Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11201987BOAL. Gene Harris Mayor City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978-0127 TELEPHONE (305) 589-5330 Kathryn M. O'Halloran City Clerk AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FRIDAYL NOVEMBER 20, 1987 - 3:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS .1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. OLD BUSINESS: - Approve November 6, 1987 Minutes 5. PUBLIC HEARING- Sign Variance Request - Tenneco Oil Corporation. 6. CHAIRMANS MATTERS 7. COMMITTEE MATTERS 8. NEW BUSINESS: 9. ADJOURN ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING (OR HEARING) WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. MINUTES BOAR___~D O__~F ADJUSTMENT FRID_~AY NOVEMBER ~ 198_~7 - 3:0_ 0 P.M. CIT_~Y COUNCIL CHAMBERS 122~ MAI__~N~ SEBASTIAN FL~ 1. Chairman Stephenson called the meeting to order at 3:20 P.M. 2. Chairman Stephenson led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROL~ CALL Present : Also present: Louis Priore, Vice Chairman Walter Shields Mary Heinicke Joseph Stephenson, Chairman Bruce Cooper, Building Official Thomas Palmer, City Attorney Excused : Gale Mathews 4. APPROVA~ OF MINUTES Motion by Priore/Joseph Stephenson I move we accept the minutes of November 6th, 1987 as presented. ROLL ~ALL: Louis Priore - Yes Walter Sheilds - Yes Mary Heinicke - Yes Joseph Stephenson - Yes Motion carried. 5. PUBLIC HEARING chairman Stephenson opened the Public Hearing at 3:28 P.M. concerning the request for an appeal from Tenneco Oil, Incorporated. Mr. Ken Sanders, representing Tenneco, displayed a large photograph to show exactly what the proposed signs would look like, while explaining that Tenneco wished to install a free standing sign measuring 104 square feet which displayed the Tenneco name, price, and a reader board for 1 advertising. Ms. Heinicke questioned whether or not the bottom of the sign couldn't be eliminated to comply with the City Codes. Mr. Cooper stated that the bottom of the sign was 28 square feet. And further explained that without reader board (bottom of the sign) the sign would only be 76 square feet which is in compliance with the City codes. Mr. Sanders again stated that Tenneco wished to have the complete sign including the reader board. Also the Tenneco name and logo on the canopy of the Building. Mr. Cooper stated the canopy signs could not be considered a free standing sign by the Citys Sign Ordinance, as written at this time. The Ordinance states that a free standing sign is permissible provided the lineal frontage of the property allows. You are allowed 1 square foot per lineal foot of frontage. Tenneco has approximately 330 feet of frontage, and the maximum footage of any sign is 100 square feet. It also depends on how far the sign is going to set back from the the property line. Mr. Cooper then asked the Board to take the pole sign and the canopy signs separatly , the pole sign requested a variance, and the canopy sign requested an appeal of his decision. Mr. Cooper continued the explanation on the pole sign, the maximum square footage allowed is 78. He went on to say that a variance could not be granted on the grounds of monetary hardship, which he felt was the case in this request. Mr. Priore questioned Mr. Cooper as to how far the pole sign set back from S.R. 512. Mr. Cooper explained that from the property line to S.R. 512 was 40 feet and from the property line to U.S. #1 was 15 feet. Mr. Cooper again explained that the pole sign exceeded the maximum allowed footage, and that if it were to be moved back another 11 feet they could use the maximumm allowed of 100 feet. But even with that they would still be over by 4 feet. Ms. Heinicke again suggested that they cut down the size of the sign until a change could be made in the existing Ordinance. Mr. Sanders did not feel that moving the sign was feasible as it would make it difficult to see from North 2 on U.S. #1 because of an existing sign across the street. Mr. Palmer stated that he found no basis to grant a variance for the pole sign because the applicant had presented no evidence as required to meet the criteria for approval of a variance. And as to the canopy sign, by code the signs would be allowed if held with a pole, and distinguishing that the background is a functioning structure as a canopy and not just for a free standing sign, he felt they should be allowed. Mr. Cooper stated to the Board that he would recommend the pole sign variance be denied and the appeal be granted for the canopy, if the signs are noticeably separated from the stucture by a board or paint, and meet the 48 foot separation required by the code. Motion made by Priore/Heinicke I move we deny the variance requested by Tenneco pertaining to the free standing sign as no hardship was shown. ROLL CALL: Motion carried. Louis Priore - Yes Walter Sheilds - Yes Mary Heinicke - Yes Joseph Stephenson - Yes Mr. Palmer continued the discussion on the canopy signs, stateing that they should be treated as two free standing signs, without having to install more poles. Mr. Palmer also stated that the Tenneco sign facing the east could not be interpretated as a free standing sign. But that the others would be allowed just as they are if they were in fact on poles. But that he did'nt feel that Mr. Coopers decision should be overturned but in fact another variance was needed. MOTION made by Shields/Heinicke I make a motion we deny the appeal regarding the Building Officials decision in denying the signs on the canopy. ROLL CALL Louis Priore - Yes Walter Shields - Yes Mary Heinicke - Yes Joseph Stephenson - Yes Motion carried. Discussion followed concerning the granting of variance for the canopy signs without a formal request from the applicate. The City Attorney assured the Board that all procedures for a variance had been followed and it was within the Boards power to grant the variance. But that for the record, the Tenneco sign shown on the site plan at the side elevation can not stay as a free standing sign. But the logo could remain subject to the separation requirement. Mr. Cooper explained that if the two logo signs touched it could be interpreted as one sign allowing for the Tenneco sign to remain as long as the separation requirement is met. Mr. Cooper also stated that before the sign permit is issued, the Building Department will show exactly what was stated at the hearing and it would be on the record. MOTION made by Stephenson/Heinicke I move we grant the variance as recommended by the Attorney. ROLL CALL Motion carried. Louis Priore - Yes Walter Sheilds - Yes Mary Heinicke - Yes Joseph Stephenson - Yes Mr. Cooper stated for the record that he was concerned about the way the property was being mucked. And that the contractor had been warned. 6. CHAIRMAN. S MAT~ERS Chairman Stephenson read a memo from the Building Official concerning having the Board meet on a regular basis. The date being the second Tuesday of every month at 3:00 P.M. with agenda deadline being 20 days before each meeting. No objection was voiced. Mr. Cooper also informed the Board that the previously denied variance applicant ( Mr. Morrison) had conformed to the City's code. 7. COMMITTEE MATTERS 8. NEW BUSINESS: 4 9. The meeting was ajourned at 4:45 P.M. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WiTH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING (OR HEARING) WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD.