APP2008-00006 - 513 BELCHER RD N, CSP Denial-Murphy Business - December 16, 2008
CDB Meeting Date: December 16, 2008
Case Number: APP2008-00006
Agenda Item: E1
Appellant/Owner: Murphy Business and Financial Services, Inc.
Agent: Steven W. Moore/Law Offices of Steven W. Moore
Address: 513 North Belcher Road
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: An appeal from a Level One (Comprehensive Sign Program) approval
decision pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4-
502.A. that a requested increase from one attached sign to five attached
signs is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Sign Program principles as
set forth in CDC Section 3-1807.C.1.
CURRENT ZONING: Office (O) District
CURRENT FUTURE LAND
USE CATEGORY: Residential Office General (R/OG)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Detached Dwelling
Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling
EXISTING SURROUNDING North: Office (O) Office
ZONING AND USES: South: Institutional (I) Office
East: Low Medium Density Residential Detached Dwelling
(LMDR)
West: Commercial (C) Retail
BACKGROUND:
The subject parcel comprises 0.82 acres and is located at the southeast corner of North Belcher Road and
Sharkey Road.
On October 1, 2007, a Comprehensive Sign Program (CSP) application was submitted requesting an
increase from one attached sign to five attached signs. The five attached signs had previously been
constructed and erected without the necessary permits. Following a determination that the application was
complete on December 1, 2007, staff reviewed the request.
CDC Section 3-1807.C.1 requires the proposed sign’s design, character, location and/or materials to be
demonstrably more attractive than signs otherwise permitted under the minimum sign standards.
Additionally, the signs must be architecturally integrated into/with the design of the building and/or site
using similar and coordinated design features, materials and colors. Review by staff determined that the
attached sign on the west side was not demonstrably more attractive than minimum code would allow, nor
was it attached directly to the building façade. Likewise, the location of the other four attached signs was
not demonstrably more attractive than otherwise would be permitted under minimum sign standards.
CDC Section 3-1807.C.4 requires the Community Development Coordinator to evaluate the height, area,
number and location of signs based on the overall size of the site, relationship between the building setback
Community Development Board – December 16, 2008
APP2008-00006 – Page 1 of 3
and sign location, frontage, access and visibility to the site, traffic circulation and scale and use of the
project. Review by staff determined the number of and location of five attached signs to conflict with the
use of the project. While businesses rely on signage to attract attention, an office use is not one that
compels drivers to make an impulsive stop such as a retail use. An office use is a destination and typically
is located by an address. As such five attached signs were determined to be excessive in number.
Additionally, the four attached signs on the north side face Sharkey Street which is predominately a
residentially traveled street. Thus, the four attached signs were found to conflict with the intended use of
signage in that the frontage in which they are attached should be of a commercial nature.
It was suggested by Staff on January 30, 2008, that the existing monument sign along Belcher Road be
relocated farther to the south, that another monument sign be erected along the Sharkey Street frontage and
that three of the attached signs on the north side and the one attached sign on the west side of the building
be removed.
On November 14, 2008, in the absence of the submittal of a revised application upon which positive
findings could be made, the Planning Department issued a development order denying the application,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusion of law:
Findings of Fact:
1. That the 0.82 acres is located at the northeast corner of Belcher Road and Sharkey Road;
2. That the subject property is currently developed with an Office use approved through FLS 02-01-11 on
April 19, 2002;
3. That the existing monument sign was approved on July 1, 2005;
4. That the attached sign on the west side was erected without a permit;
5. That the four attached signs on the north side were erected without permits;
6. That the attached sign on the west side is not demonstrably more attractive than would be permitted
under minimum sign standards and is not attached directly to the building façade; and
7. That the four attached signs on the north side are excessive in number of attached signs.
Conclusion of Law:
1. That the Comprehensive Sign Program request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Sign Program
review principles as per Section 3-1807.C.1 of the Community Development Code.
An appeal from the above Level One (Comprehensive Sign Program) decision was filed on behalf of the
property owner by the Law Offices of Steven W. Moore on November 21, 2008, consistent with the
timeframe established for an appeal to be initiated in CDC Section 4-502.A. Pursuant to CDC Section 4-
501.A.3, the Community Development Board (CDB) has the authority to hear appeals from Level One
(Comprehensive Sign Program) decisions.
Pursuant to CDC Section 4-504.A, the CDB shall review the application, the recommendation of the
Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application, and
render a decision in accordance with the provisions of CDC Section 4-206.D.5 granting the appeal,
granting the appeal subject to specified conditions, or denying the appeal.
It is noted that pursuant to CDC Section 4-504.B, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or modifying the
decision appealed from, the CDB shall find that based on substantial competent evidence presented by the
applicant or other party that each and every one of the following criteria are met:
1. The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of this development
code; and
Community Development Board – December 16, 2008
APP2008-00006 – Page 2 of 3
2. The decision of the CDB will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this development
code; and
3. The decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare.
Prepared by: Planning Department Staff: ________________________________
A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
??Development Order Issued on November 14, 2008
??Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
??Location Map
??Future Land Use Map
??Zoning Atlas Map
??Site Photos
??Resume
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Comprehensive Sign Program\Belcher\Belcher N 0513 Murphy Financial\Staff Report - CSP Denial-Murphy
Business.doc
Community Development Board – December 16, 2008
APP2008-00006 – Page 3 of 3