Loading...
04/19/1994 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING April 19, 1994 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in special session at City Hall, Tuesday, April 19, 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: Kathy S. Rice Deputy City Manager Miles Lance Assistant City Attorney Scott Shuford Central Permitting Director John Richter Senior Planner (arrived 11:15) Susan Stephenson Deputy City Clerk Public Hearings were held concerning the following sign variance requests. ITEM A - Reconsideration of Thomas E. & Barbara E. Soares (El Capitan Restaurant & Lounge, Inc) for a variance of 227.2 sq ft to permit 291.2 sq ft in area of attached signage to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2525 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 41.04, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-05 On January 24, 1994, the Commission approved a setback variance for the freestanding sign, but continued the area variance request of 227.2 square feet. The continuance was to allow the owners the opportunity to consider downsizing the request. Staff met with the applicants regarding this matter. The Soares' are prepared to downsize the extent of their request from 227.2 square feet to 26 square feet. The amended application will allow for a total of 90 square feet of attached signage as follows: "El Capitan" (28 sq.ft.), "Lounge" (18 sq.ft.), and "Steak & Seafood" (44 sq.ft.). Staff would regard this to be consistent with the standards for approval as both the lounge and restaurant are in need of identification and the building is located approximately 140 feet from the Gulf to Bay Boulevard right of way. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Bypass Drive, and is in the CG zoning district. Scott Shuford explained the application. The applicant worked with staff to reduce his variance request to 26 square feet. The bonus allowed for the setback only applies to the primary sign. Tom Soares stated that the road sign has been brought into compliance. He further stated that the El Capitan, Buccaneer, and Restaurant signs will be taken down. Commissioner Thomas moved to deny an area variance of 227.2 square feet for the subject property for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8 but to approve an area variance of 26 square feet to allow 90 square feet of attached signage as this meets the standards. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM B - (cont from 3-7-94) 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 On February 7, the City Commission continued the variance request and asked staff to work with the applicant to lessen or eliminate the variance request. Staff has met with the applicant to work toward lessening or eliminating the area variance request. The applicant has painted over almost half of the sign area in order to reduce the request. Only two signs remain: "R.J. Automotive" and "Complete Auto Care." The applicant feels these signs are necessary to identify the name and nature of the business. Together, the two signs have an area of 106.35 square feet. Staff feels the 42.35 square foot variance necessary to accommodate these two signs is a minimum variance. The applicant relies entirely on these two signs for identification of the business because there is no freestanding sign. Also, staff observes that the building now presents a neat appearance from Court Street since the applicant has painted out much of the signage. Staff recommends approval of the 42.35 square foot variance on the condition that the attached signage be made to conform in the event a freestanding sign is placed on this property. Scott Shuford stated the request is minimal and without a freestanding sign, the attached signage is needed to identify the business. Connie Thomas submitted several photos indicating that some of the signs have been painted over. Commissioner Deegan congratulated the applicant for her cooperation with the City in trying to resolve the issue. Commissioner Deegan moved to deny a variance of one wall sign to allow four wall signs and an area variance of 132.4 square feet to allow 196.4 square feet for the subject property for failure to meet Section 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-8 but to approve an area variance of 42.35 square feet to allow 106.35 square feet as this variance meets the standards subject to the condition that the attached signage be made to conform in the event a freestanding sign is placed on this property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM C - (cont from 3-7-94) 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 applicant is requesting the existing on-premise sign be allowed to remain until the completion of the Drew Street widening project. It is not clear from the application why the City should postpone the requirement for compliance until after the roadway is widened. 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 continuing this item at the March 7th meeting, the Commission had two questions; when will the Drew Street widening be completed in this location, and what height has the Commission allowed for signs in the Limited Office zone where parking is located in front of the sign? First, based upon information obtained from the Pinellas County Public Works Department, the Drew Street widening should be completed approximately one year after the work is begun. The work is currently projected to begin in August or September of this year. It should be pointed out this project has already been delayed in starting, and more delays are not out of the question. Regarding sign height, staff research reveals one other very similar case involving property at 1266 Court Street (Accurate Auto Repair), zoned Limited Office. Among the reasons cited for the extra height was parking existed in front of the sign and the height was necessary for the sign to be visible over any vehicles that may be in front of the sign. A 3.9 foot height variance was approved, allowing a sign 11.9 feet high. The lowermost panel was allowed to remain in place, it had a 7.7 foot clearance above grade. It is unlikely a vehicle over 6 feet in height will park in front of the sign. Consequently, it would be reasonable to position the bottom of the sign panel 6 feet above grade. The poles supporting the sign are 6.5 feet apart. If a sign panel is placed between the poles, a panel measuring 3.7 feet vertically by 6.5 feet horizontally would yield a conforming area of 24 square feet. Therefore, it is staff's position that a variance of 1.7 feet from the permitted 8 feet to allow a 9.7 foot high sign constitutes a minimum variance. Further, by placing the panel between the poles, it appears that the setback requirement will be satisfied. Scott Shuford explained the application and pointed out the variances and justifications for granting a similar request on Court Street. Licia Nolan stated staff's recommendation is acceptable. She pointed out that the base of the sign is already set back 5 feet from the right-of-way. Commissioner Deegan stated he wants to be consistent in granting variances. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny the original requested variances (11 foot height variance, area variance of 22.7 square feet and setback variance of 1.2 feet) for the subject property for failure to meet Section 45.24, Standards for Approval, items 1-8 but to approve a height variance of 1.7 feet to allow a freestanding sign 9.7 feet high as this meets the standards subject to the condition that the sign area and setback be made to conform. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM D - (cont from 3-21-94) Valentinos Koumoulidis (Mr. Submarine) for variances of (1) 24.5 sq ft to permit 88.5 sq ft freestanding sign; and (2) 13.17 ft in height to permit a total of 33.17 ft high freestanding sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1010 Cleveland St, Sarah McMullen's Sub, Blk 3, part of Lot 9, zoned UC(E) (Urban Center (East). SV 92-97 On February 7, 1994 the Commission granted setback variances of 0.83 feet and 3 feet, denied a height variance of 13.17 feet and continued two area variance requests. This application was continued on March 21 to allow the applicant the opportunity to file a reduced height variance request for the freestanding sign. The applicant is now requesting a variance of 6.5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 26.5 feet high. Also, based on preliminary discussions with the applicant, it appears the applicant is willing to paint over the nonconforming signs on the building and, therefore, it is likely will withdraw the area variance request for attached signs. (If not withdrawn, staff recommends denial of the request for 293.9 square feet to allow attached signs with a total area of 357.9 square feet.) Staff recommends a 4 foot height variance. This is based upon the placement of a sign panel that measures 5.5 feet vertically, in lieu of 8 feet, thereby yielding a conforming area. The applicant maintains the request for an area variance of 24.5 square feet to allow a freestanding sign with an area of 88.5 square feet. Staff feels this, if granted, is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial area and would divert attention from those land uses. Also, that granting this request would detract from businesses that have conforming signs and would negatively affect the appearance of the community and therefore, feels this request does not meet the standards for approval. The subject property is located on the north side of Cleveland Street, west of Greenwood Avenue, and is in the Urban Center, Eastern Corridor zoning district. Mr. Shuford explained the application and stated the applicant would withdraw the request for an area variance. Antoine Saydi stated he cannot remove the poles and he needs the height variance. He agrees with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the two requested area variances (of 24.5 sq.ft. and 293.9 sq.ft.) for the subject property for failure to meet Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, to deny a height variance of 6.5 feet for failure to meet the standards, and to approve a height variance of 4 feet to allow a freestanding sign 24 feet high as this meets the standards subject to the condition that all signs on this property conform to the area requirements contained in the code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM E - (cont from 3-21-94) Richard O. Davison (Bay Area Neuro Muscular) for a variance of 6.9 sq ft in freestanding sign area to permit a 70.9 sq ft freestanding sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1450 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Knollwood Replat, Blk 3, Lot 13, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-13 Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to a date uncertain. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM F - (cont from 3-21-94) Arthur H. & Mary L. Bruno (Clearwater Mattress Co, Inc) for variances of (1) 294.46 sq ft to permit a total of 354.46 sq ft of attached signage area; and (2) one permanent window sign to permit 4 attached signs of the same type to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1659 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Gulf-to-Bay Shopping Center, Lots 3 & 4, zoned CC (Commercial Center). SV 93-19 This item was continued from March 21 at the request of the applicant. The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing attached signs to remain: 1) an area variance of 294.46 square feet from the permitted 60 square feet to allow attached signs with a total area of 354.46 square feet, and 2) a variance of one permanent window sign to allow a total of four such signs. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Keystone Avenue and is in the CC zoning district. Scott Shuford explained the application. John Brunson stated the applicant will withdraw the request as the signs are in compliance. ITEM G - (cont from 3-21-94) Helika Properties (Clearwater Mattress Co, Inc) for variances of (1) 15 ft to permit a freestanding sign 35 ft in height; (2) 2 above roof signs where such signs are prohibited; (3) 12 sq ft to permit 120 sq ft of attached sign area on North face of business; and (4) 150 sq ft to permit 229.5 sq ft of attached sign area on East face of business to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 20258 US Hwy 19 N, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 44.01, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 93-22 This item was continued from March 21 at the request of the applicant. The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing freestanding sign and attached above roof signs to remain: 1) a height variance of 15 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign 35 feet in height; 2) a variance to allow two above roof signs where above roof signs are prohibited; 3) an area variance of 12 square feet from the permitted 108 square feet of attached signage to allow a total of 120 square feet of attached signage on the north facade of the building; and 4) an area variance of 150 square feet from the permitted 79.5 square feet of attached signage to allow a total of 229.5 square feet of attached signage on the east facade of the building. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Druid Road and US19 and is in the CH zoning district. John Brunson stated the applicant withdraws his request and will comply with the Code within 60 days. Mr. Shuford noted they are removing the tree and will put up a freestanding sign. ITEM H - (cont from 3-21-94) Marks & Gilliss, Inc/Marks Holding Co, Inc (Ken Marks Ford) for variances of (1) 37.5 sq ft in area to permit a freestanding sign of 149.5 sq ft; (2) 144 sq ft in area to permit an auxiliary sign of 200 sq ft; (3) 8 ft in height to permit an auxiliary sign of 20 ft in height; and (4) 18 ft in distance to permit an auxiliary sign with a distance of 282 ft from the primary sign 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 April 27, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 1. Charlie Harris Pontiac, Inc/Johnson Assoc., Inc for variances of (1) 2 freestanding signs to permit a total of 3 freestanding signs; (2) 197.5 sq ft in area to permit total freestanding sign area of 309.5 sq ft; (3) 17 ft in height to permit a freestanding sign of 37 ft high; and (4) 15 sq ft of directional sign area per sign to permit 3 directional signs of 19 sq ft each to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 19320 & 19246 US Hwy 19, N, Sec 19-29-16, M&B 14.03 & 14.04, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). SV 92-75 The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) a variance of two freestanding signs from the permitted one freestanding sign to allow a total of three freestanding signs; 2) an area variance of 197.5 square feet from the permitted area of 112 square feet to allow a total freestanding sign area of 309.5 square feet; 3) a height variance of 17 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign 37 feet high; and 4) an area variance of 15 square feet from the permitted 4 square feet to allow three directional signs with an area of 19 square feet each. The Sunset Pontiac dealership is on leased land located on the west side of US19, north of Harn Boulevard, and is in the CH zoning district. It is on two side-by-side separate ownerships. Pursuant to Commission policy regarding metes and bounds subdivisions and the City code definition of lot, the dealership is entitled to a freestanding sign on each ownership. All of the variances address signs on the northern property. The northern property has three freestanding signs and three directional signs. The southern property has one freestanding sign. The variances are requested to permit all of the existing signs to remain. According to the variance application, the applicant contends that the City's sign code is unconstitutional, unlawful, and/or improperly applied, and is proceeding with this application to exhaust administrative remedies. Further, the applicant contends the variances are warranted because: the site has an area 20 times the minimum required for this zone; there are six businesses on the property; US19 is a six lane divided highway carrying high speed traffic; and signs with conforming height and area would be obscured by nearby uses. First, regarding the legality of the City's sign code, staff can not agree with the allegation. Second, regarding the area and height variances, it is staff's position that to grant the variances would cause disparate treatment for signs in this zone. The Sunset Pontiac dealership is not particularly different than other Clearwater dealerships located on US19. Other dealerships are also zoned CH, cover large land areas, have multiple business operations, and front of this same six lane divided highway. Other dealerships are governed by the same sign regulations. To recount: freestanding sign allocations in the City are determined on the basis of zoning and, within the CH zoning district, one 20 foot high, 112 square foot freestanding sign is allowed per property. Additionally, each business can be identified with signs placed on the building. The effect is to identify the use of the property with the freestanding sign, and to identify the businesses within the building with the signs attached to the building. The primary freestanding sign for Sunset Pontiac has an area of 225 square feet. This sign area is double the area allowed for other signs in this zoning district. The height of the sign is 37 feet. This height is 85% greater than allowed for other signs in this district. Variances of this magnitude are not minimum variances. Third, regarding the request for three freestanding signs on the northern property, it is staff's position that this too is not a minimum variance. Two of the signs are roadside on US19, the third is located on the rear of the property, oriented to Harn Boulevard. The US19 frontage for the northern property is 401 feet. This is not unusually large for property fronting US19. In order to qualify for a second freestanding sign, a property is required to have a minimum frontage of 500 feet. Staff finds no topographical or other unique conditions to set this property apart from other properties in this zone. Other properties in this zone commonly have: much larger land areas than the minimum allowable; multiple businesses; and commonly front US19 which is a six lane divided expressway. Further, it should not go unnoticed that the southern parcel has a frontage of 70 feet, and is also entitled to a freestanding sign. Together, the Pontiac dealership is allowed two freestanding signs along its 471 foot frontage. This is an allowance that most other developments with less than 500 feet of frontage do not enjoy. The freestanding sign on the rear of the property is oriented to, and plainly visible from, Harn Boulevard. Harn Boulevard is a street on which this dealership has no frontage. The sign is located alongside a driveway that runs from Harn Boulevard, along the perimeter of the Florida Power right of way, to the rear of this dealership and the dealership adjacent to the north. The sign is approximately 430 feet from the Harn Boulevard right of way. The placement of additional freestanding signs oriented to roadways where there is no frontage is not a situation which the City would do well to promote, whether through variances or otherwise. Finally, staff is concerned with one of the three requested 19 square foot directional signs. Two of the three signs, the "Body Shop" and "Parts-Service" signs, are positioned for on-site viewing. They are set back more than 200 feet from US19 and have limited visibility from the highway. Given the positioning of these two signs, it is staff's position that the variances related thereto are minimal. However, the third sign, the "Service" sign, is located roadside on US19 and plainly viewable from the highway. Given: the position of this sign; the degree of the request, which is more than quadruple the area allowed; and the collective impact of larger than allowed roadside signs, it is staff's position that the requested area for this sign is not minimal. In the alternative, staff recommends placement of a conforming sized directional sign to direct motorists to the service shop. The granting of these variances will detract from uses 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 explained the application. There is nothing unique about this property and it is not being treated any differently from others with the same zoning classification. Gordon Schiff, attorney representing Sunset Pontiac GMC Truck South, Inc., who is the applicant stated they have a vested right under common law to use the property, including the signs; that the ordinance is unconstitutional based on Dimmitt vs. City of Clearwater, therefore an ordinance does not exist and there is no authority to consider variances; or the City, pursuant to amendments to the ordinance is utilizing a retroactive amortization schedule but there has been no analysis or basis to have a retroactive amortization schedule. Therefore, they feel there is no ordinance or if the City takes the position there is, the amortization is not proper; and until the Patrick Media case, which is challenging the Ordinance from the standpoint of not complying with the proper procedures under the United States Constitution, is decided, further action should be held in abeyance. Assuming the ordinance is in place, it is arbitrary. There is no analysis to support the recommendations. The numbers are arbitrary and, therefore, unconstitutional and result in treating dissimilar properties the same. Application of the ordinance demonstrates discriminatory action. Page 6 of the Agenda Memo shows arbitrary and discriminatory action. There is no basis for the City saying what is the minimum necessary. The applicant has a leasehold interest in the property and there is no basis to apply the amortization because the signs are leased. The City has not taken into account the cost to remove signs. These are two separate and distinct properties and each should be looked at separately. It is not fair to use one to limit the signs on the other. They must be looked at separately. Mr. Schiff noted there are three reasons for keeping all three signs on the northern property. The first reason is the intent of the ordinance is not to challenge having three internal signs. Secondly, the directional signs are there to address the safety of their customers by directing internal circulation. They are the minimum necessary to achieve safety. The applicant will remove the sign on Harn Boulevard if variances are granted for the two remaining freestanding signs on the northern property. They feel that two of the freestanding signs are primary and necessary, one being 17.5 feet above the 20 feet allowed by Code with an area of 107.25 square feet and the other being 40 feet high and 187-1/4 square feet in area. As for the second property, Mr. Schiff stated they are requesting an 8 foot height variance for a sign that is only half the size of the maximum square footage allowed. It does not make sense to make someone remove or lower a sign that can be replaced by a larger sign. There is a lot of traffic on US 19 and a car dealership is the type of business that is only an occasional destination as opposed to a business visited on a regular basis. There are six businesses operating on the same parcel (new truck sales, new car sales, used car sales, a parts business, a service business, and a body shop) as well as two franchises. In response to a question from the Mayor regarding previous variance requests and their outcome, Mr. Shuford stated the burden of proof is on the applicant and he felt that there were circumstances in each case that warranted the variances that were granted. Discussion ensued about the significance of identification and whether or not a larger sign is better than two signs. Mr. Schiff noted that if a height variance is denied for a sign that is smaller than what is permitted, you encourage the applicant to replace it with a larger sign. Commissioner Deegan asked for clarification of the height of the sign on the southern parcel stating that it is indicated that the sign is 15.4 feet and that no variance is being requested for the height. Mr. Schiff responded that they hired a company to do a survey and their heights were not accurate with respect to that sign and he went with measurements as determined by City staff. Mr. Shuford stated he would not be able to say how high the sign on the southern property because his information states 15 feet 5 inches tall and Mr. Schiff has stated it is 40 feet tall. Mr. Schiff stated this is related to the southernmost sign and the City's measurements are that the sign is 28 feet high and they are asking for an 8 ft variance to the height. Mr. Shuford recommended this matter be continued to allow the applicant and staff to check the height and get the correct information in an amended application since this item was not included. Continuance would also provide the applicant with an opportunity to show that 19 square feet is needed for safety as opposed to the 4 square feet which the Code allows. The Mayor noted that the Legal Department needs to interject regarding the issues that were raised by the applicant's attorney. Mr. Shuford noted that there would be a need to readvertise this item and suggested it be continued to the meeting of May 16, 1994. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue the request to the meeting of May 16, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Thomas requested that a copy of the minutes of this hearing be attached to the agenda item for May 16. Commission direction states that public hearings at regular meetings will be held on Thursday meeting dates. Therefore, this item will be scheduled for the meeting of May 19, 1994. 2. Sam C. & Judy Y. Liu (Peking Palace) for variances of (1) 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign 0 ft from property line; and (2) 3.5 sq ft each to permit 3 directional signs of 7.5 sq ft each to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1608 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Lakewood Replat, part of Lots 1, 4 & 6 together with all of Lot 5, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-17 The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow the existing freestanding sign to remain, with a smaller area and lower height, and to allow the three existing directional signs to remain: 1) a setback variance of 5 feet from the required 5 foot setback to allow a freestanding sign zero feet from the Gulf to Bay Boulevard right of way, and 2) an area variance of 3.5 square feet from the permitted 4 square feet to allow three directional signs with an area of 7.5 square feet each. The setback property is located on the north side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, east of Lake Avenue, and is in the CG zoning district. The applicant proposes to alter the freestanding sign to make the size and height conform. However, a variance is requested to allow the sign to remain with a zero foot setback from the Gulf to Bay Boulevard right of way. The restaurant building is located approximately 8 feet from the Gulf to Bay Boulevard right of way, causing the sign to be "squeezed" into a very small front yard. In fact, the sign occupies all of this 8 foot wide space. It extends from the right of way to the building, touching the roof. It is virtually impossible in a space this small to place a freestanding sign in compliance with the setback requirement. As such, the applicant will face an unnecessary hardship in the event the setback requirement is strictly enforced. The parking lot that serves the restaurant is located to the rear of the business. It can be accessed from Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Lake Avenue, or Yelvington Avenue. Each of the access drives is marked with a 7.5 square foot directional sign. The signs on Lake and Yelvington serve to identify that the parking lot is for the use of restaurant patrons. Without these signs, there may result some confusion, because the restaurant is not located adjacent to these driveway entrances. The restaurant is actually located mid-block between Lake and Yelvington. The other driveway entrance, the one on Gulf to Bay Boulevard, is difficult for Gulf to Bay motorists to locate. The drive is narrow, and it has little visibility due to the placement of buildings on the edges of the drive and near the Gulf to Bay right of way. The third directional sign serves to identify this obscure drive. All three directional signs are tastefully designed wooden signs. There would be little benefit to the public to require these signs be replaced now. However, it is staff's position that, at such time as the business owner may choose to replace the signs, they be replaced with conforming signs. The existence of a freestanding sign with a zero foot setback from Gulf to Bay Boulevard and three directional signs, each with an area of 7.5 square feet, will not detract from the surrounding businesses that have conforming signs and will not adversely affect the appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's requests meet the standards for variance approval. Mr. Shuford explained the application stating that meeting the setback presents a hardship. Staff recommends approval subject to two conditions, however, they do not feel the height variance is needed. Phu Tang stated he will comply with the code as to height and the sign will be 8 feet by 8 feet. He agrees with staff's recommendation. Mr. Shuford pointed out that the square footage permitted is 64 square feet not 150 square feet as indicated on the second page of the agenda memo. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to whether the sign is measured on the outside or by the border and Mr. Shuford responded it is measured on the outside. Mr. Shuford stated the "Open" sign is considered an attached directional sign and is treated similar to a "No Vacancy" sign. The Mayor noted that the reader board is part of the sign. It was noted that the "Open" sign is the proper size for a directional sign and it constitutes the fourth such sign and can be permitted. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a setback variance of 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign zero feet from the Gulf to Bay Boulevard right of way and an area variance of 3.5 square feet to allow three directional signs with an area of 7.5 square feet each for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the following conditions: 1) at such time as the directional signs are replaced, they shall be made to conform to code, and 2) by reconstructing 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 for road widening or any other public purpose. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. 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. According to the application, the variances are requested because the signs are in scale with the building and do not pose a safety hazard given their distance from the roadway. Furthermore, the application indicates that repair to the brick wall is virtually impossible due to the age of the brick and mortar. 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 is 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. Mr. Shuford explained the application and stated Gayfers had requested a variance for the north face identification sign in 1991 with the condition that all other signs will be brought into conformance. They are requesting variances to allow other attached signs to remain as they are now. The Code has changed since then and the sign facing Gulf-to-Bay is in conformance. They are allowed 150 square feet above each entrance but each sign presently measures 342 square feet. The applicant has expressed concern regarding the repair of the brick after the signs are removed. Neither the applicant nor their representative was present. Commissioner Deegan inquired as to whether there were any examples of removal of signs that had defaced a building as a result. Mr. Shuford indicated there were some instances of fading bricks. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern regarding removal of signage where a building is defaced and cannot be repaired. He noted that is different then asking for a variance for financial gain. Commissioner Fitzgerald read the motion made on December 19, 1991 wherein a variance of 214 square feet was approved for the north facing sign to permit its continuation after October 13, 1992 subject to the variance applying only to this sign and all other signs being brought into conformance by October 13, 1992. Discussion ensued noting that the Code now allows more signage on the east and west sides than was allowed in 1991. Mr. Shuford stated their 1991 variance is no longer needed as that sign now conforms under the Code changes. Discussion ensued as to whether the applicant and their representative had been notified of the hearing and it was stated they had. Commissioner Deegan moved that this item be continued to April 27, 1994 to allow staff to determine if there are similar buildings and whether signage can be easily removed and building damage repaired. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. Aubrey MacLean, TRE/Clearwater Trust/Trizec Properties, Inc (Dillard's) for variances of (1) 21.26 sq ft of attached signage to permit a total of 171.26 sq ft of attached signage on the south elevation; and (2) 21.26 sq ft of attached signage to permit a total of 171.26 sq ft of attached signage on the east elevation 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 93-39 The applicant is requesting the following variance to allow the existing signs to remain: 1) an area variance of 21.26 square feet of attached sign area from the permitted 150 square feet to allow 171.26 square feet of attached sign area on the southeast building face, and 2) an area variance of 21.26 square feet from the permitted 150 square feet to allow 171.26 square feet of attached sign area on the southwest building face. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of US19 and Gulf to Bay Boulevard, and is in the CC zoning district. Dillard's in Clearwater Mall is currently identified with three attached signs. One sign, which conforms, is located at the main entrance on the westerly side of the Mall. The other signs, which do not conform, are located on the southeast and southwest faces of the store. Each of these two signs measures 171.26 square feet, or 21.26 square feet larger than is permitted by code. The applicant contends these signs are in keeping with the role of anchor tenants in regional malls, are in proportion to the scale of the Dillard's building, and do not serve to secure a greater financial return from the property since the signs are located away from public streets. Staff agrees. Further, since the existing signs are only modestly oversized and are located to the rear of the Mall, staff regards these variance requests to be minimal. The existence of these two 171.26 square foot signs is in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial uses. The granting of these variances will not detract from the appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's requests meet the standards for variance approval. Scott Shuford explained the application. This is an anchor tenant located at the rear of the mall. All their signs are away from the streets. In response to a question he stated Dillard's went into the mall after 1990 and was able to replace the face of the existing signs of the previous tenant. Neither the applicant nor their representative was present. Commissioner Berfield stated they are arguing for signs on the east and the west similar to Gayfers. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve an area variance of 21.26 square feet to allow 171.26 square feet of attached sign area on the southeast building face and an area variance of 21.26 square feet to allow 171.26 square feet of attached sign area on the southwest building face for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Mayor Garvey and Commissioners Fitzgerald, Deegan, and Thomas voted "Aye," Commissioner Berfield voted "Nay." Motion carried. 5. David E. Edmunds (Spencer's Western World II) for variances (1) to permit a 3-dimensional object (horse) used as a sign; and (2) of 9.7 ft in height to permit a freestanding sign 29.7 ft in height to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1884 Drew St, New Marymont, Blk B, Lots 2, 3, & 4 together with west ½ of vacated street to east, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-86 The applicant is requesting the following variance to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain, most notably with the three dimensional horse located at the top: 1) a variance to allow a three dimensional object used as a sign, and 2) a height variance of 9.7 feet from the permitted 20 feet to allow a freestanding sign 29.7 feet high. The subject property is located on the north side of Drew Street, east of Corona Avenue, and is in the CG zoning district. These variances are requested to allow the three dimensional horse to remain on Spencer's Western World II sign. The horse is located at the top of the sign and reaches a height of 29.7 feet above grade. Below the horse is a sign panel that is one-half the size allowed by code. This is a unique condition affecting a unique sign. Given that the area of the sign panel is substantially less than the code allows, and recognizing there exists some sentiment towards the horse, it does not appear to be in the public interest to strictly enforce the code in this case. This 29.7 foot high three dimensional sign will not detract from the businesses that have conforming signs and will not adversely affect the overall appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's requests meet the standards for variance approval. Mr. Shuford explained the application and noted that the variances are to permit a three dimensional horse to remain. The applicant has stated the horse is a landmark and an heirloom. He stated that previously there had been a large pencil on Drew Street which was going to be treated as a work of art if the lettering on it were painted over but the owner opted to remove the pencil. Mr. Shuford noted that some three dimensional signs might have historical significance and should be grandfathered in. Jim Bauman, attorney representing the applicant, stated the horse is a family heirloom. The business has been in this location for nine years. Twelve letters in support were noted in addition to a petition with 160 signatures. The sign that is attached to the horse is half of what is permitted. The horse is well known as an identifier for this business and is compatible with the surrounding area. Discussion ensued regarding other three dimensional signs such as the golden arches. Mr. Shuford stated that if the horse is blown down, staff recommends that it not be put back up. Discussion ensued as to whether the condition meant if it goes down involuntarily or is intentionally removed. Mr. Bauman stated that if the horse can be put back up in such a case, the applicant wishes to do so. Mr. Shuford recommended they add the words "by the property owner or irreparably damaged" into condition 1 of the motion. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a variance to allow a three dimensional object (horse) to be used as a sign and a height variance of 9.7 feet for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the following conditions: 1) at such time as the three dimensional object is removed by the property owner or irreparably damaged, it shall not be replaced and the sign height shall not exceed the zone limit, and 2) the area of the sign panel shall not be made larger than the existing 32 square feet. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. James C. & Carolyn C. Johnson (Mac's Sports) for variances of (1) 187.3 sq ft to permit 251.3 sq ft of attached signage; and (2) 1 sign type to permit 6 attached signs to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2126 Drew St, Mosell Acres, part of Lot 2, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-93 The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow the existing attached signs to remain: 1) an area variance of 187.3 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow 251.3 square feet of attached signs, and 2) a variance of one sign from the maximum of five signs to allow six attached signs. The subject property is located on the north side of Drew Street, east of NE Coachman Road, and is in the CG zoning district. It should be noted that, based upon the sign areas indicated on drawings submitted in conjunction with the application, the actual variance needed to accommodate the existing attached sign is less than the 187.3 square feet requested. Rather, a 127.8 square foot variance will accommodate the signs. There are six attached signs on this business as follows: two "Discover Diving" signs at 42.25 square feet each, one "Scuba Lessons" sign at 3 square feet, and three sports figures cumulatively totalling 104.3 square feet. The sports figures are wooden silhouettes attached to the front wall of the business. One of the figures has either fallen or been removed from the wall. Yet, due to discoloration of the wall beneath where the sign was located, the silhouette remains. The applicant states that the aging process of the building has caused the wooden walls to discolor underneath the signs and, if the wood is painted to obscure the silhouettes, this natural wood building will not look good. A 127.8 square foot variance is triple the attached sign area permitted by code. This is not a minimum variance. To grant a variance of this magnitude would cause a special privilege for this business owner that is not available to other business owners throughout the City. Finally, regarding the appearance of the wooden walls, given the wide range of different finishes that are available for exterior wood, it does not seem unreasonable to believe that with some thoughtful consideration an attractive finish for this sporting goods store could be found. The existence of attached signs having an area of 191.8 square feet is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas and diverts attention from those land uses. The granting of these variances will detract from businesses 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. Mr. Shuford explained the application. 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. 7. Pinellas County for a variance to permit a freestanding sign of 3.3 ft in height and 7 sq ft in area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 631 Chestnut St, Magnolia Park, Blk 19, Lot 1, part of Lots 2, 9 & 10, zoned UC(C) (Urban Center (Core). SV 93-98 The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a freestanding sign 3.3 feet in height and 7 square feet in area to permit replacement of the freestanding sign with a smaller, lower sign. The subject property is located on the south side of Chestnut Street, west of East Avenue, and is in the UC(C) zoning district. This property is located in the downtown core. Ordinarily, attached signs are used to identify downtown businesses. Further, freestanding signs are not permitted in this zone. This is because properties in this district are typically developed with no setback from downtown sidewalks. The property which is the subject of this variance request, however, is not like most other properties in this district. The building is positioned approximately 17 feet from the Chestnut Street right of way. The proposed freestanding sign is modestly sized. It is 3.3 feet high and 7 square feet in area. Staff finds this property to be unique given the setback of the building, and the variance request to be minimal given the modest dimensions of this sign. A 3.3 foot high, 7 square foot sign is in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial areas and does not divert attention from those land uses. The granting of this variance will not detract from surrounding businesses and properties that have conforming signs and will not negatively affect the appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's request meets the standards for variance approval Mr. Shuford explained that this is similar to a previous request and it is a request to replace an existing freestanding sign with a smaller one. Camille Bozard, representing Pinellas County, was present but made no comment. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve a variance to allow a freestanding sign 3.3 feet in height and 7 square feet in area for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 8. Laura N. Connolly, TRE & G. Nall (Gulf-to-Bay Motel & Casa Ole' Restaurant) for variances of (1) 1 freestanding sign to permit 2 such signs; and (2) 64 square ft to permit a total of 128 sq ft of freestanding sign area to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2950 & 2960 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Sec 17-29-16, M&B 14.052 & 14.053, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 93-104 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the motel sign to remain, but with a reduced area and height (the applicant proposes to modify the sign to make the area 64 square feet and the height 16 feet): 1) a variance of one freestanding sign from the permitted one freestanding sign to allow two freestanding signs, and 2) an area variance of 64 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow freestanding signs with a total area of 128 square feet. The subject property is located on the north side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, west of Bayview Avenue, and is in the CG zoning district. There are presently two freestanding signs on this property. The westernmost sign, identifying the restaurant and recreational vehicle park, conforms with the area and height requirements of the code. The easternmost sign, identifying the motel does not. This property is developed with two buildings, with a separate business in each. In the west building is the Casa Ole Restaurant, in the east building is the Gulf to Bay Motel. Each business has an existing freestanding sign along Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Also, each business is provided with its own parking and landscaping. To the casual observer, it would appear each business is located on a separate property. The property is unique because these businesses function as two separate entities with separate buildings and parking. It would pose an extreme hardship for either business to lose its identification sign on Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Two 16 foot high, 64 square foot signs, setback 5 feet from the Gulf to Bay Boulevard right of way, are in character with other signs permitted for Gulf to Bay Boulevard uses. The granting of these variances will not detract from businesses that have conforming signs and will not adversely affect the appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's requests meet the standards for variance approval. Mr. Shuford explained the application. He pointed out that the applicant is proposing to bring the sign into conformance. The property is developed with two businesses which function independently. The property is less than 500 feet wide. The Mayor clarified that the request is to allow two freestanding signs with a total of 128 square feet of area and not to allow 128 square feet on one sign. Patricia Muscarella, attorney representing the applicant stated they agree to bring the other Gulf to Bay Motel sign down to 64 square feet. The other sign is for the travel trailer park in the rear and restaurant which was a lot larger but when it blew down, it was brought into conformance. This is the minimum variance required. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve a variance of one freestanding sign to allow two such signs and an area variance of 64 square feet from the permitted 64 square feet to allow 2 freestanding signs with a total area of 128 square feet, for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the condition that neither sign shall have an area exceeding 64 square feet or a height exceeding 20 feet. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 9. Dan Douglas Enterprises, Inc (Fred Astaire Dance Studio) for a variance of 22.8 sq ft of attached signage to permit a total of 70.8 sq ft to remain (Jones St) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 225 Ft Harrison Ave, N, Jones Sub of Nicholson's, Blk 5, Lots 8, 9 & 10, zoned UC(C) (Urban Center (Core). SV 93-113 The applicant is requesting the following variance to permit the painting on the north wall of the building to remain: an area variance of 22.8 square feet from the permitted 48 square feet to allow 70.8 square feet of attached signage. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of N. Ft. Harrison Avenue and Jones Street, and is in the UC(C) zoning district. Businesses in the downtown core are allocated signs for each street upon which the business fronts. The Fred Astaire Dance Studio fronts two streets; N. Ft. Harrison Avenue and Jones Street. Consequently, the business is allowed signs oriented to each street. The sign located on the south wall of the building, oriented to N. Ft. Harrison Avenue, is 42 square feet and conforms to code. The sign located on the north wall of the building, oriented to Jones Street, is 70.8 square feet and does not conform to the area specification. The nonconforming sign has no lettering, it is strictly pictorial. It depicts two dancers. It is artwork and it is a sign. Whether this artwork/sign enhances the downtown ambience, or detracts from it, is strictly in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, the sign is existing and it is not substantially larger than the code allows. It is staff's position the sign is unique and the variance is minimal. However, if the sign changes in any manner, staff recommends the sign be made to conform to code. The granting of this variance will not detract from surrounding businesses that have conforming signs and will not negatively impact the overall appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's request meets the standards for variance approval. Mr. Shuford explained the application. The request is to allow painting to remain. The business fronts on two streets and is allowed a 48 square foot sign for each street. The painting could be considered art if it was not advertising dancing. The painting is unique and the variance minimal. Neither the applicant nor their representative was present. Discussion ensued regarding uniqueness of the property as a condition for granting a variance and whether uniqueness of the sign should be considered. Mr. Shuford stated that the sign and the building combine to set a unique condition. In response to a statement made by Commissioner Deegan regarding setting a precedent because the sign is unique, Mr. Shuford stated a Code amendment will do away with that condition for granting a variance. The matter came before the Development Code Adjustment Board but they postponed consideration until a full Board is present. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve an area variance of 22.8 square feet, for the subject property, for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the condition that if the sign changes in any manner, the sign shall be made to conform to code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 10. Directions for Mental Health for a variance of 3.7 ft in height to permit an 11.7 ft high freestanding sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1437 Belcher Rd, S, Sec 19-29-16, Pinellas Groves, part of Lot 8, zoned OL (Limited Office). SV 94-01 The applicant is requesting the following variance to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain: a height variance of 3.7 feet from the permitted 8 feet to allow a freestanding sign 11.7 feet high. The subject property is located on the east side of Belcher Road, north of Nursery Road, and is in the OL zoning district. This sign presently has good visibility from S. Belcher Road. It is a monument-type sign and, as such, it would be more difficult to lower the height of than a pole sign. This sign is located in an island of the parking lot. There are parking spaces located both to the north and south of the sign. If the sign is lowered to meet the 8 foot height requirement, the sign may be partially obscured when the adjoining parking spaces are occupied, depending upon the height of the vehicle occupying the space. If lowered, the bottom of the sign panel would be 4.1 feet above grade. Also, it is worth noting the sign includes the address number of the property. The address number is presently located approximately 6.5 feet above grade. If the sign is lowered, and the address number continues to be included on the sign in the same location relative to the sign panel, the number would be 2.6 feet above grade. The sign and number could be lowered approximately a foot and continue to be plainly visible, but the cost to the applicant to perform this action would weigh great in comparison to the marginal benefit that would be derived by the public. The existence of this 11.7 foot high sign is in character with the signage permitted for nearby nonresidential uses. The sign will not divert attention from those land uses. 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 request meets the standards for variance approval. Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail pointing out that it is a monument type sign making it more difficult to lower the height. The sign does include the street number and if it is lowered the number and part of the message will be obstructed from view. Toby Perry, Director of Planning for Directions for Mental Health, stated this is a non-profit community mental health organization and changing the sign will cost money they don't have. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a height variance of 3.7 feet for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Susan Radner, representing CIGNA, pointed out that when there was a different tenant there they had a sign on top. The Mayor responded that no sign can be placed on top of this sign. The Mayor questioned whether they should establish a standard condition that if a sign which has been granted variances is ever modified it should meet Code. Mr. Shuford responded that the face of a sign can be changed but if the sign is changed in any other way, it must conform to the Code. If a variance is granted and the sign is blown down, staff will allow the sign to be erected as it was. He noted that variances run with the land. The meeting recessed from 11:00 a.m. to 11:10 a.m. 11. Cynthia C. Jacobson (HCA Family Care Center) for variances of (1) 46 sq ft to permit a freestanding sign area of 70 sq ft; (2) 10 ft to permit an 18 ft high sign; and (3) 2.4 ft in distance to permit a freestanding sign to remain 2.6 ft from a street right-of-way (Belcher Rd) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 2 Belcher Rd, N, Sec 13-29-15, M&B 11.18, zoned OL (Limited Office). SV 94-02 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain for an extended time: 1) an area variance of 46 square feet from the permitted 24 square feet to allow a freestanding sign area of 70 square feet; 2) a height variance of 10 feet from the permitted 8 feet to allow a freestanding sign 18 feet high; and 3) a setback variance of 2.4 feet from the required 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign 2.6 feet from the Belcher Road right of way. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of N. Belcher Road and Cleveland Street, and is in the OL zoning district. According to the application, the existing business will undergo a future merger, thereby causing the sign to be changed twice. The existing sign is substantially nonconforming. The 70 square foot area is almost triple the area permitted by code. The 18 foot height is more than double the height permitted by code. These are not minimum variances. Given the extent of the variances, staff recommends the sign be made to conform to the area and height standards in a timely manner. Further, recognizing the likelihood that the message on the sign will change in two years, it would be prudent to place a sign designed in a manner that will facilitate a future face change. The existence of this 18 foot high, 70 square foot sign is not in character with signs permitted for the surrounding properties. The granting of these variances will detract from properties that have conforming signs. Mr. Shuford explained the application and stated the applicant wishes to keep the sign as it is for two years as they will merge with another company and bring the sign into compliance at that time. Staff does not consider the request to be minimal and feels the applicant should come into compliance now, taking the merger into account when they design the sign. Bob Wooldridge stated their request was to keep the present sign for two months not two years. After the merger there will be a new logo and he stated it will take 90 to 120 days to find out what the new logo will be. He feels they should be able to meet the setback. Commissioner Thomas moved to deny the requested variances for the subject property and give the applicant 90 days to come into conformance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 12. Carl Tilly, Inc (Drew Shopping Center) for a variance of 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign 0 ft from N Arcturas Ave and Drew St rights-of-way to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1891-1899 Drew St, Skycrest Unit #6, Blk E, Lots 1 & 2, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 94-03 The applicant is requesting a setback variance of 5 feet to allow the existing freestanding sign to remain zero feet from the Drew Street and N. Arcturas Avenue rights of way. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Drew Street and N. Arcturas Avenue, and is in the CG zoning district. This sign conforms to the size and height requirements of the code, but is not positioned back from either the Drew Street or N. Arcturas Avenue right of way. If the sign is moved southward to meet the 5 foot setback requirement from Drew Street, the sign will obstruct the driveway access from N. Arcturas Avenue. If the sign is moved westward to meet the 5 foot requirement from N. Arcturas Avenue, the sign will be located in an existing vehicular circulation aisle for the parking lot. An unnecessary hardship will be imposed upon the applicant if the code is strictly enforced under these conditions. The existence of this sign zero feet from the Drew Street and N. Arcturas Avenue rights of way will not divert attention from nearby land uses or signs. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect businesses that have conforming signs. Mr. Shuford explained the application stating staff felt the setback variance is justified. Neither the applicant nor their representative were present. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve a setback variance of 5 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 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 for road widening or any other public purpose. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 13. WLT Software of Florida, Inc for a variance of 4.9 ft in height to permit a 12.9 ft high freestanding sign to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 831 Hercules Ave, N, Sec 12-29-15, Pinellas Groves SE ¼, part of Lot 8, zoned OL (Limited Office). SV 94-04 The applicant is requesting the following variance to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain: a height variance of 4.9 feet from the permitted 8 feet to allow a freestanding sign 12.9 feet high. The subject property is located on the east side of Hercules Avenue, south of Palmetto Street, and is in the OL zoning district. This sign is 12.9 feet high. There is 9.4 feet from grade to the bottom of the sign panel. Also, the address number is affixed to the sign post. The number is visible, though marginally so, and is clearly secondary to the sign. The digits are black and the post upon which they are placed is dark gray. There is 5.9 feet from grade to the bottom of the address number. If the sign is lowered to meet the 8 foot requirement, and if the address number continues to be included on the sign in the same location relative to the sign panel, the sign panel would be positioned 4.5 feet above grade, and the number would be 1.0 foot above grade. Approximately 10 feet to the north of this sign is a parking space which may affect the visibility of this sign, depending upon the decided sign height and the height of a vehicle occupying the space. Clearly the address number will not be visible 1.0 foot above grade. John Richter explained the application and noted the street number is not noticeable. If the sign were lowered the street number would be hidden by a hedge. If the bottom of the sign were 6 feet above grade level the sign would have a height of 9.5 feet. The street number could be at the top of the sign or elsewhere. Bill Tiner stated the sign has an area of 24 square feet and only the height is an issue. The building is a two story building and the sign is in proportion to it. They are only one block from the County. They purchased the building in 1992. If it must be lowered it would require complete removal of the sign since the poles are not wooden. A sign 9.5 feet tall would not be seen due to the trees. Discussion ensued regarding the nearby land uses and the fact that there are 20 foot tall signs across the street and several hundred feet down the road. Concern was expressed that the trees would block the sign. The Mayor noted that if the sign were lowered the trees could be trimmed at the bottom but they cannot be topped off. Mr. Tiner stated he received no notice that the sign was not in compliance in 1987 when it was permitted. They have done major renovations to the building but nothing was ever said about the sign. Commissioner Deegan moved to allow sign with a height of 12.9 feet with the condition that if it is changed, it will be brought into conformance with the Code. 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. Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice stated that an intern and the entire meter reading department are reviewing the City and at present, it is anticipated there is 80% compliance regarding building numbers. 14. William W. Short, Jr. (Best Wallpaper) for a variance of 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign 0 ft from S Belcher Rd right-of-way to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 300 Belcher Rd, S, Short & Short Sub, Lot 1, zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 94-08 The applicant is requesting the following variance to allow the freestanding sign to remain in its present location: a setback variance of 5 feet from the required 5 feet to allow the continuation of a freestanding sign zero feet from the S. Belcher Road right of way. The applicant proposes to reconstruct the sign so it conforms to the area and height requirements of the code. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of S. Belcher Road and Rainbow Drive, and is in the CG zoning district. This sign is located in a triangular paved island of the parking lot. It appears the sign could be moved approximately 2 feet in a westerly direction, thereby bringing the sign closer to conformance with the 5 foot setback requirement. To move the sign much more would cause the sign to crowd the circulation aisle of the parking area. It is staff's position that, since there is insufficient room to relocate the sign in conformance with code, the public benefit derived from a 2 foot relocation would pale in comparison to the cost to the applicant to accomplish such a move. The existence of this sign with a zero foot setback from S. Belcher Road will not detract from other properties in this zone that have conforming signs and will not adversely affect the overall appearance of the community. Staff feels the applicant's request meets the standards for variance approval. John Richter explained the application. He stated staff supports the request for a setback variance and the applicant has stated he will bring the sign itself into conformance. Will Griffin stated he agrees with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a 5 foot setback variance for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the following conditions: 1) the sign shall be made to conform to the area and height requirements of the code, and 2) by reconstructing 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 for road widening or any other public purpose. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 15. C.G. & Suzanne B. Gruver (Gruver's Chevron Service, Inc) for a variance to permit a freestanding sign of 79.4 sq ft of sign area, a height of 23 ft, and located 0 ft from a street right-of-way (N Ft Harrison Ave) where freestanding signs are prohibited to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 415 S Ft Harrison Ave, Court Square, Lots 47-51, zoned UC(C) (Urban Center (Core). SV 94-11 The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the continuation of a freestanding sign 23 feet in height, 79.4 square feet in area, with no setback from the S. Ft. Harrison Avenue right of way. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and Chestnut Street, and is in the UC(C) zoning district. The building on this property is located 61 feet from the S. Ft. Harrison Avenue right of way. Given this substantial setback, it would be difficult to identify the use of this property without a freestanding sign. There is no advantageous location on this property to relocate the sign in conformance with the setback requirement. The site is almost entirely paved and any relocation of the sign toward the interior of the property would cause interference with the vehicular circulation. The size and height of the existing sign is relatively large in comparison to the size and height permitted for other downtown signs. On March 21, 1994, staff and the Commission established a direction for sign areas in downtown. That direction was to allow properties over an acre in size to have a 64 square foot sign, and to allow properties with less than an acre to have a 24 square foot sign. This Chevron station has a land area of .38 acre. A 24 square foot sign, however, may be overly strict for this location. In particular, staff notes that Pick Kwik, which is also located at this intersection and also sells gas, is zoned Neighborhood Commercial and is permitted a 50 square foot sign. Staff feels the applicant's request does not meet the standards for approval. John Richter explained the application and noted the setback variance was reasonable. A 24 square foot sign would be too restrictive for this property and staff feels that 50 square feet and 20 feet high is reasonable and similar to the Pick Kwik sign across the street. Charlie Gruver stated he can only reduce the height to 21 feet because commercial vehicles need 15 feet clearance. Mr. Shuford stated there would be three panels but they will be smaller than they were before. Commissioner Thomas moved to deny the variance as requested but to approve a variance to allow a freestanding sign 21 feet in height, 45 square feet in area, with no setback from S. Ft. Harrison Avenue right of way for the subject property as this meets Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, 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 for road widening or any other public purpose. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 16. D. Guy McMullen Properties, Inc (Chevron Corner Mart) for variances of (1) 1 ft in height to permit a 21 ft high freestanding sign; and (2) 5 ft to permit a freestanding sign 0 ft from street right-of-way (Edgewater Dr) to permit nonconforming signage to remain at 1901 Edgewater Dr, Sunset Point Replat, part of Lot 4 North of Sunset Point Rd less road, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). SV 94-12 The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit the existing freestanding sign to remain: 1) a height variance of 1 foot from the permitted 20 feet to permit a freestanding sign 21 feet high, and 2) a setback variance of 5 feet from the required 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign with a zero foot setback from the Edgewater Drive right of way. It should be noted that, in addition to lacking a setback from the Edgewater Drive right of way, the sign encroaches 2.28 feet into the right of way. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Edgewater Drive and Sunset Point Road, and is in the CR-28 zoning district. The sign height requested is 1 foot greater than allowed. The requested height variance is a 5% departure from the code. This qualifies as a minimum variance. The sign encroaches 2.28 feet into the Edgewater Drive right of way. There is no well suited location on this property to relocate the sign. The Public Works Director reviewed the setback variance request and has no objection. However, if in the future any regulated feature of this sign is changed, it would be appropriate for the Public Works Director to review such change to determine whether the encroachment should be eliminated. The existence of this 21 foot high sign with no setback from the Edgewater Drive right of way is generally in character with signs permitted for commercial properties and will not divert attention from nearby 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 community. Staff feels the applicant's requests meet the standards for variance approval. John Richter explained the application and noted no one would notice the extra one foot in height. There is no where else to relocated the sign, therefore the setback variance is appropriate. Frank Kunnen agreed with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the requested variances for the subject property for meeting Section 45.24 Standards for Approval, items 1-8, subject to the following conditions: 1) in the event any regulated feature of the sign is changed, the Public Works Director shall review the change to determined whether the encroachment into the right or way shall be eliminated, and 2) by maintaining a sign within the street 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 for road widening or any other public purpose. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion ensued concerning a letter from Todd Pressman regarding the fact that he did not receive notification that his request to reconsider the Doctor's Walk In Clinic variance was scheduled at the last meeting. Cynthia Goudeau, City Clerk, explained that any requests for reconsideration are placed on the next possible agenda. The applicant and/or their representative are instructed to place their reasons for requesting reconsideration in the letter as it is not necessary for them to be present. She explained it is not considered a public hearing when the Commission is simply asked if they will reconsider an item. In response to a question Ms. Goudeau stated the applicant wanted to keep the sign on a temporary basis. She pointed out that there is nothing in the rules regarding reconsideration. The Commission requested that Mr. Pressman be sent a letter asking him to provide evidence to support reconsideration of this item. Commissioner Deegan complimented staff on their thoroughness, examples, and the rationale behind their direction to the Commission. The meeting adjourned at 11:59 a.m.