12/10/1992 (2)
ACTION AGENDA
city commission special Meeting on sign Variances
Thursday - Oecember 10, 1992 - (9:00 a.m.)
.1. Raymond H and Mildred H Center Trustees, (3M National Advertising Co)
for variances, to permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of
a seven year amortization period, of (1) an increase in area of 336 sq ft to
permit a 400 sq ft sign; and (2) 20 ft to permit a 40 ft high pole sign at
1785 Drew st, sky Crest unit No 3, Blk Dr Lots 1 and 2 and 1/2 of vacated
alley on south, zoned CG (General Comrnerclal). SV 92-37 - Denie4
2. George Wand W Sue Ely (3M National Advertising co) for variances, to
permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of a seven year
amortization period, of (1) one additional freestanding sign; (2) 736 sq ft
freestanding signage to permit a total of 800 sq ft of such signage; (3) 14
ft to permit pole signs 34 ft and 33.1 ft in height; (4) 5 ft to permit zero
ft setback from a property line; and (5) 150 ft to permit pole sign less than
150 ft from another such sign on the same property, at 513 S Missouri Ave,
Hibiscus Gardens, Blk R, Lots 30B, 31A, and 31B, less street, zoned CG
(General Commercial). SV 92-38 - Denied
3. John H Meek Sr, Trustee, (3M National Advertising Co) for variances, to
permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of a seven year
amortization period, of (1~ 336 sq it to permit a 400 sq ft pole sign; and
(2) 20 ft to permit 40 ft slgn height at 1219 Court st, Hibiscus Gardens, Blk
R, Lots 8 thru 10, zoned CG (General commercial). SV 92-39 - Denied
4. Cengiz Gokcen (Patrick Media Group, Inc) for variances, to permit
nonconforming signage to remain after explration of a seven year amortization
J;>eriod, of (1) 1345 sq ft to parmi t a total of 1369 sq ft property
ldentification signage; (2) one property identification sign to permit two
such signs; (3) 42 it to permit 50 ft and 10 ft high pole signs; and (4) 150
~ft to permlt pole sign to be located less than 150 ft from another such sign
..,on the same property at 2288 Drew st, Temple Terrace Sub 1st Add, Blk 0, Lots
15 thru 17, zoned OL (Limited Office). SV 92-50 - Cont. to 12/28/92
5. M Lenore Holcombe (Patrick Media Group, 1nc) for variances, to permit
nonconforming signa~e to remain after expiration of a seven year amortization
period, (1) to retaln a second pole sign; (2) of 536 sq ft to permit 600 sq
ft of sign area; (3) of 20 ft to permit a sign 40 ft in height; (4) of 4 ft
to permit a freestanding sign within 1 ft of property line; and (5) of 150 ft
to permit pole sign to be located less than 150 ft from another such sign on
the same property at 1880 N Hercules Ave, See 1-29-15, Pinellas Groves, SW
1/4, part of Lot 1, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). SV 92-51 - Denied
6. Remprop, 1nc (Patrick Media Group, 1nc) for variances, to permit
nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of a seven year amortization
period, (1) to retaln a second freestanding sign; (2) of 536 sq ft to permit
600 sq ft of sign area; (3) of 27 ft to permit a sign 47 ft in height; and
(4) of 150 ft to permit a pole sign to be located less than 150 ft from
another such sign on the same property at 2071 Drew st, central Park Resub,
part of Tract A, zoned CG (General Commercial) and RM 16 (Multiple Family
Residential). SV 92-52 - Denied
7. Dennis R DeLoach Jr (Patrick Media Group, 1nc) for variances, to permit
nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of a seven year amortization
period, of (1) one freestanding sign to retain second freestanding sign; (2)
740 sq ft to permit a total of 804 sq ft of freestanding signage; (3) 20 ft
to permit 40 ft high pole sign; and (4) 150 ft to permit a pole sign to be
located less than 150 ft from another such sign on the same property at 1395
~ Missouri Ave, SaIl's 2nd Add, Blk A, Lots 10 thru 12, zoned CG (General
...,-ommercial) . SV 92-53 - Denied
Action Agenda
12/10/92
8. David H and Daniel A Pearson (patrick Media Group, Inc) for variances, to
permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of a seven year
amortization period, (1) to retain a second freestanding sign; (2) of 250 sq
~t to permit 300 sq ft of sign area; (3) of 15 ft to permit a sign 35 ft in
.~.eight; and (4) 4 ft to permit a freestanding sign within 1 ft of property
line at 1615 Ft Harrison Ave, Bay View Heights 1st Add, Lot 2 and part of Lot
1, zoned CN (Neighborhood commercial). BV 92-54 - Withdrawn
9. Larry Oimmitt Cadillac lnc (Patrick Media Group, lnc) for variances, to
permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of a seven year
amortization period, of (1) 276 sq ft in signage area; (2) 15 ft in height;
and (3) 4 ft in setback at 1300 S Ft Harrison Ave, Belleair Sub, Blk 25, Lots
1 and 2, zoned OL (Limited Office). BV 92-55 - Cant. to 12/28/92
10. Meteo Development Corp (Patrick Media Group, Ine) for variances, to
permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of a seven year
amortization period, of (1) one freestanding sign to retain a second
freestanding sign; (2) 600 sq ft to permit 664 sq ft of sign area; (3) 15 ft
to permit a sign 35 ft in height; (4) 4 ft to permit a freestanding sign
within 1 ft of a property line; and (5) 150 ft to permit pole .sign to be
located less than 150 ft from another such sign on the same 'property at 1808-
1820 Drew st, Drew Heights, Blk A, Lots 4 thru 11 and part of vacated alley,
zoned CG (General Commercial). SV 92-56 - Denied
;.
:.
. '.'
,.':'/
'. /
n'
','
Action Agenda
12/10/92
:,."
. ,
.
CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
December 10, 1992
The City Commisr.ion of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall, Thursday,
December 10. 1992 at 9:05 a.m., with the following members present:
Rita Garvey
Richard Fitzgerald
Sue Berfleld
Arthur X. Deegan, II
Mayor/Commissioner
Vice-Mayor /Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Also present:
Michael J. Wright
M.A. Galbraith, Jr.
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. for the purpose of public hearing and
action on sign variance requests.
ITEM #1 - Variances to Sign Regulations for propertv located at 1785 Drew St., Sky Crest
Unit No.3, Blk 0, Lots 1 and 2 and 1/2 of vacated alley on the south (Center/3M National
Advertising Co.) SV92-37
.
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) an area variance of 336
sq.ft. for a freestanding sign to permit a 400 sq.ft. sign; and 2) a 20 foot height variance
to allow a sign 40 feet in height. The applicant is requesting these variances to permit an
existing sign (billboard) to remain.
The subject property is a vacant lot located at the southwest corner of Drew Street
and N. Venus Avenue and is in the General Commercial zoning district.
The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district.
The applicant has not provided any evidence that these requests arise from any conditions
unique to this property. Staff review indicates that there are no particular physical
surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for the
property. The request for these variances appears to be based primarily upon the desire of
the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property.
Both requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height of a
freestanding sign and can not be considered minimal requests. To the south and adjacent
to the subject property is a single family residential subdivision. This 40 foot high, 400
square foot sign is clearly visible from this neighborhood. Additionally, the lighting of this
sign at night is a source of further disruption to the residential area. The granting of these
variances will detract from the appearance of the single family residential area immediately
to the south.
.
minSP12a.92
12/1092
1
.
.
.
Staff finds this request does not meet the following standards: 1} The variance
requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither
ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions
of the property owner, predecessor in title. or the applicant. Anv mistake made in the
execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not
be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance: 2) The particular
physical surroundings. shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the
strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant: 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to
overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable
use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the
applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property: 6) The granting of the
variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property,
detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the
public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way. or
substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of
the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code.
Richard Davis. attorney for the applicant, objected to the five minute limitation for
public hearings. He stated he needed more time for procedural due process. It was
suggested fifteen minutes be given to the applicant.
Mr. Davis stated that with him were Mr. Sam Fanning and Mr. Mike Palauian. He
stated their being present at this meeting was no waiver of rights to pursue further legal
action at a later date.
Mr. Pa/ouian. representing the 3M Company, stated the sign was built in 1977 on a
vacant lot with a separate permit and lease. He submitted a zoning atlas of the area in
which the property is located, an aerial photograph of the property, photographs of the
sign and photographs of the property from the vantage of traveling east on Drew Street.
He stated the lease is a long term lease which allows the sign to remain as long as time
permits.
Mr. Fanning, also representing 3M, stated the initial capital investment in the sign
was $10.000 and its fair market value is $50.500 and there has been considerable
investment throughout the life of the sign. He stated the sign produces income of
$13.000 per year and it would cost $5,000 to remove or renovate it and salvage value is
zero. He stated if the sign were reduced, it would be worthless as an advertising device.
He stated the life expectancy of this sign is over 50 years and the income over that time
would be $650,000.
Mr. Davis offered the exhibits into evidence and stated the effect of the regulations
would be to render the value of the sign as zero and that the life expectancy of the sign
exceeds the amortization period. He stated 3M National Advertising did not create the
hardship as the hardship is the sign code. He stated there are no adverse impacts created
by this sign. He stated that to reduce the sign would constitute a taking and therefore,
the company should be compensated for the sign. He stated the City's Comprehensive
minSP12a.92
1211092
2
.
.
.
Plan recognizes the need to protect private property rights and the sign regulations would
discourage the proliferation of signs but does not need to eliminate them. He stated this
would be the destruction of an ongoing business.
In response to a question, Mr. Palouian Indicated the distance at which the pictures
were taken, looking west, are of approximately 800 and 1 ,000 feet; looking east,
approximately 700 and 400 feet. He further indicated the sign produces no noise or
increase in traffic; there have been no complaints regarding the sign and it does not intrude
on other uses of the properties.
In response to a question, Mr. Fanning indicated there are other size signs called
junior posters which are intended for walking traffic and are for an entirely different
function.
A question was raised regarding the value of the sign as Mr. Fanning had said it
would be worthless and the attorney had said negligible. It was indicated an individual
would not be able to see a smaller sign until they were right on it.
James Polatty, Planning and Development Director, indicated smaller signs are
possible and advertising is allowed in this district. He stated the distance at which the
pictures in the exhibits were taken does not make the point regarding impact on
surrounding properties. He stated there are major negative impacts on surrounding
commercial properties in the area. The amortization period in the sign code was
established in order to allow the signs an economic return. He stated there is nothing the
City's Comprehensive Plan which would prohibit enforcement of the sign code.
In response to questions, it was indicated billboard companies build the signs and
lease them, even to other billboard companies.
In response to a question, Mr. Fanning indicated 48 months of income is used to
establish the market value of the sign.
A statement was made that over the 7 years at $13,000 a month, the value of the
sign had been recouped. An opposing opinion was that the sign still has the same fair
market value today with an income expectancy of $650,000 over its lifespan.
Further discussion ensued regarding the amortization period and whether or not the
value had been recouped.
In response to a question, Mr. Palouian indicated the pictures submitted as exhibits
were taken at a distance at which most motorists begin to see the sign.
, Mr. Davis stated the company has an existing leasehold estate for the sign and the
City's sign regulations places those contracts in jeopardy. He stated the sign can not be
seen if it is reduced. He stated the sign company has not created the impact and the sign
regulations are threatening the business. He stated granting the variance will not be
injurious to the surrounding properties, will not adversely impact them and does not violate
minSP12a.92
12/1092
"'
3
.
.
.
the intent of the code. He also stated that private property is not to be taken without just
compensation. He stated this is a continuation of a use that was permitable.
In response to a question, the City Attorney indicated the Commission has to judge
whether or not there is no value in the sign otherwise they can consider whether the
applicants have justified the need for the variance.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to dony the variances to permit nonconforming
signage after the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to meet
Section 137.012(d) Standards for Approval, items 1, 2. 3. 4, 6 and 8. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #2 - Variances to Sian Regulations for orooertv located at 513 S. Missouri Ave:.
Hibiscus Gardens, Blk R, Lots 30B. 31 A and 31 B less street (Ely/3M National Advertising
Co.) SV92-38
The following variances are requested: 1) a variance to retain a second
freestanding sign; 2) an area variance of 736 sq. ft. of freestanding signage to permit a
total area of 800 sq.ft. divided between the two signs; 3) a height variance of 14 feet to
permit a sign 34 feet in height; 4) a setback variance of 5 feet to permit zero foot setback
from a side property line; and 5} a variance of 109 feet from the 150 foot requirement
between freestanding signs on the same property. The applicant is requesting these
variances to permit two existing signs (billboards) to remain.
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Missouri Avenue and
Rogers Street and is in the General Commercial zoning district.
The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district.
The applicant has not provided any evidence that these requests arise from any conditions
unique to this property. Staff review indicates that there are no particular physical
surroundings. shape or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for the
property. The request for these variances appears to be based primarily upon the desire of
the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property.
The variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height of
freestanding signs and can not be considered minimal requests. Commercial uses surround
the subject property on all sides along Missouri Avenue. The existence of these two 35
foot high, 400 square foot signs is not in character with the area and detracts from the
surrounding land uses. The granting of these variances will detract from the appearance
of the community as well as the surrounding land uses.
Staff finds this request does not meet the following standards: 1) The variance
requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither
ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions
of the property owner. predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the
execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not
be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular
minSP12a.92
1211092
4
.'.
. "
,
, ,.'{
;,
.
physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the
strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to
overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable
use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the
applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; 6) The granting of the
variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adiacent property,
detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the
r~L~blic streets, increase the danger of fire. endanger the public safety in any way, or
substantially.diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of
the variance desired wlll not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code.
Richard Davis, attorney for the applicant, stated they are seeking a variance but this
is in no way a waiver of their rights to legal challenge in the future.
Mike Palouian stated this sign was erected prior to 1 968. He presented a zoning
atlas which showed the property zoned as CG and an aerial photograph showing that the
property is on a vacant lot. Photographs of the sign were submitted: southbound on
Missouri taken 600 feet and 200 to 300 feet from the sign; northbound on Missouri taken
from 600 to 700 feet and 200 to 300 feet. He requested it be noted in the photograph,
there are various tall structures. He indicated the sign does not intrude into the residential
area and it does promote business in the area. He stated the sign has no impact on
environmental sensitive areas. He also reported this is a long term lease to stay in
perpetuity. The sign does not negatively impact surrounding property owners.
. Sam Fanning reported the sign was acquired for $25.000 and has an income of
$7,200 per year with a total expected income of $350,000 over the 50 + years life of the
sign. He stated it would cost $5,000 to alter and it has zero salvage value. He stated if
the sign were removed, there would be no beneficial impact because of other tall
structures in the area. He stated it would be impossible to sell advertising at 64 sq.ft.
and therefore, the economic value is zero.
Discussion ensued regarding it being impossible to sell at 64 sq. ft. if all signs were
the same size.
Mr. Davis indicated the basic issue is the continued validity of an ongoing business
and that enforcement of the sign code in this case would eliminate a business. He stated
the applicant did not create the hardship but it was created by action of the City. These
businesses are being treated differently from other nonconforming businesses in the City.
He stated there are no adverse impacts from this sign and that to lower it would conflict
with roofs of existing structures and landscaping. He stated the applicants are entitled to
the variance and there has been no demonstration of a legitimate public policy
consideration.
James Polatty, Planning and Development Director, indicated staff analysis does
indicate surrounding land uses are affected by the signs and they are definitely out of
.
minSP12a.92
1211092
5
::
.
character with the neighborhood. He stated the sign obscures other signs and reasonable
signage is allowed on the property.
Mr. Davis indicated that in adopting the code, there was no extensive testimony
regarding public policy rationale for this regulation. He stated the testimony supports that
there are no adverse impacts and that during the adoption of the code, there was not an
exhaustive analysis of the need for this ordinance nor analysis of the economic issues. He
stated if the variance is not granted, it will constitute a taking of the leasehold and impair
contracts.
It was indicated economics were considered and that is why a seven year
amortization period was established.
It was indicated the applicant had not demonstrated their need for the variance.
Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the variances to permit nonconforming'
signage after the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to meet
Section 137 .012(d) Standards for Approval, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #3 - Variances to SiQn ReQulatiQns for orooertv located at 121 9 Court 51., Hibiscus
Gardens, Blk R, lots 8-10 (Meek/3M National Advertising Co.) SV92-39
.
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) an area variance of 336
sq.ft. for a freestanding sign to permit a sign with a total of 400 sq.ft.; and 2) a height
variance of 20 feet to permit a sign 40 feet in height. The applicant requests these
variances to permit an existing sign (billboard) to remain.
The subject property is an existing parking lot serving a real estate and insurance
business located at 1219 Court Street and in the General Commercial zoning district.
The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district.
The applicant has not provided any evidence that these requests arise from any conditions
unique to this property. Staff review indicates that there are no particular physical
surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for the
property. The request for these variances appears to be based primarily upon the desire of
the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property.
80th variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height of
a freestanding sign. Immediately to the east of the subject property is a business structure
that appears to have a zero foot street right.of-way setback from Court Street. The
applicant could request a street setback variance to provide zero feet from Court Street.
This would be considered the minimal variance to alleviate any hardships caused by this
nonconforming structure. Professional office uses surround the subject property. The
existence of this 40 foot high, 400 square foot sign is not in character with the area and
detracts from the surrounding land uses. The granting of these requests will detract from
the appearance of the community.
, ':.;
"
.":
'~\I
, ~, ,~~~
:,
.
minSP12a.92
1211092
6
~
.
.
.
Staff finds this request does not meet the following standards: 1) The variance
requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither
ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions
of the property owner. predecessor in title. or the applicant. Any mistake made in the
execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not
be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular
physical surroundings. shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the
strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to
overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable
use of the land; 4t The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the
applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; 61 The granting of the
variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property,
detract from the appearance of the community. substantially increase the congestion in the
public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or
substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8} The granting of
the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code.
Richard Davis, attorney for the applicant, stated testimony will be offered regarding
a number of issues and this does not preclude future legal challenge.
Mike Palouian presented a zoning map showing that the zoning was CG and
reviewed the surrounding areas. He submitted an aerial photograph showing the area of
the parking tot. He stated the sign was built in 1984 and it does fit in with the
surrounding uses. He stated the sign does not intrude or emit light into the surrounding
areas and is in the area to promote business. He stated it does not impact environmentally
sensitive areas and he presented photos of the location westbound on Court Street and
eastbound on Court Street. He stated there are additional tall objects in the area. He
stated they have a long term lease for the sign and the sign does not negatively the area.
Sam Fanning indicated the initial investment for the sign was $27,000 and it has an
income of $20,000 per year. It has a fair market value of $80,000 and the income over
the expected 50 year life of the sign is $1 million plus. He stated it would cost $7,000 to
alter this sign and it would have a salvage value of zero. He stated if the sign were
reduced to 64 sq.ft. it would have no value.
John Meek, owner of the business, stated he has a business interest in the property
and the revenue generated by it. He feels enforcement of the sign code has great
implications upon business owners and tax payers. He stated there have been no
complaints regarding the sign and that to say that due to the amortization period. the sign
is worth nothing is ludicrous.
Two citizens spoke in opposition to enforcement of the sign code stating that
making people remove their signs is a taking and they should be compensated for same.
There were also concerns that personal opinions about aesthetics should not be
used as a basis for enforcing the code.
minSP12a.92
1 ztJ092
7
!./:~" " .
'.'
.
.
.
Mr. Davis stated there is testimony in the record that supports that the revenues
through the life expectancy of the signs exceeds amortization. He also stated these signs
create no adverse impact. The hardship was not created by the applicant but was created
by the Change in the code. If the: sign is downsized, it will no longer have any value. He
stated lawful existing businesses are being regulated out of existence and there is no
evidence of a legitimate public policy to support enforcement of the code. He further
reiterated this constitutes a taking and the balance of the issue falls on the side of granting
the variances.
Discussion ensued regarding the basis for an amortization period being to allow sign
owners to recoup their costs. It was stated that when the sign code was adopted seven
years ago, aesthetics was stressed.
The City Attorney indicated the amortization concept did not originate in Clearwater
and the courts have approved this method.
Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the variances to permit nonconforming
signage after the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to meet
Section 137.0 12(dl Standards for Approval, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 11: 1 0 a.m. to 11 :21 a.m.
ITEM #4 - Variances to SiQn ReQulations for prooertv located at 2288 Drew St.. Temple
Terrace Sub.. 1st Add., Blk D, Lots 15~17 (Gokcen/Patrick Media Group, Inc.) SV92~50
The applicant requested this item be continued.
ITEM #9 - Variances to Sign Regulations for orooertv located at 1300 S. Ft. Harrison Ave..
Belleair Sub., Blk 25. Lots 1 and 2 (Larry Dimmitt Cadillac Inc./Patrick Media Group. Inc.)
SV92-55
Staff requested this item be continued.
Commissioner Barfield moved to continue Items 4 and 9 to the sign variance
meeting of Oecember 28, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #5 - Variances to Sign Regulations for orooertv located at 1880 N. Hercules Ave.,
Sec. 1-29-15, Pinellas Groves. SW 1/4, part of Lot 1 (Holcombe/Patrick Media Group, Inc.)
SV92-51
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 11 a variance to retain a
second freestanding sign; 2) an area variance of 560 sq. ft. to permit a total area of 624
sq.ft. divided between the two signs; 31 a height variance of 20 feet to permit a sign 40
feet in height; 4) a variance of 4 feet to permit a freestanding sign within 1 foot of a
property line: and 5) a variance of 55 feet from the 150 feet required ,between
minSP12a.92
12J1C\-92
8
.
.
.
ireestanding signs on one property. The applicant requests these variances to permit the
existing billboard sign to remain.
The subject property is an existing commerciallindustrial strip center located at
1 BBO N. Hercules Avenue is zoned Limited Industrial. Two freestanding signs exist on the
site. one freestanding sign identifying the business and one billboard.
The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district.
The applicant has not provided any evidence that these requests arise from any conditions
unique to this property. Staff review indicates that there are no particular physical
surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for the
property. The request for these variances appears to be based primarily upon the desire of
the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property.
These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height
of a freestanding sign and can not be considered minimal requests. Commercial and light
industrial uses surround the subject property on the north, south, and west sides. To the
east, across Hercules Avenue, is a multiple family development zoned RM~12. The
existence of this 40 foot high, 600 square foot sign is not in character with the area and
detracts from the surrounding land uses. Additionally, the lighting of this sign at night is a
source of further disruption to the residential area. The granting of these variances will
detract from the appearance of the community.
Staff finds this request does not meet the following standards: 1 ~ The variance
requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither
ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions
of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the
execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not
be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular
physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the
strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to
overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable
use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the
applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; 6) The granting of the
variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property,
detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the
public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or
substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of
the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code.
Ken Graves, attorney for the applicant, stated there would be potentially $1 million
in lost income if the variance is not approved. He stated an important concept to be
understood is that this is a business, not just a sign and it is no different than any other
business. All the signs were properly permitted.
minSP12a.92
"\ 1211092
9
.
He listed the uses of surrounding property and stated he did not understand how
the sign detracted from the surrounding area. He stated the standards listed in the staff
report are not those inclUded in the code and that Section 134.015 says the board shall
consider these factors in which there is no testimony from staff. It was indicated it was
the person making the application that is responsible for providing the information and
there are 15 factors to be considered, not standards for approval.
Ron Westbury of Patrick Media, stated two poster panels were erected in 1981 by
Arbor Outdoor and leased for a term of 40 years with an initial investment of $40,000.
The life expectancy of the sign results in a potential income of $242,000.
In response to a question, he indicated the Department of Transportation has a
concept of a 40 year lifespan expectancy for steel structures.
In response to additional questions, he indicated salvage value is zero and to
remove the sign would cost $5.000. He stated a reduced sign would not be marketable.
In response to questions. it was indicated the sign was built in December of 1981
and the revenue is $350 net per month for each face of the sign.
.
Attorney Graves stated the variance standards have been met and that the hardship
was not created by the applicant but rather the imposition of the amortization period. He
stated there were permits to put up the signs and the variance process is for those who
when the amortization period is not long enough to recoup reasonable investment. He
stated the laws have changed since 1985. He referred to the Lucas case ruling that the
statements made in whereas clauses in a'n ordinance must be proven. He stated he has
reviewed the minutes of the adoption of the ordinance and there is no evidence in the
record to support these clauses.
He stated that when the second amortization period was established, there was
only one advertisement where the law requires two. He stated there were also changes at
second reading which were communicated to the Commission through fax messages and
never addressed at public hearing. He stated there can be no private property taken unless
public purpose is served and just compensation is provided.
He stated as there is a 40 year lease term on this, denying the variance would be
intentional interference with a contractual relationship by the City. He stated he
recognized his comments in this case apply to all those he will be representing in sign
variance cases.
He stated that in this particular case, the facts presented by the applicant are not
disputed and should lead to the conclusion that the seven year amortization period was not
fair and therefore the variances should be granted. If the variances are not granted, it will
be a taking of the property.
..
mlnSP12~.92
12/tQ92
10
.
The Planning and Development Director indicated the standard in the code is to
'e~ve a reasonable use on the property and there will be reasonable signage uses left on
this property.
In response to a question, the Planning and Development Director indicated permits
issued after the 1985 code went into effect had an indication on them regarding the need
to conform to this code. He stated the code still permits 64 sq.ft. of sign on the property
and this is a reasonable amount.
Mr. Graves questioned how the sign detracted from surrounding properties. It was
indicated that through the signs, confusion and visual clutter are created and the sign
dwarves the other structures in the area.
The City Attorney indicated the ordinance is to protect the public at large and as
"clearwater is a tourist community, general attractiveness is an important component.
In response to a question from Mr. Graves, Mr. Polatty indicated he had not
personally received any complaints regarding the sign.
Mr. Graves reiterated his stance that failure to grant the variances will affect a
complete taking of Patrick Media's property at this site.
.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny variances to permit nonconforming signage
to remain after the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to
meet Section 137.01 2(d) Standards for Approval, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #6 - Variances to Sign Reaulations for orooertv located at 2071 Drew St., Central
Park Resub., part of Tract A (Remprop, Inc./Patrick Media Group, Inc.) SV92-52
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) To retain a second
freestanding sign; 2) an area variance of 560 sq. ft. to permit a total area of 624 sq.ft.
divided between the two signs; 3) a height variance of 27 feet to permit a sign 47 feet in
height; and 4) a variance of 145 feet from the 1 50 feet required between freestanding
signs on one property. The applicant requests these variances to permit the existing
billboard sign to remain.
The subject property is an existing strip commercial center located at 2071 Drew
Street and is located in the Commercial General zoning district. Two freestanding signs
exist on the site, one freestanding sign identifying the business and one billboard.
The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district.
The applicant has not provided any evidence that these requests arise from any conditions
unique to this property. Staff review indicates that there are no particular physical
surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for the
property. The request for these variances appears to be based primarily upon the desire of
the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property.
.
minSP12a.92
12J1Q92
1 1
.
These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height
of a freestanding sign and can not be considered minimal requosts. Abutting the subject
property to the north and east is commercial development along Drew Street. A church is
directly to the east across Mercury Avenue. To the south Is a multiple fnmily development
zoned RM-16. The existence of this 47 foot high, 600 square foot sig., is not in character
with the area and detracts from the surrounding land uses. Additionally. the lighting of
this sign at night is a source of further disruption to the residential area. The granting of
these variances will detract from the appearance of the multiple family residential area
immediately to the south.
.
Staff finds this request does not meet the following standards: 1) The variance
requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither
ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions
of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the
execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shali' not
be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular
physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the
strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to
overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in #2 for the purpose of making reasonable
use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the
applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; 6) The granting of the
variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property,
detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the
public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or
substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8} The granting of
the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code.
Attorney Graves requested to incorporate the previous comments he made
regarding the issues from case #92-51 (Item #5). The City Attorney indicated he did not
object to incorporation by reference.
To summarize. Mr. Graves stated Patrick Media's sign is a legitimate business and
the amortization amounts to a taking. He stated there are procedural issues regarding the
adoption of the process in 1985 and amendments that were made to same. He stated the
hardship was created by the imposition of the code and the amortization period, not the
applicant. He stated Mr. Westbury's opinion is that there are no adverse impacts and the
sign fits under the City's Comprehensive Plan. Denying the variance will be interference
with a legal contractual relationship.
Ron Westbury indicated the sign was built in July of 1981, it has a 30 year lease,
the initial investment was $11,890 and the current value of it is $26,400. It has a 40
year lifespan with a potential income of $243,000. He stated 64 sq.ft. does not fit the
marketing for this area and the salvage value is zero and there is an estimated $2,500
removal cost.
.
minSP12a.92
12/1092
12
't
.
In response to questions about the neighborhood, Mr. Graves indicated he did not
feet the residential area and the church were not detrimentally affected by the sign. He
stated, applying balance. the $243,000 potential income would be lost and would be the
loss of a legitimate business permitted by the City and failure to grant the variance would
be a complete taking of the property.
In response to a question regarding there being no salvage value, it was indicated
that such a sign would no longer be allowed anywhere in the area.
Commissioner Deegan moved to deny variances to permit nonconforming signage
to remain after the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to
meet Section 137.0 12(d) Standards for Approval, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #7 - Variances to Sign Regulatit,ms for crooertv located at 1395 S. Missouri Ave.,
Sail's 2nd Add., Blk A, Lots 10-12 IDeloach Jr./Patrick Media Group, Inc.) SV92-53
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) a variance to retain a
second freestanding sign; 2) an area variance of 740 sq. ft. to permit a total area of 804
sq.ft. divided between the two signs; 3) a height variance of 20 feet to permit a sign 40
feet in height; and 4) a variance of 5 feet from the 150 foot required separation between
freestanding signs on one property. The applicant requests these variances to permit the
existing billboard sign to remain.
.
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Missouri Avenue and
Malvern Street and is zoned General Commercial. Two freestanding signs exist on the
site, one freestanding sign identifying the business and one billboard.
The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district.
The applicant has not provided any evidence that these requests arise from any conditions
unique to this property. Staff review indicates that there are no particular physical
surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for the
property. The request for these variances appears to be based primarily upon the desire of
the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property.
These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height
of a freestanding sign and can not be considered minimal requests. Commercial uses
surround the subject property on the north, south,' and west sides along Missouri AVenue.
To the southeast is an existing single family residential neighborhood. The existence of
this 40 foot high, 756 square foot sign is not in character with the area and detracts from
the surrounding land uses. Additionally, the ligh,ting of this sign at night is a source of
further disruption to the residential area. ' The granting of these variances will detract from
the appearance of the community with significant impact upon the single family residential
area immediately to the southeast.
.
minSP12a.92
1211092
13
IJct",
, .'1 \' , I ' ' " \ l J'" ,I ',' I'
.
.
.
Staff finds this request does not meet the following standards: 1) The variance
requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and is neither
ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions
of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the
execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not
be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particular
physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the
strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to
overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in 112 for the purpose of making reasonable
use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the
applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; 6) The granting of the
variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property,
detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the
public streets. increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way; or
substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of
the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this developm'ent code.
Attorney Graves stated this is to recognize that they are here to exhaust
administrative procedures and does not preclude future legal challenge. He stated this is a
legal business properly licensed and that the hardship created on the property was action
by the Commission in adopting the sign code. He outlined the applicable laws and stated
the regulatory taking of the sign would not stand.
Ron Westbury indicated the sign was constructed in October of 1985; there is a
lease for a term of 30 years with an annual income of $90,303 for a potential income of
$415,000. He stated it would cost $8;000 to remove the sign and there is zero salvage
value.
Attorney Graves stated that to the north, south and west of this sign are
businesses and to the east. residential. He stated the business is an auto repair facility
and the residential area is separated from the sign significantly by a retention pond. He
stated closer to the residential area is a radio tower which is taller than the sign. He
stated the request is not to generate greater financial return and the sign does not impose
light or any other adverse impacts into the surrounding area. He stated it is consistent
with the intent and spirit of the code and the Comprehensive Plan. He requested that his
comments regarding other cases as to the issues be incorporated for this. He stated he
believed that failure to grant the variances will constitute a taking.
A question was raised regarding whether or not the sign had been depreciated on
tax forms and it was indicated even if the sign had been depreciated to zero, it would not
be sold for that.
A comment was made that the sign was constructed in October of 1985, the same
month the code went into effect. It was stated the ordinance clearly had been discussed
prior to that and the applicant should have had a reasonable expectation regarding the
imposition of the amortization period.
minSP12a.92
12/1092
14
.
In response to a question regarding whether the amortization period and the code
were known to the applicant and they went ahead and erected the sign. Mr. Westbury
indicated this was the case.
Mr. Graves indicated they did get the permit knowing the sign code was going into
effect. He further stated the ordinance has been amended 12 times and it was not
reasonable to assume that the ordinance would stay the same. He reiterated his belief
that failure to grant the variances would constitute a taking.
Commissioner Berfield moved to deny variances to permit nonconforming signage
to remain after the seven year amortization period for the subiect property for failure to
meet Section 137.012(d) Standards for Approval, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and a. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #8 - Variances to SiQn Regulations for orocertv located at 161 5 Ft. Harrison Ave..
Bay View Heights 1 st Add.. Lot 2 and part of lot 1 (Pearson/Patrick Media Group. Inc.)
SV92-54
This item was withdrawn by the applicant.
ITEM #9 - See cane ..
.
ITEM #1 0 - Variances to Sign Regulations for orocertv located at 1 808-1 820 Drew St.,
Drew Heights. Blk A, Lots 4-11 and part of vacated alley (Metco Development
Corp./Patrick Media Group. Inc.) SV92-56
The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) a variance of one
freestanding sign to retain a second freestanding sign; 2) an area variance of 600 sq.ft. to
permit a total area of 664 sQ.ft.; 3) a variance of 15 feet to permit a sign 35 feet in
height; and 4) a variance of 4 feet to permit a freestanding sign within 1 foot from a side
property line. The applicant requests these variances to permit the existing billboard sign
to remain.
The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Drew Street and Tulane
Road and is located in the General Commercial zoning district.
The new sign ordinance is being uniformly applied to all signs in this zoning district.
The applicant has not provided any evidence that these requests arise from any conditions
uniqu~ to this property. Staff review indicates that there are no particular physical
surroundings, shape or topographical conditions involved creating a hardship for the
property. The request for these variances appears to be based primarily upon the desire of
the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property.
These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height
of freestanding signs and can not be considered minimal requests. Commercial uses
surround the subject property on all sides along Drew Street and a multiple family
residential (RM-12) development exists to the north. The existence of this 35 foot high,
.
min5P12a.92
12/1092
15
'\
.
.
.
600 square foot sign Is not in character with the area and detracts from the surrounding
land uses. The granting of these variances will detract from the appearance of the
community as well as the surrounding land uses.
Staff finds this request does not meet the following standards: 1) The variance
requested arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and Is neither
ordinarily or uniformly applicable to the zoning district nor created by an action or actions
of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. Any mistake made in the
execution of a building permit or work performed without the benefit of a permit shall not
be considered to be situations which support the granting of a variance; 2) The particulsr
physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the
strict application of the provisions of. this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; 3) The variance is the minimum necessary to
overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in 112 for the purpose of making reasonable
use of the land; 4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the
applicant to secure a greater financial return fram the property; 6) The granting of the
variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property,
detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the
pubtic streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety in any way, or
substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and 8) The granting of
the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code.
Attorney Graves, representing the applicant, stated this was a legitimate business.
He stated there were procedural errors in the adoption of the sign code and its
amendments. He stated the hardship was not created by the applicant but by the
application of the code and the amortization period. The request is not being made in
order to maximize greater financial gain and there is nothing to support that there is any
detraction or negative impacts created by this sign.
He stated the sign is consistent with the spirit of the code and the Comprehensive
Plan. He stated denial of the variances would constitute a taking without compensation
and also would be interference with a contractual relationship.
Ron Westbury indicated the sign was erected in September of 1977 and they have
a year to year lease with Metco Development Company. The initial investment was.
$11,890. The current value of the sign is $26,420. It has a 25 year lifespan as it is a
wooden structure for a potential revenue of $84,000. It has zero salvage value.
In response to a question, it was indicated the monthly income is $700.
Attorney Graves reiterated he felt that failure to grant the variances would be a
taking without compensation which would be inconsistent with the growth management
act. He stated that all his comments from previous cases are applicable to this case and
he requested approval of the variances.
minSP12a.92
1211092
16
,,:,
.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny variances to permit nonconforming signage
to remain after the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to
meet Section 137.012(d) Standards for Approval, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
It was requested the Commission bring their calendars to the worksesslon the
following Monday to set additional meetings for sign variances.
It was also requested that the City Attorney draft rules of procedure for these
meetin(,Js.
The meeting adjourned at 12:46 p.m.
ATIEST,~~2:. Ji. Q.
.
"
.
minSP12a.92
12/l092
17
i.;
'"
, . ':;
"
. !
."
. ,