Loading...
03/07/1994 - 9:00 AM CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING March 7, 1994 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in special session at City Hall, Monday, March 7, 1994 at 9:00 a.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Sue A. Berfield Commissioner Fred A. Thomas Commissioner Also present: Elizabeth M. Deptula Interim City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Scott Shuford Central Permitting Director Susan Stephenson Deputy City Clerk Public Hearings were held concerning the following sign variance requests. Reconsideration of Yen Ping Chou TRE (Grandy's) for variances of (1) 86.6 sq ft to permit a 150.6 sq ft freestanding sign; (2) 3 ft to permit freestanding sign 2 ft from street right-of-way; (3) 2 message panels to permit 4 panels; (4) 27 sq ft to permit 91 sq ft of attached signage; (5) 0.95 sq ft to permit 4.95 sq ft directional signs; and (6) 12.75 ft to permit a 32.75 ft in height sign to permit nonconforming signs to remain at 1698 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Sec 14-29-15, M&B 13.05, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-25 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. 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 feels the applicant's requests do not meet all of the standards for variance approval. This item was denied at the October 29, 1993, meeting. The applicant nor his representative were notified of the hearing in October and therefore requested reconsideration. The City Commission approved reconsideration at their January 24, 1994 meeting. Senior Planner John Richter explained the application and reported no reason was given to support granting the variances. The area variance requested is more than double what is permitted, the height is 64% greater than what is permitted, and the attached signage is more than 40% in excess over what is allowed. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant stated they wished to revise the variances as follows to minimize the original request: 1) reduce the variance for freestanding sign area to 58.10 to permit a 122.10 square foot sign; 2) no change to the setback variance; 3) withdraw the request for a variance of 2 additional message panels; 4) withdraw the variance for the attached signage area; 5) no change to the area variance for directional signs; and 6) withdraw the request for the height variance. Mr. Pressman pointed out the property is on a corner and submitted two photos. He explained the applicants were willing to remove the wall sign facing Gulf to Bay Boulevard. If the freestanding sign is moved back, its visibility will be blocked. The applicants are requesting transfer of the area allowed for wall signage from the wall to the pole sign. Commissioner Thomas inquired whether any nearby exceptions were granted that increased sign size from 64 square feet to 122.1 square feet. Mr. Shuford, Director of Central Permitting, noted the applicant is requesting a sign almost double the size allowed and the request does not appear to be justified. Commissioner Thomas stated he has no problem with the setback of the sign nor with the directional sign. He expressed concern that the proposed square footage is far beyond what is permitted and suggested since the sign must be modified; it might as well conform to the code. Commissioner Thomas moved to grant variances #2 to permit a freestanding sign 2 feet from the right-of-way and #5 to permit 4.95 square foot directional signs and to deny variance #1 for the subject property for failure to meet Sec. 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-3, 5, 6 and 8. Variances 3, 4, and 6 were withdrawn by the applicant's representative. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Reconsideration of William B. Wilkins, F. Bruce Lauer and Robert Jacobsen (Work America, Inc) for variances of (1) 191 sq ft to permit 255 sq ft of freestanding signage area; (2) 2.5 ft setback to permit a sign 2.5 ft from property line at 3196 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Sec 16-29-16, M&B 24.081, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-31 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. 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 feels the applicant's requests do not meet all of the standards for variance approval. This item was denied at the October 29, 1993 meeting. The applicant nor his representative were notified of the hearing in October and therefore requested reconsideration. The Commission approved reconsideration at their January 24, 1994 meeting. Neither the applicant nor their representative was present at today's meeting. Commissioner Thomas 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. Carlton Ward, representing the applicant, arrived and requested the item be reconsidered. The property is under lease purchase. The sign has been dedicated to UPARC and Long Center. The message on the billboard is unrelated to the use of the property. He requested that if a variance cannot be granted, a condition be made that compliance will not be required until January, 1996, when other billboards come into conformance. Commissioner Thomas moved to reconsider the item. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Scott Shuford stated they have not considered this sign as a billboard. Mr. Ward pointed out the sign advertised the Special Olympics last year and was helpful in participants finding the Long Center. The Mayor expressed her opinion that the sign is offensive. John Richter stated that the sign was not permitted as a billboard. The City issued a regular sign permit. Commissioner Berfield suggested they treat it as a sign since that is the way it was permitted. Mr. Ward questioned the fact that the ordinance does not address the definition of a billboard and asked how the City determines for permitting purposes whether something is a sign or a billboard. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the requested variances for failure to meet Section 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-3, 5, 6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded. Mr. Ward asked the Commission to consider not enforcing removal until after the Special Olympics this summer. Commissioner Thomas stated he was under the impression that the Special Olympics was being discontinued due to the ADA Act but did recognize that the use of the sign to promote two important charities should be considered as long as no changes are made to the information on the sign. He suggested a condition be made allowing the billboard to remain until all billboards are sunset in January, 1996. Commissioner Deegan pointed out the Commission agreed they are not evaluating the messages on signs and they should not be considered. Scott Shuford suggested that the Commission approve leaving the sign in place for a specified length of time. Mr. Ward suggested August 1, 1994. Commissioner Berfield moved to amend the motion to allow them 60 days to comply. The seconder agreed to the amendment. Upon the vote being taken on the amended motion; Mayor Garvey and Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, and Fitzgerald voted "Aye," Commissioner Thomas voted "Nay." Motion carried. ITEM A - (cont from 1-24-94) Mas One Ltd Partnership (Barnett Bank) for variances of (1) 161 sq ft to permit a total of 270 sq ft of attached signage; and (2) .24 sq ft per ft of building width to permit a ratio of 1.74 sq ft per ft of building width to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 600 Cleveland St, Clearwater Tower, Lots 1 & 2, zoned UC(C) (Urban Center (Core). SV 93-116 The applicant originally requested the following variances to allow the placement of an attached sign on the east face of the Barnett Bank office building just below the roofline: 1) an area variance of 161 square feet from the permitted 109 square feet to allow an attached sign with a total area of 270 square feet, and 2) a ratio variance of .24 square feet per foot of building width from the permitted 1.5 square feet per foot of building width to allow a ratio of 1.74 square feet per foot of building width. The applicant is now requesting just an area variance of 97.04 square feet from the permitted 109 square feet to allow an attached sign with a total area of 206.04 square feet. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and N. Garden Avenue and is in the UC(C) zoning district. The subject property is developed with the Barnett Bank office building. The variance application regards the sign on the east face of the building just below the roofline. The applicant proposes to remove the existing 80 square foot sign, and replace it with a 206.04 square foot sign. The existing sign is a "can"; the proposed sign will be channel letters. According to code, using the sign area bonus for the exceptional sign height, a 109 square foot sign is allowed. The applicant contends that the permitted sign size of 109 square feet results in an unreadable sign and that the letters comprising the sign must be a minimum of five feet in height to be readable at the ground level. However, staff review indicates this is not the case. The sign on the west face of the building measures 100 square feet and is easily read from a minimum of a quarter mile away. Further, the sign on the Sun Bank building located directly across the street from this building is 92 square feet and is also easily read at a distance of a quarter mile. To allow a sign for Barnett Bank that is double the size of the Sun Bank would clearly confer a privilege upon this applicant that is not available to others in the downtown. The placement of a 206.04 square foot sign is not in character with the signage permitted for the downtown core and will detract from the architecture of the building and aesthetics of the community and Clearwater's downtown. Staff feels the applicant's request does not meet the standards for variance approval. John Richter explained the application stating that subsequent to the submission of the application, the applicant downsized his request to seek a variance of 97 square feet as opposed to the 161 square feet originally requested for the sign on the east side of the building. The new sign will be made up of channel letters and 109 square feet is not sufficient to permit a sign that will be readable. The sign on the west face which is 100 square feet can be read from a quarter of a mile away. He pointed out that the building across the street has a sign that is 92 square feet and it is also easily legible at a quarter of a mile. Jim Powell, representing the owner, stated the existing sign is a logo sign. The variance requested would allow for 5 foot channel letters. The sign on the east side has three and a half foot high letters and the Sun Bank letters are four feet high. He submitted some photos, explaining what each represented. The signs were taken from measured distances which he indicated. He explained their name is longer than many others. He noted the building structure has an effect on the sign and color can affect the readability of the sign. He stated if they were permitted to have 4 foot high channel letters, they would need an area variance of 23.15 square feet. Commissioner Thomas noted the square footage on the west side is under 100 square feet and if the 23.15 square foot variance matches the Sun Bank sign he has no problem with the request. Commissioner Deegan noted that the request is comparable to what exists across the street. Commissioner Deegan moved to grant an area variance of 23.15 square feet to permit 4 foot high channel letters for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Shuford felt that the reduced square footage would eliminate the need for the ratio variance but was not able to calculate the figures at the meeting. If staff finds that a ratio variance is still needed it will be brought back to the Commission. ITEM B - (cont from 2-7-94) Espana Business Center for variances of (1) 96 sq ft to permit 160 sq ft of signage area; and (2) 3.33 ft in height to permit a 23.33 ft freestanding sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of 7 year amortization period at 1674 - 1688 Belcher Rd N, Clearwater Industrial Park, part of Lot 14, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). SV 92-78 The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow an existing freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 96 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a total freestanding sign area of 160 square feet; and 2) a height variance of 3.33 feet from the permitted height of 20 feet to allow a total freestanding sign height of 23.33 feet. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Belcher Road and Logan Street and is in the IL zoning district. The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district. The applicant states the present sign was approved by the City on October 14, 1985, after the effective date of the new sign ordinance. The applicant's permit verifies the date of sign permit issuance. It is reasonable to assume that application for this sign was made prior to the October 13, 1985 deadline date for the new sign ordinance to take effect. The issuance of the sign permit confirms the City has taken the position of accepting this as a legal nonconforming sign. However, even if the sign permit was issued in error, that mistake is not considered grounds for the granting of a variance. The applicant has not provided any evidence that these variance requests arise from any conditions unique to this property. The area variance request of 96 square feet is extreme and cannot be considered a minimal request. Although the 3.33 height variance request may be considered minimal, the height variance will not be necessary if the area of the sign is reduced to comply with the regulations. The existence of this 23.33 foot high, 160 square foot sign is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas and diverts attention from those land uses. The granting of these variance requests would detract from the commercial businesses that have conforming signage, the residential areas, and negatively impact the overall appearance of the community. On February 7th, the Commission continued this application to allow staff to research the allowable freestanding sign areas for surrounding properties and to determine the effect on traffic safety if the sign was located low near the ground. Allowable sign areas range from 24 square feet to 100 square feet along the Belcher Road corridor, from Palmetto Street to Sunset Point Road. The areas are determined by jurisdiction and zoning. Only one property in this corridor, Dollar Mini Storage, is allowed a sign with an area of 100 square feet. It is located approximately four-tenths of a mile to the north of the Espana Business Center property. Two properties allowed 75 square foot signs are Cox Heating and Air Conditioning, 1,000 feet to the north, and an undeveloped property approximately 800 feet to the south. Some properties in this corridor have sign areas more restrictive than the 64 square feet allowed for the Espana Business Center. Most notably, the fire station located just to the north of the Espana Business Center, and the Salvation Army Worship Center, located directly across the street from the Espana Business Center, are both allowed signs with an area of 48 square feet. Regarding the effect on traffic safety if the sign is placed low to the ground: The Acting Public Works Director reviewed the site plan submitted as part of the variance application. The plan shows the sign is located on the south side of the driveway entrance, 8 feet from the Belcher Road right of way. It was determined that the sign is sufficiently set back from the Belcher Road right of way to maintain clear sight lines when exiting the property. Further, it was determined that the sign face should maintain a minimum clearance of 4 feet above grade in order to allow visibility of a vehicle backing from the parking space immediately south of the sign. Scott Shuford pointed out the signs larger than 64 square feet are located in the County. He noted that the Traffic Engineer feels the current location will not create a problem but the sign should be a minimum of four feet above the ground to allow for visibility. Mr. Shuford stated it was the City's policy to honor permit applications received prior to the code change in 1985. He did not feel there was a need to change staff's recommendation of denial and noted the height variance requested was minimal. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated they have reduced their request to ask for an area variance to permit a 100 square foot sign. There are heavy commercial uses in the area and this building has 13 tenants. There is severe blockage of the sign. Pinellas County allows signs on each right-of-way. He stated he thought the main concern at the previous hearing was the height and they would prefer a height of eight feet above the ground rather than the minimum of four feet. Commissioner Deegan inquired how they proposed to reduce the size of the sign and Mr. Pressman responded that they would remove the bottom seven panels. Commissioner Thomas inquired whether businesses located in the center were allowed to have signs on the building's face. Mr. Shuford stated attached signage is permitted based on a formula that allows 1.5 square feet of signage for each foot of linear width of a business. In response to a question, Ms. Nisk stated each of the businesses on Belcher Road has approximately 25 feet of frontage and on Logan Street, each has a different width. She presently allows six square feet of signage on Logan and eight square feet on Belcher and does not want larger signs on the building. Originally tenants were advised they could have a sign on the pole sign. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern regarding not permitting larger signs on the building and removing the signs of tenants from the pole sign. He commended Ms. Nisk for voluntarily limiting signage on the building. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked whether the height would be reduced to 20 feet. Mr. Pressman replied the height variance is no longer necessary. It was suggested that the address be placed on the pole sign but Ms. Nisk pointed out that each tenant has their own address and there are 13 separate addresses on both Logan and Belcher for the building. Mr. Shuford explained an address sign of up to eight square feet is permitted by the code. Commissioner Thomas noted that the signage on the building has voluntarily been reduced by 390 square feet and expressed concern that it would be unfair to ask the tenants to reduce their signage on the building when the pole sign is being reduced. Commissioner Berfield inquired as to whether the applicant was entitled to two pole signs since the building is located on a corner to which Mr. Shuford responded that Logan Street does not qualify for an additional sign. Commissioner Deegan stated the purpose of the code is to avoid undue clutter. The property is well kept and landscaped and the sign fits in well. He pointed out this center must compete with surrounding businesses located in the County. Commissioner Deegan moved to grant a variance to allow a freestanding sign with a total of 100 square feet in area subject to the condition that the building signage area is not increased above what presently exists for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Fitzgerald inquired as to whether a condition should be placed on the granting of the variance to preclude additional signage on the building in order to assure that the signs already existing on the building will remain as they are. The Mayor stated she had a problem with the rationale that the property is well kept. She does not feel this is a valid reason to grant a variance. She feels the granting of variances should be based on unique features. Commissioner Thomas stated he would approve the sign as it exists and feels the applicants should not be required to do any more since the sign is being reduced in size. If the sign were allowed to remain as it presently exists, he would be willing to limit signage on the building. The Mayor stated the purpose of the code is to reduce the number of pole signs. Commissioner Berfield inquired as to whether the sign variance remains with the property and if a new owner could allow larger signs on the building. Mr. Shuford responded that the variance goes with the land unless there is a condition stating otherwise. Ms. Nisk indicated she has no intention of selling the property at this time. Mr. Pressman indicated they would be willing to work within the 100 square feet if a variance is granted allowing a sign of that size. The Mayor supported permitting 100 square feet of signage with current building signs to remain as they are. Commissioner Thomas, as the seconder to the original motion agreed to the addition of the condition that the wall signage area remain as it exists today. Scott Shuford pointed out that the building might be split into different unit sizes allowing more occupants and suggested the Commission should grant the variance allowing eight square feet per unit. Ms. Nisk stated that if two tenants share a suite, they must share the signage she presently allows. Upon the vote being taken on the amended motion; Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas voted "Aye," Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried. ITEM C - (cont from 2-7-94) Manuel & Evangeline Kastrenakes (Pinellas Rent A Car, Inc) for variances (1) of 16 ft to permit a 36 ft high freestanding sign; (2) of 64.8 sq ft to permit a 176.8 sq ft freestanding sign to remain; and (3) to permit a second allowable freestanding sign to be oriented to same street as primary freestanding sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 19206 US Hwy 19 N, Sec 19-29-16, M&B 14.06, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-16 Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the meeting of March 21, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM D - (cont from 2-7-94) Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III (Dimmitt Chevrolet, Inc) for variances of (1) 80.8 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of 192.8 sq ft; (2) 22.5 ft in height to permit a freestanding sign of 42.5 ft in height; and (3) 12 ft in distance to permit a second freestanding sign 288 ft from a primary sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 25485 US Hwy 19 N, Sec 32-28-16, M&B 32.02 & 32.03, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-42 The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) an area variance of 80.8 square feet from the permitted 112 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 192.8 square feet; 2) a height variance of 22.5 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign 42.5 feet high; and 3) a separation variance of 12 feet to allow a second freestanding sign 288 feet from the primary freestanding sign. The variances are requested to permit the existing nonconforming signage to remain. The subject property is located on the east side of US19, south of First Street, and is in the CH zoning district. The subject property is developed with the Dimmitt Chevrolet auto dealership. According to the information contained in the application, the area variance is requested because the construction of overpasses to the north and south of the subject property will impair visibility of the "Dimmitt Chevrolet" sign. Staff notes, however, the code allows signs to be placed on properties which adjoin overpasses at elevations above the overpass for the purpose of allowing signs to be seen from the roadway. It should not be necessary to provide additional sign area due to roadway and overpass construction projects. The applicant is requesting additional sign height due to the existence of trees in the vicinity of the existing sign. The variance requested is to allow the sign to remain at a height of 42.5 feet, more than double the allowable height. Staff does not regard this to be a minimum variance. Staff expressed concerns about the prospect of losing trees in the City. Staff feels the balance tips in favor of making the sign conform. The City's Environmental Management Division has been asked to prepare in advance of the scheduled public hearing on this item a report describing the probable affect of variance denial on existing vegetation. The sign separation variance requested is minimal and consequently, is supported by staff. The granting of the area and height variances is not in keeping with other signs on US19. Staff feels the applicant's area and height variance requests do not meet the standards for variance approval but the separation variance request does. Scott Shuford explained the application. He requested Alan Mayberry, City Forester, to inspect the property. The Forester stated a live oak is among the five trees obstructing the view of the sign. The four sand pines could be removed. Other trees will eventually block the sign. It was suggested that the sign be moved into the 40 foot drainage and utility easement for US Hwy 19 North which would require an easement use agreement. Joshua Magidson, attorney representing the applicant, stated the business does not have a lot of signage. There is no signage on the building. It is located near the overpass close to Enterprise Road. He disagreed that the sign should be located closer to the road and questioned whether the trees or compliance with the sign code was more important. He stated his client would not use all the signage allowed if he could keep the existing signs as they are now. He feels the existing sign is a good balance between the intent of the sign code and keeping the trees. The Mayor stated that 112 square feet is what the code allows and 192.8 square feet is what exists. She expressed concern that the height and size are much greater than what is permitted. Mr. Shuford responded to a question from Commissioner Thomas and stated that two pole signs of 112 square feet and 56 square feet are permitted for the property. Mr. Magidson stated if they can keep the one sign as it is, they would remove the second one. Commissioner Thomas noted that the sign is set back 45 feet instead of five feet. Lowering the sign to 20 feet in height puts it in the trees where it will be blocked. He stated that the trees can be cut down and two signs are less aesthetic than one. Alan Mayberry stated that the sand pines on the property are in a state of decline and will continue to deteriorate. They are in a dense condition, never developed normal crowns, are no longer vigorous, but are protected under the tree ordinance. A permit would need to be issued to cut them down and they would have to be replaced as some of them now serve buffer requirements. They could be replaced with trees that did not get as high and therefore would not interfere with view of the sign. Mr. Magidson stated Mr. Mayberry does not know when the trees will die and in the site plan review indicated a desire to keep the trees. He did not feel the applicant should be forced to cut down the trees nor to put the sign next to the right of way. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Magidson whether the height of the sign or the square footage was more important. Mr. Magidson stated the height was more important since the General Motors sign is 127.03 square feet and the next smallest standard size is approximately 63 square feet. Commissioner Thomas inquired regarding the cost to remove the sign and the base. Mr. Magidson estimated it would cost approximately $2,500 to remove the base and approximately $300 per month for the change of the product sign because if they change their lease to a smaller sign the rent will go up. Commissioner Fitzgerald commented that any argument based on the size of corporate sign standards would never dictate approval of a sign size variance. Mr. Magidson again pointed out the unique factors of this site. Commissioner Thomas asked whether the 127 square foot sign would serve the applicant's needs at a height of 20 feet if the variances are not granted. Mr. Magidson responded that the 127 square foot sign would actually be 21 feet high. The Mayor agreed with staff's recommendations. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny the height and area variances and approve the separation variance of 12 feet from the required 300 feet to allow a second freestanding sign 288 feet from the primary freestanding sign on the property identified as Section 32-28-16, M&B 32.02 & 32.03 for meeting Section 45.24 standards for approval items one through eight. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Berfield commented that if the 127.03 square foot sign is used, a height variance needs to be granted to allow the sign to be 21 feet high. She asked Mr. Magidson if they would forego the second sign if they were only granted a variance to have the 127.03 square foot sign. Mr. Magidson stated they would forego the second sign if they could keep the existing sign but would want both pole signs if the area variance given only allows the 127.03 square foot sign. Upon the vote being taken; Mayor Garvey and Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield and Thomas voted "Aye," Commissioner Deegan "Nay." Motion carried. Discussion ensued as to whether a motion to grant smaller area and height variances to allow a 127.03 square foot sign at 21 feet in height could be made since the previous motion passed. Commissioner Thomas moved to rescind the previous motion. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas voted "Aye," Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried. Commissioner Thomas moved to grant a variance of 15.03 square feet to permit a freestanding sign with 127.03 square feet, a variance of 1 foot to permit a sign 21 feet high, and grant a separation variance to permit a second freestanding sign 288 feet from the primary freestanding sign for meeting standards 1-8. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas voted "Aye," Mayor Garvey and Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay." Motion carried. ITEM E - (cont from 2-7-94) Merrill Lynch & Co, Inc (Merrill Lynch) for a variance of 2.75 ft to permit a freestanding sign 22.75 ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 26301 US Hwy 19 N, Countryside Village Square, Lot 6 less road on west, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93-50 The applicant is requesting a height variance of 2.75 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign with a height of 22.75 feet. The subject property is located on the east side of US19, north of Enterprise Road, and is in the CC zoning district. The applicant contends that the additional sign height is necessary due to the construction of a frontage road alongside the US19 overpass at Countryside Boulevard. Staff research reveals that the FDOT acquired additional right of way for US19 in this location approximately seven years ago, causing the sign to be relocated. The right of way width is 290 feet in front of Merrill Lynch. The right of way is evenly divided; that is, there is 145 feet of right of way for each half of the highway. The standard width for US19 is 200 feet, with 100 feet for each half of the highway. In effect, the right of way acquisition caused the sign to be located further from the centerline of the highway. Sign permit records reveal a variance was granted February 12, 1987 to permit the relocation of this nonconforming sign, and was subject to the condition that the height of the sign be reduced to 20 feet. A permit was issued on March 10, 1987, and in spite of the condition of approval, plans accepted with the application indicated a sign height of 22.75 feet, thus allowing the nonconforming sign height to remain. Although the increased right of way width places the sign further from the centerline of US19 than signs on other similarly zoned properties on this highway, this circumstance alone is not cause for granting a height variance. If, however, the permitting error described above is considered, along with the width of the right of way, a variance of 2.75 feet is a minimal request. The existence of this 22.75 foot high sign is not totally out of character with the signs permitted for the commercial uses in the area. The granting of this variance will not bestow a special privilege upon the applicant not available to others in this zone by establishing an advertising advantage for the applicant. Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval. John Richter briefly reviewed the application. Mr. Madigson was present representing the applicant but made no comment. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a height variance of 2.75 feet to allow a freestanding sign with a height of 22.75 feet for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM F - (cont from 2-7-94) Romark Investments, Inc/Village Office Corp (Village Office Park) for a variance of 32.3 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign area of 182.3 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 26338 US Hwy 19 N, The Village at Countryside, Replat of Lot 1, Lot 4 Replat, Lots 1 & 2, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93-66 The applicant is requesting an area variance of 32.3 square feet from the permitted 150 square feet to allow an existing freestanding sign to remain with a total area of 182.3 square feet. Staff notes that the existing sign contains the address of the property which entitles this sign to an 8 square foot area bonus. Therefore, the area variance request of 32.3 square feet may be reduced to 24.3 square feet. The subject property is located on the west side of US19, south of Countryside Boulevard, and is in the CC zoning district. The existing sign faces the new US19 overpass being constructed at Countryside Boulevard. The overpass bonus provision would permit this sign to be a maximum of 37 feet high. The existing sign is 27 feet high. Further, the sign is setback a greater distance from the right of way than the 5 feet required by code. According to the variance application, the sign is 20 feet from the right of way. Given these circumstances, it is staff's position that the existing sign will be a low impact sign as viewed (indeed, if able to be viewed) from the US19 overpass. The existence of this 182.3 square foot freestanding sign (174.3 square foot sign excluding the address) with a height of 10 feet less than permitted and a setback 15 feet greater than required is in character with the signage permitted for the commercial businesses in the area. The granting of this variance will not detract from the commercial businesses that have conforming signs. Staff finds the applicant's request meets all eight standards for variance approval. Scott Shuford explained the application and stated the area variance is calculated to be 24.3 square feet due to the fact that the address is incorporated in the sign. In addition the business qualifies for a bonus due to the nearby overpass. John Bozmoski, attorney representing the applicant, was present. Commissioner Thomas inquired why a sign of 158 square feet was being permitted in this situation versus the smaller sign on US Hwy 19 North. Mr. Shuford responded that Dimmitt, which requested variances for both area and height, is not located in an overpass area as this sign is. In response to a question regarding why this area is permitted a larger sign, Mr. Shuford stated the zoning on this property provides for larger signs. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve an area variance of 24.3 square feet from the 158 square feet permitted (150 square feet for the zone plus 8 square feet for the address) to allow an existing freestanding sign to remain with a total area of 182.3 square feet for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the condition that the sign shall not be modified to increase the existing height or decrease the existing setback. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM G - (cont from 2-7-94) Rex M., Stephen M., & Randy R. Barbas (R.J. Automotive) for variances of (1) 1 wall sign to permit a total of 4 wall signs; and (2) 132.4 sq ft of attached signage to permit a total of 196.4 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 830 Court St, Aiken Sub, Blk 10, Lot 6, zoned UC(E) (Urban Center (East). SV 93-87 Commissioner Deegan moved to continue this item. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #1 - Dr. & Mrs. Robert Bialas & Drs. Joseph & Janet Fishman (Clearwater Center for Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery) for variances of (1) 2.5 ft to permit a freestanding sign to remain 2.5 ft from street right-of-way (Lakeview Rd); and (2) 26 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of 90 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 609 Lakeview Rd, Belleair, Blk 10, parts of Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, & 8, together with all of Lots 4 & 5, and part of vacated alley, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). SV 92-92 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 26 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a total area of 90 square feet, and 2) a setback variance of 2.5 feet from the required 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 2.5 feet from the Lakeview Road right of way. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Lakeview Road and Hamlet Avenue and is in the IL zoning district. The freestanding sign on this property is an attractive wooden sign, constructed low to the ground, and located in a bed of landscaping. It is a V-shaped sign, placed around two large live oak trees. Because it is placed around the oak trees, it extends half way into the setback area. Further, because it is V-shaped, the sign area is calculated by taking the sum of the two faces. If the sign faces were placed back to back, the sign would qualify as a double faced sign, and only one face would be measured for the purpose of determining the area. However, the aesthetics of the sign and the property would, to some extent, be comprised if such action were required. In conclusion, it is staff's position that the above described conditions combine to make the property and sign unique, and the variance minimal. Commercial and professional office uses surround the subject property. The setback and appearance of this sign is well integrated with the site landscaping, causing it to be in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding uses. The granting of the area variance will not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood or the City. Staff finds the applicants' requests meet all eight standards for variance approval. Scott Shuford explained the application. Robert Bialas, owner/applicant, was present but made no comment. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve an area variance of 26 square feet to allow a total area of 90 square feet and a setback variance of 2.5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 2.5 feet from the Lakeview Road right of way for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #2 - Countryside Assoc Ltd Partnership (Village at Countryside Plaza) for variances of 69 sq ft to permit 144 sq ft of auxiliary signage area; and (2) 4 ft in height to permit an auxiliary sign 20 ft in height to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 26210 US Hwy 19, N., Village at Countryside Parcel 4 Replat, Lot 3 less road, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93-44 The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow placement of an auxiliary sign: 1) an area variance of 69 square feet from the permitted 75 square feet to allow an auxiliary sign with an area of 144 square feet, and 2) a height variance of 4 feet from the permitted 16 feet to allow an auxiliary sign 20 feet high. The subject property is located on the west side of US19, north of Enterprise Road, and is in the CC zoning district. The subject property has generous frontage, in excess of 700 feet, on US19, thereby causing the property to qualify for a second, or auxiliary freestanding sign. The applicant is requesting variances to allow this sign to be larger and higher than allowed by code. The applicant indicates that the freestanding sign on Enterprise Road will be removed and not replaced. The applicant states these variances are warranted because roadway improvements will limit access to, and viewing of, the shopping center. That is, the existing access from Enterprise Road is going to be closed in conjunction with improvements to the US19/Enterprise Road intersection. The applicant points out, with the closing of the access, advertising on this roadway will no longer be functional. Staff regards this property to be unique given its frontage on, and future lack of direct access to, Enterprise Road. However, staff does not regard the requested variances to be minimal. The height being requested is 25% greater than allowed, and the area is 92% greater than allowed. Further, placing more signage on one road in reciprocation for less signage on another is a circumstance the code precludes. (Sec. 44.51(2)(d)) Further, it is not clear that the applicant will suffer any hardship if a sign of conforming size and height is erected. The placement of an auxiliary sign with a height of 20 feet and an area of 144 square feet is not in character with the signage permitted for other commercial properties and diverts attention from those other uses and signs. The granting of these variances will detract from the businesses that have conforming signs and negatively affect the appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's variance requests do not meet all of the standards for variance approval. John Richter stated there is no sign on Enterprise Road and no need for the auxiliary sign to be larger or higher than the main sign. He pointed out the codes specifically allow relinquishing signage on one street in order to erect a larger sign on another street. In this instance, the auxiliary sign is larger than what is allowed and is in fact, almost twice the size that is permitted. The primary sign is permitted to be 150 square feet in area and 20 feet high. The secondary sign may be no higher than 16 feet with an area of 75 square feet. Commissioner Thomas inquired how signs containing freestanding letters are measured. Mr. Richter explained if there is a panel, the size of the panel is used for measurement. He indicated the horizontal length of the message would determine the size where there is no panel. Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification that the primary sign was less in area than is permitted and is at the height permitted. Mr. Richter responded this was the case. Mr. Taylor stated that there is no access from Enterprise Road to the shopping center. Commissioner Deegan inquired whether the auxiliary sign was needed due to the closure of Enterprise Road and the lack of access to the property from that road. Mr. Taylor replied that this was the case. The Mayor pointed out the applicant requests permission for a sign with 144 square feet in area, in comparison to the 75 square feet permitted. There is no proven hardship. Commissioner Berfield felt it would be more advantageous to have the sign on Enterprise Road rather than two signs on the access road. In response to a statement from the applicant's representative, Commissioner Fitzgerald emphasized Enterprise Road would not be closed; it simply will not have access for northbound travelers on US Hwy 19 North. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the applicant would be prevented from erecting a sign on Enterprise Road in the future. Mr. Richter responded they would not. Commissioner Deegan requested clarification as to whether there would be access to the shopping center from Enterprise Road. Mr. Taylor indicated it was his belief that they would not or that it would be greatly diminished. Discussion ensued regarding the status of Enterprise Road. Paul Taylor, representing the applicant, stated the property is located at the northwest corner of Enterprise Road and US Hwy 19 North and is approximately 12 acres in size. He stated three signs are allowed but he is only requesting two. He did not feel that 20 feet represented excessive height when compared to telephone poles. The property is physically recessed from the road. He does not feel the proposal will create sign clutter. The applicant plans to replace the sign at the north end of the property on US Hwy 19 North with one lowered to 20 feet and reduced in size from 192 square feet to 150 square feet. He pointed out that over 600 feet will separate the two signs. The stores are set back 200 to 300 feet from the road. The applicant feels the sign will enhance the safety of traffic in and out on US Hwy 19 North and is in compliance with the spirit of the ordinance. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the variances as requested with the condition only 2 pole signs will be permitted on the property. The motion was duly seconded. In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated that the roadway is elevated at this point but probably not more than ten feet since they are not permitted additional height. Commissioner Thomas pointed out the great disruption of business in the area from road construction and noted the applicant will only have two signs instead of the three permitted. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Deegan and Thomas voted "Aye," Commissioners Fitzgerald and Berfield and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion failed. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny the requested variances for the subject property for failure to meet standards 2-8. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Mayor Garvey and Commissioners Fitzgerald and Berfield voted "Aye," Commissioners Deegan and Thomas voted "Nay." Motion carried. ITEM #3 - Joseph M. Connelly, Jr (Connelly's Used Auto Rent, Inc) for variances of (1) 2.8 ft to permit a freestanding sign 22.8 ft in height; and (2) 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign 0 ft from street right-of-way (Drew St) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1821 Drew St, Skycrest Unit No. 4, Blk F, part of Lots 1-3, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-80 The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow the existing freestanding sign to remain: 1) a height variance of 2.8 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign 22.8 feet high, and 2) a setback variance of 5 feet from the required 5 foot setback to allow a freestanding sign zero feet from the Drew Street right of way. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Drew Street and N. Orion Avenue and is in the CG zoning district. The existing freestanding sign is nonconforming in two ways; it is 2.8 feet too tall, and it lacks a setback from the Drew Street right of way. It is noteworthy that the sign conforms to the size limitations; in fact, it is considerably undersized. In this zone, 64 square feet is allowed. The existing sign area is 37.5 square feet. The applicant states that since the existing sign encompasses only 37.5 square feet, perhaps a trade-off based on overall size could be approved. Though the proposed trade-off of height for area may be tempting, staff does not believe this is consistent with the spirit of the code and the standards for variance approval. The height variance represents a 14% departure from the maximum allowed by code. The sign area is 41% less than the maximum allowed by code. Many properties on Drew Street have altered or replaced signs in order to conform to the height and area requirements of the code. It would be inequitable to those who have lowered signs to meet the City's 20 foot limit, to allow this sign to extend over the limit. Further, staff does not believe it would be unreasonable to "sleeve" the existing sign in order to reduce the height. If this property owner, or any future owner, has an interest in increasing the sign area, that is a right allowed by code. Staff does not, however, advocate strict enforcement of the code regarding the setback. It is staff's position that the cost to the applicant to relocate the sign would outweigh the benefit derived by the public as a result of relocation. Commercial, office, and residential uses surround the subject property. The existence of this 22.8 foot high freestanding sign is not in character with the sign heights permitted for the surrounding properties. The granting of this variance will detract from businesses that have conforming signs and negatively impact the appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's height variance request does not meet the standards for variance approval. Mr. Shuford explained the application, stating the height can easily be reduced to what is allowed and the sign size is smaller that what is permitted. The Mayor pointed out that the standard condition regarding the relocation of signs if there is roadway construction should be included in the motion. It was the consensus of the Commission that it should be. Mr. and Mrs. Connelly, Jr. stated that they would like to keep the sign as it is and are unclear about the plans to widen Drew Street. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the requested height variance for the subject property for failure to meet standards 1-8 and to approve the requested setback variance subject to the following conditions: 1) the sign height be reduced to conform to code within 60 days of this public hearing, and 2) that by constructing a sign within the street setback pursuant to this variance, the owner and applicant agree that no governmental agency shall be liable for the cost of relocating or removing the sign in the event the property is acquired by eminent domain, road widening, or any other public purpose . The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #4 - Cengiz Gokcen (Prime Executive Center) for variances of (1) 11 ft in height to permit a freestanding sign of 19 ft in height; (2) 22.7 sq ft in area to permit a freestanding sign with an area of 46.7 sq ft; and (3) 1.2 ft setback from the required 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign 3.8 ft from a right-of-way (Drew St) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2288 Drew St, Temple Terrace 1st Add, Blk D, Lots 15, 16 & 17, zoned OL (Limited Office). SV 93-92 The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow the existing on-premise freestanding sign to remain: 1) a height variance of 11 feet from the permitted 8 feet to allow a freestanding sign 19 feet high; 2) an area variance of 22.7 square feet from the permitted 24 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 46.7 square feet; and 3) a setback variance of 1.2 feet from the required 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 3.8 feet from the Drew Street right of way. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Drew Street and Terrace Drive and is in the OL zoning district. The applicant is requesting the existing on-premise sign be allowed to remain until the completion of the Drew Street widening project, scheduled to begin in the spring and be completed in a year. No additional right of way is necessary for this project. It is not clear from the application why the City should postpone the requirement for compliance until after the roadway is widened. The widening project does not cause this property to be unique; other Drew Street properties that have conforming signs are similarly situated. Because no additional right of way is needed, there does not exist the prospect of relocating the sign again at some later date to account for future right of way acquisition. In sum, staff can find no condition to warrant granting these variances. It is noteworthy that a second freestanding sign (a billboard) exists on this property in violation of the code. This violation will be handled separately from this application. The existence of this 19 foot high, 46.7 square foot sign is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding area and diverts attention from nearby land uses. The granting of these variances will detract from businesses that have conforming signs as well as negatively affect the appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's variance requests do not meet the standards for variance approval. John Richter explained the application, stating that the request is to allow the sign to remain until the Drew Street widening is complete. He stated no additional right of way is necessary in this area and there is a nonconforming billboard on the property which will be addressed as a separate issue. Licia Nolan, representing the applicant, stated they are requesting a temporary variance because the County indicated on a map how dirt and bulldozers will block the sign if it is lowered. Widening is anticipated to begin in July. Commissioner Thomas noted if the sign is reduced to eight feet, part of it will be blocked by a vehicle. He expressed concerns that the bottom of the sign should be higher than the height of a car. Mr. Richter suggested the item be continued as there seems to be conflicting information from the County. Discussion ensued on how long the item should be continued. Ms. Nolan noted there was a possibility that the sign could be damaged during construction. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to April 19, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - True Realty Corp (Toys "R" Us) for a variance of 14.6 ft in height to permit a freestanding sign of 37.6 ft in height to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 26286 US Hwy 19, N, Village at Countryside, Parcel 4 Replat, Lot 2 less road on east, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93-95 The applicant is requesting the following variance to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain: a height variance of 14.6 feet from the permitted 23 feet to allow a sign 37.6 feet high. The subject property is located on the west side of US19, south of Countryside Boulevard, and is in the CC zoning district. The applicant indicates the variance is requested due to the roadway construction on US19 in front of this property. That is, an overpass being constructed for the Countryside Boulevard intersection causes the roadway to be at a higher elevation than would be the case if there is no overpass. Staff notes the sign code allows additional height for signs in proximity to overpasses for the purpose of allowing signs to be viewed from the roadway. Specifically, the code permits signs as high as 10 feet above the crown of the roadway on the overpass alongside the sign. In this case, the crown of the roadway is 13 feet above the ground elevation at the sign, and a 23 foot sign height is permitted by code. Consequently, the code is designed to provide relief in locations where overpasses exist, thereby eliminating the need for height variances. The existence of this 37.6 foot high sign is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas and diverts attention from those land uses. The granting of this variance will detract from the surrounding businesses that have signs of conforming height and will negatively affect the appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's variance request does not meet the standards for variance approval. Scott Shuford explained the application, noting the applicant has been given a three foot height bonus. He feels the additional height requested is unwarranted. Butch Jackson, representative of the owner, said that once the overpass is completed, visibility will be hampered. The property is located at the lower end of the overpass and the additional height requested will allow the sign to be seen before reaching the overpass. He pointed out the Ramada Inn, located a short distance down the road, was granted a height variance. Commissioner Thomas noted the applicant's sign is 30 feet tall and inquired as to whether they would be willing to remove the giraffe head. Mr. Jackson stated the giraffe head is very important to Toys "R" Us. The Mayor noted that the giraffe is an integral part of the sign. Mr. Jackson indicated he would like an additional 30 days to look into the matter. He noted the signage on the building is blocked from view by trees. Commissioner Deegan asked if the giraffe could be moved to the side of the sign from the top. Mr. Jackson responded it was necessary for him to confer with his client to investigate alternatives. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to March 21, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #6 - Joseph & Bernadine Cavato (Pat-N-Polish Car Wash) for a variance of 20.35 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of 84.35 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1430 Missouri Ave, S., Duncan's A.H. Resub, part of Lot 8 less road, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-99 The applicant is requesting the following variance to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain in a modified form: an area variance of 20.35 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 84.35 square feet. In particular, the applicant proposes to remove the "Brushless Car Wash" panel at the top of the sign, and the reader board located below. The subject property is located on the west side of Missouri Avenue, south of Queen Street, and is in the CG zoning district. The applicant proposes to remove two panels from this freestanding sign, maintaining the 60 square foot "Pat 'N Polish Car Wash" sign panel, and the 24.35 square foot Texaco logo sign panel. The applicant states the business will be hurt if the Texaco logo cannot be maintained. The applicant also offers to forego the placement of any attached signs if the variance request is approved. It is staff's position that a 20.35 square foot variance is not a minimum variance. This represents a 31.8% departure from the 64 square feet permitted. Further, the City is not prohibiting the display of a Texaco logo. The City is simply limiting the freestanding sign area to 64 square feet, the same limit applicable to other properties in the CG zone. The applicant may utilize any portion of the 64 square feet to advertise Texaco products. The offer to refrain from displaying attached signs is attractive. However, roadside signs have a high impact on the appearance of the neighborhood and the City. In this case, the balance goes to providing a freestanding sign in conformance with the size limitations prescribed in the code. It is noteworthy that the Sunshine Car Wash located on Court Street, one mile away, which also sells gasoline and is also located in the CG zone, has placed signs in conformance with the City's code. The existence of an 84.35 square foot sign is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas and will serve to divert attention from those land uses. The granting of this variance will detract from businesses that have conforming signs and the appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's variance request does not meet the standards for variance approval. Mr. Richter explained the application, stating staff feels both the height and area of the sign should be reduced and that the reader board and brushless car wash signs should be removed. He pointed out that the City is not precluding the applicant from displaying the Texaco logo but simply limiting the area of signage permitted. Joseph Cavato stated they are requesting a 20.35 square foot variance. If they do not keep the Texaco logo, people will not be aware he sells gasoline or accepts Texaco credit cards. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the area variance of 20.35 square feet to allow the Texaco logo subject to the condition the brushless car wash and reader board signs are removed and to deny the height variance. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued regarding what signage is permitted at this location. It was pointed out that auto dealers, which rely on company logos, are required to modify signs in order to meet code requirements. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield and Thomas voted "Aye," Commissioners Deegan, Fitzgerald, and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion failed. Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the requested area variance for the subject property for failure to meet standards 1-8. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Mayor Garvey and Commissioners Fitzgerald and Deegan voted "Aye," Commissioners Berfield and Thomas voted "Nay." Motion carried. ITEM #7 - Peter N. Mirchandani TRE (Maternity Warehouse) for a variance of 19.5 sq ft to permit an attached sign of 42 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 25710 US Hwy 19, N, Sec 31-28-16, M&B 14.06, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-103 The applicant is requesting an area variance for attached signage of 19.5 square feet from the permitted 22.5 square feet to allow the existing 42 square feet of attached signage to remain. The subject property is located on the west side of US19, south of Enterprise Road and is in the CH zoning district. The front of this business establishment is only 15 feet wide, which substantially limits the size of the attached sign that may be placed for identification purposes. Applying the formula of 1.5 square feet of attached signage allowed per linear foot of width, only 22.5 square feet of attached signage is allowed for this business. While the request at first appearance seems large (it represents an 87% departure from the code), the 42 square foot sign is relatively small for a business oriented to US19. The applicant points out that the sign does not substantially decrease the appearance of the City and staff agrees. The existence of this 42 square foot attached sign is in keeping with the character of signs for businesses on US19 and does not divert attention from other uses that front on this highway. The granting of this variance will not detract from businesses that have conforming signs and will not negatively affect the appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's variance request meets the standards for variance approval. Scott Shuford explained the application and noted this business has a very narrow storefront, therefore, only permitting a very small sign. Staff recommends that the request be approved. Neither the applicant nor their representative was present at the meeting. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the requested area variance for the subject property for meeting Sec. 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #8 - Patrick H. Green (Pleasant Inn, Inc) for variances of (1) 21 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of 71 sq ft; (2) 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign of 25 ft in height;; and (3) 2.25 ft to permit a freestanding sign of 2.75 ft from street right-of-way (N. Ft. Harrison Ave) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1744 N. Ft. Harrison Ave, North Shore Park, Blk 4, Lots 3, 4, & 5, zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercial). SV 93-108 The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow the existing nonconforming freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 21 square feet from the permitted 50 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 71 square feet; 2) a height variance of 5 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a sign height of 25 feet; and 3) a setback variance of 2.25 feet from the permitted 5 feet to allow a setback of 2.75 feet from the N. Ft. Harrison Avenue right of way. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of N. Ft. Harrison Avenue and Pleasant Street and is in the CR-24 zoning district. The applicant states the variances are necessary because the building located on the property to the south obstructs the sign from the view of northbound traffic on N. Ft. Harrison Avenue. Staff has reviewed this and concludes the curvature in N. Ft. Harrison Avenue and the lack of a setback for the building to the south combine to obstruct the view of the freestanding sign on the subject property. The sign first comes into the view to northbound motorists approximately 150 feet south of the subject property. It is important to note, however, that the lack of visibility of this sign is due to the positioning of: a) the building to the south, b) the road, and c) the sign; it is not due to the area or height of the sign. In light of the preceding, it is reasonable to grant the requested setback variance. However, staff can find no unique conditions that warrant granting the requested area and height variances. A sign 20 feet high, with an area of 50 square feet, will adequately serve to identify this property, as it serves to identify other properties in this zone. The existence of this 25 foot high, 71 square foot sign is not in character with signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas and diverts attention from those land uses. The granting of the area and height variances will detract from businesses that have conforming signage and negatively affect the appearance of the community. Staff feels the request for a setback variance meets the standards for variance approval but the area and height variance requests do not. John Richter explained the application. Not only does the curve in the road obstruct the view of the sign but the building to the south also obstructs the view. He suggested if the variances are granted the condition regarding moving the signs at the owner's expense when they are located and the setback be included. Patrick Green stated it will create a financial problem for him if he is required to remove the sign immediately and requested leeway in the time to remove the sign. The Mayor indicated the size of the sign could be reduced by removing some of the reader boards. Mr. Shuford noted with the address included on the sign, it is eligible for an additional eight square feet thereby reducing the variance request to 13 square feet instead of 21 square feet allowing a sign of 58 square feet. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a setback variance of 2.25 feet subject to the condition that by constructing a sign within the street setback pursuant to this variance, the owner and applicant agree that no governmental agency shall be liable for the cost of relocating or removing the sign in the event the property is acquired by eminent domain, road widening, or any other public purpose, to allow an additional eight square feet for the street address to permit a sign with a total of 58 square feet and to deny the height variance. After discussion it was noted the applicant does not need a variance for a 58 square foot sign as long as the address is included. There was no second to the motion. Commissioner Thomas moved to deny the requested area and height variances for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8 and to approve a setback variance of 2.25 feet subject to the following conditions: 1) that by constructing a sign within the street setback pursuant to this variance, the owner and applicant agree that no governmental agency shall be liable for the cost of relocating or removing the sign in the event the property is acquired by eminent domain, road widening, or any other public purpose, and 2) the sign be made to conform to the area and height requirements of the code within 60 days of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #9 - Raman Bhula (Shoreline View Motel) for variances of (1) 7 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign of 57 sq ft; and (2) 4.3 ft to permit a freestanding sign .7 ft from street right-of-way (Edgewater Dr) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1941 Edgewater Dr, Sunnydale Sub, Lots 39-41 less street, zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercial). SV 93-110 The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow the existing nonconforming freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 7 square feet from the permitted 50 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 57 square feet, and 2) a setback variance of 4.3 feet from the required 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign .7 foot from the Edgewater Drive right of way. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Edgewater Drive and Sunnydale Drive and is in the CR-24 zoning district. The applicant proposes to reduce the area of the existing sign from 75 square feet to 57 square feet by removing the existing changeable message panel. Following removal of the panel, the sign will measure 57 square feet, or 7 square feet larger than the maximum allowed in this zone. Any additional alteration will require the removal of the "Shoreline View Motel" panel. Staff considers these variances to be minimal. The requested area variance represents a 14% departure from the code. The 7 square foot overage will likely be indiscernible to most observers. With regard to the setback, the cost to move this sign back would be great in comparison to the public benefit derived from such an action. The existence of an 18.5 foot high, 57 square foot sign is in keeping with the character of signage permitted for the commercial area located to the south and will not divert attention from those land uses. The granting of these variances will not detract from businesses that have conforming signs and will not adversely affect the appearance of the neighborhood or the community. Scott Shuford explained the application and noted the applicant will remove the reader board which will leave a sign that is 57 square feet. Staff feels the variance is minimal and further changes beyond removing the reader board would require major changes to the sign. The Mayor noted one letter in opposition was received. Ramon Bhula stated he has owned the motel for ten years. The sign is actually nine feet by six feet. He will remove the reader board. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve an area variance of 7 square feet and a setback variance of 4.3 feet subject to the following condition: that by constructing a sign within the street setback pursuant to this variance, the owner and applicant agree that no governmental agency shall be liable for the cost of relocating or removing the sign in the event the property is acquired by eminent domain, road widening, or any other public purpose, for the subject property, for meeting Sec. 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #10 - Direction re request for reconsideration of SV93-05, Soares/El Capitan Commissioner Thomas moved to reconsider El Capitan's request for a variance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Shuford stated this item will be scheduled for the meeting of April 19, 1994. Commissioner Deegan inquired about the status of the petition received from residents of the Isle of Sand Key objecting to the signs and flags of the Moorings. Mr. Shuford responded he would be getting a memo to the City Manager this afternoon. The meeting adjourned at 12:14 p.m.