Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2008-087 Cambria Flex RESOLUTION NO. 2008-087 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DANIA BEACI1, FLORIDA, APPROVING TIIF REQUEST FOR ASSIGNMENT OF FLEX ACREAGE SUBMH I ED 13Y SCO I T BACKMAN, ESQUIRE REPRESENTING PROPERTY OWNER PETER J. LFFO, FROM CHAPTER 28, -ZONING", ARTICLE 30.20 INDUSI-RIAL RESEARCH OFFICE COMMERCIAL (IROC) ZONING FOR PROPERTY Gl?Nl�lRALLY LOCATED AI'1'ROXINIA'FELY 600 FI?l:TNOR"IH OF SKIRLING ROAD ON SW 19... AVENUE AND APPROXIMATELY 530 FEET WEST OF IN11:16TATE 95, IN THE CITY OF DANIA BEACH: PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS. FURTI IER, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVI: DATE. WHEREAS, the Dania Beach Code of Ordinances. Chapter 28, "Zoning'. Article 3030 permits hotels in the Industrial Research Office Commercial Zoning District, for the City of Dania Beach subject to the provisions of the City's Future Land Use Flement; and WHEREAS,the Dania Beach Future I.and Use Plan allows hotel, motel and similar uses on property with an Industrial Land Use designation provided the total area ofthe use does not consume more than twenty percent (20%) of the industrial land designated on the Future Broward County Land Use flan Map within a llexibilit} zone; and WHEREAS. Scott Backman. Esquire representing Peter J. Leto, has applied for the assignment of 2.34 acres of' industrial to commercial land use flex (LUF-78-07) to allow the construction ofa hotel on property kith an Industrial Land Use designation, for property gencrall} located approximatcl} 600 feet north of Stirling Road on SW 19"' Avenue and approximatclV 530 feet west of Interstate 95, Dania Beach; and WHEREAS, the Planning K Zoning Board on May 21, 2008, recommended that the Cite Commission grant the Land Use Flex request for LUF-78-07: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE, CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DANIA BEACH, FLORIDA: Section 1. That that certain application LUF-78-07, for the assignment of 2.34 acres of commercial flex, a copy of which application is attached and made a part of this Resolution as Exhibit "A", is approved. Section 2. That all resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict with this Resolution are repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in force and take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption, PASSED AND ADOPTED on June 10, 2008. 144-- C �-- ALBERT C. JONESfl o�p�Is F� r AYOR—COMMIS ONER ATTEST: eP CfA LOUISE STILSON, CMC CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FO AND CORRECTNESS: BY: �1 , A THQMAS Y. A SB CITY AT O EY 2 RESOLUTION #2008-087 City of Dania Beach, Florida Department of Community Development Planning and Zoning Division (954) 924-3645 Phone www.daniabeachfl.gov General Development Application ❑ Administrative Variance ■ Assignment of Flex/Reserve Units ❑ Land Use Amendment ❑ Platy; ■ Plat Delegation Request t} l Rezoning Date Rec'd: ■ Site Plan p Petition No.: Li Spacial Exception jr 1 �')l18 ❑ Traf icway Waiver ■ Variance zt � 'tea i ❑ Roadway Vacation I ❑ Extended Flours ❑ Other: THIS APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNTIL IT IS COMPLETE AND SUBMITTED WITH ALL NECESARRY DOCUMENTS. Refer to the application type at the top of this form and "Required Documentation"checklist to determine the supplemental documents required with each application. For after the fact applications, the responsible contractor of record shall be present at the board hearing. Their failure to attend may impact upon the disposition of your application. As always, the applicant or their authorized legal agent must be present at all meetings. All projects must also obtain a building permit from the City's Building Department. Location Address: NIA Lot(s): N/A Block: NA Subdivision: N'A Recorded Plat Name: Leto Park Plat Folio Number(s): 5042 3337 D010 Legal Description: See Attached Exhibit^A" Applicant/Consultan egal Representative circle one) Scott Backman. Eso. Address of Applicant: 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 801, Boca Raton, FL 33486 Business Telephone: (561)237-1537 Home: NIA Fax: (5er) 544-BBSB Name of Property Owner: Peter J. Leto, Sr. Address of Property Owner: 6171 Shadow Tree Lane. Lake Worth FL 33463 Business Telephone: NIA Home: NIA Fax: NIA Explanation of Request: See attached ✓anance Justification Statement For Plats please provide proposed Plat Aarne for VarianCes please atiach Criteria Statement as per Article 10.13 of Chapter ZB, Zoning Code. Prop. Net Acreage: Gross Acreage: 2.34 acres Prop. Square Footage: 85 970 so ft Existing Use: vacant Proposed Use: 5-Story, 140 Room Hotel s property owned individually, by a corporation, or a joint venture? Individually I unde t/ site plan and variance approval automatically expires within 12 mon o mmission approval, pursuant ``to Ordinance No. 2005-040. icant/Owner signature Print Name Date APPLICANT, CONSULTANT, OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE NOTARIZED SIGNATURE Sworn to and subscribed before me Applicant/Consultant/Representative: This_ day of 20— Signature: Date: Scott Backman, Esq. Sign Name of Notary Public (Print Name) State of ( ) 5355 Town Center Road. Suite 801, Boca Raton, FL 33436 Print Name of Notary Street Address, City, State and Zip Code Commission Expires: (561)237-1537 & (561) 544-8868 Seal: Telephone No. & Fax No. INDIVIDUAL OWNER NOTARIZED SIGNATURE: This is to certify that I am the fee simple owner of subject lands described above and that I have make and file(Applicant/Consultant/Representative) aforesaid application. Sworn to and subscribed before me Owner: This _day of 20_ Signature: Date: Sign Name of Notary Public (Print Name) State of( ) Print Name of Notary Street Address, City, State and Zip Code Commission Expires: Seal: Telephone No. &. Fax No. Statement of Interest in property and Authorization to File Petitions Peter J. Leto certifies that he is the Owner of the subject property and authorizes SIEGEL. LIPNLAN, DL'NAY, SHEPARD, & MiSKEL, LLP to submit petitions to the City of Dania Beach and Broward County for site plan, plat note amendment, variance, and flex allocation. This authorization includes all related site plan and permitting considerations. 1 G'. I Srjli LZ- c Nr Peter J. Leto ,r Signature: Printed Name: I` �'!e I Address: Phone: /y 9-7�7 k ell 9sy)�yq-7�,Z11 State of Florida county ofai� PW The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _day of 2007, Pe r Leto, an ndividual, who is _ personally knov'-n to me or who has produced j tam ytas identification and who did take an oath. GNQTARY PU/BL�InC: RAVE GAFiER Sign: . N�rp61M1551ph P DD 40g494 0 f oDD9 Print: �/nn'r7e •d'Nu 9utlg My Commission Expires: Attachment "A" Legal Description The north half of the following described parcel all that portion of tract "A" of Leto Park as recorded in the Plat Book IIB, page 39, Broward County, Florida. SIEGEL, LIPM.AN, Dl1NAY, SHEPARD & MISKEL, LLP GARY S. DUNAY THE PLAZA • SUITE BOI IS61) 365-7700 KENNETH W. LIPMAN 5355 TOWN CENTER ROAD FAX: (551) 365-9274 BONNIE MISKEL BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 334B6 VJWW.SLDSM LAW.CO M JONATHAN L. SHEPARD - CARL E. SIEGEL .r �E[ �� 739 SCOTT BACKMAN LINDA S. LYMAN VAR I 1 20H Nanning Department VARIANCE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT DZHM Investments, LLC ("Petitioner") is proposing to develop a 120 room 5- story Cambria Suites Hotel on the northern portion of the Leto Park Plat within the City of Dania Beach, Florida ("Property"). The Property is generally located on the north side of Stirling Road approximately '/4 mile northwest of the I-95 / Stirling Road exit. The Property is zoned IROC — Industrial Residential Office & Commercial District, which permits the proposed hotel use. The Property is currently undeveloped and has access to Stirling Road via S.W. 19' Court, a currently unimproved right-of-way that will be constructed in connection with the development of the proposed hotel. In association with the proposed development of the Property, Petitioner is requesting the following variance from the City of Dania Beach Zoning Code ("Code"). Variance from Chapter 28, Article 6.22 of the Code to permit a total of 1 loading berth where the Code requires 4 loading berths (the "Loading Berth Variance"); As discussed in greater detail below, the above variance request complies with the City's variance review criteria. In particular, Petitioner will demonstrate that: (a) special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land; (b) the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the petitioner; (c) the granting of the variance will not confer on the petitioner any special privileges; (d) the literal interpretation would deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the IROC zoning district; (e) the variance is the minimum variance that would make wi th th reasonable use of the land, and (f) the granting of the varianc e would be in harmony wi the intent of the land development regulations. (a) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the Property and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the Property and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. In this case, Petitioner is requesting a variance to reduce the required number of loading berth spaces for the proposed hotel by 3 spaces. The Loading Berth Variance is necessitated by the fact that the Code requires loading spaces based on a building's square footage regardless of the nature of the use. For example, industrial, office and retail uses are lumped into a single category for determining the number of required loading berth spaces, while it is clear that an industrial warehouse use would require significantly more loading area than a small or passive commercial use or, in this case, a hotel. The Code actually acknowledges that certain uses may not require loading areas where it explains that loading berths are required for commercial, retail or industrial use or other uses similarly requiring the receipt or distribution by vehicles of materials or merchandise. The proposed hotel does not require the typical number of loading spaces required for other commercial and retail uses. In fact, the loading area being provided under the front entry canopy is more than sufficient to support the proposed hotel. In particular, the proposed hotel handles all laundry on-site and the accessory restaurant only serves light food items that are generally brought in by hotel staff or an occasional small box truck delivery. Additional loading areas for the proposed hotel would serve absolutely no purpose and should be waived by the City. (b) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of Petitioner. Indeed, the loading berth requirements as established by Chapter 28, Article 6 of the Code do not differentiate between the various commercial/retail, office and industrial uses that typically require loading areas. As noted above, the hotel will not generate nearly the same demand for loading spaces that other uses generally require. (c) Granting the variance requested will not confer on Petitioner any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, buildings or structures in this same zoning district. Granting the Loading Berth Variance will not confer any special privileges on Petitioner that are typically denied to others within the same zoning district. As noted above, the Code actually takes into some consideration the fact that not all uses require loading areas. In addition, the City has previously granted variances from loading berth requirements for other hotels, thereby acknowledging the excessive nature of this requirement as applied to a hotel use. Indeed, it is Petitioner's understanding that the City is currently in the process of modifying the Code accordingly. (d) Literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive Petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on Petitioner. Literal interpretation of the Code would deprive Petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on Petitioner. The Code section requiring loading berth spaces for proposed uses within the City actually provides some minor flexibility for uses such as the proposed hotel, which does not require the typical loading areas of other commercial, retail and industrial uses. Requiring the additional loading berth spaces would force Petitioner to identify and construct unnecessary pervious area on the Property in lieu of providing additional green space and other environmentally friendly features that will benefit the City. Petitioner and future guests of the proposed hotel. (e) The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the Property. The proposed Loading Berth Variance is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the Property. Additional loading spaces would serve no purpose for the proposed hotel and would simply sit unutilized on a daily basis. Petitioner has provided a loading area immediately adjacent to the front entrance of the hotel, which will be utilized by hotel guests and the occasional box truck delivering goods and supplies for the ancillary restaurant and snack shop proposed for the hotel lobby. (0 Granting the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, and such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Granting the Loading Berth Variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Code and will not be injurious to the City or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Indeed, Petitioner is proposing a Cambria Suites Hotel, which will provide another upscale hotel chain for the City that will appeal to business travelers and tourists alike. The Property has been designed to accommodate the basic intent of the loading berth requirement by providing the loading area under the main entry canopy for the purposes of hotel guest registration and small food deliveries for the restaurant. SIEGEL, LIPMAN, BUN.AY, SHEPARD & MISKEL, LLP GARY S. DU NAY THE PLAZA - SUITE 80) (551) 365-7700 KEN NETH W. LIPMAN 5355 TOWN CENTER ROAD FAX: (Se I) 355-9274 BONNIE MISKEL BDCA RATDN, FLORIDA 33485 WNNd SLDSMLAW.COM JONATHAN L. SHEPARD CARL E. SIEGEL ,z.,...,....:.�.�.,,,.. _ I J K7 SCOTT BACKMAN --- R-�F LINDA B. LYMAN t Jr114i j i7 1D8 Cambria Suites t Use Statement L._,..,,...�. .., _ DZHM Investments, LLC ("Petitioner") is proposing to develop a 140 room 5-story Cambria Suites Hotel on the northern portion of the Leto Park Plat within the City of Dania Beach, Florida ("Property"). The Property is generally located on the north side of Stirling Road approximately '/4 mile northwest of the 1-95 1 Stirling Road exit. The Property is zoned IROC — Industrial Residential Office & Commercial District, which permits the proposed hotel use. The Property is currently undeveloped and has access to Stirling Road via S.W. 19'h Court, a currently unimproved right-of-way that will be constructed in connection with the development of the proposed hotel. In association with the proposed development of the Property, Petitioner is requesting a plat delegation request to add the following language to the Leto Park Plat as recorded in Plat Book 118, page 39: The northern 334.02 feet of the plat (further described as the north half of the following described parcel all that portion of Tract "A" of Leto Park as recorded in the Plat Book 118, page 39, Broward County, Florida) is restricted to a 140 room hotel. SIEGEL, LIPMAN, DUNAY, SHEPARD IS MISKEL, LLP GARY S. DUNAY THE PLAZA • SUITE SO 1551) 36e-7700 KENNETH W. LIPMAN 5355 TOWN CENTER ROAD FAX'. (561) 365-9274 BONNIE MISKEL BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33485 yNVWSLDSMLAW.COM JONATHAN L. SHEPARD CARL E. SIEGEL SCOT BACKMAN i. LINDA B. LYMAN 7 /HUB VARIANCE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT DZHM investments, LLC ("Petitioner") is proposing to develop a 14D room 5- story Cambria Suites Hotel on the northern portion of the Leto Park Plat within the City of Dania Beach, Florida ("Property"). The Property is generally located on the north side of Stirling Road approximately '/4 mile northwest of the 1-95 / Stirling Road exit. The Property is zoned IROC — Industrial Residential Office & Commercial District, which permits the proposed hotel use. The Property is currently undeveloped and has access to Stirling Road via S.W. 19' Court, a currently unimproved right-of-way that will be constructed in connection with the development of the proposed hotel. In association with the proposed development of the Property, Petitioner is requesting the following variances from the City of Dania Beach Zoning Code ("Code"): 1. Variance from Chapter 28, Article 6.20 of the Code to permit a total of 166 parking spaces where the Code requires 171 parking spaces (the "Parking Variance"); 2. Variance from Chapter 28, Articles 29.10 and 30.60 of the Code to permit the maximum impervious area for the Property to exceed 70% by 4.3% for a total impervious area equal to 74.3% (the "Impervious Area Variance"); 3. Variance from Chapter 28, Article 28.140 of the Code to permit a pole sign for the Property 75-feet in height with 75 square foot sign area where the Code restricts pole signs from exceeding 50-feet in height with a 48 square foot sign area (the "Pole Sign Variance"). As discussed in greater detail below, each of the above variance requests comply with the City's variance review criteria. In particular, Petitioner will demonstrate that: (a) special conditions and circumstances exist which are i fliar to the land; (b) the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the petitioner; (c) the granting of the variance will not confer on the petitioner any special privileges; (d) the literal interpretation would deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the IROC zoning district; (e) the variance is the minimum variance that would make reasonable use of the land; and (f) the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the intent of the land development regulations. Parking Variance - Variance from Chapter 28, Articie 6.20 of the Code to permit a total of 166 parking spaces where the Code requires 171 parking spaces. (a) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the Property and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the Property and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. In this case, Petitioner is requesting a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces for the proposed hotel by 5 parking spaces. The Parking Variance is necessitated by the fact that the proposed hotel will offer its customers an on-site restaurant, which on its own requires 17 parking spaces regardless of the fact that the restaurant and bar will be used primarily by hotel patrons. As such, the overwhelming majority of restaurant customers will not require additional parking. In addition, considering the hotel's proximity to the International Airport and 1-95, Petitioner is proposing a hotel shuttle service that will transport hotel patrons to and from the airport. This shuttle service will significantly reduce the need for the additional parking spaces required for the hotel and restaurant well beyond the 5 space reduction requested. (b) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of Petitioner. Indeed, the parking requirements as established by Chapter 28, Article 6 of the Code require Petitioner to account for patrons of the hotel and restaurant separately despite the fact that the majority of the restaurants business will come from individuals staying at the hotel. As a result, the restaurant in the hotel will not generate nearly the same demand for parking as a stand-alone restaurant. (c) Granting the variance requested will not confer on Petitioner any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, buildings or structures in this same zoning district. Granting the Parking Variance will not confer any special privileges on Petitioner that are typically denied to others within the same zoning district. This situation is similar to other airport hotels located within the City that provide an on-site restaurant and airport shuttle service. Indeed, because Petitioner is providing parking for both the proposed hotel and the on-site restaurant, there will be more than enough parking to accommodate patrons of both uses, including the possibility of restaurant customers not staying at the hotel. In addition, the proposed airport shuttle will further relieve the parking demands for this hotel, thus creating a surplus of parking spaces more than satisfactory to accommodate the proposed use of the Property. (d) Literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive Petitioner of tights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on Petitioner. Literal interpretation of the Code would deprive Petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on Petitioner. If the required parking requirements are enforced, Petitioner could not offer the full service options typical of the upscale Cambria Suites chain of hotels. In particular, the restaurant component is an essential component to the quality service offered by Cambria Suites, as these hotels provide breakfast, lunch, dinner and snack options to its patrons throughout the day. The restaurant will be primarily utilized by the patrons of the hotel, and therefore, the 17 parking spaces required for the restaurant may not be necessary. In addition, the proposed airport shuttle will further relieve any parking concerns associated with the proposed hotel. Considering the services offered by the proposed hotel, attention should be given to the collocation of services in making a final determination on the Parking Variance. (e) The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the Property. The proposed Parking Variance is only for 5 parking spaces, which is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the Property. Petitioner has designed the site plan in order to maximize the number of parking spaces for the proposed hotel and Petitioner is only asking for the Parking Variance, which will allow enough spaces to provide sufficient capacity for hotel patrons in the restaurant. (0 Granting the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, and such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or othenNise detrimental to the public welfare. Granting the Parking Variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Code and will not be injurious to the City or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Indeed, Petitioner is proposing a Cambria Suites Hotel, which will provide another upscale hotel chain for the City that will appeal to business travelers and tourists alike. The services offered in connection with the proposed hotel will actually create a surplus of parking, thus justifying the approval of the Parking Variance. Impervious Area Variance - Variance from Chapter 28, Articles 29.10 and 30.60 of the Code to permit the maximum impervious area for the Property to exceed 70% by 4.3% for a total impervious area equal to 74.3%. (a) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the Property and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district; The City requires a maximum of 70% impervious area for developed sites. Petitioner is requesting a 4.3% variance above that requirement in order to accommodate the City's other development regulations for the proposed hotel on the Property. In addition, Petitioner understands that the City is currently considering a Code amendment that will reduce the impervious area requirement from 70% to 75%. Regardless of the impervious Area Variance request, Petitioner will meet all drainage requirements for the Property, which will prevent stormwater runoff from negatively impacting adjacent properties. (b) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of Petitioner; Many of the City's land development requirements negatively impact the amount of pervious area on a property. Petitioner's site plan complies with each of these requirements, resulting in the Impervious Area Variance request to increase the proposed impervious area by 4.3%. (c) Granting the variance requested will not confer on Petitioner any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, buildings or structures in this same zoning district,- Granting the Impervious Area Variance will not confer on Petitioner any special privileges that are denied to other properties in the same zoning district. As noted above, Petitioner understands that the City has recognized the excessive nature of this requirement and is in the process of modifying the Code accordingly. Petitioner requires this variance in order to meet other land development regulations imposed on the Property by the City. (d) Literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprve Petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on Petitioner, The literal interpretation of this provision would potentially cause Petitioner to request other variances in place of meeting this requirement. Petitioner's plans have adequately addressed stormwater and drainage requirements with the 4.3% increase, leaving additional area on the Property to accommodate parking and other required development regulations. (a) The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the Property; The proposed Impervious Area Variance is the minimum variance that will make reasonable use of the Property. Petitioner understands that the City is preparing to amend the Code requirement for maximum impervious area. Upon adoption, Petitioner will satisfy the new 75% requirement. The 4.3% increase requested by the Impervious Area Variance will allow Petitioner to make reasonable use of the Property. (f) Granting the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, and such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Granting the Impervious Area Variance will be in harmony with the purpose of the City's land development regulations. The increase of impervious area will not negatively impact adjacent properties. As previously mentioned the Property has been designed to accommodate the basic intent of the impervious area requirement for managing its own stormwater and drainage issues. Pole Sign Variance - Variance from Chapter 28, Article 28.140 of the Code to permit a pole sign for the Property 75-feet in height with 75 square foot sign area where the Code restricts pole signs from exceeding 50-feet in height with a 48 square foot sign area. (a) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the Property and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district; Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the Property and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. As noted above, the Property is located on the north side of Stirling Road approximately Y4 mile northwest of the 1-95 / Stirling Road exit. The vast majority of patrons staying at the hotel are projected as business travelers and tourists visiting South Florida, most of whom will be unfamiliar with South Florida geography and travelling to the Property by way of 1-95. In order for the proposed hotel to operate effectively, potential patrons must know where the hotel is located. The Property's zoning designation specifically permits the proposed hotel along with a 50-foot high sign pole. However, Petitioner has determined that the proposed Pole Sign Variance would allow the hotel to have sufficient visibility from both northbound and southbound 1-95. (b) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of Petitioner; The special conditions and circumstances noted above do not result from the actions of Petitioner. In particular, the lack of visibility associated with the Property is the result of the urban sprawl impacting South Florida, which has resulted in several developed properties located between 1-95 and the Property. (c) Granting the variance requested will not confer on Petitioner any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, buildings or structures in this same zoning district; Granting the Pole Sign Variance would not confer on Petitioner any special privilege that is denied to other properties within the IROC zoning district. indeed, the proposed hotel is permitted to erect a pole sign under the existing zoning regulations just as any other property within the IROC district that meets the minimum requirements. Petitioner is simply requesting the Pole Sign Variance in order to provide greater visibility for the hotel considering the location of the Property in relation to 1-95 and Stirling Road. The Variance would not be necessary if the Property was located (d) Literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive Petitioner of right's commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on Petitioner, Literal interpretation of the Code would deprive Petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on Petitioner. In particular, because the Property is not immediately adjacent to 1-95 or Stirling Road like many other hotels in the City, existing and potential customers would likely have a difficult time making their way to the hotel from the airport. Without the Pole Sign Variance on the Property, the proposed hotel would lose significant visibility from 1-95, which would ultimately impact business operations for the hotel. (e) The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; The Pole Sign Variance is the minimum variance that will allow Petitioner to make reasonable use of the Property. As noted above, Petitioner is permitted to erect a 50- foot pole sign in connection with the development of the proposed hotel. Through the Pole Sign Variance, Petitioner is simply seeking enough height in order to achieve the necessary visibility for the proposed hotel. (r) Granting the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, and such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Granting the Pole Sign Variance would not be injurious to the surrounding properties or to the public welfare. Indeed, the Pole Sign Variance will simply permit the propcsed hotel sufficient visibility from 1-95 to allow hotel patrons to find the Propery. This request is consistent with several of the other hotels approved in the City along this corridor. In addition, approval of the Pole Sign Variance will further serve to promote the City as a business and tourist destination.