Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 03 22 Regular 505 CITYCOMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 505 CONSENT INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING REGULAR X March 22. 2004 Meeting MGR./?w1 IDEPT /~ Authorization REQUEST: The Community Development Department recommends the City Commission reconsider a request by the Winter Springs Food Market, Inc., for a variance from Section 20- 486 of the City Code of Ordinances, to reconstruct an existing non-conforming pole sign into a monument sign within the 10 foot front and side setbacks (approximately 2 feet from both the front and side) in the SR 434 Redevelopment Overlay Zoning District. The applicant is aware that, subsequent to her application, the City Commission voted to waive the $500 variance fee (May 12, 2003) and therefore requests that the fee be refunded and her request be re- considered. PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is to reconsider a request by the owner of the Winter Springs Food Market site for a variance from Section 20-486 of the City Code of Ordinances to allow the existing non-conforming pole sign to be reconstructed approximately 2 feet from both the front and side property lines as an otherwise conforming monument sign at 147 West SR 434. Although not articulated in the application, the applicant stated at the December 5, 2002, Board of Adjustment meeting that he requests the variance only for the location of the sign - setbacks from both the front and side property lines. APPLICABLE CODE: Sec. 20-82. Duties and Powers; general. The Board of Adjustment shall make recommendations to the City Commission to grant any variance or special exception as delineated in this chapter. (1) The board of adj ustment shall have the additional following specific powers and duties: March 22, 2004 Regular Item 505 Page 2 a. To recommend upon appeal such variance from the terms of this chapter as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in unnecessary and undue hardship. In order to recommend any variance from the terms of this chapter, the board of adjustment must and shall find: 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district; 2. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 3. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district; 4. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary hardship on the applicant; 5. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use ofthe land, building or structure; 6. That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. (2) In recommending the granting of any variance, the board of adjustment may recommend appropriate conditions and safeguards. Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the chapter. The board of adjustment may recommend a reasonable time limit within which the action for which the variance is required shall be begun or completed, or both. Sec. 20-103. Restrictions upon lands, buildings and structures. (c) Percentage of occupancy (lot). No building or structure shall be erected.. .nor shall any open space surrounding any building or structure be encroached upon or reduced in any manner except in conformance with the building site requirements... for the district in which such building or structure is located. Sec. 20-486. Signs. March 22, 2004 Regular Item 505 Page 3 All signs and sign elements, including shape, form, lighting, materials, size, color and location shall be subject to approval by the design review board if such signs or sign elements are visible from adjacent properties or a street right-of-way. (1) Ground mounted multi-tenant or project identification sign: For each multi-tenant development under separate ownership, one (1) wide-based monument style permanent sign with landscaped base identifying the name of the development and businesses within the development shall be permitted. For development with five hundred (500) feet of frontage or more on a major road, one additional sign may be permitted. The minimum separation for all signs on an individual ownership parcel shall be two hundred (200) feet and: a. Shall only advertise the name of the commercial development companies, corporation or major enterprises within the commercial development. The primary address of the building shall be incorporated into the sign with numerals/letters a minimum of eight (8) inches in height, but the address shall not be counted against allowable copy area. b. Shall be located no closer than ten (10) feet from front, side, or rear property lines. c. Shall have a maximum of two (2) faces. d. Shall be consistent in design, format and materials with the architecture of the proposed building(s). e. A wall sign shall not be higher than eight (8) feet above the closest vehicular use area. f. Landscaping shall be incorporated around the base to include low growing shrubs and ground cover and/or annuals to promote color. g. Signs shall be in accordance with the following schedule: Building Size Maximum Copy Area Maximum Height (Gross Floor Area) Under 75,000 SF 32 SF 12 feet (2) Ground mounted single-tenant identification sign: One (1) wide-based monument style permanent project identification sign shall be permitted per single-tenant parcel. One additional permanent wide-based monument style project identification sign may be permitted for parcels in excess of one (1) acre with more than one (1) ingress/egress serving more than one (1) building. The minimum separation for all signs on an individual ownership parcel shall be two hundred (200) feet. a. Shall only advertise one (1) person, firm, company, corporation or major enterprise occupying the premises. b. Shall be located no closer than ten (10) feet from the front, side or rear property lines. c. Shall not exceed two (2) faces. d. Sign copy area shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet per face. For parcels in excess of four (4.0) acres, the project identification sign face may be increased to forty- eight (48) square feet. e. Shall be consistent in design, format and materials with the architecture of the proposed building. f. The sign shall not be more than eight (8) feet in height above the closest driveway or vehicular use area. March 22, 2004 Regular Item 505 Page 4 g. Signs shall be in an enclosed base a minimum width of two-thirds (2/3) the width of the sign. Landscaping shall be incorporated around the base to include low growing shrubs and ground cover and/or annuals to promote color. CONSIDERATIONS: On November 10, 1997, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 683, which, among other things, created the SR 434 Redevelopment Overlay Zoning District. It also set forth standards for signage and provided a 5-year maximum amortization period for signs that were not in compliance with the new standards. On June 12,2000, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 2000-17, which provided that any sign, other than a billboard, could be amortized and maintained until November 14,2002. At or prior to November 14,2002, all nonconforming signs must be removed and may be replaced with signs that conform to the design standards set forth in the S.R. 434 Redevelopment regulations. All directly affected property owners were notified at or about the time Ordinance No. 2000-17 was adopted. As a reminder of the up-coming deadline, on July 26,2002, Community Development Director Charles Carrington sent each property owner with a sign in either of the SR 434 districts. The subject site has C-l Zoning, a Commercial Future Land Use designation, and is located within the SR 434 Redevelopment Overlay Zoning District. It comprises both the convenience food market and the appliance store. The Board of Adjustment acted on the verbally amended request for a variance to only the setback requirements (10 feet from the front and side property boundaries - requesting 2 foot setbacks at both the front and side), articulated how it believed that the request met the variance criteria, and voted 2 to 1 to recommend that the variance request be approved. A minimum of 3 votes are necessary for a motion to be approved (Sec. 20-81 of the City Code - except for a vote to adjourn or continue an item) - therefore, the Board did not recommend approval. Subsequent to the January 13,2003, City Commission meeting, staff met multiple times with the property owner and the Food Market proprietor. Various locations were considered, but no suitable alternative was decided upon. The boundary between the site and the adjacent office site to the west was staffs preferred site for joint signage for the 2 sites but was rejected by the owner, Mr. Richard Gudenkauf. Mr. Gudenkauf did not want to share a monunlent sign along the common property line, requested a variance to the setbacks for his existing non-conforming sign, and received a variance to the setbacks (but not the copy area). Other setback variances have been granted within the SR 434 Redevelopment Overlay Zoning District, subsequent to his request. These include the sign variance requests at the Gudenkauf, Kinder Kampus, and Dr. Corum sites. In March 22, 2004 Regular Item 505 Page 5 FINDINGS: both the Kinder Kampus and Dr. Corum cases, compromises were proposed by staff - at the City Commission's direction. In the Dr. Corum compromise, staff recommended a sign that was smaller than the maximum allowed in the SR 434 Redevelopment, as a compromise between the setback requested and the proximity to the nearby building. 1).The subject site, 426 East SR 434, is located within the C-1 zoning district, the Commercial Future Land Use designation, and the SR 434 Redevelopment Overlay Zoning District. 2).The SR 434 Redevelopment Overlay Zoning District sign standards have been in effect since November 10, 1997, with the adoption of Ordinance No. 683. 3). On June 12,2000, Ordinance No. 2000-17 amended the amortization deadline set forth in Ordinance No. 683 and set forth a November 14, 2002, deadline for existing non-conforming signs to be removed and replaced with signs that conform to Code. 4).On or about November 18,2002, the variance application was received by the City. 5).The Board of Adjustment was required by Code to find that the variance request meets all six variance criteria, set forth in Subsection 20-82 (1) (c), in order to recommend approval. 6). Staff does not find that the variance meets all of the six criteria for a vanance: 1. there are no conditions or circumstances peculiar to the land, structure, or buildings which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same SR 434 Redevelopment Overlay Zoning District; Staff believes that the applicant has demonstrated that other locations have been adequately investigated and that no other site stands out as clearly better, except for the common property line with the adjacent office (reject by the adjacent property owner). The conditions on this site are similar to those on other developed sites within the SR 434 Redevelopment Overlay Zoning District. 2. special conditions and circumstances, if they exist, are the result of the applicant; March 22, 2004 Regular Item 505 Page 6 Construction of the Public Storage building close to the right-of-way and the change in the sign code are circumstances and conditions that the applicant states are beyond her control. 3. granting the variance requested would convey on the applicant special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, buildings or structures in the same overlay zoning district; Staff does believe that a variance to allow the sign to be rebuilt with 2 foot front and side setbacks would convey a special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same overlay zoning district, although we acknowledge that some setback variances have been granted for signs within the SR 434 Redevelopment Overlay Zoning District. 4. a literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same overlay zoning district under the terms of this chapter and would not work an unnecessary hardship on the applicant; Staff believes that, given the existing parking situation and opposition to joint signage along the western boundary of the site, that this is probably the most viable place for a monument sign and that other businesses with difficult circumstances in the district enjoy and have been afforded exposure through variances for signage that this business cannot otherwise employ. 5. the variance requested is not the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; and Staff does not believe that this sign variance (or any sign variance) is necessary for the applicant to make reasonable use of the property, since other opportunities exist for signage (e.g. other permissible signage). 6. granting the variance requested would not be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and would undermine the Code, which could be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Staff believes that granting sign variances sets precedent that could undermine the purpose and intent of the code. 7). A financial hardship does not constitute a hardship in terms of granting a vanance. 8). At its December 5, 2002, meeting, the City of Winter Springs Board of Adjustment (BOA) voted 2 to 1 to recommend that the City Commission March 22, 2004 Regular Item 505 Page 7 approve the variance request. Since at least 3 votes are required to recommend approval (Sec. 20-81), the BOA did not recommend approval. 9). At the January 13,2003, City Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to work with the applicant to try to provide a workable solution. 10). Staff met on multiple occasions with the owner and the proprietor of the Winter Springs Food Market. Although many locations were considered, no better site for a monument sign could be determined that was acceptable to all parties (not acceptable to the owner of the adjacent office site). 11). On May 12,2003, the City Commission voted to waive the $500 application fee for sign variances [for existing signs] in the SR 434 Redevelopment Overlay Zoning District. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: At its December 5,2002, meeting, the Board of Adjustment did not recommend that the City Commission approve the variance request. The BOA did vote 3-0 to recommend that Code Enforcement action be deferred until after the request was brought before the City Commission. CONCLUSION: Staffhas investigated the options available to the owner and her 2 tenants. Given the site constraints, the compromises that were worked out for other signs within the SR 434 Redevelopment Overlay Zoning District, and the City Commission directive, a compromise is provided for the City Commission's consideration. The compromise provides for either a multi-tenant or single-tenant ground mounted identification sign that provides 32 square feet of copy area but is a maximum of 6 feet total height above the nearest sidewalk elevation (in contrast to 14 feet for ground mounted multi-:-tenant signs and 8 feet for ground mounted single tenant signs. This reflects what has been done to provide workable situations at the Gudenkauf, Kinder Kampus, and Dr. Corum sites. RECOMMENDATION: Although staff cannot recommend approval, given the variance criteria, staff has been directed to provide a "solution to this problem." The solution is to allow a monument sign at this location, utilizing the existing foundation, not to exceed a total height of 6 feet (including the base) and a total width of 8 feet, and a maximum copy area of 32 square feet. ATTACHMENTS: A - Existing Sign & Solution proposal B - December 5, 2002, BOA minutes C - January 13,2003, City Commisison minutes March 22, 2004 Regular Item 505 Page 8 COMMISSION ACTION: Existing Site Conditions ATTACHMENT A 1 t"""' ~ ~ _ ~ ~~ ,I VC!IAhCE SIORF A~~LIAH~~ Sl .. I fY~~ . ~ w r .,S _ +^^r.. ~ r,We q .` '~ _ m,~ ,L NFWi SfO UIIYYt[ •-_.'- _. __ k. ,... ~ ,~,~ ~~ ~ 3 r~ ~` ~ ~i u}~. WINTER SPRING eFtAOIa MARKET .~ f .: ___ Gf` .~ ATTACHMENT A Proposed Solution for Sinale (or Multi-Tenant~l9n A roval of Size and Location of Si n anI : .~ -..;s f~ J~ ,- ~(. ~tw ~0f\\1W\("'" S11'" : .. LJOI_I-----rh41W,"'''''.~ I @99={~k~---~ .0- ._:-=-:-~..._~ ~=-~-~~~_ :. .- ~==.::::=:~~:====_:::-.-_...:..-;:::..::~. ::.::-: --~:- '~ ~tlb4..>te.. Location (by Variance): Side Property Line: 9' Variance- Sign No Closer than 12" from Side Property Line Front Property Line: 9.5' Variance- Base No Closer than 12" from Front Prop. Line; Sign No Closer than 6" from Front Property Line ;\' eJ MA-y.. W1Pll-! .Ie --.--..-- (P" ~~,.~ CiAc... PilioC) -- LboNP~o.PlU{' ~c,,)e.JP e.c;.e. Size: (Similar to the size of sign approved for Kinder Kampus) Maximum Height of 6' (Reduced from 8', as allowed per code, due to Variance); Maximum Width of 8' Street Number plus Maximum Copy Area 32 S.F., per code Base No Less than 2/3 width of sign, per code. Landscapina: Around Base (as required, per code) ATTACHMENT B CITY OF WlNTER SPRINGS MlNUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETlNG DECEMBER 5, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Tom Waters called the Regular Meeting to order Thursday, December 5, 2002 at 7:05 p.m. in the East Training Room of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). Roll Call: Chairman Tom Waters, present Vice Chairman Jack Taylor, present Board Member Gary Diller, present Board Member John Herbert, absent It was agreed to address the Consent Agenda following the Regular Agenda. .:..:. AGENDA NOTE: THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS ARE DOCUMENTED IN THE ORDER THEY WERE DISCUSSED. .:. .:. III. REGULAR AGENDA REGULAR A. Request Of The Winter Springs Food Market For A Variance From The Sign Ordinance Of The Re-Development District Along State Road 434. The Business Is Located At 147 West State Road 434 In Winter Springs. The Applicant Requests The Sign Remain In Its Present Location And Condition. Mr. John Baker, Current Planning Coordinator, Community Development Department, introduced the Agenda Item and said, "Staff does not see how this request meets the six (6) criteria but we want to give the opportunity to the applicant to demonstrate that he does." Brief discussion. Mr. Glen Whitaker, General Services Contractor, 306 North Volusia Avenue, Orange City, Florida: representing the applicant, Mr. Whitaker spoke of the three (3) considerations of signs; height, the size of the sign, and the setbacks related to the sign. Mr. Whitaker said, "The accurate description of what we would like to accomplish is to meet the requirements of the City on size of the sign, meet the square footage allowance. We would also like to meet the height allowances which in this particular instance would be a maximum height of eight feet (8') so we are looking to hopefully reduce the height of the sign from its existing fourteen feet (14') to the eight feet (8 '). The other condition CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 2002 PAGE 2 OF 7 of the signage, which would be the setbacks, which I am hoping this evening to appeal to your logic on that." Mr. Whitaker continued to address the Board concerning difficulties with relocating the sign without losing parking spaces and causing a traffic hazard issue; and how the applicant's situation meets all six (6) of the criteria. Discussion followed regarding landscaping; the type of the materials of the new sign; and . the wording of the application. Mr. Whitaker clarified that "The sign face would be removed and replaced with a new sign face"; changeable copy area restrictions; that a front, back and side setback Variance is being requested; and other possible sign placements. MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR. "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE REGARDING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, - THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL MEET THE SIZE, SQUARE FOOTAGE AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AS STATED IN THE SIGN ORDINANCE AND SHALL AGREE TO MEET THE LANDSCAPING REQUIlUeMENTS. AS STATED IN THE SIGN ORDINANCE." SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER DILLER. DISCUSSION. Chairperson Waters said, "We do need to be able to answer the six (6) criteria - for Mr. Baker to be able to take to the Commission so they can understand where we are coming from; so I would like to discuss those and have those reflected in the Minutes" and proceeded to read the first criteria. "That special conditions or circumstances which are peculiar to the land or peculiar to the structure or building involved which are not implacable to other land, structures or buildings in the same zoning district." Board Member Gary Diller said, "In order for them [Applicant] to meet the requirement you would have to remove that building [Public Storage]. So I think - there is a justification to consider the setback Variance. The public storage is located closer and if you put - require the - new sign for the Food Market you would not be able to see it from west bound traffic. I think that wall of that building is justification for the setback. I think that would meet the first criteria." Discussion ensued concerning whether the Public Storage building received a Variance; the setback of the public storage building; and the lack of landscaping surrounding their sign. Chairperson Waters read the second criteria, "That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant." Vice Chairman Taylor said, "I think that is true." Chairman Water asked, "Based on what." Board Member Diller said, "Based on the changes in the Ordinance. The sign existed before the Ordinance." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES HOARVi OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 2002 PAGE30F7 The Board discussed that the sign was built prior to the Public Storage building and prior to the Ordinance and Vice Chairman Jack Taylor said, "And that is not his fault." Next Vice Chairman Taylor stated, "I think the applicant meets the intent." The third criteria was read by Chairman Waters, "That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district." Vice Chairman Taylor said, "Yes." Chairman Waters asked, "That it doesn't?" "I don't believe it does", responded Vice Chairman Taylor. Chairman Waters then reviewed the fourth criteria, "That literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary hardship on the applicant." Vice Chairman Taylor said, "The only viable move would be to move that sign into the parking lot and take away one of those parking spaces which would put something unreasonable on the applicant." Board Member Diller commented that if the sign were moved into the open area of the parking lot, the applicant "Would spend a lot of money replacing parts of that sign because of being run into because that is a traffic area. You have to really totally modify that front of that area there and which will eliminate probably I would say a good portion of their parking - vehicular traffic. It is not that big of an area to start with." Next Chairman Waters read the fifth criteria, "That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Vice Chairman Taylor said, "I believe I covered that - in my Motion. That the sign will meet the size and the square footage and the height requirements." Tape IISide B Chairman Waters read the sixth criteria, "That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or other wise detrimental to the public welfare. Vice Chairman Taylor said, "I believe my request [Motion] covers that." Chairman Waters recessed the Meeting at 7:50 p.m. The Meeting reconvened at 7:53 p.m. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 2002 PAGE40F7 VOTE: VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: AYE CHAIRMANWATERS: NAY BOARD MEMBER DILLER: AYE MOTION DID NOT CARRY. Brief discussion followed regarding when the Agenda Item will be presented to the City Commission; and possible repercussions from Code Enforcement. MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER DILLER. "I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND THAT A CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION B.E: DEFERRED IN THIS SITUATION UNTIL THIS ITEM - HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION." SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR. DISCUSSION. VOTE: CHAIRMAN WATERS: AYE BOARD MEMBER DILLER: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN T AYLOR: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Whitaker asked about the procedure for obtaining Minutes. Mr. Baker said to Mr. Whitaker, "If! can get your business card I will fax that to you." REGULAR B. Request Of Neil E. Staley Represented By Fred Whitson Of Florida Pool Enclosures For A Variance From The Established 20-Foot Rear Set Hack Building Setback Line At Lot 142, Fox Glen At Chelsea Park, Tuscawilla :Phase 2, 1547 Braewick Street, Winter Springs, Florida - A PUD (Planned Unit Development). The Agenda Item was introduced by Mr. Baker who stated, "The applicant has not shown us how he meets the six (6) criteria. Again, we certainly want to extend them the opportunity to demonstrate that they do but we have not seen how they meet those six (6) criteria." Mr. Baker reviewed the City of Winter Springs Code of Ordinances requirements pertaining to enclosures. Brief discussion. Mr. Fred Whitson, Florida Pool Enclosures, 140 East Panama Road, Winter Springs, Florida: as the representative for the applicant, he addressed the Board regarding lot and slab placement; surrounding properties; presented a letter of approval from the Architectural Control Board; and spoke of how the applicant has met each of the six (6) criteria. ATTACHMENT C CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -- JANUARY 13,2003 PAGE150F21 With further discussion Mayor Bush stated, "I think the concerns of citizens raised earlier and that the Commissioner's have raised are legitimate - I think the Development Agreement has some holes in it that need to be plugged. I mean they have told us they are going to put concrete and dirt in there, but it doesn't say that." Further, Mayor Bush stated, "Is the Bond that is posted - is that something that could be increased?" Manager McLemore stated, "It could be more." Tape 3/Side A Mayor Bush then said, "Mr. McLemore, in light of the discussion and the comments from the Commissioners, do you see anything that needs to be changed to this Development Agreement?" Manager McLemore stated, "There are some revisions we want to make to it - shore it some." Mayor Bush added, "The definition of 'Clean debris' - the last sentence of the term includes, 'Brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete including embedded pipe or steel' - ifhe is going to just put concrete and dirt in there, it seems like you might say, clean debris which is concrete and dirt." Manager McLemore stated, "I don't think he has a problem with that." Mr. Mead stated, "I don't have any problem with that." Manager McLemore then stated, "We can bring the final Agreement back to you for approval, after we know what the State is going to require." "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER - AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT A NEW AGREEMENT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN STATED HERE TONIGHT AND BRING IT BACK TO US FOR DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE DEPUTYMAYORMILLER: NAY COMMISSIONER BLAKE: NAY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE MAYOR BUSH: AYE MOTION CARRIED >< REGULAR 25. D. Community Development Department Recommends The City Commission Hear A Request By The Winter Springs Food Market, Inc., For A Variance From Section 20-486. Of The City Code Of Ordinances, To Allow An Existing Non-Conforming Pole Sign To Remain Within The State Road Redevelopment Overlay Zoning District. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING --JANUARY 13,2003 PAGE 16 OF 21 Mr. John Baker, AICP, Current Planning Coordinator, Community Development Department presented his introductory comments to those in attendance. Mr. Tom Waters, 1033 Antelope Trail, Winter Springs, Florida: as the Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Waters clarified the actual vote from a recent Board of Adjustment meeting. With discussion, it was noted that both Staff and the Board of Adjustment did not recommend approval. Commissioner Martinez stated, "What is being suggested is not - conforming to the [State Road] 434 Redevelopment Code is it?" Mr. Baker stated, "No Sir." Commissioner Martinez then stated, "I think that we have worked very hard to develop these Codes - it took a long time, and its sole purpose is to lift the aesthetics of [State Road] 434, make it more appealing to people. At the same time, bring up property values. Now this would be the second request for a Variance and if we approve either one, they will keep coming - and where do we stop?" Discussion. In regards to the photographs that were shown, Commissioner Blake asked Mr. Baker, "Why don't we just download the digital pictures onto the server and then we can get a nice clean picture?" Mr. Baker stated, "Next Meeting we can do that, yes Sir." Commissioner Miller inquired, "If there is one owner of the building, and three (3) tenants, shouldn't we be hearing from the owner? Because it seems to me all we have is tenants coming to us." Mayor Bush said to Manager McLemore, "Registered letters were sent out to people who had signs along [State Road] 434 right? Would those letters in this case have gone to the store owners or would they have gone to th;: owner of the property? Or would they have gone to both?" Manager McLemore responded, "I believe Code Enforcement is the one who sent those letters out - so to advise you factually exactly what we did, I would have to ask." Mr. Glen Whitiker, General Services, 306 North Volusia Avenue, Orange, Florida: spoke on the signage issues in relation to this particular site. Mayor Bush questioned Mr. Whitiker, "Why haven't you talked to Staff about alternatives?" Mr. Whitiker responded, "It didn't come to mind to say,. do we have a logical area." Discussion. CITY OF WITHER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -- JANUARY 13,2003 PAGE 17 OF 21 "I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE TABLE THIS ITEM AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK AND HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF AND DETERMINE WHAT IS A WORKABLE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM AND ALLOW HIM TO COME HACK TO US AT OUR NEXT MEETING." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR MILLER: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Bush clarified, "What the Commission is recommending that you do, you work with Mr. Baker on this and come back." Mr. Whitaker stated, "Absolutely. Code Enforcement wouldn't be jumping on us during that time?" Manager McLemore said, "I think we could try to work this out in a reasonable manner." Mayor Bush added, "Put this on the Agenda" for the next Meeting. "MOTION TO ADJOURN." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. DISCUSSION. VOTE: DEPUTY MAYOR MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE "Point of Order" by Commissioner Miller who spoke of the Vote in process and future Meetings. COMMISSIONER BLAKE: NAY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Bush adjourned the Meeting at 11 :00 p.m. .:. .:. AGENDA NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE NOT DISCUSSED DURING THIS MEETING. .:. .:.