01/14/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
January 14, 1988
Members present:
Otto Gans, Chairman
Alex Plisko, Vice Chairman
Mary Lou Dobbs
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.
ITEM #1 Plymouth Development Ltd for a variance of 1 ft 4 inches to permit double row of 90 parking with aisle to be 60 ft 8 inches wide overall, at 2590 U.S. 19 N, Sec 30 28 16,
M&B 34 01, zoned OG (general office).
This item was continued to the meeting of 2/11/88 because the nine month waiting period to file for an identical request has not yet been met.
ITEM #2 Hugh Grant for a variance of 8 ft to permit positioning of a dock 12 ft from extended property line, at 244/246 Dolphin Pt, Island Estates Unit 5A, Lot 21, zoned RM 20 (multiple
family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.
Hugh Grant stated he wishes to construct a semi flat roof over tie poles and a lift apparatus. He does not feel this will block anyone's view.
One citizen spoke in opposition citing concern that the applicant's dock will encroach on his dock access. One letter in opposition was submitted for the record.
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, and it is not a minimum variance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied.
ITEM #3 AMI Clearwater Community Hospital for a variance of 5 ft to permit pole sign zero ft from property line, at 1521 E Druid Rd, Sec 14 29 15, M&B 34 01 & 34 03, zoned
P/SP (public/semi public).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the maximum height for a pole sign in this zoning district is 20 feet.
Paul Yesbeck, sign consultant for the applicant, stated there is a large oak tree that prohibits them from placing the sign 5 feet from the property line and still be visible from both
Druid Road and Highland Avenue. He has had some discussion with the City and they have told him that the tree should not
be removed. The sign will be approximately 10 feet high.
The chief engineer stated the hospital serves the community and they have planned considerable improvements to the property. The sign being requested is part of that plan.
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 in order to save a tree, subject to the condition that the
sign does not exceed 10 feet in height and that a sign permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
ITEM #4 Raim Tzekas & Dalip Tzekas for a variance of 26 sq ft of property identification signage to permit 90 sq ft, at 1331 Cleveland St, Brookwood Terrace Rev, Blk 6, Lot 1 13,
zoned CG (general business).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the proposed sign will increase the amount of signage from the present 50 square feet to 90 square feet.
William Wade, representing the applicant, stated he is the operator of the business and wishes to increase signage in order to identify Auto Host. In response to a question about the
temporary sign on the property, he stated he was told by the City that if the sign was moved back it could remain.
Discussion ensued as to whether a variance was needed since the present sign is 14 square feet less than permitted in this zoning district.
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 to Section 134.003 and 134.004. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied.
ITEM #5 Hughey's Sandwich Express, Inc. for a variance of one menu sign to permit two such signs at 1010 Court St, Coachman Heights Revised, Blk D,part of Lots18 20,zonedCN(neighborhoodcommercial)
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.
Boyd Hippenstiel, representing Hughey's, stated there are two drive thru lanes and each lane requires a menu sign. The Code only allows one menu sign. In response to a question from
the Board as to whether one menu sign could be used for both lanes, he responded that it would be difficult to place the sign in such a way that it would be visible to both lanes. The
people in the restaurant would have difficulty determining which lane was placing the order. They indicated both signs on the site plan that was approved by the City and did not realize
there was a problem until they were ready to actually put the signs in place. They will provide the 40 ft buffer zone between the business and the residential area.
Dave Smith, salesman for the sign company, stated the purpose of two lanes is to provide faster service and, in order to determine which lane placed an order, it is necessary that each
lane have a speaker and a menu sign.
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, 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 sign permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request
granted.
ITEM #6 Oxford/Concord Investments No. 1 for a variance of 4 ft to permit an 8 ft high fence in setback adjoining a street ROW where property is not addressed, at 2351 U. S. 19 N,
Cypress Point Shopping Center, Lot 1, zoned CC (commercial center).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.
Nathan Hightower, attorney representing the applicant and Home Depot, stated Home Depot wishes to place a pad adjacent to the wall parallel with Main St and fence it in with an 8 ft
fence. The Planning and Zoning Board granted a conditional use to permit the storage area with the condition that landscaping be at least 8 feet high along the fence adjacent to Main
St. The landscaping will be on the outside of the fence. They desire the fence for security. If the variance is granted, it will be necessary for them to file an amended site plan.
One letter of support was submitted for the record.
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 that a building permit be obtained
within 6 months after final site plan approval. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
ITEM #7 Gulf Bay Venture for a variance of one property identification sign to permit two such signs, at 311 Park Place Blvd, Sec 17 29 16, M&B 23 11 & 23 12, zoned CC (commercial
center) and CG (general commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.
Joan White, representing the applicant and U.S. Home Mortgage Corporation, stated their building is not visible from the roadway because of a grove of trees. They are requesting a temporary
sign, which is already in place, through 1988. They lease between 35,000 and 40,000 square feet. People have had difficulty in locating them but they feel that if they can have the sign
for a year, people will know where their business is located.
Discussion ensued regarding the concept of Park Place and concern that if this request is granted, many of the other businesses in Park Place may make the same request.
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Merriam moved to deny the variance 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 as per Section 130.003 and 130.004. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken,
Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Plisko, Gans, and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied.
MINUTES
Mrs. Dobbs moved to approve the minutes of December 10, 1987, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Chairman read a memo he received from the City Attorney regarding the Board's consideration of a consent agenda format. The City Attorney stated that because the applications heard
by the Board are considered public hearings,
they can not use this format for anything other than rules and procedures or approval of minutes.
The Board briefly discussed vacations and the following is a list of meeting dates that will be missed by Board members:
2/25 Dr. Merriam
5/26 Mr. Homer
6/23 Mr. Plisko
8/11 Mr. Gans
One board member requested that the Planning Official investigate the restaurant in Gino's Plaza on the beach. A parking variance was granted for this property with the condition there
be no restaurants and there is currently a pizza restaurant with 40 seats.
The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.