03/10/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
March 10, 1988
Members present:
Otto Gans, Chairman
Alex Plisko, Vice Chairman
Mary Lou Dobbs
Kemper Merriam
John Homer
Also present:
Tom Chaplinsky, Building Official John Richter, Planning Official
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room in City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised that anyone adversely affected by any
decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two (2) weeks. He noted that Florida law requires any applicant appealing
a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal.
*In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.*
ITEM (request for time extension) Joyce Weiss for variances 1) of 7.9% building coverage to permit 49.9%, 2) of 10 ft to permit structure zero ft from rear property line, 3) of 3.7
ft to permit construction on 46.3 ft wide lot, and 4) of 1110.8 sq ft to permit construction on 3889.2 sq ft lot, at 607 Lime Ave, A.C. Turner's #3, Blk 13, part of Lots 2 & 3, zoned
RM 12 (multiple family residential).
The applicant submitted a letter requesting a 6 month time extension in which to obtain the building permit.
Mr. Merriam moved to *deny* the extension of time in which to obtain the building permit. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Plisko, Merriam, Homer
and Gans voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request for time extension *denied*.
ITEM (continued from 2/25/88) David Morritt for variances 1) of 10 ft to permit building zero ft from side property line, 2) of 7.3% to permit 7.7% open space for lot, 3) of 3.8%
interior landscaping to permit 2.2% interior landscaping for parking lot, and, 4) of 22% front yard open space to provide 28%, at 2009 Gulf to Bay, Midway Sub, Lots 1 12, zoned CG (general
commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail. The item was continued in order to have a clearer picture with regard to the open space.
Steve Fowler, architect representing the applicant, submitted a recent survey and stated there is approximately 8,000 square feet of open space behind the fence which currently serves
as a playground for the day care center. The renovation of the property will eliminate the four existing drives and put in a new one further from the intersection. They have attempted
to add as much landscaping to the parking area as possible, but without the variances, they will be unable to upgrade the parking lot as they cannot meet existing codes.
There was some discussion by the Board as to whether there was a visibility problem regarding the proposed new building which is the subject of variance #1 and the consensus was there
is no problem with visibility.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to *grant* variance #1 as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval as
listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, and it is the minimum necessary
to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being
taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Mr. Homer voted "Aye;" Messrs. Plisko, Merriam, and Gans voted "Nay." Motion *failed*.
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Plisko moved to *deny* variance #1 as requested because no unnecessary hardship was shown. The motion
was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Plisko, Merriam, and Gans voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs and Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion
carried. Request *denied*.
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Plisko moved to *deny* variance #2 as requested because there is no condition which is unique to the
property, and no unnecessary hardship was shown and the hardship was caused by the owner. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam moved to *grant* variance #3 as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that the rear parking lot will
contain 6% landscaping and the front parking area will be as per the plan submitted and that a building permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously. Request *granted.*
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to *grant* variance #4 as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval as
listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, and it is the minimum necessary
to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Request *granted.*
ITEM #1 School Board of Pinellas County for variances 1) of 220 ft to permit antenna 280 ft in height, 2) of 2 ft to permit 8 ft high fence, and 3) to allow zero screening around
a utility substation, at 1360 Sandy Lane, Sec 3 29 15, M&B 41.01, zoned P/SP (public/semi public).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the recently erected tower does not meet Code.
The Building Official stated no building permit is required if the tower is for the exclusive use of the School Board but because it will be used by Cellular One, a permit is required.
The tower will belong to the School Board in ten years.
Harry Bruns, representing the applicant, stated the problem arose because of a good faith miscommunication. The tower will be used by the School Board and other governmental agencies
in addition to Cellular One. The plans were reviewed and approved by the School Board. A stop work order was issued by the City after the base was poured but before the tower was erected.
As a result of this, they were instructed to get a permit. After the permit was issued, they proceeded to construct the tower and were unaware of the requirement to meet the zoning code.
The tower must be 280 feet high to serve the purposes for which it is intended and Cellular One is willing to provide landscaping at the base. The School Board requires the 8 foot fence
for the safety of children at the school. A letter was submitted which indicates some of the confusion.
David Helms of Cellular One stated all three parties using the tower have 24 hour operations. In response to a question, he stated Cellular One is a mobile telephone communications
business. The tower is to be used by both public and private parties and Cellular One will maintain the structure but not the equipment.
Joe Feraca, Chief of Campus Police for the School Board, stated there are two other towers comprising part of this system and the tower is needed to improve inadequacies.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mrs. Dobbs moved to *grant* the variances as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, the situation is unique to the School Board, and they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and was not
caused by the applicant, subject to the condition that some landscaping be provided around the base level of the tower and building and that a building permit be obtained within *30
days* from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Plisko, Merriam, and Gans voted "Aye;" Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Request *granted.*
ITEM #2 Religious Community Services for a variance of 7400 sq ft in lot area to permit 20 residents in a Level III group care facility with a lot area of 19,600 sq ft, at 1403 N
Ft Harrison Ave, Twin Oaks Sub, Lots 4 & 5 and part of Lot 3 and W > of vacated alley on East AND Enghurst Addn to Clearwater, part of Lot 1, zoned CN (neighborhood commercial).
Mr. Plisko stated he had a conflict of interest in this matter.!
The Planning Official explained the application in detail. There are three buildings on the site and they wish to increase the number of residents from 15 to 20. They previously had
received approval for 20 residents but have had no more than 15 up to now. The parking is adequate.
William Ott, architect representing the applicant, stated the facility has not changed since the original variance. They have been able to purchase an additional lot but there is no
more land available. In response to a question about the large tree, he stated he was unsure whether the tree could be saved but they would make every effort to do so.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to *grant* the variance as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval as
listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that a building permit be
obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously with Mr. Plisko abstaining. Request *granted.*
ITEM #3 Automanage, Inc for a variance of 78.4% permanent window signage to allow a maximum of 93.4% coverage (2 window areas 29 93.4% coverage) at 405 U.S. 19 N, Sec 08 29 16,
part of M&B 33.02, zoned CH (highway commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the property has been developed with two auto dealerships and the variance is to make existing window signage lawful.
Lee Haas, attorney representing the applicant, stated the smaller window signs cannot be seen from the street. The signage is being used to inform customers when they may obtain service
on their vehicles. The larger sign comprises only 29% of the overall window space, but because each panel is considered a separate window, the variance is larger. The dealership is set
back considerably from U.S. 19. He requested the Board consider permitting a smaller sign to convey a message regarding the hours of the service department.
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Merriam moved to *deny* the variance as requested because there is no condition which is unique to
the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, it is not a minimum variance, and it violates the general spirit and intent of this development code as per Section 134.003 and 134.004.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*.
ITEM #4 William Moran for variances 1) of 1 business identification sign to permit 2 such signs and 2) of 15 sq ft to permit a total of 30 sq ft of business
identification signage at 1390 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Knollwood Replat, Blk 2, Lots 19 & 20, zoned CG (general commercial).
A request was made to continue this item to the next meeting to permit readvertising of variances due to changes in the request.
Mr. Plisko moved to *continue* the item to the meeting of March 24, 1988. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #5 Lawrence Batts for a variance of 5 ft to permit a garage 30 ft from McCormick Dr ROW, at 2113 Centerview Ct S, Lake Chautauqua Estates, Lot 12, zoned RS 2 (single family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail. The request is to permit construction of detached garage.
Lawrence Batts stated his deed restrictions do not allow recreational vehicles to be parked out in the open. He recently purchased a 25 foot long van and wishes to construct a garage
to house the recreational van.
Two letters of support were submitted for the record.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to *grant* the variance as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained
within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.*
ITEM #6 Florida Power Corp for variances 1) of 15 ft to permit building addition 5 ft from a street ROW, 2) of 30 ft to permit two 80 ft high lightning masts, 3) of 1 parking space
to provide zero parking spaces on site, and 4) of 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining a street ROW where property is not addressed, at 625 N Greenwood Ave, New
Country Club Addn, part of Blk D, zoned IL (limited industrial).
The Planning Official explained the application and explained it is to enlarge an electrical sub station building and expand the facilities. The Building Director will have to approve
the barbed wire which is proposed to be placed on top of the fence.
Victoria Kelly, representing the applicant, stated there has been an increased demand for electric service in this area. The present sub station was built in 1948 and is located on
1.4 acres. Florida Power now requires sites to be over two acres. The control house is to be expanded. The lightning masts are similar to flagpoles, being approximately 1 < foot at the
base and 9 inches at the top. It is an unmanned station and a technician will come to the station approximately once a week. The fence is for safety of the public and protection of the
equipment. If they are required to move the fence back, there will not be enough room to maneuver their larger trucks.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to *grant* the variances as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and they are the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that a building permit be
obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.*
ITEM #7 Skycrest Baptist Church for a variance of 96.4 sq ft to permit a 144.4 sq ft property identification sign, at 125 Belcher Rd N. Sec 18 29 16, M&B 22.05, zoned P/SP (public/semi public).
John Mullens, associate pastor of the church, stated they moved the existing sign to the new location and were notified the sign required a permit. The cross at the top of the sign
is included in the square footage and is part of the reason for the large variance.
One letter of support was submitted for the record.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to *grant* the variance as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship based on the design of the sign and subject to the condition
that the signs as proposed by the applicant shall be the only ones on the site and that a sign permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Request *granted.*
The Board recessed from 2:50 p.m. to 2:58 p.m.
ITEM #8 Robert Cass for variances 1) of 59.9 sq ft to permit a 123.9 sq ft property identification sign, 2) of 3 ft to permit 23 ft high pole sign, 3) of 33.4 sq ft of business identification
signage to permit total of 48.4 sq ft, 4) of 2 business identification signs to permit 3 such signs, and 5) of 1 menu sign to permit 2 such signs, at 1824 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 13 29 15,
M&B 23.03, zoned CG (general commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated a gas station is being converted into a restaurant.
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated because of re location of the turn lane the building has to be set back further than originally planned. The entrance on Gulf to Bay
is as far from the intersection as possible. They plan to remove the existing pole sign and feel they need the additional height for visibility. Because of the increased building setback,
they feel they have a hardship which justifies a larger sign.
George Simon stated they have not closed on the property as of yet. All seating will be outside. The flow of traffic was redesigned to facilitate maneuvering larger vehicles.
One letter of opposition was submitted for the record.
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Plisko moved to *deny* variances #1 and #2 as requested because no unnecessary hardship was shown,
it is not a minimum variance, and it violates the general spirit and intent of this development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Requests *denied*.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mrs. Dobbs moved to *grant* variance #3 and #4 as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that a sign permit be obtained
within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded.
After some discussion, it was decided to withdraw the second and the motion.
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Plisko moved to *deny* variance #3 as requested because there is no condition which is unique to the
property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, and it violates the general spirit and intent of this development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to *grant* variances #4 and #5 as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and they are the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that a sign permit be obtained
within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.*
ITEM #9 International Systems and Technology, Inc and Milton Jones for a variance of 3 ft to provide zero landscaped buffer between parking area and adjoining property, at 612 Franklin
St, Magnolia Park, Blk 7, Lots 13 & 14 and part of Lots 12 & 15, zoned UC(c) (urban center core).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.
Robert Snibbe, representing the applicant, stated the building is approximately 35 years old. They propose to operate a child care facility. They have a contract to purchase an additional
35 foot wide parcel for parking. In response to a question, he stated there is sufficient green space to meet HRS requirements.
Discussion ensued regarding traffic flow.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mrs. Dobbs moved to *grant* the variance as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition a building permit be obtained
within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.*
ITEM #10 Julian Weiss and William Carroza for a variance of 7 parking spaces to provide zero additional parking spaces, at 1740 N Ft Harrison Ave, North Shore Park, Blk 5, part of
Lot 1, zoned CN (neighborhood commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the variances are necessary due to the conversion of a single family dwelling to an office building.
Charlene Weiss stated they purchased the property and were informed of the parking space requirements when they applied for the occupational license. There are two employees. The applicant
operates an electrical contracting business.
Discussion ensued regarding what parking could be provided. It was decided the applicant should try to develop a proposed parking plan for the property.
Mr. Plisko moved to *continue* this item to the meeting of April 14, 1988. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #11 Clearwater Housing Authority for a variance of 11 parking spaces to provide zero additional parking spaces for creation of 7 additional housing units, at 55 C & D, 103 C
& D, 50 K & L, 2936 C & D Tanglewood Dr S, AND 2970 J & K, 151 O & P, 2971 C & D Sandlewood Dr S, Sec 17 29 16, M&B's 11.01 and 11.02, zoned RPD 8 (residential planned development).
Mr. Plisko stated he had a conflict of interest with regard to this matter.
Deborah Vincent, representing the applicant, stated there are approximately 319 parking spaces on the site and currently 278 units exist. They have a system requiring registration of
the tenants' cars and they currently have only 142 cars registered and authorized to park on the property. There is no room to add additional parking spaces with the exception of 10
spaces to be added later for staff parking.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to *grant* the variance as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval as
listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained
within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.*
ITEM #12 Fred Thomas for variances 1) of 5% open space for lot to provide 30% and 2) of 23.2% front yard open space to provide 16.8%, at 730 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 2, Lot
8, zoned RS 8 (single family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and pointed out a similar request for larger variances was denied and the applicant is now returning with a request for reduced
variances.
Donald Williams, representing the applicant, stated the house was built approximately 30 years ago and purchased by the applicant approximately 11 years ago. He obtained a permit to
renovate the house and thought the site work was included with this permit. There is approximately 600 square feet in the front yard. Curbing has been installed but without approval
of the variance, the house is landlocked.
Considerable discussion ensued regarding the overall open space for the lot.
One citizen spoke in opposition questioning whether the hardship was self imposed and asked the Board to grant the minimum only if they see fit to grant the variances.
The Planning Official stated the purpose of requiring green space is both for aesthetics and drainage.
Discussion ensued regarding the hardship and what condition was unique to the parcel involved. A suggestion was made to address the problem by having the signs along the street changed
from "No Parking" to "Guest Parking."
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mrs. Dobbs moved to *grant* variance #1 as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval as
listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken,
Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Merriam and Gans voted "Aye;" Messrs. Plisko and Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *granted.*
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to *grant* variance #2 as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval as
listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, it arises from a condition of the site which is unique, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship,
subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.*
MINUTES
Mr. Plisko moved to approve the minutes of February 25, 1988, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Chairman read a letter addressed to Mr. Homer with regard his nomination to the Downtown Development Board.
There was a brief discussion regarding excess copies in the packets and whether some of these could be eliminated.
The Planning Official showed slides of conforming signs in the City and stated the Code is working. In another four years, conformance to the Code should create an outstanding visual
appearance. He gave a brief status report regarding portable
signs.
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.