Loading...
12/28/1992 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING December 28, 1992 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall, Monday, December 28, 1992 at 9:00 a.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Sue Berfield Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Commissioner Mayme W. Hodges Commissioner-Appointee Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney James Polatty, Jr. Planning and Development Director Scott Shuford Planning Manager Mary K. Diana Assistant City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order for the purpose of considering sign variance requests. Attorney Ken Graves, Patrick Media Group, requested his items be heard in sequence and relinquished being first on the agenda; however, Harbor Square Shopping Item #3 had no representation at this time and were placed at the end of the agenda. Mr. Graves requested the Commission reconsider their decisions of denial on the sign cases (M. Lenore Holcombe SV92-51, Remprop, SV92-52, Dennis R. DeLoach, Jr. SV92-53 and Metco Development Corporation SV92-56) he represented at the December 10, 1992 meeting on the basis there was no positive response to the unrebutted economic testimony of the petitioner and that denial of these variances constitutes a taking of private property without proper justification having been paid to the property owner. Discussion ensued in regard to whether considering Mr. Graves' request today would be appropriate. Mr. Graves said this was his first opportunity to address the Commission as a sign variance board on behalf of the clients he represented on December 10th. It was indicated this was a special meeting and referring to the Commission as a sign variance board added nothing to the discussion. Consensus was to not reconsider the December 10th decisions. ITEM #1 - (Cont. from 12/10/92) Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 2288 Drew St., Temple Terrace Sub., 1st Addn., Blk D, Lots 15-17 (Gokcen/Patrick Media Group, Inc.) SV92-50 The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) To permit a second freestanding sign where only one is permitted; 2) a height variance of 42 feet to allow a sign 50 feet in height; 3) an area variance of 1,345 square feet to allow a total area of 1,369 square feet divided between the two signs; and 4) a variance of 40 feet to permit a freestanding sign to be located less than 150 feet from another such sign on the same property. The subject property is a professional office strip center located at 2288 Drew Street and is in the Limited Office zoning district. Two freestanding signs exist on the site, one freestanding sign identifying the business and one billboard. The variance requests are intended to address the existing billboard only. Only one freestanding sign is permitted. 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 this 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. To the north and adjacent to the subject property is a single family residential subdivision. This 50 foot high, 1,344 square foot sign is clearly visible from this neighborhood. Additionally, the lighting of this sign at night is a source of further disruption to this residential area. The granting of these requests will detract from the appearance of the single family residential area immediately to the north. Of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, staff finds the applicant's requests do not meet the following: 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 representing the applicant, filed a memorandum in support of the sign variance petition and is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and as such, made a part of the minutes. He said the petition is being filed to properly exhaust all administrative remedies available to the petitioner without prejudice to the petitioner's rights to later challenge the sign ordinances. Patrick Media Group, Inc. operates a lawful, legitimate and properly licensed business within the limits of Clearwater. The subject sign was properly permitted without the need for a variance. He said the business is not unique from other businesses operating in Clearwater and denial of this variance request suggests the singling out of one legitimate business for disparate treatment. He indicated substantive changes to the sign ordinance had been made at second reading after the public hearing was closed. Mr. Graves also indicated the required public advertising was not achieved on at least one occasion and the City Attorney requested proof of this be provided. Mr. Graves said, when the possible taking of private property rights is involved, the conclusions must be based on evidence, and review of the minutes of the various meetings relating to adoption of the 1985 sign code and the various amendments, revealed no such evidence having been submitted to the Commission for its consideration. Referring to Policy 3.7.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, he said discouraging proliferation of commercial signage is different than eliminating signage. He also referenced Policy 4.1.3 which provides that private property shall not be taken without due process of law and just compensation. Ronald Westberry, Patrick Media Group, stated the sign located at Drew and Terrace Streets was erected in 1981 at an original investment of $37,000 with a lease term of 30 years, a life expectancy of 40 years, removal costs of $8,000, potential remaining income of $1,071,000 and a salvage value of zero. Mr. Graves asked whether Mr. Westberry was familiar with the eight standards for variance approval and he said he was. He asked if Mr. Westberry thought the sign was injurious or impaired an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detracted from the appearance of the community or if there had been any complaints from the neighborhood and Mr. Graves responded "no." Mr. Graves feels failure to address the economic factors as part of the sign variance application is in error. He said the "standards" for variances are essentially the same today as when the subject sign was properly permitted. In response to questions, Mr. Graves indicated if the variance standards have remained essentially unchanged since the sign was permitted and built, then any failure on the part of the petitioner to meet those same standards must have been externally created or imposed and could not logically or legally be the responsibility of the petitioner. He felt the economic factors are the only logical ones to be considered and have relevance to today's proceedings. He concluded the amortization concept is lawful only if sufficiently long enough to recoup a reasonable investment back. It was noted the property is allowed one freestanding sign. Mr. Graves confirmed to Mr. Polatty the 1,344 sq ft sign on Drew Street is the subject of this request and that the other freestanding sign on the property is not theirs. Mr. Polatty said nothing contained in the applicant's application showed the standards for variance approval were met. Mr. Graves reiterated the sign was properly permitted without a variance when erected in 1981 and there have been no changes since that time. In response to whether Mr. Graves was aware the sign code had changed in 1985, he responded he was. There was discussion regarding the applicant's application not addressing the standards and numerous factors involved in meeting these standards. Mr. Graves indicated the code provides for consideration of propriety when dealing with economic factors. A member of the former political action committee, "Citizens for a Better Clearwater," spoke in opposition reaffirming the committee's concern for visual clutter. He indicated the sign was substantially larger than others in the area and would overshadow the residential neighborhood. He questioned the current and salvage values of the sign. A question was raised as to the investment realized by the applicant during the seven year amortization period, and it was determined approximately $250,000 had been realized. An opinion was expressed a reasonable return on the original investment had been realized during the eleven years the sign has existed and it was indicated the main purpose of the ordinance is to eliminate visual clutter. Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the variance requests to permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to meet Section 137.012 (d) Standards for Approval, items 1 thru 4, 6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #2 - (Cont. from 12/10/92) Variances to Sign Regulations for property 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 The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) an area variance of 276 square feet to permit a sign 300 square feet in area where 24 square feet is permitted; 2) a height variance of 27 feet to permit a sign 35 feet in height where 8 feet is permitted; and 3) a variance of 4 feet from the 5 foot side yard setback to provide a 1 foot setback. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and Corbett Street and is in the Limited Office zoning district. The applicant requests these variances to permit the existing billboard sign to remain. These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height of a freestanding sign and can not be considered minimal requests. Surrounding land uses are Morton Plant Rehabilitation Center to the north (across Corbett Street); professional offices to the south; professional medical offices to the east (across S. Ft. Harrison Avenue); and professional offices to the west. The existing 35 foot high, 300 square foot sign is not in character with the area and detracts from the surrounding land uses. Of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, staff finds the applicant's requests do not meet the following: 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 representing the applicant, filed a memorandum in support of the application containing the same testimony as was presented for the previous case and is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and as such, made a part of the minutes. In response to whether there was any opposition to the request, it was noted the previous objector had essentially the same comments for the remaining requests. Ronald Westberry, Patrick Media Group, stated the sign located at 1300 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue was erected in 1977 at an original investment of $5,945.00 with a year to year lease term, a life expectancy of 25 years, removal costs of $2,500.00, potential remaining income of $42,000 and a salvage value of zero. He indicated the investment realization to date at approximately $63,000.00. Mr. Graves confirmed to Mr. Polatty that the photographs he presented were of the subject sign. Mr. Graves said there have been no changes regarding the structure, surroundings, etc. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny the variance requests to permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to meet Section 137.012 (d) Standards for Approval, items 1 thru 4, 6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (Harbor Square Shopping Center) located at 24145 US19N, Sec. 5-29-16, M&B 23.05 (Gloria Robert, Trustee/Rolf Robert Trust) SV92-29 This item was placed at the end of the agenda; however, there was no one present at that time to represent this application. Commissioner Deegan moved to continue this item to the scheduled meeting of January 15, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #4 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 1568 S. Ft. Harrison Ave., Sec. 21-29-15, M&B 44.19 (Wood/Patrick Media Group, Inc.) SV92-57 The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) an area variance of 636 square feet to permit a total area of 700 square feet where 64 square feet is permitted; and 2) a height variance of 15 feet to permit a freestanding sign 35 feet in height where 20 feet in height is permitted. The subject property is a vacant lot located on the west side of S. Ft. Harrison Avenue in the 1500 block and is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. The applicant is requesting these variances to permit an existing sign (billboard) to remain. These variances requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height of a freestanding sign and cannot be considered minimal requests. Surrounding land uses are professional offices to the north; professional offices (Consolidated Southern Securities, Inc. - extremely well landscaped with an additional setback from the street r-o-w incorporated into the design) to the south; Fairwinds (private residential treatment center for the mentally ill) to the east; and the Pinellas Trail and single family residential to the west. The existing 35 foot high, 700 square foot sign is not in character with the signage permitted for the surrounding commercial, office and institutional land uses area and detracts from the appearance of the community especially the well landscaped developments to the east and south. Of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, staff finds the applicant's requests do not meet the following: 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, representing the applicant, submitted a memorandum in support of the application containing the same testimony as was presented for the previous cases and is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and as such, made a part of the minutes. Ronald Westberry, Patrick Media Group, stated the sign located at 1568 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue was erected in 1980 at an original investment of $44,000.00 with a lease term of 20 years, a life expectancy of 25 years, removal costs of $5,000.00, potential remaining income of $88,200 and a salvage value of zero. He indicated the investment realization to date at approximately $88,200.00. It was pointed out a freestanding sign is allowed on the property; however, it was felt the applicant is asking for a substantial increase over what is allowed. In rebuttal, Mr. Graves stated that failure to grant the variance is a taking of private property without just compensation according to federal and constitutional mandates. An opinion was expressed that a reasonable return on the sign had been realized and that aesthetics needed to be considered. Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the variance requests to permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to meet Section 137.012 (d) Standards for Approval, items 1 thru 4, 6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 606 N. Ft. Harrison Ave., Bidwell's Oakwood Addn., Lots 14 & 15 (Driver, Burns & Shimek/Patrick Media Group, Inc.) SV92-58 The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) an area variance of 376 square feet to permit a freestanding sign with a total area of 440 square feet where 64 square feet is permitted; and 2) a height variance of 0.33 feet to permit a sign 20.33 feet in height where 20 feet in height is permitted. The subject property is a vacant lot located on the west side of N. Ft. Harrison approximately 100 feet south of Eldridge Street and is located in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. The applicant is requesting these variances to permit an existing sign (billboard) to remain. The request for the area variance is extreme with regard to the permitted area of a freestanding sign and cannot be considered a minimal request. Surrounding land uses are a vacant lot to the north; single family residential and multiple family residential to the south; Dinghy Dan Marine to the east; and multiple family residential to the west. The existence of this 440 square foot sign is not in character with the residential land uses or with the signage permitted for the commercial businesses in the area. The granting of this variance will detract from the businesses that have conforming signage, the residential areas and the appearance of the overall community. Of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, staff finds the applicant's requests do not meet the following: 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; 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; 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. Staff finds the applicant's request for the height variance meets all eight standards for variance approval. Ken Graves, representing the applicant, submitted a memorandum in support of the application containing the same testimony as was presented for the previous cases and is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and as such, made a part of the minutes. Ronald Westberry, Patrick Media Group, stated the sign located at 606 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue was erected in 1975 at an original investment of $11,000.00 with a year to year lease term, a life expectancy of 25 years, removal costs of $3,000.00, potential remaining income of $42,000 and a salvage value of zero. He indicated the investment realization to date at approximately $102,000.00. Mr. Graves confirmed to Mr. Polatty the photographs presented were of the subject sign. It was noted a freestanding sign is allowed on the property; however, it was felt the request is a substantial increase in square footage over what is allowed. The height variance request was considered to be minimal. Mr. Westberry stated the industry dictates the basic standard sign size. He said if the sign is reduced, it will not be marketable. Mr. Graves felt due to the surrounding land uses the sign would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. An opinion was expressed seven years is a reasonable period for investment return. A question was raised why this request did not meet standard #5 and how was it different from the previous requests. It was indicated the neighborhood had a significant problem in attracting commercial use as the range of uses was not very broad. It was felt a sign of this size would be injurious to redevelopment in this area. A question was raised if the potential remaining income of the signs is based on always having the signage sold. Mr. Westberry indicated it is for the permanent panel signs which are rented on a 6-month basis and the income for the others is based on a 65-75 percent occupancy rate. Commissioner Deegan moved to deny the area variance of 376 square feet to permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to meet Section 137.012 (d) Standards for Approval, items 1 thru 6 and 8 and to approve the height variance of 0.33 feet to permit a freestanding sign 20.33 feet in height. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously ITEM #6 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property (vacant lot) located east of 1250 Court St., Hibiscus Gardens, Blk O, Lots 6-8 & 20 (Wilson/Patrick Media Group, Inc.) SV92-59 The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) an area variance of 276 square feet to permit a total area of 300 square feet where 24 square feet is permitted; and 2) a height variance of 25.66 feet to permit a freestanding sign 33.66 feet in height where 8 feet in height is permitted. The subject property is a vacant lot located on the north side of Court Street and is in the Limited Office (OL) zoning district. The applicant is requesting these variances to permit an existing sign (billboard) to remain. These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height of a freestanding sign and cannot be considered minimal requests. Surrounding land uses are professional offices to the north; (across Court Street) - multiple family residential to the south; auto repair, commercial to the east; and commercial, professional office to the west. The existence of this 33.66 foot high, 300 square foot sign is not in character with the commercial, office and residential land uses in the area. The granting of these variances will detract from the businesses that have conforming signage, the residential areas and the appearance of the overall community. Of the eight standards which must be met for variance approval, staff finds the applicant's requests do not meet the following: 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; 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; 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, representing the applicant, submitted a memorandum in support of the application containing the same testimony as was presented for the previous cases and is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and as such, made a part of the minutes. Ronald Westberry, Patrick Media Group, stated the sign located at 1250 Court Street was erected in 1973 at an original investment of $5,945.00 with a year to year lease term, a life expectancy of 25 years, removal costs of $2,000.00, potential remaining income of $42,000 and a salvage value of zero. He indicated the investment realization to date at approximately $63,000.00. Mr. Graves confirmed to Mr. Polatty the photographs he presented were of the subject sign. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford indicated this request did not meet standard #5 because the square footage and height of the sign in this zoning district was considered to be out of line. It was noted a freestanding sign is allowed on the property. In rebuttal, Mr. Graves said the only thing that has changed is the code. He felt it is a burden on the petitioner to prove the variance standards have been met. He said there is significant life left in the signs and it is only legally correct if the petitioner is allowed to achieve his investment back or be compensated. It was felt a reasonable return on the investment had been realized during the seven year amortization period. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to deny the variance requests to permit nonconforming signage to remain after expiration of the seven year amortization period for the subject property for failure to meet Section 137.012 (d) Standards for Approval, items 1 thru 6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Other Commission Action The January 12th Goal Setting meeting was rescheduled to January 14, 1993 at 1:00 p.m. The January 25th Special Meeting on Sign Variances was rescheduled to January 28, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. The meeting adjourned at 10:32 a.m.