Loading...
Agenda 10/08/2013 Item #17A oka 10/8/2013 1 7.A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida granting a Variance from Section 5.06.04.F.4 of the Land Development Code to increase the number of signs on the building to allow an additional sign per unit up to a maximum of 36 total signs for the entire Del Mar Shopping Center located on the north side of Davis Boulevard in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. ISV-PL20130000818] OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) consider the above-referenced Sign Variance petition and render a decision pursuant to Section 5.06.00 of the Land Development Code (LDC) in order to ensure that the project is in harmony with all applicable codes and regulations and that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 5.06.04.F.4. of the Land Development Code (LDC) to allow an additional or second wall sign for each unit in this multiple-occupancy retail parcel. The LDC allows one wall sign for each unit in multiple- occupancy parcels and two wall signs for corner (or end) units provided the signs are not on the same wall. The requested Sign Variance is to allow for a second wall sign for each unit at the Del Mar Shopping Center. The configuration of the development is unique in that the buildings are located directly adjacent to Davis Boulevard with parking and primary access to each unit provided on the opposite or what is normally the rear side of the development. The project is the commercial component of the Wildwood Estates PUD and is located on the tract B portion of the master plan. This configuration results in the single wall sign for each unit being located for the most part on the more visible Davis Boulevard side of the project. The north or residential side of Del Mar contains the parking and principal unit entrances that are limited to simple name and address/unit number lettering on each unit entry door which results in patron/public and delivery confusion. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this Sign Variance petition would have no fiscal impact on Collier County. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Approval of this Sign Variance would not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The EAC did not review this petition as they do not normally hear Sign Variance petitions. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard petition SV-PL20130000818 on September 5, 2013, and by a vote of 6-0 Packet Page-2767- 10/8/2013 17.A. recommended to forward this petition to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to Staff's condition of approval as follows: 1. Unit 108 currently has an illuminated wall sign that faces the parking lot. The existing wall sign is permitted to be retained until the sign is removed or replaced or the current business moves or vacates the unit. 2. A total of 36 wall signs are permitted for the Del Mar Shopping Center, which represents 17 additional wall signs, exclusive of condition 1 above. 3. All signs facing the parking lot (north side of the shopping center) except as noted in condition 1 above shall not be illuminated. The conditions have been incorporated into the resolution exhibit. Because the CCPC approval recommendation was unanimous and no letters of objection have been received, this petition has been placed on the Summary Agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Petitioner is requesting a Sign Variance to allow additional wall signs. The granting of such a Variance is permitted under LDC §9.04.02 and §5.06.08.B. The attached staff report and recommendations of the Planning Commission are advisory only and are not binding on you. All testimony given must be under oath. The Petitioner has the burden to prove that the proposed Variance is consistent with all the criteria set forth below, and you may question Petitioner, or staff, to satisfy yourself that the necessary criteria have been satisfied. LDC §9.04.02 and §5.06.08.B. require that "based upon the evidence given in public hearing; and the findings of the Planning Commission" you "should determine to the maximum extent possible if the granting of the Variance will diminish or otherwise have a detrimental effect on the public interest, safety or welfare." Should you consider denying the Variance, to assure that that your decision is not later found to be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable, the denial must be based upon competent, substantial evidence that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. In granting a Sign Variance, the Board of Zoning Appeals may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning code or other applicable county ordinances. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the zoning code. Criteria for Sian Variances 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. 2. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the sign code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Packet Page -2768- 10/8/2013 17.A. 3. That the special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure or building do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this sign code to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. 5. That the variance granted is the minimum relief that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. 6. That the granting of the variance will be consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Collier County Sign Code and the Growth Management Plan, and will not be injurious to adjacent properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed Resolution was prepared by the County Attorney's Office. This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for approval. (HFAC). RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and Staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approve Petition SV-PL201310000818, subject to Staff's and the CCPC's condition of approval noted above and as contained in the resolution. PREPARED BY: Michael Sawyer,Project Manager, Growth Management Division Attachments: 1) Staff Report 2) Resolution 3) Application Packet Page-2769- 10/8/2013 17.A. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 17.17.A. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida granting a Variance from Section 5.06.04.F.4 of the Land Development Code to increase the number of signs on the building to allow an additional sign per unit up to a maximum of 36 total signs for the entire Del Mar Shopping Center located on the north side of Davis Boulevard in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [SV-PL20130000818] Meeting Date: 10/8/2013 Prepared By Name: SawyerMichael Title: Project Manager,Engineering&Environmental Servic 9/13/2013 1:41:06 PM Approved By Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager-Planning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 9/13/2013 3:20:37 PM Name: BosiMichael Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 9/17/2013 1:14:21 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P&R Date: 9/18/2013 5:51:08 PM Name: PepinEmily Title: Assistant County Attorney, CAO Litigation Date: 9/24/2013 4:01:56 PM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning olok Packet Page -2770- 10/8/2013 17.A. Date: 9/25/2013 8:04:38 AM Name: FinnEd Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB Date: 9/25/2013 11:34:52 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney Date: 9/26/2013 8:41:50 AM Name: IsacksonMark Title:Director-Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO Date: 9/27/2013 10:31:47 AM Packet Page-2771- 10/8/2013 17.A. Co _It County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGERMENT DIVISION,PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 SUBJECT: PETITION SV-PL20130000818,DEL MAR SHOPPING CENTER SIGN VARIANCE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Applicant: Mr. Christopher Shucart Del Mar Retail Condominium Association, Inc. 2614 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 615 Naples,FL 34103 Agent: Mr. Robert Mulhere, FAICP Mulhere &Associates 430 Robin Hood Circle, Suite 102 Naples, FL 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 5.06.04.F.4. of the Land Development Code (LDC) to allow an additional or second wall sign for each unit in this multiple-occupancy retail parcel. The LDC allows one wall sign for each unit in multiple-occupancy parcels and two wall signs for corner(or end)units provided the signs are not on the same wall. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, Del Mar Shopping Center, is located in the Wildwood Estates PUD (Planned Unit Development) Ordinance Number 81-27, at 7785-7795 Davis Boulevard, in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Please see the location map on the following page.) Amok SV-PL20130000818,Del Mar Shopping Center Sign Variance August 9,2013(revised 8-13-13,8-14-13,8-16-13,8-21-13) Packet Page-2772- 10/8/2013 17.A. / NAP! ZS ES. WE 1 e J ARo ° k 4.', I 4ritomireAk Mild lira /44 \ 1 jnellettAVEZIP ItirN\ j ' t#44to , \ i:w 1 i 0- ,,, Vp111111201 .Q, 44144°0 oo� ooE * $ 3r eoa ��o ©°°aoo0S ®� o ad 1m4a©mo �100 H - Q It \ d --- NOM R ' - ";42 B p R iz n @ S R BE �i OGC 3 s F 4 p p• m ( Fes. 'FaQ GC qC' � G S N o K _ Z f °WM 0 R E W 4 L I d 0. 8 m o Q.-0 C. g- OJ W d e i u. f g s 3=0.3 7 v a a V ; € m r S E Ind Elt a 5 f CO M z s c' O N J 31V0S 0110N a (n Ot Z .6 Al 3i i Wo as tg 8 O 1 0 go Yn+ 3 UJ gill - ill e p,III ID r Z CAW V317100 A \bp lc3g I 10 D W 2 W1 me ao ` 8 i § ,,„igg i;; Q O ' € 5 0 Q F V n t ''''3"-""vs rovs K n O g g $ - i g I ritob\_ i g ' r . , < 5 Llli !I 12 111 Milk " NOLLY1NY1d ■ " ILL g ONwolno3 VaVBaVe v1NVS F a W " ga 1 El g"6 V g . ' o firs a ovo Nve A1Nl100 0 GL-31V1Sa31NI u • J L. c e® IN 1 n == $ " i yl- -VI 9 g Q I gv »s1 o^ avo0 NO130NIAfl 711 § ` 0 Packet Page-2773- 10/8/2013 17.A. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: As noted above under requested action, the LDC allows for one wall sign for each unit and two wall signs for end units (not located on the same wall) at the Del Mar Shopping Center. The requested Sign Variance is to allow for a second wall sign for each unit. The configuration of the Del Mar Shopping Center is unique in that the buildings are located adjacent to Davis Boulevard with parking and primary access to each unit provided on the opposite or what is normally the rear side of the development. The project is the commercial component of the Wildwood Estates PUD and is located on the tract B portion of the master plan. Comparable shopping centers are most often configured with parking and primary access directly adjacent to major roadways with the buildings toward the rear with a single public façade. The configuration of the Del Mar Shopping Center effectively orients to both the Davis Boulevard and the adjacent residential developments in the Wildwood Estates PUD, which the applicant notes is consistent with "New Urbanism" design principals. This configuration results in the single wall sign for each unit being located for the most part on the more visible Davis Boulevard side of the project. The north or residential side of Del Mar contains the parking and principal unit entrances that are limited to simple name and address/unit number lettering on each unit entry door. This as noted in the application results in patron (public) and delivery confusion. The applicant also notes that the development was designed architecturally to be "double faced", meaning that it has two public facades each of which have accommodations for wall signs. This petition requests additional wall signs on this north or residential side of the • project. (see aerial of the project on next page). Because the requested wall signs on the north side of the shopping center face the internal Wildwood Estates residential neighborhood staff recommends as a condition of approval that the signs not be illuminated (see recommended condition of approval 4). Staff notes that one of the end units has an existing permitted second wall sign (see recommended condition of approval 1). Additionally one of the units has an existing permitted illuminated sign on the north side of the project (see recommended condition of approval 2). SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North: Developed multi-family residences, with a zoning designation of PUD, (Wildwood Estates PUD). East: Developed single family residences, with a zoning designation of PUD (Twelve Lakes PUD). South: Davis Boulevard ROW, then developed single family residences, with a zoning designation of PUD (Cook Property PUD). West: Developed community facility, with a zoning designation of PUD (New Hope Ministries CFPUD). SV-PL20130000818,Del Mar Shopping Center Sign Variance August 9,2013(revised 8-13-13,8-14-13,8-16-13,8-21-13) Packet Page -2774- 10/8/2013 17.A. � � '' - , "� 3k a i ' , �, ,, /-, ., 1- r e," „ sr � � 1: b. A 1 F �x, Del Mar Shopping Center � ra ,- — 1 *W-tia p• c-A •, . �w 0 tz ,--1' '' @ . n r r ' 4 Nr X .� k I',/ 4 i•• :t <a, ��3 )}fir. 4"'n k , "K- ,.,,` & .��0!.41' - N r, . _ {mot .aa.r - it .,—. '-41i44`.1 ' Davis Boulevard l '' ' OAV44 liai. L wL '_: ,thy.. (4) —VII--;— , ,," , ,_-.. _ --,tmcr CCUnirNrmcen4avc a!x-'4u ..f ..r ,N. rvi..- .... i3�'1' AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP does not address individual Variance requests but focuses on the larger issue of the actual use. The Wildwood Estates PUD is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed use for the subject site is consistent with the Future Land Use Element, although the Variance request is not specifically addressed. ANALYSIS: Section 9.04.00 of the LDC gives the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the authority to grant Variances. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of Section 9.04.03.A through 9.04..03.H as general guidelines to assist in making a recommendation. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to the evaluative criteria and offers the following responses: SV-PL20130000818,Del Mar Shopping Center Sign Variance August 9,2013(revised 8-13-13,8-14-13,8-16 13,8-21-13) Packet Page-2775- 10/8/2013 17.A. a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? Yes. The double sided building configuration noted above is a special condition peculiar to this project. As noted in the application, the developer of this project in an effort to front the internal residential development north of this commercial tract as well as Davis Boulevard, combined with the LDC limitation in the number of allowed wall signs, results in public and delivery confusion. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant, such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which is the subject of the variance request? Yes. The applicant notes in the application that the current owner did not construct the project. The unique "New Urbanism" design layout was constructed by the original owner. Additionally, the location of the project on a curved portion of Davis Boulevard (which limits the access options) are pre-existing conditions relative to the property. As noted above the resulting layout in effect requires each unit to decide on having a public sign on Davis Boulevard or a public/delivery location sign facing the principal access and parking lot. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. If a literal interpretation of the LDC were applied, only one wall sign for each unit is permitted. Furthermore, the lack of signage on the north or parking lot side of the development will create inconveniences and burdens to the public. d. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? Yes. The purpose of the requested Sign Variance is to allow for an additional wall sign for each unit that is otherwise not permissible by code. The additional wall signs will face the internal parking and access area of the project. Furthermore, the additional signage granted by the proposed sign variance will aid patrons (the public) in identifying the various retail and service providers at this development. e. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes. A Variance by definition confers some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations specific to a site. The granting of the Sign Variance request would allow for additional wall signs. This sign variance confers a special privilege on the applicant. SV-PL20130000818,Del Mar Shopping Center Sign Variance August 9,2013(revised 8-13-13,8-14-13,8-16-13,8-21-13) P2nw c of A Packet Page-2776- 10/8/2013 17.A. f. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. Section 5.06.01.A. of the LDC states that the purpose and intent of the LDC relative to signage is to ensure that all signs are: 1. Compatible with their surroundings; 2. Designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not endanger public safety or unduly distract motorists; 3. Appropriate to the type of activity to which they pertain; 4. Large enough to convey sufficient information about the owner or occupants of a particular property, the products or services available on the property, or the activities conducted on the property, and small enough to satisfy the needs for regulation; 5. Reflective of the identity and creativity of the individual occupants. In staff's opinion, the request for the additional wall sign advances these objectives. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. There is an existing masonry wall and landscape buffer plantings located between the Del Mar Shopping Center and the adjacent residences to the north. The wall and landscape serve as a physically induced condition that to a degree mitigate the additional signs requested with this petition. h. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Yes. Approval of this Variance petition would be consistent with the GMP since it would not affect or change any of the GMP's requirements. EAC RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council does not normally hear Variance petitions and did not hear this petition. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for SV-PL2013000818 on August 21, 2013. SV-PL20130000818,Del Mar Shopping Center Sign Variance August 9,2013(revised 8-13-13,8-14-13,8-16-13,8-21-13) Packet Page-2777- 10/8/2013 17.A. tow RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition SV- PL20130000818 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions of approval that have been incorporated into the attached resolution: 1. The current business located in the western most unit is permitted one additional non- illuminated wall sign on the wall facing the parking area,for a total of three wall signs. In the event this current business moves or vacates the unit, any future tenant shall be limited to a maximum of two wall signs. 2. Unit 108 currently has an illuminated wall sign that faces the parking lot. The existing wall sign is permitted to be retained until the sign is removed or replaced or the current business moves or vacates the unit. 3. A total of 35 wall signs are permitted for the Del Mar Shopping Center, which represents 16 additional wall signs, exclusive of conditions 1 and 2 above. 4. All signs facing the parking lot (north side of the shopping center) except as noted in condition 2 above shall not be illuminated. Attachments: A.Application B. Draft Resolution. SV-PL20130000818,Del Mar Shopping Center Sign Variance August 9,2013(revised 8-13-13,8-14-13,8-16-13,8-21-13) .. o Packet Page-2778- 10/8/2013 17.A. PREPARED BY: 414 ki ■rirrr...eitst 8.12• !3 M C Ln- R, PROJECT MANAGER DATE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: RAYMOND V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: -2 1 -1J NICK ASALA /" IDA,41 ISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the October 8, 2013 Board of County Commissioners meeting. SV-PL20130000818,Del Mar Shopping Center Sign Variance August 9,2013 n_ o_ao Packet Page-2779- 10/8/2013 17.A. RESOLUTION NO. 13- 1) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF "" COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 5.06.04.F.4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ON THE BUILDING TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL SIGN PER UNIT UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 36 TOTAL SIGNS FOR THE ENTIRE DEL MAR SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [SV-PL201300008181 WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County. among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, Section 5.06.04.F.4 limits the number of wall signs on multiple-occupancy parcels to one sign per internal unit and two signs per end unit so long as the signs are not placed on the same wall; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner, Del Mar Retail Condominium Association, Inc., is seeking a variance from Section 5.06.04.F.4 of the Land Development Code in order to increase the number of signs on the building from one sign per internal unit and two signs per end unit to two signs per internal unit and three signs per end unit to allow each unit to place one sign on the facade facing Davis Boulevard and one sign facing the parking lot at the rear of the building; and WHEREAS, the Board has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing with due notice made, and all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered the advisability of granting these variances and all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: Petition Number SV-PL201.30000818 filed on behalf of Del Mar Retail Condominium Association, Inc. with respect to the property located in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and more particularly described in OR Book 4892, Page 650, et Del Mar Shopping Center 1 of 2 SV-PL20130000818—Rev.9/05/13 Packet Page-2780- 10/8/2013 17.A. seg. of the Official Public Records of Collier County, Florida (Folio No. 29810000022), be and the same is hereby approved for an additional sign for each unit and no more than 36 total signs for the entire Del Mar Shopping Center, subject to the Exceptions and Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the text (including content and size) of the signs is not the subject of this variance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number SV- PL20130000818 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote, this day of , 2013. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk GEORGIA A. HILLER, ESQ. Chairwoman Approved as to form and legality: Emily R. Pepin 1' 915 [3 Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Exceptions and Conditions of Approval 13-CPS-01224/24 Del Mar Shopping Center 2 of 2 SV-PL20130000818—Rev.9/05/13 Packet Page-2781- 10/8/2013 17.A. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Amok SV-PL20130000818 1. Unit 108 currently has an illuminated wall sign that faces the parking lot. The existing wall sign is permitted to be retained until the sign is removed or replaced or the current business moves or vacates the unit. 2. A total of 36 wall signs are permitted for the Del Mar Shopping Center, which represents 17 additional wall signs, exclusive of condition 1 above. 3. All signs facing the parking lot (north side of the shopping center) except as noted in condition 1 above shall not be illuminated. EXHIBIT A 13-CPS-01224125 Rev. 9/5/13 Packet Page-2782- 10/8/2013 17.A. Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION 239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 www.colliergov.net SIGN VARiANCE PETE LDC Section 7.04.00 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME For Staff Use DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT / OWNER INFORMATION PETITIONER'S NAME: Del Mar Retail Condominium Association, Inc., Christpher Shucart, Pres. ADDRESS 2614 Tamiami Trail North#615, Naples, FL 34103 PHONE# 239-435-0098 CELL# 239-289-3143 FAX # N/A E-MAIL ADDRESS: chris@jcsrealtygroup.com AGENT: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP FIRM: Mulhere &Associates, LLC ADDRESS 430 Robin Hood Circle, Unit 102, Naples FL 34104 PHONE# 239-825-9373 CELL# same FAX # N/A E-MAIL ADDRESS: rjmulhere@gmail.com Ee aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. May 25,2012 Packet Page-2783- 10/8/2013 17.A. :iir County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION! NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION 239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 www.colliergov.net LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY SECTION/TOWNSHIP/RANGE: 4 /50 /26 PROPERTY I.D.# 29810000022 SUBDIVISION NAME: DEL MAR RETAIL CNTR UNIT BLOCK LOT METES&BOUNDS DESCRIPTION: N/A ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION: 7785 through 7795 Davis Boulevard CURRENT ZONING: PUD LAND USE OF SUBJECT PARCEL: Retail Shopping Center Length &Height of wall upon which the Sign will be secured: 35 wall height, +1-400'length (If Wall Sign) Width of Subject Property: 425' Road Frontage) NATURE OF PETITION Provide a detailed explanation of the variance request including what signs are existing and what is proposed; the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers, i.e. reduce setback from 15'to 10'; why encroachment is necessary; how existing encroachment came to be; etc. See Attached Exhibit"A" Please note that staff and the Collier County Planning Commission shall be guided in their recommendation to the Board of zoning Appeals,and that the Board of zoning appeals shall be guided in its determination to approve or deny a variance petition by the below listed criteria (1-6). (Please address the following criteria using additional pages if necessary.) 1. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land,structure,or building involved. See Attached Exhibit"A" 2. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. See Attached Exhibit"A" 3. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. See Attached Exhibit"A" Amok May 25,2012 Packet Page-2784- 10/8/2013 17.A. Coyer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION 239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 www.colliergov.net 4. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety or welfare. See Attached Exhibit"A" 5. Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings,or structures in the same zoning district. See Attached Exhibit"A" 6. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 7. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes,golf course,etc. See Attached Exhibit"A" 8. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? See Attached Exhibit"A" May 25,2012 Packet Page-2785- 10/8/2013 17.A. il �°� � ©�oo 0 o 0N ° o . 4. o 0o Q° on©© a .si i . sew . 110111104741=:02:0 i 1 II II_ �! 1,...;1. 1 1vov0 ingl0009®% i••'s�i Ei ', ji: 's , ; ,: 0000 007 Z 1 9 01121:0::f`' . 8 of O Z , X00000000 OEM s ` N g W° 1 .11111 o v ® M s. w o i 10/8/2013 17.A. Del Mar Retail Center Sign Variance Wildwood PUD Exhibit"A" Nature of Petition, Narrative and Justification NATURE OF PETITION: Provide a detailed explanation of the variance request including what signs are existing and what is proposed;the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers, i.e. reduce setback from 15'to 10'; why encroachment is necessary; how existing encroachment came to be; etc. Specific Request: The Del Mar Retail Condominium Association, Inc., is requesting a variance from Section 5.06.04.f.4., of the LDC, which limits the number of wall signs to a maximum of one wall sign for each unit in a multiple-occupancy parcel and 2 wall signs for corner(or end) units, so long as the signs are not on the same wall, to allow for a maximum of two wall signs for each internal unit and three wall signs for corner (or end) units provided no more than one sign in located on the same wall and a maximum of 20 additional walls signs (additional sign for each unit), for the Del Mar Shopping Center, located within the Wildwood PUD,at 7785 through 7795 Davis Boulevard. The subject property is a commercial tract within the Wildwood PUD (Ordinance 81-27). The tract is developed with a 29,966 square foot retail shopping center.The building fronts on Davis Boulevard and has wall signs located above the various units along the Davis Boulevard portion of the project. In keeping with "new urbanist" design, to ensure safe vehicular access from Davis Boulevard, and to allow ease of access (pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular) from the adjacent residential development, the project was designed such that all parking and primary access to each of the units are located in what would typical be viewed as the rear of the center. The building was doubled faced from an architectural perspective, such that both the Davis Boulevard facade (visible to passing motorists) and the rear facade are treated the same from an architectural perspective. This includes provisions to accommodate signage above the respective units, both on the Davis Boulevard Frontage (where signs already exist), and the rear of the building where all parking and primary access to the units is located. The Sign Code (LDC) only permits one wall sign except in the case of corner units. We are requesting this variance to allow wall signs for the finished "rear" walls of the center that faces the parking lot and not Public Right of Way, in addition to those that already exist or might in the future be placed on the Davis Boulevard frontage. Justification for this request includes the following: • The building was designed and constructed anticipating these signs and with them, the site functions in a safer and more appealing manner given that the parking and primary access to the units is located entirely in the rear of the center. Packet Page-2787- 10/8/2013 17.A. • The request does not include illuminated signs. A prohibition on illuminated signs as a condition of approval is acceptable. • There is a significant vegetated landscape buffer and wall between the adjacent residential development and the shopping center, shielding the residential development from the shopping center therefore approval of this request will not result in any increased burden to the adjacent residents. • Allowing the rear wall signs where customers primarily access the units will reduce confusion for patrons and for those making deliveries to the center. • Allowing such signage will increase the viability of the center, increasing its economic feasibility and reducing the likelihood of units remaining vacant. A wall sign is defined by the LDC as follows: Wall Sign, fascia or parapet:A sign affixed in a manner to any exterior wall of a building or structure, and which is parallel to and projects not more than 18 inches from the building or structure wall, and which does not extend more than 18 inches above the roof line of the main building. Signs attached to parapet walls shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall The Sign Ordinance reads as follows related to wall signs (Section 5.06.04.f.4.): Wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs. One wall, mansard, canopy or awning sign shall be permitted for each single-occupancy parcel, or for each unit in a multiple-occupancy parcel. End units within shopping centers and multiple-occupancy parcels, or single occupancy parcels where there is double frontage on a public right-of-way, shall be allowed 2 signs, but such signs shall not be placed on one wall. Retail businesses with a floor area of larger than 25,000 square feet and a front wall length of more than 200 linear feet, are allowed 3 wall signs;however, the combined area of those signs shall not exceed the maximum allowable display area for signs by this Code. a. The maximum allowable display area for signs shall not be more than 20 percent of the total square footage of the visual façade including windows of the building or unit to which the sign will be attached and shall not, in any case, exceed 150 square feet for buildings or units up to 24,999 square feet, 200 square feet for buildings or units between 25,000 and 59,999 square feet and 250 square feet for buildings over 60,000 square feet in area. b. No wall sign shall exceed 80 percent of the width of the unit(s) or the building with a minimum of 10 percent clear area on each outer edge of the unit(s) or of the building. The clear area, however, may be reduced in width or eliminated if it interferes with the architectural features of the unit(s) or the building. c. No wall or mansard sign shall project more than 18 inches from the building or roofline or exceed the height of the parapet wall to which it is attached. d. Additional signs are allowed on facades located interior to courtyards and shopping malls and the like provided the signs are not visible from any public property(e.g. street, right-of- way, sidewalk, alley), interior drive, parking lot or adjacent private property. Packet Page-2788- 10/8/2013 17.A. e. In addition, any non-illuminated, non-reflective signs located in a window shall not exceed 25 percent of each window area. No building permit required. i. Signs located in windows shall not be illuminated in any manner with the following exception: a) One sign per business establishment that is located in a window may have 2.25 square feet of illuminated signage. f. Multi-story buildings with 3 or more stories are limited to 1 wall sign per street frontage not to exceed a maximum of 2 wall signs per building, but such signs shall not be placed on the same wall. i. Wall signs may be located in the uppermost portion of the building not to exceed the main roof or parapet. A notarized authorization letter is required at the time of building permit submittal from the property owner or property management company giving authorization as to which tenant signs will be allowed. ii. On first floor commercial units only, 1 wall sign shall be allowed not to exceed 20 percent of the total square footage of the visual facade of the unit to which the sign will be attached and shall not in any case exceed 64 square feet. This sign shall be located solely on the facade of the unit which the tenant occupies. SPECIFIC VARIANCE CRITERIA 1. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure, or building involve? Response: Yes. The building fronts on Davis Boulevard and has wall signs located above the various units along the Davis Boulevard portion of the project. In keeping with "new urbanist" design, to ensure safe vehicular access from Davis Boulevard, and to allow ease of access (pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular) from the adjacent residential development, the project was designed such that all parking and primary access to each of the units are located in what would typical be viewed as the rear of the center. The building was doubled faced from an architectural respective, such that both the Davis Boulder façade (visible to passing motorists) and the rear façade are treated the same from an architectural perspective. This includes provisions to accommodate signage above the respective units, both on the Davis Boulevard Frontage (where signs already exist), and the rear of the building where all parking ad primary access to the units is located. 2. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request? Response: Yes, the applicant did not construct the building, and just recently purchased it. The special conditions and circumstances include the location of the subject property on Davis Boulevard at the terminus of a substantial curve in the road, which in part would have necessitated the project entrance to be limited to the point farthest from this terminus and Packet Page-2789- 10/8/2013 17.A. also, would have dictated, from a safety perspective, located the shopping center access and parking n the rear of the building to minimize any impacts of vehicular movements on Davis Boulevard and to ensure the safest possible design. The result of this design is that priary access is to the units is from the rear of the center and therefore wall signage is necessary. 3. Will literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant? Response: Yes. The lack of signage in the rear where primary unit access is located creates a problem in that it is difficult of users of the center to know where a particular retail or personal service business is located within the center. The current conditions make it difficult for customers and for deliveries. This can be remedied by allowing non-illuminated wall signage in the rear of the center that faces the parking lot. This will not create a unique advantage for the applicant in that such signage will not be visible from Davis Boulevard, but rather is only visible internally from the center's parking area, directing clients to the business they are looking for. 4. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety or welfare? Response: Yes, the variance would allow one additional wall sign above what is permitted by the LDC, not to exceed a maximum of 20 additional wall signs. The signs will not be illuminated. 5. Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Response: While approval would allow a greater number of wall signs it would not result in a special privilege or unique advantage in that such signage will not be visible from Davis Boulevard, but rather only visible from the shopping center's internal parking area, directing patrons to the business they are looking for. 6. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Response: Granting of the variance will help the center function property and in that way it will increase the center's economic viability (comparable to a more typically designed center where the parking and access is located along the frontage adjacent to the collector or arterial roadway). The neighborhood is far more likely to be injured from the effects or a marginal retail outlet, with significant vacancies when compared with a viable center. Moreover, these signs will not be illuminated and given the existing buffering and center location, will have no additional impact the adjacent residential development. Granting the variance will be in Packet Page-2790- 10/8/2013 17.A. harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 7. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc. Response: No. S. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Response:Yes, Granting of this variance request will not contravene any of the Goals Objectives and Policies of the GMP. The GMP does not deal with issue such as signage on a site by site scale but rather with larger policy issues. For example,the Transportation Element states: The County has also recognized the importance of good site planning as it relates to a project's ingress and egress from the major roadway system. Inadequate control of access points, median openings and signalized intersections can accelerate the deterioration of the systems overall level of service just as fast as the increases in traffic volumes. The County has developed and adopted policies to control the number, location and type of access points to the road network. These policies are based on the Collier County Access Control Policy (Resolution No. 92-42) and follow-up Resolution No. 01- 247, and existing road and land use conditions, and are outlined in Section 4.04.02 of the Land Development Code. Policy 7.3 specifically provides that: The County shall implement, through its Zoning Ordinance, the provision of safe and convenient onsite traffic flow and the need for adequate parking for both motorized and non-motorized vehicles as a primary objective in the review of Planned Unit Developments, Site Development Plans, and other appropriate stages of review in the land development application review process. This is one examples of polices that would have worked (coupled with other design related policies in the Future Land Use Element) to result in the design of the center with the entirety of its parking in the rear (allow the access to be moved further from the adjacent Arterial roadway(Davis Boulevard), and thereby increasing safety. Certainly, at the time the PUD was approved the shopping center site design was not fully realized (given that this occurred more than 25 years ago). Had the design been fully realized, it is likely that the PUD would have dealt with this issue of wall signage. While a PUD amendment process could be used to address this matter, that process would be overkill, since the variance process can also be used to achieve the desired results at less cost(in fees) and in a more expeditious fashion). Packet Page-2791- 10/8/2013 17.A. muk L 4 z,,t p' ti5d c`K 4w" '{'gy?' ` .." *tl 1'`1" f ?:. a`Y ( C �,+ k � �h Y ' +CCg ' xxRfrYak w M T 1 „i K K 0-,,,:k.,.,-,,,,,,,,;,,,,,�,'-� ..**1",-4-,:-,-1'.1,..-„,-,5 'i i A -,410 oa ,F#�` - " b� I `.i„ t t Y t of I s ITy f .... ..rbN 4�,, ant *k . x: �' I yal< i F _ ` Shopping center parking area and primary access location for units Packet Page-2792- 10/8/2013 17.A. ., N 4 " '''' d': ' s tl y+ t Ca 4 # t N ,i+,' t .$ F s a by. M �} T 9t, L hi 3 r � , + - * r 4 d 4 rs —b F$ y t;+� ,.r n zr .k w '1.ra $F �� , a sM` ' ti i ,„ , E r � -s s , , , v4,7 id _S a ,a�Aw« R "" i e a,41-4:441. ^ y, r , r - rt, i :am%£'w� u te � -4„,„4:4---14-444 k ^ 4" l 1 E '7,..`...... } h 7 w4 ph,'-'°' 7 (NJ.. L LyA "" rv `, Z.F"�. 1.iilelt �i a 9`e^ 3 £ ' r �'fir 1} 4 J 1. ''' '' 1 t x #,'.,y r},. .x f t� "$�'*ry.' Y*Wa t �``� 4 , c k. ,��,},*k s'4�a}SFr"E 5,-a=: j , e a.. .,F�",hst °-y0 c tt .t• . _ tw v�a u uF .des_ _.<.�v w1., Access to Residiential Devlopment behind Center (and to center to the right) 3 .. r. .A 0. t x._ ■ 4,. r_.,, rte---A -°a, 7.v.,t 7,71" t �i,-,,,„,•-',.. Idtim v sus k i x'i-z:}�#zis�dzt'U,-eta –° k k,..;°;:'`11`"' r ''''''''t''''.t ,<,,,,rte , --w"i`i �� � i t Rear of Center Looking West Packet Page-2793- 10/8/2013 17.A. E 's s to E E L S. , { as ag <p +s t f i n — M .� 6 Y 1 ..- rT Yr, i. *74,-7c4.1 �^ Rl L^nt'i *{ i � 9 hr .� , b£' i _zi 2 r',.-'.,„ ��� ...•., k.,.,.,�:^ . ,11;i:-.,,:4 ._Tw. dzj r7:� u ..}da"..�'x. '4 Rear of Center Looking East / LM i—sv -mn.. £ +v TM w�wnrr '''''''' ji f Jew ,r v Mme:, y Sc ec'R a"�„ 't N � :� �+k�tafi}� k .7 �� + Y- E� C��M Corner Unit (Rear—Signage Permitted) Packet Page-2794- 10/8/2013 17.A. j�' `tLq�� L' M t, , r , ., : .1.._...,;•.;,:• ,,•-t,,,,,' .,, ' %... 0!4'.0„, ' :41/ii; :k ��r- �' 1 fqq {-. .., , F !! l 3L E- P ,,a. $.........._,,,:.„,::,,,,,,,:,......„,„,,,„,..„,„,:: wamm '7.. fA q„ t � W y 4� �'i - `vim'f ) ^` � r;..4. : )+v S >n' 3 t ,awe`,�'�if�{5 y j4k F y M S' t t 5.`7r O t t f t t r! Front of Center Looking East h ......4,...„ ,.. „.,, ,...„. „,.,,,„,.„.,,....r,,,,,, ......&,!i!,----,, '.r. ::k E�. } i'r° o� � t — ,_4 '11 ,. ime fit as- r�„1 ti A' s �Y } 6 t. � .1r`�..,°�-:wwi - , .,:n. a. __ Front of Center- Looking West 2795- Packet Page- 10/8/2013 17.A. PRESIDENT'S CERTIFICATE DEL MAR RETAIL CENTER,A COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM (THE"CONDOMINIUM") The undersigned President of the Del Mar Retail Center,a Commercial Condominium Association, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation (the "Association"), hereby provides the following certifications in connection with the proposed signage improvements described and depicted under Collier County Variance Application PL20130000818(the"Variance Application"): • All improvements to and modifications of the Condominium common areas, including without limitation the proposed signage described and depicted in the Variance Application, have been approved by the Condominium Board of Directors and a majority of the Condominium Unit Owners in accordance with the requirements of Section 9 of the Condominium Declaration recorded in Official Records Book 4157,Page 3892,of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida; • There are a total of 17 Unit in the Condominium; • The Variance Application proposes a total of 17 additional signs for the Condominium; • The total number of signs within the Condominium if the Variance Application is approved will be 35 (17 signs along the Davis Boulevard right of way [which are not visible on the interior parking lot side of the Condominium],17 signs along parking lot side[which are not visible from the Davis Boulevard right of way],and 1 end unit sign at the Condominium Unit occupied by Pelican Larry's. -K.-- CERTIFIED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 1,7 DAY OF JUNE,2013. C Christopher Shucart, President of Del Mar Retail Center Condominium Association, Inc. a Florida not for profit corporation 10503-0004#27 Packet Page-2796- 10/8/2013 17.A. N • 1- -- -- 0 1, m --- C.) 11 0 - D 11 nrn n oc � , m y •p zzm a H1I m ° ymz > ' �, --I oc � O � r 0 n- N 171-1 m 0 z • 0J) ~11 O O � Q � � ) zpoQ- O ti`�„� F 0 > k, W 1 fi G) � 7 �� .-- --1 OZ a 0 :a _ 0 -1 ...10 �� O -1 CZ/ mrnm 171 % 00 ) 'i -111 b 6' ? o `�IC�t1C� -1 O � � Z U n t• � n ' Q O o co --:=I 0 14 ..{ :"1,'„1j Vii y Cn c' � gfl2 o 0 GG) O ', C 0 ill '{mV ' y, moC) m ' 0 y F O i•O m •- c 11 O 7 u -4 0) I t ri �N m Cm ° y ) aoo QO co 0 1, ..1 c� � a °` ,-)5 - g O mao � ma co mrl .GOQT1Nm -4c� � (4 -�t � �, Z ?aO c, i b c: 1 0 CO- - G} QA y d 10owrI rn° i 'n e C m• €o � oCO mm o 0) 00 D` / F Packet Page -2797- tit n- . .11 U 10/8/2013 17.A. &ASSOCIATES, LLC PO Box 1367 Marco Island, Florida 34146 rpm ulhere(a)gmaii.corn 239 825 9373 phone July 17, 2013 Re: PL20130000818 Del Mar Shopping Center Sign Variance Dear Property Owner: You are receiving this letter because you own property located within 150 feet of the Del Mar Shopping Center, which is located at 7785 through 7795 Davis Boulevard. The DEL MAR RETAIL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC is requesting a variance from Section 5.06.04.f.4., of the Collier County Land Development Code. This Section of the Code limits the number of wall signs to a maximum of one wall sign for each unit in a multiple-occupancy parcel, except for end or corner units which may have 2 wall signs. Wall signs are signs installed on the exterior façade of a building. The variance is being requested to allow for up to two wall signs for each unit within the Del Mar shopping center. The shopping center fronts on Davis Boulevard and has wall signs located above the various units along the Davis Boulevard frontage of the building; however, the center was designed such that parking and access are located in what would typical be viewed as the rear of the center and the building was designed to accommodate signage above the respective units in both the"front" along Davis Boulevard, and the "rear"where parking and access to the units , are located. The request provides for a prohibition on illumination of any new walls signs installed in the rear of the center. This variance petition will be considered at two public hearings, one before the Collier County Planning Commission and one before the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). The tentative dates for those hearing are August 15, 2013 for the Planning Commission and September 24, 2013 for the BCC. Those dates are tentative and are subject to change. Formal advertising of the hearing dates will take place in the Naples Daily News and posting of the Planning Commission and BCC agenda can also be found on the County's website: www.colliergov.net. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 239-825-9373 or via email at rjmulhereagmail.com should you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Rolote 7 'MIA= (Signed electronically to expedite delivery.) Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP President/CEO community planning;entitlement&land development services i lobbying t marketing business development;business strategies public policy Packet Page-2798- 10/8/2013 17.A. NOTICE OF .st �� PUBLIC HEARING PETITION # PL20130000818 Del Mar Shopping Center Sign Variance PUDA-PL2013-0141: The DEL MAR RETAIL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC is requesting a variance from Section 5.06.04.f.4., of the Collier County Land Development Code. This Section of the LDC limits the number of wall signs to a maximum of one wall sign for each unit in a multiple-occupancy parcel, except for end or corner units which may have 2 wall signs. Wall signs are signs installed on the exterior facade of a building. The variance is being requested to allow for up to two wall signs for each unit within the Del Mar shopping center, located at 7785-7795 Davis BvId. CCPC DATE: September 5, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. BCC DATE: October 8, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. LOCATION: Collier County Government Center Administration Building, 3rd Floor, BCC Meeting Room 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112 CONTACT: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager, Zoning Services Phone: (239) 252-2926 Packet Page-2799- 10/8/2013 17.A. SIGN VARIANCE PETITION PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES & SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST PLL## l>• 02,18 Date: 435•E Time: 'c�7-Ce' Assigned Planner: Project Name: �ts ,i • db : a � `. �_, _ Project Addr/Location: Pi • 21 ■ 22_ Applicant Name: { 'tuLJ Phone: '2%429J• Firm: Current Zoning: P I P4 - . =y✓ ' Owner Name: e4 ? -z4\ Owner Address: Phone: Meeting Attendees: (attach Sign In Sheet) NOTES: 5k La-a-e c- (A-e_ (d. o4 . v �r r q4+a.,a St- E'er£€ 114 ,t & c4-10s+ 7 IC ^fir �T Ass*. 6.4__ G:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Pre-Application Forms 2011\Pre-app Forms-JUNE 2011\SV Sign Variance Pre-Application June 2011.doc revised: 8/5/02,rev.6/21111 Packet Page-2800- 10/8/2013 17.A. SIGN VARIANCE PETITION (SV) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. #OF NOT COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIREMENTS Completed Application (download from website for current form) 12 Pre-Application meeting notes 12 4 Completed Addressing Checklist, Signed by Addressing Department 1 >( Survey or Site Plan of property depicting the following: 12 I All property boundaries & dimensions I► North arrow, date and scale of drawing I► All existing and proposed signs (labeled as such) tV Existing sign setbacks and proposed sign setbacks Owner/Agent Affidavit signed & notarized 1 Location map depicting major streets in area for reference I FEES: ® Pre-application Fee $500.00 (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre-app meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre-application meeting will be required.) Review Fees: ® $2000.00 Sign Variance • $50.00 Fire Review Fee ❑ After-The-Fact Zoning/Lan se Petitions 2x the normal petition fee ® $925.00 Estimated Legal Advertising Fee - CCPC Meeting ® $500.00 Estimated Legal Advertising Fee - BCC Meeting (any over- or under-payment will be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Daily News). OTHER REQUIREMENTS: n C n Agent/Owner Signature Date G:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Pre-Application Forms 20111Pre-app Forms-JUNE 2011\SV Sign Variance Pre-Application June 2011.doc revised: 8/5/02, rev.6/21/11 Packet Page-2801- 10/8/2013 17.A. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS LDC 10.03.05 F.3. "Any applicant requesting variance approval or parking exemption approval must provide documentation to the planning services department indicating that property owners within 150 feet of the subject site have been advised of the extent and nature of the variance or parking exemption requested within 30 days of receipt of a letter indicating that the application is sufficient." Applicant must submit a Property Owner Advisory Letter certifying that the property owners within 150 feet of the subject site were notified. Letter must have property owners list attached. Property owners list must be submitted after initial staff review and comment on the application and before the Public Hearing is scheduled with the Collier County Planning Commission. G:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Pre-Application Forms 2011\Pre-app Forms-JUNE 2011\SV Sign Variance Pre-Application June 2011.doc revised: 8/5/02, rev.6/21/11 Packet Page-2802- 10/8/2013 17.A. o14 ty Growth Management Division Planning & Regulation Allowed Dwelling Units and Square Footage within PUD's The attached form must be submitted with all reviews that involve the addition and/or deletion of dwelling units or square footage. (Some examples: SDP, SDPA, SDPI, PPL, PPLA, ICP) The form allows the individual owners, developer, agents, and County staff to track remaining units and square footage in order to avoid going over the maximum allowed by the PUD Ordinance. Instructions to complete: Project Name: Name of the project PUD Name: Name of the PUD Review#: .To Pe completed by County staff This submittal: The addition and/or deletion of single family units, multi-family units, commercial square footage for office, retail or other, industrial square footage, medical, special, or other square footage. When choosing "Other or Special" square footage — please indicate when the other or special type is. Approved to Date: Total approved units and/or square footage within the entire PUD. Please complete for all categories. Maximum Allowable per PUD Ordinance: Maximum limits provided for each category per the PUD Ordinance. Please include the Ordinance number. Acreage Constructed to Date: Some of the PUD's allow construction based upon acreage rather than square footage limits. These are usually the older PUD's. Maximum Allowed: Maximum acres allowed to be constructed based upon the PUD Ordinance. Signature of Owner or Agent: Please sign Date: Please date with submittal All lines must be completed. If a line is not applicable, please write "N/A." Updated 01/09/13 LB Packet Page-2803- 10/8/2013 17.A. crf. D.. 0L "Fs 3- w a) CO • , O N �dy O E N as O - o - C 0 ..a C a) U t3 N as co � O- `O a' i a) CIS C c y 0 3 t to 1_ a N Q CO C6 N CT . .a '` g #k to 41 o O ccs Q cs , a N `-Q a v . .r 0E co O -Q -a 0 • O C N a c V- C p = co O o w C -a Co C o Li L1 L.. CCf ta) 1.- W o �UEC o 0 J E � caC ,U) u' D oCa) 2 as ❑ to c .0= co a) W a. 3- o - - - - • V to -a Co 0 -6 CO u) � C) U) CO a) C tea) = a) CD• � a te >, ` a) to _ oo E rt � c 2 g) E O -0 a) -0 E 0. v o Z N g -o 0 0 0 O• ❑ ^ N ca to m W V V Q U ❑ EL o TQ to E —,' c C Q a- � co.cCU E 2 E as ca O O 0. 0 LL as E C C a. a = = 2 0 CZ a p _ L 2 -, An • C C N — U ❑ a) § O -c E = Eo01— Co as Ca. � z LL - ❑ o ,° o_ � to c > o _0 rn ±2 — co N �Q - d a) a -Q 3Q 0 0 o C c a � E , Z • — L_ O m a a >- c Q+ .Q O .O N c c N- C . U Co CO Co o c r O 10 ca a) w CU N co Cu N C C Q C N � o O 0 -0 o m I o E = CL ,C N 0 c r>p ,OC >, a Q O Q., O E a o o 52-00 = = 00 0 0 z = 0 N CD + ' co LL Co CO O � E ' 0 - o� _ U N D .0 QC X ,_ ,a.. X >.< D. v O Cr , O O s E o _ C w o Packet Page-2804- 10/8/2013 17.A. Cotner County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and fax to the Operations Department at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre- application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL(Blasting Permit) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA(SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FF"- r!nal Plat -❑ SNR (Street Name Chan a ❑ LLA(Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change—Unplatted) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL (Plans&Plat Review) U-VA(Variance) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal &Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ(Standard Rezone) ❑ OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) - i ,p 1U /2 2 6 FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 2 r / oc)0uQ.)? STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) '7'7 k- — '7 7 S S 0,61.J • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY (copy -needed only for unpiatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) PROPOSED STREET NAMES(if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) SDP - or AR or PL# Packet Page-2805- 10/8/2013 17.A. Co er County Mot COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Check One: ❑ Checklist is to be Faxed back ersonally Picked Up APPLICANT NAME: .-� /i'L - PHONE ' >I - �� �4.7 3 FAX _._ Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Department. FOR STAFF USE ONLY q I ,r� FLN Number(Primary) ; ( S ( �% co 00 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: \/�.E� l.ti(.'� Date: °J D- Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED .arMw:; Packet Page-2806- 10/8/2013 17.A. a C 46 a) > _> a m a)o c O 5 _ c Nc cr a c a) C Q) N c > •+-r C>a c > c c c o c 0 ao c o ° 0v c• o > O . C o aO O C ° O Q) rn O 4 > 0 0 � U O c p N N O = N O O N 0 O ,_ .g2 0 O O_ Z -0- . >, O = = _ @ U O WL) = O O 9 o L Y U o O a) O o . V O 0 . _ U_ U U , U O C Al U N U® o O co V O 03 O .. W c O o 'a U o cn O U "-' > g (* . ° )O O NU N — ° c C ) O L U C -0 'C c t6 E 1 ..0 >, a) ca = ca c > 2 .c o — c n r O c p p _ cz E c > -c cts -0 &- W E L g � C- O) 2) a) ca -0 • U a c U c)a) ..cc ca Lc -El' as -5(13 ca c O ==.0 -20 N aa) S ° > M o} Q 0 . .0 c � 0 M O N_ O N O CO CZ N (4 CD W N O)_O LO O. 0) O O LO 0) _LO CY) LO n CO CO V' LO .CO LC) d" N- N- ` C OrLL) d• O) NC0LOO 't' COCOOCO �hr c- Nl� O CD W N 0) N co CO 0) CO CO CO r CO C)) LI) N d' '1' d O) N LI) C) 0) CO Vt x 2 = i N CO N LC) N LC) LI) C ) LI) LC) N LL) d- N CO N N d• Lf) N (.1 LC) N v o If) LI) is) LI) CO LC) LC) LC) LC) LI) LC) LI) L{) LI) LI) L!) LI) LC) LC) LI) LC) LO LC) LO M O N N N N CO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ca V C W 1 •�' Z ca I Q. in c U O) O O z 1 V CD c >, 3 •=•. ca c c -E N _ z Lvj •� a.) CL) cc � caccc � a) o co c? 0. c c 0 ca ca ca O c N o � ° gin. � � �)a T. E..- Q� � � � iV Q c c 1 c E > o .> > > c ..3 w >,.«� o o .,� a) N N 'a) cn L- O 0 CC; c 0) :c 0). I- '> C) c c c o c •c :«r c CZ 5j Z c a) a) .c co ca c E O CY_ C_ O W N a) a) a) a) a Z c o E 0 a) o o a) o :� °) U a) a� co E E u- o f ° Q c U c ° a) a' a a) (a 2 CD to c L L.. L " c c „, c .-J c 0 a--; .- Q U to to E O >,.i c E E E o o C) Q o 0. O co .-L. N c ct 2 2 E2 c'0 *r ,= .c �..+ a5 0 0 0 ca •C . Q E E. Q n- .JQ u.1 C� LL Lill— I- LI. Q 0_ U C.) U > LLI LLl I- Li I a. J a. cn P� U ' .. z 2 •1 a V) s 2 W w .> o ® a) c N L ►/ w 0 w_ ... 0a) . ',CB .0 o .L ca 'O O U 2 (a .,.., E 2) c6 '1 * zL � � ca� oo o .� o � 0 `� oo2 � a) oE c C/) Q Q W c ` U O7 a) •- N a) c2 ct t c ca o E c Y c N c� ° m -111 Z I- F � Q0 o v oopo0 oU cap � � V205J a) >a) c r W wU) ' EE o2 � � cents� 2o O.a)aa)i 5.� o ac) ca �� E. ct -5a) W E .c U 1 0 c O Y c o - c -,-2' -c a) �• > o • cn U U -c to ca (a U .Q > W 111--)0 0 = a, = ° ._ ca ° o — o L- L_ a) ca ca ccaa •- o _ ,L .� ca ca 0 $ sY D_ - F- = fA2, ,Y,r'� IY -, ¢ 2m0070.. z02 C.) 01 U) � coQ o a a. OAO7171-0000000000000000000 Packet Page-2807- 4 10/8/2013 17.A. tr- v Q c ) ci) WW J Q7 Ce . Q o s -f a cc E. w 0 "' J N (� .� '_) M p 0 7-- r \.....) p _ O M 0 _ . ` N O N ce co W m eY cu a . z (\v.\ cc: N 0 ri CL C?:*� C?:* TL W .. W . ._ T •Z (?) 0 4\ i (J (7) W d Z � -�,a. \CI LL1 . ci ( f ..... o W a. h . . . _ (L J U 7 w co m dal -.,a a s. v3 i u . .L u, d Packet Page-2808- 10/8/2013 17.A. 26D m Wednesday, September 18, 2013 D NAPLES DAILY NEWS NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION • Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners, as the Board of Zoning Appeals, of Collier County will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,October 8, 2013, in the •Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. The meeting will begin at 9:00 A.M.The title of the proposed resolution is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM, SECTION 5.06.04.F.4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO-INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ON THE BUILDING TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL SIGN PER UNIT'UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 36 TOTAL SIGNS FOR THE ENTIRE DEL MAR SHOOPING CENTER LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD IN SECTION 4,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA.(SV-PL20130000818) Copies of the proposed Resolution are on file with the Clerk to the Board and are available for inspection.All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized. by the Chair, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal is based. • If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to par- ticipate in this proceeding; you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Depart- ment, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Building W, Naples, Florida 34112, (239)— 252-8380. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners'Office. • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COWER COUNTY,FLORIDA GEORGIA HILLER,ESQ,CHAIRWOMAN DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK By: Teresa Cannon,Deputy Clerk (SEAL) September 18.2013 No.2000988 • Packet Page -2809- •