The Mayor pointed out that Religious Community Services provides emergency housing, as do Quest Inn and Everybody's Tabernacle. She indicated a willingness to support the request on a two month temporary basis only with no further cost to the City other than the $5,000 previously mentioned and the renovations. The motion was restated for clarification that the Commission approve temporary use of Stepps Building as a homeless shelter and provide $18,502, which includes labor, for needed renovations, with no additional cost to the City for administration of the program with the exception of the $5,000 from Police Department confiscated funds. Upon the vote being taken, Mayor Garvey and Commissioners Deegan, Berfield, and Thomas voted "Aye;" Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay." Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.