06/09/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
June 9, 1988
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Otto Gans, Vice Chairman
Mary Lou Dobbs (arrived 1:07 p.m.)
Kemper Merriam
John Homer
Also present:
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) Clearwater Housing Authority for a variance of 75 sq ft to permit triplex units with 475 sq ft habitable floor area (7 units), at 55 C & D, 103 C
& D, 50 K & L, 2936 C & D Tanglewood Dr S, AND
2970 C & D, 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).!
The applicant wrote a letter requesting a time extension to October 11, 1988 in which to obtain the building permit.!
Mr. Homer moved to *grant* a time extension in which to obtain the building permit to October 11, 1988. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.!
ITEM A (continued from 5/26/88) Morton Plant Hospital and Metco Real Estate and Insurance Co for a variance of 92.37 sq ft to permit 132.37 sq ft of building
identification signage, at 1220 S Ft Harrison Ave, bounded in part by Jeffords St, Ft Harrison Ave, Druid Rd, and the Clearwater/Belleair City limits, Bluff View Court, Lots 1 3, 7 15,
17, 19 21, 26 36, and parts of Lots 16, 18 &
25; Reynolds Sub, Lot 9; Westover Sub, Blk A, Lots 1 22; Sec 21 29 15, M&B's 12.04, 12.05, 12.06, 12.07, 12.09,
12.10, 12.11, 12.12, 12.13, 12.14, 12.14A & 12.15 AND
vacated part of Sadler St, zoned P/SP (public/semi=public).
This request was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.!
ITEM B (continued from 5/26/88) City of Clearwater for a variance of 35 ft to permit a parking attendant booth zero ft from a street ROW in OS/R zoned portion of the property (Rockaway
Street), in the SW corner of the parking lot adjacent to Rockaway St, Clearwater Beach Revised, Clearwater City Park, zoned (open space/recreation) and P/SP (public/semi public).
The Planning Official explained the application . !
Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineer, stated the City has cut approximately 3 feet off the parking island. There is a double yellow line on the street to insure that cars are in the proper
lane for ingress and egress to the parking lot. The lot is losing money but is maintained in order to help the Police with some of the problems they have. Granting the variance will
allow the City to save approximately $15,000 a year as they will need only three people to cover the parking lots on Clearwater Beach rather than the four they currently have. !
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 arises from a condition which is unique to the property, subject to the condition that the eastern island be extended
and the western island shortened so a vehicle which has completed a 90 degree turn will be
clear of the parking row, and that a building permit be obtained within *30 days* from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.* !
ITEM C (continued from 5/26/88) Linda Gantz for a variance of 4.91% open space for lot to allow 40.09% open space, at 3068 Ashland Terrace, Ashland Heights, Lot 9, zoned RS 6 (single
family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application and stated the item was continued from the meeting of May 26, 1988 to allow the applicant an opportunity to minimize the variance being
requested.!
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated the applicant has been able to decrease the request by 248 square feet and is, therefore, asking for a 2.88% variance rather than the
4.91% variance originally requested. !
Six letters of support were submitted for the record.!
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to *grant* a variance of *2.88%* (352 square feet) 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 *30 days* from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.* !
ITEM #1 William Jolliff for a variance of 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining a street right of way where property is not addressed, at 1945 Hastings Lane,
Willow Ridge Replat, Lot 127, zoned RS 8 (single family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application.!
William Jolliff stated Sunset Pt. Road is a very heavily travelled street and his home is right across the street from an ambulance company. He has had people come into his backyard
through the landscaping and he desires to erect the fence to cut down on noise and to eliminate people coming into his yard. The fence will be placed so the existing landscaping is outside
the fence. !
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam 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, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property due to the particular physical surroundings, and it is the minimum
necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that a fence permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote
being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Merriam, Homer, and Plisko voted "Aye;" Mr. Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *granted.* !
ITEM #2 Gulf Bay Venture and MDC Associates 81 A, Ltd for variances of 1) one property identification sign to permit two such signs, and 2) 88.6 sq ft to permit 152.6 sq ft property
identification sign, at The Promenade, 310 330 Park Place Blvd and Park Place, 311 Park Place Blvd, Sec 17 29 16, M&B's 21.00, 23.01, 23.02, 23.10, 23.11,
24.05, zoned CC (commercial center), CG (general
commercial), OG (general office), and AL/I (aquatic lands interior).
The Planning Official explained the application and stated the request involves a second property identification sign to be placed to the west of the median in the entrance road.!
Greg Deal, property manager for the owner, stated Park Place is just under 100 acres and further development is on hold because of a soft market. The drive going through Park Place
is private but when it extends to Drew St. it will be given to the City for right of way. There are large trees on the out parcels which limit the visibility of the retail area. They
wish to erect a 153 square foot sign on the CG zoned western out parcel. The CC zoning permits a 156 square foot sign but this would require the sign be erected in the median where the
present smaller sign is located. They propose to erect the new sign approximately 200 feet west of the median. Current plans are to plat the out parcels and sell them with the exception
of 50 feet on either side of the drive. They feel the existing sign and proposed sign will satisfy their present and future needs on S.R. 60. The present sign will be changed to read
"Park Place" and the word "Promenade" be removed. He pointed out they are permitted a 196 square foot sign at such time as they have over 200,000 square feet developed. !
There was some question as to whether the hardship was created by the applicant since the project was designed so it would not be visible from S.R. 60. !
The Planning Official stated if a sign is over 150 square feet, the allowable height increases to 24 feet. In response to a request for his opinion, the Planning Official stated he
was unsure as to whether the applicant had exhausted all possibilities for placing the sign in the median where the proposed size is permitted.!
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, they arise from a condition which is unique to the development of the property and was not caused by the applicant, and
they are the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that the variance is granted only through October, 1992, and that a sign permit be obtained
within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Homer and Plisko voted "Aye;" Messrs. Gans and Merriam voted "Nay."
Request *granted*.!
ITEM #3 Albert & Mary Rogero for variances of 1) 5 ft to permit a 5 ft rear setback, 2) 8 ft to permit a 2 ft side setback, 3) 50 ft to permit construction on a 50 ft wide lot, 4)
25 ft to permit construction on 75 ft deep lot, 5) 6250 sq ft to permit construction on 3750 sq ft lot, 6) 42 inches to permit 72 inch high fence in setback area adjoining a street right of way
where property is addressed, and 7) 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining a street right of way where property is not addressed, at 1150 Gould St, R.H. Padgett's,
part of Lot 13, zoned CG (general commercial).
Mr. Plisko stated he had a conflict of interest with regard to this item.!
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated similar variances were requested and granted on the property previously. After the variances were granted, the City
requested additional street right of way and the applicant has shifted the building to accommodate the City's request.!
Bill Baker, Director of Public Works, stated the property is so small that multiple variances are necessary to develop it. He stated he was speaking in support as the City has compounded
the problem by requesting additional right of way for both Gould and Madison Streets. The City prefers a 60 foot right of way but this would preclude development of property in this
area and, therefore, they have decided to position the streets on a 40 foot wide right of way. Because of this, they need to acquire 5 feet on Gould St and 6.25 feet on South Madison
from the applicant. The lot very small and the circumstances so extenuating that it creates a hardship. Variance requests #1 and #2 are a direct result of the public's interest with
regard to the right of way and the applicant will provide the right of way at the City's insistence. !
Albert Rogero, Jr. stated that except for #2, the variances are the same ones previously approved by the Board. After the variances were originally granted, it was discovered the City
would require additional right of way. The building is 900 square feet and the two handicapped spaces originally proposed are not required which has allowed them to shift the building.
He is willing to transfer the deeds for the rights of way to the City just prior to issuance of the certificates of occupancy.!
Mr. Baker stated that for the past two or three years, it has been the City's policy to require deeds for rights of way to be transferred to the City prior to issuing the building permits.
In the event that this is a problem, they will work it out between them and the Board should not consider this in making their decision.!
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer 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 the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application
of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within 6 months from
this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Plisko abstained. Request *granted.* !
ITEM #4 The Fisher Group for variances of 1) 10 ft to permit construction of house 25 ft from street right of way, 2) 2 ft to permit 6 ft high fence or wall in setback adjoining street
right of way where property is not addressed, 3) 14 ft to permit pool 21 ft from street right of way, and 4) 18.5 ft to permit pool enclosure 16.5 ft from street right of way, at 1949
Oak Ridge Court, Oak Ridge Court Estates, Lot 4, zoned RS 2 (single family
residential).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail. !
William Fisher, Jr. stated the lot is unique in that it is a double frontage lot. The variances he is requesting will provide the same setbacks as a normal rear yard that does not abut
a street. He also feels the fence will be needed as a buffer to Landmark Drive. He does not feel the pool will impose on the aesthetics of the street and they have made efforts to improve
the impact on the surrounding area. In response to a question, he stated no variances will be requested for Lots 7 and 8 and Lot 6 is already under construction. They are trying to minimize
variances in the subdivision and feel the wall will enhance the property. !
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to *grant* variance request #1 to include only the northeast corner of the home and not the lanai as shown on
the plans submitted with the application 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.* !
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Gans moved to *deny* variance request #2 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*. !
There was condsiderable discussion as to whether the variances requested for the pool and pool enclosure were the minimum. The Board felt variances were needed but did not feel the
ones being requested were the minimum.!
Mr. Gans moved to *continue* variance requests #3 and #4 to the meeting of June 30, 1988. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. !
ITEM #5 Limited Properties, Inc for variances of 1) 25 ft to permit addition to building zero ft from street right of way, 2) 4 ft to permit a sign one ft from side property line,
and 3) 43.4% front yard open space to allow 6.6% front yard open space, at 2800 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 17 29 16, M&B 13.07, zoned CG (general commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the variances are necessitated by the proposed widening of Gulf to Bay Blvd. The addition will align with the portion
of the building that remains after the acquisition of the right of way. The building is presently non conforming as to setbacks both from Hampton Drive and Gulf to Bay. !
Will Alexander, representing the applicant, stated they will lose the dining area, women's restroom, and office space on the second floor. Currently 80% of the building is non conforming.
They are trying to keep the building as far from the residential area as possible and still use the most serviceable alternative. In response to a question regarding the difference between
existing space and the additions, he stated they are gaining a small amount of space. The present sign does not meet the current requirements as to size.!
One letter in support was submitted for the record.!
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to *grant* variances #1 and #3 as per the plan submitted with the application 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 created by the
taking of land by the Florida Department of Transportation to widen Gulf to Bay, 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 Messrs. Merriam, Homer, and Plisko voted "Aye"; Mr. Gans voted "Nay". Motion carried. Request *granted.*!
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mrs. Dobbs moved to *grant* variance request #2 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 in that the Department of Transportation
is taking some of the property for right of way, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that the existing pole sign be removed
and relocated and conform with the Code in October, 1992, and that a sign permit be obtained with 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken,
Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Gans and Homer voted "Aye"; Messrs. Merriam and Plisko voted "Nay". Motion carried. Request *granted*.!
ITEM #6 Skiff Harbor Townhouses Association for variances 1) to allow a 5 ft. high fence in setback area adjoining waterfront, and 2) of 32.8 ft. to allow fence to extend into clear
space on west side of property, at 212 Skiff Point, Skiff Harbor Townhouse Condos, zoned RM 20 (multiple family residential).!
The Planning Official explained the application in detail. He stated the building currently obstructs a substantial amount of clear space.!
Dana Taylor, property manager representing the applicant, stated they can not get insurance until they fence in the pool. They feel the five foot fence will do a better job of keeping
people out than the four foot the insurance company requires as a minimum. She stated it will be an open railing type fence.!
Roy Moody, representing the applicant, stated the fences on the east and west are five feet high and the fencing at the back of the pool and along the front is 42 inches high.!
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam 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 arise from a condition which is unique to the property and the strict application of the provisions of this development
code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, subject to the condition that the fence or railing installed will be of the open type rail aluminium fencing as per the
drawing submitted with the application and that a fence permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.*!
MINUTES
Mr. Merriam moved to approve the minutes of May 26, 1988, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.!
The Planning Official reported the condo association at 610 Island Way has requested additional time in which to remove the sign. If they are unable to get the sign removed, they will
seek a variance.!
One of the Board members again asked about the window sinage at Lokey and the Planning Official stated a certain percentage of temporary window signage is permitted for a period of
30 days. In response to a question, the Planning Official stated strips of lights are not permitted in windows and he felt neon signs could possibly fall under this category.!
One Board member briefly discussed the Karas request heard on April 28, 1988, stating the Board felt they needed variances but they did not ask for the minimum. He informed the Board
the applicant has filed an appeal.!
The meeting adjourned at 4:26 p.m.