04/15/1987
,(,:,,;, !i!:;i>":(W;:i1~)~~*}r;;7]7\~!:~:7:~~ :~:F~)",::;~{f~;';'~;tf~\f1}~~)':;~~'~nf~;cs ~;ii}<~i/':<:'y,i:;~;:;/\!i~!.:~,;,;::;(:\?'{;y~t.::1~l~;~ ~
at 1419 Sunset Point Road, Clearwater, Florida. This property is
zoned "OL", limited office.
2. Petitioner is seeking a variance of 24 square feet
to permit a 48 square foot sign, and a variance of 14 f~et to
permit a sign 20 feet high. Without the requested variances, a
sign cannot exceed 24 square feet and 5 feet in height at the
subject location.
I 3. The Development Code Adjustment Board denied
Petitioner's application on January 22, 1987, and Petitioner
timely appealed.
4. John Richter, Development Code Administrator,
testified that approval of these variances would have an adverse
affect on surrounding properties, and would deviate from Code
requirements without the establishment of any conditions unique
to this property, or showing of topographical conditions which
present an unnecessary hardship to the applicant if the Code is
strictly applied. Public witnesses supported Richter's
testimony.
5. The property in question is the site of a child care
facility known as Creative Learning Center which offers pre-
school and after school care. The property slopes approximately
three feet from east to west, and there is a sidewalk across the
front of the property which is intersected by the driveway that
provides ingress and egress to the child care facility. Due to
the location of public schools in the neighborhood, children and
others pass regularly in front of Petitioner's facility along the
sidewalk. There is no sidewalk on the other side of the street
across from Petitioner's property.
6. petitioner argues that placing the sign at a 6 foot
height next to the driveway and sidewalk will cause a visual
obstruction for cars using the driveway due to the slope of the
property, and further that it will be hazardous for children and
others passing in front of this facility on the sidewalk. A sign
placed at a six foot height will also block the view of on-coming
traffic for cars exiting the driveway, according to Petitioner.
2
.
.
'j
@,.
~~
.h"
o
~
~
He also testified that a sign which is 6 foot in height will be
subject to vandalism, which has occurred frequently in the area.
7. Brian Bennett, who was accepted as an expert in
traffic and safety engineering, testified that any driver leaving
the subject property would have his vision impaired by a sign
erected on the property at a height of six feet and located as
shown in architectural drawings of the site. The slope of the
1
property would also cause any child on a bicycle to increase
speed as he approached the driveway, and this would increase the
safety hazard if the sign is placed next to the driveway and
sidewalk. In Bennett's opinion, a sign 20 feet in height would
allow for a clear line of sight and prevent any safety hazards
which would otherwise result from this location of the sign on
~ the property.
~
~
8. Petitioner contends that the only place on the
subject property he can locate this sign is as shown on a series
of architectural drawings introduced in evidence at hearing. He
also argues that Respondent's approval of these drawings
specifically included the location of the sign. These drawings
show a pylon sign located next to the driveway ,and the sidewalk
which passes in front of the property. The drawings arp.
accompanied by approvals concerning Code compliance from various
departments of the City. However, the approvals do not
spec~fically deal with the location of the sign. The drawings do
not show the proposed height or squJre footage of the proposed
sign. Therefore, these drawings, and the City's approval
~ thereof, do not constitute prior approval of the variances here
at issue; nor do they establish that the only place Petitioner
can locate a sign on the property is as shown in these drawings.
Competent substantial evidence was not produced to establish that
Petitioner's sign can only be located as shown on these drawings.
9. Since it has not been established that the sign in
question can only be located next to the driveway and the
sidewalk, the expert tes~imony of Brain Bennett is irrelevant and
immaterial since it related solely to a sign at such location.
3
,.-;\,."".,:",,;~;~~;;~[[!~'?~~!~~hl~W:~~2:~W~!;~:i:'?{,t~'~,i?2,X;i;;?'}2~~T,!iK~-":~"::'+i~~';~;;'e:~;,i;:;.~:,;t!{~f~i~0;!f51~1l
!.",.j~,",.....\:,~~:).:'t~,.~4\1.~~~ -.::'~.f~~~:~'~!;;"'~;:~:;'{."~.~: ;~.~',:y:,:::.~ >~... ,~.:~r~ i:....#~~7....- ,. .....f. :\h; " .~~~:';\',~!~ '
'~b.~~!o.."..~t-(h ~"!-'[I~f.:r.~>I"~'l.J.~"'1.1,~~.- ......'.~:n............ ,"rj o. '\'i~" . ~,,~~f+."..'l.~., .:~\tj:1-}:J~
,~,. ;, ',! .'" '!, ,ir~~{'~1:~;[,I~;~'f;1n ~.!T::I;r,7% ;!;!?t:f;;'!$:;:!%::!0';t::-:;';' \,1:::~7~8. ~':,:::t;r~~;;~~~", _~,.'
~
~
use of the land.
(4) The request for a variance is not
based primarily upon the desire of the
applicant to secure a greater financial
return from the property.
(5) The granting of the variance will not
be materially detrimental or injurious
to other property or improvements in
the neighborhood in which the property
is located.
* * *
(7) The variance desired will not adversely
affect the public health, safety, order,
convenience, or general welfare of the
community.
(8) The granting of the variance desired will
not violate the general spirit and intent of
this development code.
Petitioner has failed to establish any unique conditions or undue
~ hardship which would constitute grounds to approve his
~pplication. He also has failed to show that the requested
variances are the minimum necessary under the circumstances since
he has not established he has only one alterative for placement
of this sign. Clearly the variances are sought for business
purposes. Competent substantial evidence has not been provided
that granting of these variances will not adversely affect the
general welfare of the community or be injurious to the
neighborhood.
Respondent has adopted a comprehensive set of
regulations governing signs which is found at Chapter 1'34, Land
Development Code. Nonconforming signs are given seven years from
the enactment of these regulations to be brought into compliance,
~ but new signs must comply with requirements which include height
and square footage limits. Section 134.015. The provisions of
the sign regulations must be strictly construed to carry out the
purposes and intent thereof. Section 134.005(b). The purposes
of Respondent1s sign regulations, as set forth in Section
134.004, include to:
Lessen hazardous situations, confusion and visual
clutter caused by proliferation, improper placement,
illumination, animation and excessive height, area
and bulk of signs which compete for the attention of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic.'
5
, ,
.
"I
-
Copies furnished:
",Paul Bako, Esq.
<'Po '0. BOK 10213
Clearwater, Fl 335l~
Miles A. Lance, Esq.
P. '0. BOK 4748
Clearwater, Fl 33518-4748
'cynthia<Goudeau; Clerk
P. O. Box 4748
Clearwater; Fl 33518-4748
'I
"e
I'
'e
~",
....'. l".
. "1"
. "
. ~
':J
~';:r
,e'
.,
:.
-
')
7