I'd like to call the, the May 14th, Charlotte County Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to order. Would everybody please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance? I'd like to read just to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands when nation under God, indivisible, liberty, justice for all. Okay. with the secretary called the role please. Steve Iira here. Phillips Maude here Nicole Bayer here. Blair McVetti absent Andrew Filio here. Okay, I'll say go forward. Okay, we have four members present. We have a quorum. We can do business on behalf of the county. Go to swearing in. We'll swear in anybody that would like to speak on the subject before we say we have one petition, one variance, if anybody is going to speak, please raise your hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Please say I do. I do. You may be seated. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the April 9th, 2025 meeting. They have been circulated. Are there any comments, changes, or additions to those minutes? And if not, then I'll take a motion to approve those minutes. Mr. Chairman, I'd still move to approve the minutes that's published. You have a motion? Do I have a second? I have a second. Motion has second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Those pass. All right. We have, let's see. I would introduce the zoning official. Is the Sean Collinan? Would comments please? Good morning. Sean Collin playing zoning official. Today we have one variance. The board of zoning appeals is empowered to grant special exceptions and variances to the zoning code and here appeals from decisions of the zoning official upon showing that all required criteria have been satisfied. Generally the variance process is intended to provide limited relief from the requirements of the zoning regulations. In those cases where strict application of the requirements will create a practical difficulty or undue hardship as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, prohibiting the use of land in a manner otherwise allowed under the zoning regulations. Variance is intended to provide relief in limited circumstances where the requirements of the zoning regulations render the land difficult to use because of some unique exceptional or extraordinary circumstance and physical attribute of the property itself or some other extraordinary factor for which the variance is requested. Variants shall be granted only if all five of the approval criteria are found to exist. In granting a variance, the board zoning appeals may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the premises benefited by the variance as maybe necessary to allow the positive funding to be made on any of the forgoing factors or to minimize the injurious effect of the variance. Thank you, Sean. From the legal department, Mr. Thomas David. Mr. Chair, good morning, Tom David, Deputy County Attorney. I just want to take a moment to introduce David Muscozo, who is new with our office, relatively new with our office. He's going to be taken over the position that I occupied as the lawyer for the board. He'll also do the same thing for the Planning and Zoning Board. So I'd like to introduce David Muscozo. He went to FIU Law School as I did, so he's very well qualified to help you today. good luck and and thank you all for all your kind words while I was working with you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Tom Pia's surface. We appreciate it and welcome. Thank you so much, David and the school assistant county attorney. So the board is only appeals as a quasi judicial body. This means that all interested persons have a right to be heard and present evidence. This board is no authority to change zoning regulations nor may it rezone property. All decisions of this board must be based on the evidence presented to it. Only competent, substantial, sworn, factual evidence and expert opinions if offered and accepted may be properly considered by the board. All documentation presented to the board or county staff will be retained as part of the official record of the proceedings. Decisions of this Board must be by majority vote. Ty votes do not carry the motion made. If an application is approved, there may still be other approvals or permits required before any development activity may commence. Please consult county staff in this regard. Deed restrictions are private agreements. This Board does not have the authority to consider, modify or rescind them. Judicial appeals must be made to the circuit court within 30 days of written decision by the board of zoning appeals. Thank you. Okay, next I'll go over the order of proceedings for the speeding. The county staff will make the initial presentation for each request, the applicant or the applicant's representative. So then their presentation, present evidence, and answer any questions that the board members may have. Interested persons for or against the petition will then be invited to testify and answer any questions board members may have. All persons shall have the right of reasonable cross-examination of witnesses. De-applicant or applicants representative shall have the right to present any rebuttal evidence and make closing statements. The county staff shall have the opportunity to present rebuttal evidence and closing statements after which time the public hearing will be closed, except that the applicant or the applicant's representative may present additional rebuttal evidence relevant to the county staff's closing evidence and statements. I'd like to note that anybody that comes up to speak please note that there's a line tablet at the podium. We asked that you print your name and address on the tablet prior to speaking. And when you have printed your name and tablet, please stay to the record that your name address and the fact that you have or have not been sworn. All persons designed to speak must be sworn. Mr. Doha? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. For the record, Elizabeth Nochek, AICP, Senior Planner for the Community Development Department. I'm the project planner for this application and I have been sworn. At this time, I request I be accepted as an expert in planning based upon the summary of, sorry, summary of my qualifications, which are set forth in exhibit one to the staff report. Notice of this public hearing was given in accordance with county code through mailings, postings, and publication. This is petition VAR-25-006. Mr. Todd Mathis, representative for Benderson Development and 7978 Associate's XVIII LLC, is requesting a variance variance to allow free standing primary signage to exceed 20 feet in height and 150 square feet in area to allow two replacement signs of free standing primary signs of 30 feet in height and 320 square feet in area in the commercial general zoning district. This property is located at 1910 to 2000 Kings Highway in Port Charlotte. On your screen now is the 1,000 foot mailed notification area map for maillors that were sent out for this petition. And on your screen is the location map of subject property. The zoning map on your screen shows the zoning of subject property, which is commercial general and the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property has a future land use map designation of DRI mixed use. The area image on your screen now shows the location of subject property on the east side of King's Highway to the north of Rampart Boulevard in the Victoria Estates DRI, which is a development of regional impact. The attached site image on your screen is the 2024 aerial photograph showing a close-up view of the property and the adjacent parcels. This is the 2024 Eagle View Image of the site. And I know you're all very interested. These are the flood zones for the shopping center. Section 3-9-85 of the county's land development regulations provides the regulations for residential and non-residential signage in Charlotte County, including limitations on height and area, which is the square footage of display elements, including letters, numbers, figures, characters, corporate logos, et cetera, of signs. The applicant is requesting to exceed the permitted height and area for free standing primary signage in the commercial general zoning district in order to replace two free standing primary signs. Subsection 1.1.8 of section 3-9-85 provides the process and criteria to deviate from these limitations. Subsection 1.1.8 states that variances may be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals to exceed the height and size limitations or to exceed the number of signs permitted within this article provided that all of the following conditions are found to exist. A, that the characteristics unique to the parcel of land on which the signs are to be located would render the visibility of the sign on that parcel significantly less than that enjoyed by similarly situated parcels. B, that the request would not create a visibility hazard to adjoining parcels or the traveling public. And C see that the height of the signs would not exceed 40 feet. The applicant is requesting to exceed the maximum height of 20 feet and maximum area of 150 square feet for free standing primary signage to replace two signs of 30 feet in height and 320 square feet in area. The applicant has provided the attached narrative, which provides details about the request and addresses the three approval criteria for variances to the sign code. Prior to Hurricane Ian, subject property had two free standing primary signs. One was located on the West property line, abutting King's Highway, and the other was located on the South property line, abut in Rampart Boulevard. These are both adjacent to the site access points on the driveways. These signs were originally constructed in 2004, and you can see here the applicant has provided some photographs in their narrative showing the conditions of the signs immediately before and immediately following Hurricane Ian. So this is the sign over that was on rampart Boulevard. And this was the sign on King's Highway. The original freestanding primary signs were considered non-con signs prior to Hurricane Ian as they were legally and properly permitted at the time of their construction, but were made nonconforming when the signage code was updated in 2011 because their height and area exceeded the new standards. Subsection 1.1.9 of Section 3-9-85 provides regulations for non-conforming signs, including the requirements to comply with the provisions of the code in the event that the sign is removed, dismantled, or relocated. As these signs were completely destroyed by Hurricane Ian, the replacement signs must comply with the current code unless this requested variance is granted by the board. So the applicant has provided the attached survey. Here's one and here's the second survey. Showing the current conditions of the property, subject property which is commonly known as the King's Crossing Shopping Center is approximately 23.44 acres in size and has been developed with a multi-unit shopping center with retail stores, personal services, and restaurant tenants. The shopping center is approximately 154,305 square feet in area. Subject property also contains a large paved parking lot and several vacant and undeveloped out parcels which may in the future be developed with other commercial uses. The applicant has also provided the attached site and sign plans which show the proposed location for the replacement signage as well as the structural plans for the proposed signs. The replacement signs are proposed in the same areas of the site as the original signs. However, the replacement signs would be constructed outside of the visibility triangles, whereas the previous signs were encroaching into the visibility triangles. So you can see here this is the driveway off of rampart where the proposed sign would be located and this is the one on King's Highway. It's a little bit closer up view, showing utilities as well. The applicant has also provided the attached sign comparison, which shows renderings of the original signs, the proposed signs, and a rendering showing what is allowed under code. The previously existing signs were 34 feet in height and 317 square feet in area. The area calculations include the plaza name lettering and the sign area, which is defined in the code as the area within the smallest regular geometric shape or combination of shapes, which encompasses all the display elements, including letters, numbers, years characters, et cetera, of the design, including blank areas between display elements. The area of the sign shall include all changing copy features, such as letter boards or light boards. The previous signs were located in the same areas of the site as the proposed replacement signs. However, they have been adjusted to ensure that their outside The previous signs were located in the same areas of the site as the proposed replacement signs. However, they've been adjusted to ensure that they are outside of the visibility triangles to increase safety for drivers entering and exiting the property. The proposed signs are roughly the same in sign area as the previous signs, but are proposed with a height of 30 feet, which is 4 feet shorter than the original signs. The community development department's environmental specialist has performed a cursory environmental review and their comments are in the attached memorandum. And for our findings, the three standards for approval of a signage variance according to section 3-9-85 subsection 1.1.8 of the Charlotte County Zone and Code are as follows. Number one, or A, sorry, you said the other variants criteria. A, that the characteristics unique to the parcel of land on which the signs are to be located would render the visibility of the sign on that parcel significantly less than that enjoyed by similarly situated parcels. Our finding is that subject property is approximately 23.44 acres in size and contains over 154,000 square feet of commercial floor space with additional vacant out parcels available for development. Subject property has significant visibility from two major roadways with approximately 1000 linear feet of road frontage along King's Highway and 675 linear feet along Rampart Boulevard. The applicant has provided a detailed site comparison. Some of the pictures are on your screen now showing the factors of subject property and the proposed signs compared with other commercial retail plazas in the county. Subject property is one of the largest commercial retail plazas in the county and has significantly more road frontage than most of the other retail plazas. As detailed in the site comparison, the Village Marketplace Shopping Center, which is located in Tiamimi Trail down in Charlotte Harbor, has a 33-foot tall 291.5 square foot sign. I'm sorry, Village Marketplace is on Tamiami north of Forest Nelson. Bay Shore Shopping Center is the one in Charlotte Harbor on 41 and has a 27 foot tall 191.25 square foot sign and the promenade's mall also on Tamiami Trail in the Perkskside neighborhood. It has a 23-foot tall 192 square foot sign. Subject property has approximately 1,675 linear feet of road frontage which is compared to 1,210 linear feet of frontage for village marketplace, 800 in two linear feet of frontage for or a Bay Village, and 1,479 linear feet for promenades mall. The signage code does not consider parcel size or the length of road frontage when determining the height and size allowances for free standing primary signage. Multi-unit shopping centers are held to the same standards as those with a single tenant, which is one primary freestanding sign per road frontage, not to exceed 150 square feet in area or 20 feet in height. Subject property has over 25 tenants with additional out parcels available for development. These original signs existed on the property without issue or complaint from 2004 until they were destroyed by Hurricane Ian in 2020, 2022, and the proposed replacement signs are slightly shorter than the previous signs and roughly the same size in area. If the requested variances denied, the replacement signs would be limited to the maximums established by code with heights of 20 feet and sign area of 150 square feet. Based on the size of the parcel, the length of the road frontages, the number of tenants, and the number of tenants, I'm sorry. The allowed signage would appear disproportionately small and out of character for the site. The applicant would need to significantly reduce the size of the tenant's name plates or limit the number of tenants appearing on the sign which may impact the legibility of these signs to the traveling public and may negatively impact some of the tenants who have reduced or no visibility on the sign due to the limited sign area for the site. B, criteria B, that the request would not create a visibility hazard to a joining parcels or to the traveling public. Our finding is that staff is unaware of any evidence that the proposed replacement signs would be a visibility hazard to a joining parcels or to the traveling public. Go back to the site plan so you can see the locations. The proposed signs are located near the center of the West Property Line and center of the South Property Line adjacent to the existing driveways, both of which are several hundred feet from the adjacent properties. There's approximately 70 feet of right of way from the edge of pavement on King's Highway to the East Property Line and 50 feet of right of way from the edge of pavement on Rampart Boulevard to the South Property Line. The replacement signs are also proposed outside of the visibility triangle, which is in accordance with code requirements, whereas the previous signs were located within the triangles. And criteria C, that the height of the signs would not exceed 40 feet. Our finding is that the proposed replacement signs are shown with heights of 30 feet, which is measured from the crown of the adjoining road right away. The proposed replacement signs do comply with this regulation. That's the summary of our staff report, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I'd say you wouldn't have any questions from a snow agenda. No. No. None the applicant? The applicant? Come on. Thank you, commissioners. My name is Todd Mathes. I'm the director of development at Bendereson Development Companies. I've been in that role for 14 years. Prior to that, I was attorney in private practice specializing in planning and zoning. I want to thank Ms. Nocheck for her assistance in preparing or reviewing the application and the presentation. I think everything that was presented to you was absolutely, factually correct and as a solid representation of why we do believe we meet the criteria. And I wanted to also thank Julie Daniel, who prepared our application Julie's from our office. We do own a large center. It's 24 acres. It's 150,000 feet. We developed it about 20 years ago and have been continuing to develop it. It's not fully built out. We built the out-person, along King's Highway, about six years ago, I think. And we have significant undeveloped land in the center. We also own and developed, we developed the King's Gate residential community to our east and have sold the remaining undeveloped vacant lots of which there are not many to our friends at Neal communities. They've been slowly selling homes and building homes there for the last few years. We also own the land to our west, which is undeveloped. So everything between King's Highway and Loveland is also owned by our company, which I just provide for context in terms of the property and what we're requesting today. We did when we developed the property, we had two signs, one unrampar and one unkings. They are taller than, larger than, and we're most likely brighter than the signs we are proposing today. And when Hurricane Ian occurred and with these last few hurricanes, we own a lot of retail throughout Southwest Florida. We lost a lot of signs, especially because we're in the business of redeveloping older centers and a lot of those signs were built in a in a substandard way. I can tell you that this is the only sign where we we lost the sign and we're in this position of applying for variance for two reasons. One is that some communities allowed signs to be just completely rebuilt during that time. And there's in these last set of hurricanes, not in Hercanean. There's Florida legislative action that's been taken to better protect rebuilding to kind of streamline the process. And then in other communities where those things didn't exist and they had like a 50% rule like we have here that rendered the sign non-conforming in our case. In a lot of cases we were able to between the foundations and reusing foundations and reusing the steel. We were able to rebuild signs within that 50% rule. Somewhere along the line our steel which was laying on the ground post the hurricane got swept up by someone who probably took advantage of that steel. And as we evaluated the situation and given the time that's passed, we realized that those foundations probably wouldn't meet the rule. We probably couldn't demonstrate anything with respect to the steel because it had been taken. And those signs also existed in the site visibility triangle because kings had been widened post our development of the shopping centers how they ended up in that position. So that's all just to provide context to the substance of our application today. And most importantly, I think what the point of demonstrating the amount of frontage we have on the property and how it relates to the property in the number of tenants is that we try to build things both in scale and character. And something can be the right character and out of scale and it might look a little odd or something can be the right scale but out of character and it might look a little odd. We try to get both parts of that equation right when we develop centers. We have a lot of tenants. And so if you were to refer back to this comparison diagram, the character of all these signs are nice. The Starbucks Pizza Hut sign, for example, very nice character. It might perhaps be a little out of scale on the large side, given the number of tenants on the sign. So what we want to do is give the scholar tenants on our sign a fair shot at being known that they're in the center at being successful, at being visible, being readable from the road, given the travel speeds of the road. So as you get further down on our sign and you get to the Bell and Appalien and the ginger dim sum and the smaller tenants, we want to make sure that those signs aren't so small, that they're illegible, that they're useless, and we determine the size of those signs per tenant based on leases. And in our case, Windixi during this time period was purchased by the Aldi companies, Aldi is in the process of rebranding and reopening that store. They have top billing. And Bells obviously has the next top billing They're the next largest tenant same with the pet supplies and as we get down to our smaller tenants What the larger sign does? albeit it's lower than our prior sign what it does is it allows those other tenants to be known To be visible and hopefully to be successful Because what we would like is a successful vibrant center and And again, given the frontage, given the speed of cars going across the entire center, given the prominence of an all the of a bells outlet, that larger sign allows us to give those smaller tenants sort of fair billing on the sign. Commissioners, that's, I think the staff presentation, the staff report and our application really do speak for themselves on the substance of the criteria, but I tried to summarize specifically with respect to how our center meets the requirements as being unique in the presentation so far. So I'm here to answer your questions and I just want to close by reiterating because I there was some public interest here, that the signs are lower than, lower than, smaller than, the prior signs that were there. The prior signs you saw on the image were internally illuminated. These signs will likewise be internally illuminated. They will comply with the county standard. And in today's design with LED lights, there's much better control over compliance with that lighting standard than the old internally hellage and illuminated lights. Those lights had much less control. So I think what you'll see is that these signs are both less bright, more conforming, and lower than the signs that were there. Thank you. Just a quick question. For both signs, that is a complete rebuild. There's nothing that you can salvage from the previous signs. You'll take away all the debris and rebuild in place. That's correct. We will excavate the existing foundations that are there and because they're moving back and the debris has been removed from the old science. Okay, sir. Okay. Okay. At this point, I will ask to open the public comment section of the meeting. If anybody in the audience would like to come up and speak for or against this petition, please come up now. Mr. Chair, while we're waiting to see if anyone rises, I did receive two emails from neighbors that are unable to attend due to being out of town from Mr. Tarouk and that will be exhibit H and from Miss Perucci and I apologize if I mispronounced your names. That will be exhibit I I both are an objection. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. We just take a second to look at both of these, please. In regard to the communication, one of the Mr. Tarak and I apologize if I pronounce it wrong, he is assuming that there is going to be some sort of a traffic interference, I guess. about's wondering about the traffic and nighttime use of lighting, lighting, lighting, larger signs. Is there any, do we have any information regarding traffic and pavement or distraction along that roadway? We're in part, I assume you should talk about. Correct. We have candle power standards within the code for lighting. So we do have those standards. And obviously this will be on their property away from it. But we do have those standards. And his comment about reduction in speed or speed limit change has nothing to do with this hearing whatsoever. That's a traffic scenario. That is correct. I don't believe public works has any plans for any types of speed limit reductions in this area. Okay. And the second communication is from a resident in Buckingham way. And I'm thinking that I think that she is under the assumption that these signs are going to illuminate into her property. Again, do we have any information regarding that location? Or is this just a fear that it's over illumination of the area? I can't speak for what the intent is. They're not here to testify, but we do have standards regarding spillage over onto lots. Admittedly, you may still see a sign that doesn't mean that the light is spilling over into your property. And so the adding LED lighting as a new way to illuminate those signs, that's an ability for the developer, I would say, to be able to reduce the lighting. That was a testimony from the developer, but I believe so. LEDs typically can be raised and lowered in terms of color and wattage and things like that much easier than standard. So that's a testing scenario that would happen when the, you can come on up. That would be a testing scenario when the signs are constructed, if the signs are constructed. That would be something you would determine as far as lighting goes. Yes, sir, our sign vendor companies are obligated to the conditions of the permit, and they also have, the county has permit inspections. I can't speak to what your county does by way of inspection, but we do ensure that the bulb installed meets the criteria. That's our check on their process based on the criteria of the bulb. Okay. I just want to address both of them. Thank you. Thank you. What we've typically found with code enforcement cases is it's not these internally illuminated ones, but rather the digital messaging boards that tend to be lighter and those bulbs are exposed on the outside and sometimes though not allowed flash or when they change to static images they can be much brighter but these are and the applicant please correct me if I'm wrong but these are internally illuminated illuminated lights so the lights are, those panels are backlit from the inside. Okay. Any other comments? Any other conversation? I do have the public comment portion of this meeting is open. Nobody has risen to comment on this application. I need somebody if they would make a motion to close the public comment. Move the close public comment, Mr. Chair. Second. I have a motion to second. All those in favor? Aye. All right. Public comment is closed. Elizabeth, if you'd wrap up, please. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, for a recommendation. After review of the site and the application requesting this variance, it is staff's professional opinion that the proposed variance does meet the three criteria for granting assigned variance. Staff notes that each variance request is reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals does not create a precedent. If the Board of Zoning Appeals decides to approve the requested variance, staff recommends the following conditions be adopted as conditions of approval to ensure that the use is in compliance with the purpose and intent of the zoning code. The recommended conditions are as follows. Number one, the variance as approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals is to allow free standing primary signage to exceed 20 feet in height and 150 square feet in area to allow two replacement free standing primary signs of 30 feet in height and 320 square feet in area for a commercial shopping center. Number two, the signage shall be subject to all other provisions established by section 3-9-85 as may be amended. Number 3, this variance is granted for a term of 3 years from the date of approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. However, the variance shall not expire if the owner commences the proposed development on or before the variance's term expires. And number 4, if the freestanding primary signage is removed to replace, this variant shall expire and all future development must be constructed according to all applicable codes in existence at that time unless a new variance is granted specific to the development proposed at that time. This condition shall not apply to removal or replacement caused by a natural disaster or involuntary destruction of the freestanding sign. And that's it Mr. Chair. Okay can I ask the applicant if he or his company is in agreement with the recommendations by the county. We are. Okay thank you very much. What's your pleasure? Mr. Chairman I have a motion. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I would move that VAR-25-006 be approved based on the community development department staff report dated May 7, 2025, and that the evidence presented at the hearing and finding that the applicant has met the required criteria for the granting of the variance. I would also include in this motion the community development department's recommendations as conditions of approval of the variance. I have a motion. Second. I have a motion to a second. All those in favor of motion, please state so by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? There is no opposed. Motion passes. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Appreciate it. Okay. Sure agenda this month. Sean, do you have anything for us? I am good, thank you very much. Okay, Mr. List. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Next month we will have four petitions. I think three, yes, we have three special exceptions of one variant, so look forward to seeing you guys in June. That's right, yes, thank you. Same here, we're adjourned, thank you.