Loading...
04-18-22 Special Called Meeting Adopted MinutesMINUTES Special Called Meeting of the City Commission Monday, April 18, 2022 - 5:15 PM 'rt > Commission Chamber INVOCATION AND PLEDGE TO THE FLAG ATTENDANCE: Present: Ellen Glasser, Mayor - Seat 1 Bruce Bole, Commissioner - Seat 2 Michael Waters, Commissioner - Seat 3 Candace Kelly, Commissioner - Seat 4 Brittany Norris, Mayor Pro Tem / Commissioner - Seat 5 Also Present: Shane Corbin, City Manager (CM) Brenna Durden, City Attorney (CA) Donna Bartle, City Clerk (CC) Amanda Askew, Planning & Community Development Director (PCDD) 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Following the Pledge of Allegiance, Mayor Glasser called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. (The meeting was delayed while waiting for Commissioner Waters to arrive.) 2. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL (APP22-0003) OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTS BOARD'S DENIAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION (ZVAR22- 0003) FOR 705 ATLANTIC BLVD. Mayor Glasser opened the Public Hearing. A. City Attorney Procedural Reminders City Attorney (CA) Durden explained the appeal hearing procedures as outlined in the agenda packet. B. Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications, if any Commissioner Norris reported having no ex parte communications. Commissioner Waters reported having no ex parte communications. Commissioner Bole reported having no ex parte communications. Commissioner Kelly reported having no ex parte communications. Special Called Meeting of the City Commission April 18, 2022 Mayor Glasser reported having no ex parte communications since this proceeding began. She wanted to state on the record that she did meet with the applicant, Mr. Bakkes, Sky Enterprises last summer, in connection with this matter, but it was after the Code violation she thinks had been made and it was before any of the procedures before the Community Development Board. She also confirmed it was before the variance application was submitted and any decision she makes would be based upon the testimony and evidence presented today. Mayor Glasser asked whether examples of land development standards for which a variance may be authorized would include signs. CA Durden answered yes. C. Swearing In of all persons who will speak All those providing testimony were sworn in by City Clerk Bartle. D. City Staff Overview, Documentation and Presentation/Testimony Planning and Community Development Director (PCDD) Amanda Askew presented a PowerPoint presentation (which is attached hereto and made part of this Official Record as Attachment A). She provided an overview of APP22-0003 and explained the six criteria to use when making their decision and that one or more of the six must apply to allow the variance and if none apply, the variance would be denied. PCDD Askew answered questions from the Commission about parking requirements, sign regulations, the sign's expiration date, and the history of non -conforming sign. CA Durden clarified that Sec. 17-52(c) of the Sign Code addresses variances for signs and the criteria in Sec. 17-52(c) is identical word for word to the criteria in Sec. 24-65(c). She advised that at the point there is a motion, it may be appropriate to refer to the criteria in both Sec. 17-52 and Sec. 24-65. PCDD Askew answered questions about the proposed placement of the sign, the reasons it is non -conforming, and what is allowed with the mansard roof. Attachment A to 4-18-22 Minutes E. Applicant's Documentation and Presentation/Testimony The applicant's attorney, Mr. Zach Miller, Esq., gave an overview of the applicant's request, explained the history of the variance process, and explained why he believes they qualify for a variance approval based on criteria (3), (4), (5), and (6). PCDD Askew read Code Sec. 17-29(c), as requested. Mr. Miller and PCDD answered questions from the Commission about the proposed sign, application process, and current free-standing sign. Special Called Meeting of the City Commission April 18, 2022 The property owner, Jean Bakkes, Seminole South LLC, provided testimony, explaining the history of ownership, status of the sign, and reasons for his variance request, and answered questions from the Commission. Jessica Diebel, Co-owner of Makenu Chocolate, spoke in support of having some sort of view ability for all of the tenants, if they have to work with the pole sign and what is already there. David Lambert, representative for Bob's Barber Shop, spoke in support of allowing more advertising. Haley, owner of Be -In Bridal Studio spoke in support of extra advertising and using the sign that they already have. F. Public Comments Mayor Glasser explained the process and opened the floor for public comments. There were no speakers. Mayor Glasser closed public comments. G. Closing Comments/Rebuttal PCDD Askew provided closing remarks, reiterating that a vote to approve would be approving the variance and a vote to deny would be denying the variance. The criteria in Sec. 24-65(c) is the same criteria used in Sec. 17-52. PCDD Askew answered questions from the Commission. CA Durden explained the two items in the applicant's request, noted the right to add conditions, and confirmed the requirement to apply for a variance if they wanted to enlarge the face of the sign at this height. There was a discussion about lighting. CA Durden confirmed that external lighting is allowed and internal lighting is prohibited and advised that a proposal for lighting could be added as a condition to the variance. Mr. Miller reported that, according to the owner, it was lite internally at one time, but not now. He provided closing remarks reiterating that they meet the four criteria. Mr. Bakkes requested that the Commission consider allowing the sign to be lite as it used to be lite; however, it was not written as part of the variance application. PCDD Askew read Sec. 17-29(c)(4)a. CA Durden clarified that the Commission would not need to add a condition regarding internal lighting since it is already prohibited, but if there is something the Commission Special Called Meeting of the City Commission April 18, 2022 would like to add about external lighting, they should ask the applicant if they would agree to it. She further clarified that since the application did not include a request for internal lighting, it is not before you to allow it. Mr. Bakkes spoke in favor of the Commission considering the option to make it larger, up to what the Code allows. Mayor Glasser closed the public hearing. H. Commission Deliberation and Action Commissioner Bole spoke about challenges with the corner where the sign is and approving for reason (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Commissioner Kelly spoke in support of reason (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. Commissioner Norris spoke in favor of approving for reason (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. CM Corbin clarified that a variance would run with the land and transfer to the next property owner. Commissioner Norris asked about putting a condition on it that it would run with the current property owner only so that a new owner would have to come into compliance. CA Durden recommended, if they do want a condition, to have it applicable to the current owner or a business in which the current owner has a 50% or more interest and to have the applicant agree to the condition. Commissioner Waters spoke about the criterion for approval, wanting it to work, issues with setting a precedence; and the need to follow Code noting that he would rather have a larger sign that is of Code. Mayor Glasser provided a history of other non -conforming signs and spoke about the Code allowing for variances. She noted the best ft being reason (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. MOTION: To approve Variance Number ZVAR22-0003 for Reason Number (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. Motion: Candace Kelly Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: To approve Appeal APP22-0003 based on Number (4) Onerous effect ofregulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements Special Called Meeting of the City Commission April 18, 2022 upon the property with the condition that this approval on this variance are applicable to the current owner or a business in which the current owner might have 50% or more controlling interest. Motion: Brittany Norris Motion died due to lack of a second. MOTION: To approve Variance Number ZVAR22-0003 for Reason (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property without a deed restriction. Motion: Candace Kelly Motion died due to lack of a second. MOTION. To disapprove Variance ZVAR22-0003. Motion: Bruce Bole Second: Michael Waters Commissioner Kelly spoke in favor of approving the variance. Commissioner Norris spoke in favor of approving the variance. Mayor Glasser spoke in favor of approving the variance. Ellen Glasser Against Bruce Bole (Moved By) For Michael Waters (Seconded By) For Candace Kelly Against Brittany Norris Against Motion failed 2 to 3. MOTION: To approve Appeal APP22-0003 (Variance ZVAR22-0003) based on Number (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property with the condition that this approval on this variance are applicable to the current owner or a business in which the current owner might have 50% or more controlling interest. Motion: Brittany Norris Second. Ellen Glasser Mayor Glasser turned the Chair over to Mayor Pro Tem Norris before seconding the motion. Mr. Miller clarified the condition and agreed to it. Special Called Meeting of the City Commission April 18, 2022 Commissioner Kelly asked how the City will track ownership. CM Corbin explained the software which is used to track the history and notes. Brittany Norris (Moved By) For Ellen Glasser (Seconded By) For Bruce Bole Against Michael Waters Against Candace Kelly For Motion passed 3 to 2. 3. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Norris declared the meeting adjourned at 6:37 p.m. Attest: Donna L. Bartle, City Clerk Date Approved: '312712 0 Z-.3 Bruce Bole, Commissioner Special Called Meeting of the City Commission April 18, 2022 Attachment A to 4-18-22 Minutes APP22mO003 705 Atlantic Boulevard Appeal of the February 15, 2022 CDB Decision Original variance request was for a variance from Section 17-29 to exceed the maximum freestanding sign height and reduce the minimum 5 -foot setback. Si Attachment A nt�'�1'i�! Detail`- j I 6 75 6951 Zoned Commercial General (CG) The building is currently used as a shopping center and has a combination of retail, service, and office uses. Attachment A to 4-18-22 Minutes December 2021 CDB hearing for same property (withdrawn) • Request to exceed allowable height (roof) —or - Request to reduce setback and height " L Attachment A Location Propo :�� �J Y %.DB (picture provided by applicant) Presented at Feb. 2022 CDB hearing n'ATE Attachment A Btp 4 -la -22. M'n"te d LKIF Und %.0 The existing freestanding sign was built when the property was developed in the 1960's. At this time, "pole signs" were permitted up to a maximum 35 feet in height. In the early 2000's, the sign code no longer permitted signs above 8 feet in height. x4 Attachment A Btdu� Sunnyland Coin Laundry's business tax receipt expired September 30, 2017. 4 Violation of Section 17-41(c) "Abandoned Signs. Signs shall be removed by the owner or occupant within thirty (30) days of cessation of the business activity conducted on the property where the sign is located. A business or activity shall be considered to have ceased when the premises are vacated, or in the absence of a valid occupational license or active utility service account. Signs not removed in accordance with these provisions shall be considered as abandoned and shall be removed at the property owner's expense." Attachment A to 4-18-22 Minutes Site is primarily covered with building or asphalt • Bldg. approx. 8,000 sf requires 27 parking spaces Approx. 35 spaces on prop. Attachment A to 4-18-22 Minutes Need f&,' t1a knu.,,q n c } The applicant is proposing to replace the sign face area on the existing nonconforming pole sign. The sign face area is approximately 25.5 square feet. Attachment A Need tjbY2 riance • Section 17-29(c)(1)(a) limits freestanding signs to 8 feet in height. Section 17-29(c)(2) requires a 5 -foot setback from the property line(s). S67. �97� ::...... ........ . ` urs Existing nonconforming +4. pole sign ::..":.�.'. V IT # Y \ ... ........ '. � •! .• • � H � �;: ::(iii?:•'' ` � .ate.; r: �: r•r ::7 41 i' ::::: 17.28 ,1 ;; �••c �,�,.���.�,r^•n�.-�. �,;;.+rk. ,�.,: Attachment A Street View oft 1_xl %'ft Sign (provided by applicant) Attachment A ReLe'trc22AlSetory December 2021: CDB —variance withdraw (seeking roof top sign and pole sign on west side) Feb. 2022: CDB heard revised variance request (reuse the existing pole sign location and size). Q Attachment A CDB , /i4���1inu 1 M ecision Denied variance based on the lack of grounds for approval in section 24-65(c). (vote 3-2) Attachment A PM %0.0!) LDR allows appeal of the final decision of CDB by any adversely affected person(s) A Appeals are de novo (start from the beginning). In other words, as if the CDB hearing had not occurred. Per 24-49(b) the applicant must indicate that the decisions of the CDB being appealed is in conflict with or in violation of Chapter 24. Since this is a de novo proceeding, Commission must review the appeal under the criteria set forth in section 24-65(c) variances. Attachment A AppficantsGiu�'"u forAppeal "The appellant presents this verified petition to the City Commission setting forth that the denial of the Application by the CDB conflict with/and is not violation of the relevant portions of the LDC. Specifically, at the February 15, 2022, the CDB, by a vote of 3-2, denied the requested variance for the Sign. Per the Section 17-52, LDC, the CDB was required to grant the variance if there is competent substantial evidence that the proposed variance met one (1) of the criteria of a sign variance. Respectfully, there was competent substantial evidence that he Application meets the applicable criteria." Attachment A RECAP -CDO-Pnnival Decision Denied the variance request finding that the request did not meet the grounds for approval of a variance as established in Section 24-65(c). Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvement upon the property. Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. R; Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Attachment A to 4-18-22 Minutes Grounds for Decision APPROVAL- existence of one or more of the following Section 24-65 (c) 1. Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. 2. Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. 3. Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. 4. Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvement upon the property. 5. Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. 6. Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. DENIAL - The CDB may consider a denial upon finding that none of the requirements in 24-65 (c) exist. Attachment A to 4-18-22 Minutes w The Commission may consider a motion to approve APP22-0003/ ZVAR22-0003, request for a variance to Section 17-29 to allow a freestanding sign to exceed the maximum height and to reduce the min. setback upon finding this request is consistent with the definition of a variance, and pursuant to Section 24-65(c) in the Land Development Regulations below: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance to provide for the reasonable use of the property Attachment A to 4-18-22 Minutgs The Commission may consider a motion to deny APP22-0003/ZVAR21-0003, request for a variance to Section 17-29 to allow a freestanding sign to exceed the maximum height and to reduce the min. setback upon finding this request does not meet any of the criteria set forth in section 24-65(c) or it is not consistent with the definition of a variance.