01/28/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
January 28, 1988
Members present:
Otto Gans, Chairman
Alex Plisko, Vice Chairman
Mary Lou Dobbs
Kemper Merriam
John Homer (left at 3:00 p.m.)
Also present:
Tom Chaplinsky, Building Official
John Richter, Planning Official
Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:03 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 #1 Janusz Nowicki for variances 1) of one business identification sign to permit two such signs, 2) of 36 sq ft of business identification signage to permit 84 sq ft, 3) of 75%
window signage to permit 90% coverage (2 windows), and 4) to permit a sign to extend above roofline, at 2054 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 13 29 15, M&B 13.06, zoned CG (general commercial).
The Planning Official stated the signs are existing and explained the application in detail. Variance #4 is not necessary and therefore can be withdrawn.
Roxanna Norwicki stated the pawn shop faces both streets. Pawn shops sell a variety of items and she feels it is necessary to let the public know what is available at this particular
shop.
Considerable discussion ensued as to whether the sign on the side street was necessary.
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variances, Mr. Homer moved to *deny* variances #2 and #3 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*.
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 and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that the variance expire in October,
1992, and that a sign permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.*
ITEM #2 The Wonderful Family, U S A, Inc for a variance of 5 ft to permit a zero ft setback for a pole sign from a side property line, at 2360 U S Hwy 19 N, Sec 31 28 16, M&B 14.05,
zoned CH (highway commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the request is to relocate an existing pole sign. The relocation is necessary due to the widening of U.S. 19. The
sign is nonconforming as to size, height, and the number of signs on one pole.
Boyd Hippenstiel, representing the applicant, stated they are requesting the variances in order to avoid losing more parking spaces. They will lose some spaces due to the widening of
U.S.19 and they wish to minimize the number that will be lost. The Department of Transportation is paying for the relocation of the sign.
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,
it arises from a condition not caused by the applicant, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that the sign will be brought into
conformity in October, 1992, and that the sign permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.*
ITEM #3 Clearwater Associates for a variance of 5 ft to permit pole sign zero ft from front and side property lines, at 2560 U S 19 N, Sec 30 28 16, M&B 43.03, zoned CR 28
(resort commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.
Boyd Hippenstiel, representing the applicant, stated the Department of Transportation has acquired the land and it is necessary to relocate the sign so that it does not interfere with
parking. They will lose 30 to 35 parking spaces due to the widening. There are several trees located in the vicinity where the sign is to be placed. Some visibility will be lost due
to the sign being moved back approximately 40 ft.
Charles Philips, attorney representing the Ramada Inn, stated once the overpass is in, the business will be in the shadow of the interchange. If the variance is granted, it will reduce
the cost to the Department of Transportation.
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 arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, subject to the condition
that the variance will be in effect until 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 Mr. Homer voted "Aye;" Messrs. Plisko, Merriam and Gans voted "Nay." Motion *failed.*
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 the variance is only for the side property line and the sign be brought into conformity in October, 1992, 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 Fred Thomas for variances 1) of 9% open space to provide 26% for lot and 2) of 40% open space to provide 0% for front yard, 730 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 2, Lot 8, zoned
RS 8 (single family residential).
The Building Official stated the scope of the permit did not include tearing up the front yard and driveway. The Engineering Department does not object to brick pavers being placed
on City right of way but does object to solid concrete within five ft of the property line, including the driveway.
The Planning Official explained the application and pointed out the brick paving may create a sterile appearance since no landscaping is proposed.
Donald Williams, architect representing the applicant, stated a procedural agreement has been worked out with the City. The applicant thought the concrete was grandfathered in. Originally,
he was proposing to place the brick over concrete but has decided to place the bricks over a permeable surface. The house takes up over 600 square feet of the front yard. The owner is
under the Adopt A Park program with the City and cares for the street end adjacent to the property.
There was considerable discussion as to whether or not landscaping should be provided.
Four letters of support were submitted for the record. Two citizens spoke in opposition. One cited concern regarding the Aster Street end and objected to variance #2 because it would
not be aesthetically pleasing, no hardship was shown, and it is not a minimum variance. The other citizen felt the applicant brought the hardship on himself when he tore up the concrete
without a permit.
Mr. Williams stated the concrete was removed without permits as they did not realize they needed a permit for this type of work. He offered to provide some landscaping at the south
end of the property.
There was some discussion by the Board as to whether they should vote on the variances as advertised or whether they should request the applicant to return to the meeting of February
11th with a proposed landscaping plan in order to minimize the variance being requested.
Mr. Williams requested the item be continued to February 11, 1988.
Mr. Plisko moved to *continue* this item to the meeting of February 11, 1988. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Homer left the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
ITEM #5 Ronald P Hitchcock and Philip A Hitchcock for variances 1) of one business identification sign to permit two such signs and 2) of 137.55 sq ft of business identification signage
to permit 180 sq ft, at 410 N Belcher Rd, Mosell Acres, part of Lots 8 & 9, zoned CG (general commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and questioned whether the sign in question is a painting. The owner has been cited by an inspector.
Thomas Rowacher, representing the owner, stated they put up the mural to attract attention. The entrances to the shopping center are not easily accessible. In response to a question
from the Board regarding the portable signs, he stated they are used to advertise specials. Since placement of the signs, their business has increased.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to *grant* variance #1 as requested and that variance #2 shall be limited to a variance of *30 square feet* to
allow business identification signage of *72 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, they arise from a condition which is unique to 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 a sign 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 January 14, 1988, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Building Official reported the walk in refrigerator at McDonald's on the beach was on the original plans and was permitted. In addition, he stated a stop work order has been issued
for the pool on Island Estates. A permit was issued for the pool, but because the work for the pool and other improvements was done by two different contractors, they did not take into
consideration each other's work and a variance may be needed.
The Planning Official reported Discount Marine's new building is in compliance with the Code. The t shirt shop on Poinsetta will be instructed not to lean their sign against the landscaping.
In response to a request from the Board regarding the Lechmere billboard, Public Works will see that the billboard is removed. In checking the minutes, he found no condition against
a restaurant being located in Gionis Plaza. He gave a brief update regarding the suit on portable signs.
The Board requested the Planning Official look into the video signage at the Pick Kwik on the corner of Ft Harrison and Chestnut and the store on the beach. They also requested he check
into the expansion of the J & B family restaurant and determine whether a permit was issued for the expansion.
The meeting adjourned at 3:42 p.m.