Loading...
04/27/1994 - 9:00 AM CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING April 27, 1994 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in special session at City Hall, Wednesday, April 27, 1994 at 9:00 a.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Fred A. Thomas Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Sue A. Berfield Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Commissioner Also present: Kathy S. Rice Deputy City Manager Miles Lance Assistant City Attorney Scott Shuford Central Permitting Director John Richter Senior Planner Susan Stephenson Deputy City Clerk Pledge of Allegiance Moment of Silence Public Hearings were held concerning the following sign variance requests. ITEM A - (cont from 4-19-94) Marks & Gilliss, Inc/Marks Holding Co, Inc (Ken Marks Ford) for variances of (1) 7 square feet from the permitted 112 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 119 square feet, (2) 17 square feet from the permitted 56 square feet to allow an auxiliary sign with an area of 73 square feet, (3) a 169 feet separation from the required 300 feet to allow freestanding signs 131 feet apart, and (4) 128 square feet from the permitted 120 square feet to allow the existing 248 square feet of attached signs to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 24791 & 24825 US Hwy 19 N, Ken Marks Ford, Blk A, Lot 1 together with Ken Marks Ford 1st Add Sub, Lot 1, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-65 Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the meeting of June 2, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM B - (cont from 4-19-94) Aubrey MacLean, TRE/Clearwater Trust/Trizec Properties, Inc (Gayfers) for variances of (1) 192 sq ft of sign area to permit a total of 342 sq ft of attached signage on east side of building; and (2) 192 sq ft of sign area to permit 342 sq ft of attached area on west side of building; and (3) a ratio variance of .027 sq ft of attached sign area per 1.0 linear foot of building width to permit a ratio of 1.527 sq ft per linear foot of building width to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 20505 US Hwy 19, Sec 17-29-16, M&B 32.01 & 32.02, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93-30 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing attached signs on the east and west building faces to remain: 1) an area variance of 384 square feet from the permitted 300 square feet to allow a total of 684 square feet of attached signage on the east and west building faces, and 2) a ratio variance of 0.027 square feet of attached sign area per 1.0 linear foot of building width from the permitted ratio of 1.5 square feet per 1.0 linear foot of building width to allow a ratio of 1.527 square feet per linear foot of building width. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and US19, and is in the CC zoning district. Both of the signs addressed in the application are directed to the interior of the Clearwater Mall parking lot. The maximum allowable size of 150 square feet will both respect the scale of the building and adequately serve to identify Gayfers to mall patrons who are in the parking lot. The application does not indicate the cost to repair the brick wall, however, staff notes that other buildings throughout the City have undergone cosmetic repair to facilitate replacement of nonconforming signs. It is not clear why this store should warrant different treatment in this regard. Finally, the area requested is more than double the area allowed by code, thereby causing this request to fail to qualify as a minimum variance. The existence of these two 342 square foot signs are not in character with the signs permitted for other major tenants in shopping malls. The granting of these variances will detract from businesses that have conforming signs. Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance approval. John Richter explained the application and noted that the applicant feels the signs are in scale to the building and repairing the wall if the are removed will be impossible. At the request of the Commission staff investigated other similar situations where channel letters were removed from brick buildings. Sears at Countryside, Barnett Bank at Highland and Court, and Angie's Homestyle had similar situations and the buildings appeared to be unblemished. The letters on Gayfers are two or three inches away from the building and attached with bolts. Staff feels that removal of the letters will not make the building irreparable. Neither the applicant nor their representative was present. Commissioner Thomas moved to deny the requested variances for the subject property for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 1. Ashmore, Inc/GDM Property Management (Bay Breeze Motel) for variances (1) to permit a freestanding sign where building setback is less than 15 ft; (2) of 5.66 ft to permit 25.66 ft in sign height; (3) of 5 ft to permit 0 ft street setback; and (4) to permit an above roof sign with 175 sq ft sign area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 411 E. Shore Dr., Barbour-Morrow Sub, Blk C, part of Lot 6, Lots 7-9 and riparian rights, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). SV 92-27 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing freestanding and roof signs to remain: 1) a variance of one freestanding sign where no freestanding signs are permitted due to a building setback of less than 15 feet; 2) a height variance of 5.7 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign 25.7 feet high; 3) a setback variance of 5 feet from the required setback of 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign zero feet from the East Shore Drive right of way; and 4) a variance to permit an above roof sign, having an area of 175 square feet, where above roof signs are prohibited. The subject property is located on the east side of East Shore Drive, north of Marianne Street, and is in the Beach Commercial zoning district. The motel on this property is in very close proximity to the East Shore Drive right of way. In order for a freestanding sign to be permitted in this zone, it would be necessary for the motel to be no closer than 15 feet to the right of way. The motel is much closer than this. Consequently, the freestanding sign is not permitted. The sign is located between two parking spaces in front of the motel. It is "squeezed" into a very small front yard, in fact, it touches the front of the building and, also, encroaches into the East Shore Drive right of way by 2 feet. Further, the sign is 5.7 feet higher than the code permits. This equates to a 28% departure from the code. Given the extent of the nonconformities, it is staff's position that the freestanding sign should be removed as the code requires, and be replaced with a conforming attached sign. In addition to displaying a sign oriented to the public street, like 3 or 4 other motels on East Shore Drive, this motel utilizes the waterfront to display a roof top sign. According to the application, the sign on the waterfront is necessary to alert motorists arriving on Clearwater Beach that there are motel accommodations in the East Shore Drive area. It is staff's position that utilization of the waterfront skyline for advertising is not in the best interest of Clearwater Beach or the City. The creation and preservation of an attractive waterfront skyline outweighs the individual interest of utilizing this natural resource for advertising with large roof mounted signs. A 25.5 foot high freestanding sign that encroaches into the right of way and a 175 square foot roof mounted sign are not in character with the signs permitted for other properties in this zone and divert attention from those properties. The granting of these variances will detract from properties that have conforming signs and will negatively affect the appearance of Clearwater Beach and the City. Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance approval. John Richter explained the application. He noted that all buildings in this zoning must be set back 15 feet from the right-of-way to qualify for a freestanding sign and this building is set back less than that. Gary Ashton stated the building has been there since the 1940's and the sign since the 1960's. They depend on repeat business and on tourists from Europe. If the roof sign is removed people will have difficulty changing lanes in order to turn once they cross the Causeway. He investigated putting up a canopy with a sign but the support poles would be in the right-of-way. He pointed out that the Causeway is a State road and the City cannot place signs on it indicating there are hotels to the north. Discussion ensued regarding placement of a canopy and whether it would encroach into the right-of-way. The Mayor stated the City is looking into putting a sign on the Causeway that will indicate there are motels to the north. Commissioner Thomas noted he is not in favor of the roof sign but would not have a problem with a pole sign 20 feet high. He felt a canopy sign would be more attractive. Mr. Ashton stated he feels he needs the roof sign but that he could make it smaller. Further discussion ensued regarding roof signs and the fact that they do not project the image the City wants. Mr. Ashton stated he was not told there was a sign code that did not allow roof signs when he purchased the property in October 1990. It was agreed that a pole sign was reasonable. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny a variance to permit a roof sign. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny a height variance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve a variance for a freestanding sign with a 0 foot street setback and a height of 20 feet for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the condition that by maintaining a sign within the street setback pursuant to this variance, the owner or 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 for road widening or any other public purpose. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Aristotelis & Nick Koutlemanis (Olympia Motel) for variances (1) of 51.6 sq ft to permit 99.6 sq ft of attached sign area; and (2) an area ratio variance of 1.1 sq ft per foot to permit 2.6 sq ft per foot width of building to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 423 E. Shore Dr., Barbour-Morrow Sub, Blk C, Lots 3 & 4, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). SV 92-90 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit two existing attached signs to remain: 1) an area variance of 51.6 square feet from the permitted 48 square feet to allow 99.6 square feet of attached signs, and 2) a ratio variance of 1.1 square feet per linear foot of building width from the permitted 1.5 square feet per linear foot of building width to allow 2.6 square feet of sign area per linear foot of building width. One of the two signs is proposed to be relocated and downsized. The roof sign which faces the waterfront, will be removed from the roof, downsized from 104 square feet to 76 square feet and relocated to the south wall of the motel. The subject property is located on the east side of East Shore Drive, south of Papaya Street, and is in the Beach Commercial zoning district. Clearwater's sign code is designed to facilitate property identification from the adjoining public street. Like three or four other motels on East Shore Drive, the Olympia Motel utilizes both the adjoining public street and the waterfront to display a sign. According to the application, the sign on the waterfront is necessary to alert motorists arriving on Clearwater Beach that there are motel accommodations in the East Shore Drive area. Granting variances to utilize the waterfront for advertising is not in the best interest of Clearwater Beach or the City. The public interest in creating and preserving an attractive waterfront outweighs the individual interest of utilizing this natural resource for advertising with oversized signs. Furthermore, neither of the variances is a minimum variance. Attached signs having a total area of 99.6 square feet is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding properties and diverts attention from nearby land uses. The granting of these variances will detract from properties that have conforming signs and will negatively affect the appearance of Clearwater Beach and the community. Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance approval. John Richter explained the application. He stated the wall, where the sign will be placed, is 29 feet wide. Signs are permitted to project over the tops of canopies. The two signs together exceed the square footage permitted. Nick Koutlemanis stated he understands that the City does not want roof signs. He proposes to remove the roof sign, reduce its size, and put it up on the wall. He pointed out that due to the design of the building, the only place they can locate the sign is on the smallest wall which is why they need a ratio variance. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether the sign in the front is adequate. Mr. Koutlemanis stated it is visible from East Shore but not from the Causeway. The other sign will be on the south wall of the building. Discussion ensued as to whether the present roof sign could be downsized to meet Code. Mr. Koutlemanis stated they are going to squeeze the spacing between the letters. It was felt that if the sign is going to be redone, it should conform. Mr. Koutlemanis inquired as to whether the sign could be on the south side if it is 24 square feet in area. He was informed a 24 square foot sign is allowed without variances. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny the requested variances for the subject property for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Equitel (Holiday Inn Central) for a variance of 72 sq ft of attached signage to permit an attached sign of 222 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 21030 US Hwy 19, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 14.01, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-26 The applicant is requesting an area variance of 34.5 square feet from the permitted 187.5 square feet to allow the existing attached "Holiday Inn" sign with an area of 222 square feet to remain. The subject property is located on the west side of US19, north of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, and is in the CH zoning district. The application indicates the special conditions and circumstances applicable to this property are: 1) the property is significantly recessed from US19 due to the existence of the service road; 2) visibility of the property is restricted due to the existence of the overpass at Gulf to Bay Boulevard; and 3) US19 is a six lane, high speed roadway which allows difficult access to the property. First, despite the existence of a service road at this location, the US19 right of way is no wider at this location than elsewhere in the City. Consequently, the property is not recessed. Second, the visibility of the sign is not restricted due to the overpass. Upon viewing the sign travelling northbound on US19, staff finds the existing sign is plainly and prominently viewable. Even if the visibility was restricted, increasing the size would not cure this condition. In fact, upon studying the location and visibility of the sign, staff finds that visibility is most restricted to southbound traffic. This is because the sign is located on a wall that is back from the forwardmost wall of the building. The main entrance to the building, which is to the north, extends out closer to US19 than does the wall of the building where this sign is located. The extension substantially blocks the view of this sign to southbound motorists. However, increasing the size of the sign will not cure this condition either. Third, the fact that US19 is a six lane, high speed roadway which allows only difficult access is not a condition unique to this property. Many US19 properties have access difficulties. Further, increasing the sign size will not enhance access to this property. The allowable attached sign size in the CH zone, 150 square feet, is larger than in most other districts, specifically in recognition of the highway characteristics, including speeds and numbers of lanes. Staff does not find special conditions or circumstances applicable to this property. The property is developed much like other properties in this zone. Staff feels the applicant's request does not meet the standards for variance approval. John Richter explained the application. He pointed out that US 19 is no wider here then anywhere else and that visibility is not restricted. When traveling southbound the sign is obstructed and increasing the size would eliminate that obstruction. Harry Cline, attorney representing the owner/applicant, stated the business has been there for more than 30 years. This is the only variance they are requesting for all three of their hotels. Their business has eroded and even people with reservations have written to national headquarters stating they could not find it. It is necessary to crest a hill before you can see the sign and it can only be seen from the south. It is a small sign and is invisible due to clutter. There is no impact to the community by letting this sign remain. In response to a question regarding the starburst, it was indicated it is included in the area and if it were removed the sign would conform as to area. Mr. Cline responded that the starburst is necessary as it is required for the franchise. Commissioner Deegan noted that he is impressed that the owner is not looking for variances for the pole sign. Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the request was reasonable and was in support of the variance subject to the condition that the applicant keep the existing pole sign. Commissioner Thomas noted that it is a difficult site and that he did not want to restrict other allowable signage. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a variance of 34.5 square feet in area for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the condition that they do not request a variance for a larger pole sign than is allowed by Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Cline inquired as to whether they were precluded from coming back for variances if they found it necessary. It was noted that if they should come back this variance may be voided. 4. Nell M. Lokey, TRE/Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc for variances of (1) 14 sq ft in area to permit a 78 sq ft freestanding sign; (2) 3 ft in height to permit a 23 ft high freestanding sign; (3) 10 sq ft in area to permit a 42 sq ft auxiliary freestanding sign; (4) 5.5 ft in height to permit a 15.5 ft high auxiliary freestanding sign; and (5) 8.75 sq ft in area to permit a total of 72.75 sq ft if attached sign area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2339 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 31.05, 31.06, & 31.071, together with Lokey FBC, Lot 2, zoned CG (General Commercial) and RMH (Mobile Home Park). SV 93-35 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the continuation of two freestanding signs, each of which will undergo reductions in height and area: 1) an area variance of 14 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow a 78 square foot freestanding sign; 2) a height variance of 3 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a 23 foot high freestanding sign; 3) an area variance of 10 square feet from the permitted 32 square feet to allow a 42 square foot auxiliary sign; and 4) a height variance of 5.5 feet from the permitted 10 feet to allow a 15.5 foot high auxiliary sign. The subject property is located on the south side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, east of Belcher Road, and is in the CG zoning district. According to the application, the variances are requested because: 1) this property is larger than other Gulf to Bay Boulevard properties; 2) there are 3 distinct businesses on the property; 3) the property fronts on Gulf to Bay, which is a high speed, six lane road; and 4) the property is not at an intersection with traffic signals. First, sign area and height are not determined by the size of the property, but rather by the zoning of the property. Large properties are allowed a second, or auxiliary, freestanding sign due to the existence of generous street frontage. This property qualifies for an auxiliary sign. In effect, the code allows more roadside signage for large properties. It would be duplicative to grant a variance on this basis since the code has accounted for this condition. Second, many properties throughout the City have multiple businesses. The existence of 3 distinct businesses on this property is not unique and is not grounds for allowing larger or higher freestanding signs. Third, the fact this property fronts on Gulf to Bay, is not cause to grant larger or higher signs. Signs of conforming area and height are appropriately sized to identify other properties fronting on Gulf to Bay, and likewise will amply identify this property. Furthermore, this condition is shared by all properties on Gulf to Bay, it is not unique to this property. Finally, the location of the property away from a signalized intersection is not cause for this property to warrant special treatment. A 78 square foot freestanding sign and 42 square foot auxiliary sign will not be in character with signs on other properties in this zone and will divert attention from those properties. The granting of these variances will detract from properties that have conforming signs and will negatively affect the overall appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance approval. Mr. Shuford recommended this item be continued due to the fact that readvertisement is required because the area of the logo signs was not included in the area variance. Harry Cline, the applicant's attorney, agreed. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to whether there was any way that they could proceed without readvertising. Mr. Shuford responded that readvertising was required because the variance being requested is greater than the variance which was advertised. Discussion ensued as to whether there was any way to advertise variances that would not require readvertising if the request was minimally larger than what was advertised. It was stated the wording might indicate a variance to a particular type of sign with no specific figures but this is not the general practice. Miles Lance expressed concern regarding at what point it would be challenged. He noted it made some sense to not be so specific and that possibly they could try some modifications. He suggested that the ad might indicate a variance not to exceed but this would not totally solve the problem. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 19, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 5. Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc (Rio Bravo) for variances of (1) 8.8 ft in height to permit a 28.8 ft high freestanding sign; and (2) 30 sq ft to permit 180 sq ft of freestanding sign area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 26200 US Hwy 19, Sec 31-28-16, The Village at Countryside, Parcel 1 less road right-of-way, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93-48 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain: 1) a height variance of 8.8 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign 28.8 feet high, and 2) an area variance of 30 square feet from the permitted 150 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 180 square feet. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of US19 and Enterprise Road, and is in the CC zoning district. This property fronts on two major thoroughfares and, therefore, is permitted two freestanding signs, one oriented to each roadway. There is only one existing sign on this property. However, it is too large and too high. The requests are not minimum variances. The existence of this 28.8 foot high, 180 square foot sign is not in character with other freestanding signs permitted in this zone and diverts attention from nearby uses. The granting of these variances will detract from properties that have conforming signs and will negatively affect the appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance approval. John Richter explained the application. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated this is a separately owned parcel independent of the shopping center. The one existing sign can do the job. The building is 18 feet in height and the size is necessary in order for the sign to be seen from Enterprise. It is not necessary to have 2 signs if this sign remains. It is a 60% reduction of allowed pole signage. In response to a question as to the sign's location, it was noted that it was shown incorrectly on the drawing submitted and that the sign is to remain in its present location. Discussion ensued as to why the sign was unique and its visibility from Enterprise. Mr. Pressman submitted photos showing visibility from Enterprise. Commissioner Thomas clarified that they are allowed two pole signs of 150 square feet each and they are giving up 120 square feet of signage and one sign. Mr. Pressman noted that the shopping center wraps around this property and one sign will do the job but the height is a critical feature. He expressed concern that the site location and surrounding roadways are what is unique. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted that they can put attached signage on the building and they will need a new sign anyway. He felt there was nothing unique and did not feel that lowering the height or bringing the area into conformance would be detrimental. In response to a question, Mr. Pressman stated they only need to change the cabinet or the face. They would not need to replace the sign if the variances are granted. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the requested variances for the subject property for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. First Florida Bank, N.A./Barnett Banks, Inc (Parkside Office Center) for variances of (1) 1 freestanding sign to permit 2 freestanding signs; and (2) 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign 0 ft from property line to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 24639 US Hwy 19, N, Sec 5-29-16, M&B 22.04, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-75 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the placement of a new sign for the Parkside Office Center on the neighboring Barnett Bank property: 1) a variance of one freestanding sign from the permitted one freestanding sign to allow two freestanding signs, and 2) a setback variance of 5 feet from the required 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign with a zero foot setback. (The existing "Parkside" sign located on a planter wall and freestanding "Beachnuts" sign are proposed to be removed.) The subject property is located on the east side of US19, north of Sunset Point Road, and is in the CH zoning district. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant requested that this item be continued. The property has gone into default. More signage is needed which will require additional advertising. Scott Shuford stated a new application would be needed. Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice stated agenda items for May 19 are due today, therefore, the request should be continued to June 2. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the meeting of June 2, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting recessed from 10:51 to 11:00 a.m. 7. Arthur Alimonos (Country Pizza Inn) for variances of (1) 8.8 ft in height to permit a 28.8 ft high freestanding sign; and (2) 3.6 ft in distance to permit a freestanding sign 1.4 ft from a side property line to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 25856 US Hwy 19, N, Sec 31-28-16, M&B 14.03, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-82 The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow the existing freestanding sign to remain: 1) a height variance of 8.75 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign 28.75 feet high, and 2) a setback variance of 3.6 feet from the required 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 1.4 feet from the north side property line. The subject property is located on the west side of US19, south of Enterprise Road, and is in the CH zoning district. There are several trees aligning the US19 right of way that affect visibility of this sign. In general, the sign has very good visibility to northbound motorists, and moderate visibility to southbound motorists. This condition is not unique to this property. Many properties in the City have signs with restricted visibility due to trees. It is staff's position that signs should not be raised to heights substantially greater than the code limit for the purpose of promoting visibility over treetops. This height variance is not a minimum variance. Of greater concern to staff is the existence of a construction trailer, immediately to the north of the sign. If the sign is lowered to a conforming height, the trailer will severely obstruct the view of the sign from the north. The trailer is used as a field office for US19 reconstruction work in the area, which is nearing completion. Upon contacting the FDOT, staff learned the trailer is scheduled to be removed no later than September 1, 1994. Staff recommends the sign height be made to comply timely upon removal of the trailer. The sign is located on the edge of the parking lot, 1.4 feet from the north side property line. If the sign is relocated to conform with the 5 foot setback requirement, it would be located in the parking area. This would disrupt the parking area, which would impose an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant. Given the location of the parking, the setback variance satisfies the standards for variance approval. The height of this 28.75 foot high sign is not in character with other signs permitted in this zone and diverts attention from nearby uses. The granting of this height variance will detract from properties that have conforming signs and will negatively affect the appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's height variance request does not meet the standards for variance approval. John Richter explained the application. In response to a question, he noted the standard setback condition is not necessary as this is a setback from a side property line. Arthur Alimonos stated this location is the only place to put a sign and it was suggested it be higher because of the trees. If the height is reduced the sign will not be visible. Florida Department of Transportation suggested they make the sign higher three years ago when they had to move it. Discussion ensued as to what is accomplished by making him lower the sign and on the other hand what makes it unique. It was noted that the trees blocking visibility of his sign are not his doing and they are not on his property. Commissioner Fitzgerald pointed out that Forbidden City was denied a height variance and there were trees involved in that case. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny a height variance of 8.75 feet for the subject property for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, to direct code enforcement action to be held in abeyance until 60 days after removal of the construction trailer located immediately to the north of this sign; and to approve setback variance of 3.6 feet as this meets the standards subject to the condition that the sign height be made to conform to code within 60 days after removal of the construction trailer located immediately to the north of this sign. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken Mayor Garvey and Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield, and Thomas voted "Aye;" Commissioner Deegan voted "Nay." Motion carried. 8. Faith United Church of Christ, Inc for a variance of 3.5 sq ft to permit a directional sign of 7.5 sq ft to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2401 Drew St, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 12.02, together with Eastwood Terrace, 3rd Add, Blk F, Lot 1, and Lots 3-6, zoned P/SP (Public/Semi-Public). SV 93-90 The applicant is requesting an area variance of 3.5 square feet from the permitted 4 square feet to allow a directional sign 7.5 square feet in area. This variance is requested to permit the "Faith Church Entrance" sign to remain. The subject property is located on the south side of Drew Street, west of Old Coachman Road, and is in the P/SP zoning district. The "Faith Church Entrance" sign is the lone nonconforming sign on this property. The area variance requested is an 87% departure from code. Though the variance is large, expressed as a percentage, it is small in quantity. It is 3.5 square feet too large. Given the sign is existing, staff regards the variance as minimal. The granting of this variance will not detract from properties with conforming signs and will not adversely affect the appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's request meets the standards for variance approval. Drucilla Bell, attorney representing the applicant, thanked staff for their consideration. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the requested area variance for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 9. R & W Partnership (State Farm Insurance) for a variance of 132 sq ft to permit 156 sq ft of attached signage to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1234 Court St, Hibiscus Gardens, Blk O, Lots 12-19, zoned OL (Limited Office). SV 93-114 The applicant has requested a continuance of this matter. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to the meeting of June 2, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 10. Alan C. Bomstein & Robert J. Burnside (Checker's Drive-In Restaurant, Inc) for variances (1) to permit a freestanding sign of 24.6 ft and 16 ft in height in the UC(C) District; (2) of 4.5 ft to permit a sign of .5 ft from West property line; and (3) of 1 ft to permit a sign 4 ft from South property line to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 205 Ft Harrison Ave, N, Jones Sub of Nicholson's, Blk 5, Lots 1 & 2, zoned UC(C) (Urban Center (Core). SV 93-115 The applicant is requesting a variance to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain: continuation of a freestanding sign 16 feet in height, 24.6 square feet in area, with a 0.5 foot setback from the N. Ft. Harrison Avenue right of way and a 4 foot setback from the Drew Street right of way. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of N. Ft. Harrison Avenue and Drew Street and is in the UC(C) zoning district. The Checkers Drive-In restaurant is set back from the N. Ft. Harrison Avenue and Drew Street right of way. Since only attached signs are allowed in the downtown core, this business would have no roadside identification if the code were strictly enforced. This would cause a hardship for the applicant. The sign is located in a landscape island, at the corner of N. Ft. Harrison Avenue and Drew Street. The sign area is 24.6 square feet, which is generally consistent with the area allowed for other downtown properties sized less than one acre. Lowering of the sign would cause it to gain visibility to northbound traffic because the canopy on the building to the south currently obstructs it. However, the existing 16 foot height is in scale with the development of this property and other nearby properties. Also, moving the sign approximately 2 feet in a northeasterly direction would increase the setback without interfering with the parking lot. However, this is not recommended because it would further decrease the visibility of the sign to northbound traffic. The existence of this sign is in character with the signs permitted for downtown properties which have buildings set back from the right of way. The granting of this variance will not detract from businesses with conforming signs and will not adversely affect the appearance of downtown or the City. Staff feels the applicant's request meets the standards for variance approval. Scott Shuford explained the application noting that freestanding signs are not permitted in this zoning district but that the Commission has given direction regarding a Code change that will allow freestanding signs. This sign is very close in size to what the Commission has agreed is acceptable. Chris Conkle agrees with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to how the sign was erected since this is a new business and the sign was put up after the Code changed. Miles Lance stated that Mr. Cline represented the applicant for a variance before the Development Code Adjustment Board. It was questioned as to whether the granting of that variance was conditioned on the sign coming into conformance in October 1992. It was suggested this item be continued until later in the meeting to allow staff to investigate the circumstances regarding this sign. Mr. Shuford stated there was an existing sign on the property and they only changed the face. The permit was issued and stamped that it needed to conform or seek a variance when the amortization period expired in 1992. He noted that the Commission has given direction that they will allow freestanding signs in this district. In response to a question regarding size and height, Mr. Shuford stated a parcel this size will be permitted 24 square feet in area but he was unsure of the height. Mr. Conkle expressed concern that if the sign is lowered it may create a visibility problem for turns at this intersection. Mr. Shuford stated that if there was 9 feet of clear distance under the sign the top of the sign would be at 12 feet. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a variance to allow continuation of a freestanding sign up to 16 feet in height, 24.6 square feet in area, with a 0.5 foot setback from the N. Ft. Harrison Avenue right of way and a 4 foot setback from the Drew Street right of way, for the subject property, for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the following condition: By maintaining a sign within the street setback pursuant to this variance, the owner or 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 for road widening or any other public purpose. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Fitzgerald and Thomas voted "Aye," Mayor Garvey and Commissioners Berfield and Deegan voted "Nay." Motion failed. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a variance to allow continuation of a freestanding sign up to 12 feet in height, 24.6 square feet in area, with a 0.5 foot setback from the N. Ft. Harrison Avenue right of way and a 4 foot setback from the Drew Street right of way, for the subject property, for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the following condition: By maintaining a sign within the street setback pursuant to this variance, the owner or 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 for road widening or any other public purpose. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 11. Florida Clearwater Beach Hotel Co n/k/a Hunter Hotel Company (Clearwater Beach Motel) for variances of (1) 1 freestanding sign to permit 2 such signs; and (2) 28.5 sq ft freestanding sign area to permit a total of 78.5 sq ft of such sign area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 500 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Resub, Tract A and vacated portion of Baymont on south, together with Miller's replat, Lots 1 & 10 and part of Lot 9, together with parts of vacated Beach Dr, and Ambler St, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). SV 93-117 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the continuation of the two existing freestanding signs: 1) a variance of one freestanding sign from the permitted one freestanding sign to allow two freestanding signs, and 2) an area variance of 28.5 square feet from the permitted 50 square feet to allow freestanding signs with a total area of 78.5 square feet. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street, and is in the CR-28 zoning district. There are presently two freestanding signs on this property. Only one is allowed. If the variance to allow the two signs to remain is approved, the applicant proposes to relocate the 30 square foot, 11 foot high sign from Baymont Street to the corner at Mandalay Avenue. There is presently no clear identification of this property for motorists travelling north on Mandalay Avenue. There is a sign placed near the main entrance to the hotel, but it is not particularly noticeable because it is placed on a steep incline, in a heavily landscaped area, and its orientation is parallel to the right of way rather than the more conventional perpendicular. Given the unusual layout of this property, staff views this request as minimal to satisfactorily identify this use. The existence of two freestanding signs, with a cumulative area of 78.5 square feet, is in character with the development of this property. The granting of these variances will not detract from businesses with conforming signs and will not adversely affect the appearance of Clearwater Beach or the City. Staff feels the applicant's requests meet the standards for variance approval. Mr. Richter explained the application. Mr. Wallace Lee, representing the applicant, stated they want to move one sign to better identify the hotel. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a variance of one freestanding sign to allow two such signs and an area variance of 28.5 square feet for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 12. Fred & Vivian Whalen (Edgewater Drive Motel) for variances of (1) 16.5 sq ft in area to permit a freestanding sign of 68 sq ft; (2) 5.5 ft in sign height to permit a 25.5 ft freestanding sign; and (3) 3.6 ft to permit a freestanding sign 1.4 ft from street right-of-way (Edgewater Dr) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1919 Edgewater Dr, Sunset Point and Replat, Lots 2 & 3 less road, zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercial). SV 94-10 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain: 1) an area variance of 16.5 square feet from the permitted 50 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 66.5 square feet; 2) a height variance of 5.5 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign 25.5 feet high; and 3) a setback variance of 3.6 feet from the permitted 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 1.4 feet from the Edgewater Drive right of way. The subject property is located on the east side of Edgewater Drive, north of Sunset Point Road, and is in the CR-24 zoning district. This is a particularly scenic portion of Edgewater Drive. The subject property is developed with a motel in close proximity to the Edgewater Drive right of way. The primary identification sign for the motel is uniquely placed on a pole with the sign panel apparently resting on top of a limestone pillar that extends above the motel office. Staff does not consider the variances to be minimal. Further, staff recommends the applicant be directed to reapply for a variance to the attached sign area, thereby allowing the 50 square foot panels to be relocated on the limestone pillar. The existence of this 25.5 foot high, 66.5 square foot freestanding sign is not in character with signage permitted for nearby uses and diverts attention from those uses. The granting of these variances will detract from the businesses with conforming signs and will adversely affect the appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance approval. John Richter explained the application. The applicant has looked at alternatives. The sign would have good visibility if it were located on the limestone pillar which would be at a height of 20 feet with no setback variance required. Fred Whalen inquired as to whether the bulletin board for the restaurant could remain. Mr. Richter stated the panel encroaches into the setback and staff has tried to encourage the applicant to include a panel for the restaurant. Staff will not consider it a roof sign as long as it is below that building feature. There will be a sign panel on either side. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to the meeting of June 2, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 13. Edward A. & Carol J. Jones (Companion Animal Hospital) for a variance of (1) 1 freestanding sign to permit 2 freestanding signs; (2) 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign to remain 0 ft from a rear (south) property line; and (3) 120.2 sq ft of attached sign area to permit a total of 184.2 sq ft of attached sign area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1465 Jordan Hills Ct, Jordan Hill, Lots 5 & 6, and part of Lot 7, zoned CG (General Commercial) and OL (Limited Office). SV 94-13 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the continuation of the existing freestanding and attached signs: 1) a variance of one freestanding sign from the permitted one to allow two such signs; 2) a setback variance of 5 feet from the required 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign zero feet from the south property line; and 3) an area variance of 120.2 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow 184.2 square feet of attached signs. The subject property is located on the south end of Jordan Hills Court, north of Belleair Road and west of Highland Avenue, and is in the CG zoning district. Jordan Hills is a small nonresidential subdivision with access from Highland Avenue. Two lots at the entrance to this subdivision have frontage on Highland. The others have frontage only on Jordan Hill Court, a 300 foot long cul-de-sac. The Companion Animal Hospital is situated at the end of the cul-de-sac. It is the only property in the subdivision zoned General Commercial. The other properties are zoned Limited Office. Given the commercial zoning, the animal hospital is entitled to more sign area than other Jordan Hills properties. However, the hospital does not have an advantageous position to display its signs due to the lack of frontage on a major thoroughfare. It is understandable that the applicant desires to advertise this business to motorists on nearby Highland Avenue and Belleair Road. However, the lack of a good location to accomplish this is not, in staff's view, a good reason to place larger signs than the code allows, or to place additional signs which require viewing across adjoining properties. The 184.2 square feet of attached signs on this property is a wholesale departure from the signs permitted in this zone. A variance to this extent can not be considered minimal. The placement of a second freestanding sign, which requires viewing across adjoining properties in order to be seen from the public right of way, is neither desirable for adjoining property owners nor consistent with the City's aesthetic interests. This should not qualify as a minimum variance. Accordingly, the setback variance for the second sign should not be regarded minimal either. The existence of two freestanding signs and 184.2 square feet of attached signs on this property is not in character with the signage permitted for other uses in this zone. The granting of these variances will detract from properties with conforming signs and will adversely affect the overall appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's requests do not meet the standards for variance approval. John Richter explained the application and noted that the existing signage is almost triple what is allowed. Ed Jones stated his property is in a cul de sac that has no street sign. He provides emergency care and many of his clients are elderly and have difficulty finding his office. The sign on the fence gives visibility to Belleair Road because the lots to the south are vacant. When they are developed there will be no visibility from Belleair. The signs on the east side are behind the Bread & Roses building creating a unique situation. In response to a question regarding alternatives, Dr. Jones stated there is an entry sign but a group of attorneys proceeded to use that sign as they saw fit. Staff stated they would be happy to meet with Dr. Jones to discuss alternatives. It was noted there was one letter in support and one letter in opposition to the request. Commissioner Deegan moved to continue this item to a date uncertain. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.