Agenda

Back to Calendar Return

6. 0.

Board of Adjustment

Meeting Date:	03/16/2016
CASE: V-2016-03
APPLICANT:	Nader Ghobrial, Agent for Fadi Mubarak, Owner
ADDRESS:	4615 Mobile Hwy.
PROPERTY REFERENCE NO.:	14-2S-30-8001-001-001
ZONING DISTRICT:	COM, Commercial
FUTURE LAND USE:	C, Commercial

SUBMISSION DATA:

REQUESTED VARIANCE:

The Applicant is seeking an after the fact variance to increase the allowed
wall signage on an existing commercial site.

RELEVANT AUTHORITY:

Land Development Code of Escambia County, Florida (Ordinance No. 96-3 as amended), Section: 5-8.-7(e)(2)

(e) Wall signs. The maximum square footage for a wall sign shall not exceed ten percent of the wall surface facing the addressed street. For those businesses with more than one store front, the maximum square footage for a wall sign shall not exceed 15 percent of the wall surface facing the addressed street. Any one sign shall not exceed 200 square feet. The wall surface shall be measured by determining the total vertical wall surface and the horizontal wall surface and can include the roof surface when the roof slope is steeper than 45 degrees. Signs painted on the wall surface shall require a land use certificate but shall not require a building permit.

(2) Existing commercial businesses. The square footage of wall signs is calculated by using the elevation of each individual store front. The square footage is calculated separately from freestanding signs.
Note: The square footage authorized under this provision may be allocated to one or more wall signs mounted on the vertical wall surface or the sloped roof surface.

CRITERIA

Land Development Code of Escambia County, Florida (Ordinance No. 96-3 as amended), Section 2-6.3

CRITERION (1)

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.

FINDINGS-OF-FACT

The existing commercial building was constructed in 1978 as a gas station and is typical of that era of design. The building is not obscured from the right-of-way by landscaping or screening and has a freestanding sign in addition to the permitted and non-permitted wall signs. Staff does not find special conditions unique to this site.

CRITERION (2)

The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.

FINDINGS-OF-FACT

Staff does not find special conditions unique to this site. The unpermitted signs erected on site are the fault of the applicant.

CRITERION (3)

Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this land development code to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district.

FINDINGS-OF-FACT

Granting the variance requested would confer on the applicant special privilege denied by this land development code to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district.

CRITERION (4)

Strict application of the provisions of the land development code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the land development code and would create an unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant..

FINDINGS-OF-FACT

Staff finds that the strict application of the code would not create an unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.

CRITERION (5)

The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure.

FINDINGS-OF-FACT

The site in question has an existing, permitted wall sign that uses up all of the allowed wall signage for the site. Adding two more wall signs of the same size is not the minimum necessary to make use of the land, building or structure.

CRITERION (6)

The granting of the variance will be consistent with the general intent and purpose of the land development code and that such variance will not be injurious to the area or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.

FINDING OF FACT:

Granting the requested variance will not be consistent with the general intent and purpose of the land development code.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff finds that the request does not meet all of the required criteria and recommends denial.

BOA DECISION

The Board accepted Staff Findings and denied the variance request.

Attachments
V-2016-03 Working Case File