Loading...
12/10/1992 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING December 10, 1992 The City Commission 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 Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Sue Berfield Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Commissioner Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau 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 property located at 1785 Drew St., Sky Crest Unit No. 3, Blk D, 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. 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. 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 Palouian. He stated their being present at this meeting was no waiver of rights to pursue further legal action at a later date. Mr. Palouian, 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 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 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 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 #2 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 513 S. Missouri Ave., Hibiscus Gardens, Blk R, Lots 30B, 31A and 31B 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 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, 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 1968. 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 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 Sign Regulations for property located at 1219 Court St., 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. Both 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. 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. 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 lot. 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. 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 137.012(d) Standards for Approval, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting recessed from 11:10 a.m. to 11:21 a.m. ITEM #4 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property 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 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 Staff requested this item be continued. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue Items 4 and 9 to the sign variance meeting of December 28, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property 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: 1) 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; 3) 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 freestanding signs on one property. The applicant requests these variances to permit the existing billboard sign to remain. The subject property is an existing commercial/industrial strip center located at 1880 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. 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 an 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. The Planning and Development Director indicated the standard in the code is to leave 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 137.012(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 Regulations for property 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 150 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. These variance requests are extreme with regard to the permitted area and height of a freestanding sign and can not be considered minimal requests. 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 family development zoned RM-16. The existence of this 47 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 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 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. 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. In response to questions about the neighborhood, Mr. Graves indicated he did not feel 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 137.012(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 Regulations for property located at 1395 S. Missouri Ave., Sall's 2nd Add., Blk A, Lots 10-12 (DeLoach 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 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 with significant impact upon the single family residential area immediately to the southeast. 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. 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. 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 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 #8 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 1615 Ft. Harrison Ave., Bay View Heights 1st Add., Lot 2 and part of Lot 1 (Pearson/Patrick Media Group, Inc.) SV92-54 This item was withdrawn by the applicant. ITEM #9 - 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 - Continued to 12/28/92 ITEM #10 - Variances to Sign Regulations for property located at 1808-1820 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 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 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, 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 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, 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. 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 worksession the following Monday to set additional meetings for sign variances. It was also requested that the City Attorney draft rules of procedure for these meetings. The meeting adjourned at 12:46 p.m.