02/11/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
February 11, 1988
Members present:
Otto Gans, Chairman
Alex Plisko, Vice Chairman (left at 2:50 p.m.)
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.
ITEM A (continued from 1/28/88) 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 Planning Official explained the application in detail. The case was heard at the meeting of January 28th, but the Board requested a new design with some additional open space. He
received a plan showing approximately 180 square feet of open space.!
Don Williams, architect representing the applicant, stated they are decreasing variance request #1 from a variance of 9% open space to a variance of 6% to provide 29% for the lot and
decreasing variance request #2 from 0% open space to provide 12% for the front yard. !
Four letters of support were in the file from the meeting of January 28th. Two citizens spoke in opposition stating the applicant created his own hardship and requesting that, if the
Board grants the variances, they grant only the minimum. One letter in opposition was in the file from the meeting of January 28th. !
Considerable discussion ensued regarding hardship and whether the revised request was a minimum.!
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Merriam moved to *deny* the variances as requested because no unnecessary hardship was shown, they
are not minimum variances, and they violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as to Section 131.006 (6). The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken,
Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Plisko, Merriam, and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *denied*.!
ITEM B (continued from 1/14/88) 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 CG
(general office).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail. The request concerns aisle width for a parking garage in which some spaces are shorter due to columns. The applicant is requesting
these spaces be counted toward their total parking as they are planning to construct a new building. This request was denied by the Board approximately nine months ago.!
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated there are some new facts that were not brought before the Board previously. There are 26 spaces that have pylons which make them shorter
than the required length. He stated the Traffic Engineer has agreed to include the parking spaces that have the smaller columns. The difference between the two size columns is approximately
7 inches. He submitted several photos. One of the options being considered if the variance is not granted is to remove the green space and park like atmosphere to provide the necessary
parking. !
Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineer, stated he approved the parking spaces into which the 8 inch columns intrude. He pointed out the Code was in force at the time the
building was designed and approximately 28 spaces were lost due to the columns. The applicant accepted the notation made by the Traffic Engineer under protest with regard to the parking
spaces with columns. The Park Street garage also lost some spaces due to piping and columns and these spaces have been blocked off so they can not be used. Mr. Crawford emphasized he
can not accept 16 inch columns intruding into a parking space.!
It was pointed out the comparison between the Park Street garage and the applicant's garage should not be made as the Park Street garage was not constructed to meet a minimum number
of parking spaces whereas the applicant's garage must meet the demand for parking based on the size of the building.!
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Homer 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 violates the general spirit and intent of this development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*.
!
ITEM #1 Lee Purcell for variance of 77 ft to permit dock 156 ft long, at 1012 N Osceola, J.J. Eldridge Sub, Blk A, Lots 1 & 2, zoned RM 8 (multiple family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the Harbormaster has approved the plans.!
Bob Pfeil of AAA Marine, representing the applicant, stated the water is extremely shallow. The original dock for this parcel was 300 feet long and will be completely removed.!
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 building permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Request *granted.*
ITEM #2 Manuel Kastrenakes for variances 1) of 82.48 sq ft to permit 97.48 sq ft of business identification signage, 2) of 2 business identification signs to permit 3 such signs,
and 3) of 9 sq ft to permit 12 sq ft directional sign, at 1340 US19S, Sec 19 29 16, M&B 14.06, zoned CH (highway commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and pointed out the signs are existing.!
Ron Bingham, representing the applicant, stated three sub contractors handled the signage and this is why not all the permits were obtained. The signage was part of the conversion
of a Gulf service station to a Texaco. The adjacent property has numerous trees which obscure the view of the sign. Standard channel letters for Texaco are 30 inches high and the applicant
is an independent distributor of Texaco products.!
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 they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant as the property is located
on U.S. 19 and there is excessive foliage to the north, subject to the condition the signage will conform to the Code in October, 1992, and that a sign permit be obtained within *3 weeks*
from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Gans, Merriam, and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request
*granted.* !
ITEM #3 Richard Ricardo and Paul Coyle for variances 1) of 14% front yard open space to allow 36%, 2) of 23 ft to allow construction on 77 ft wide lot, and 3) of 1590 sq ft to allow
construction on 8410 sq ft lot, at 1174 Court St, W.F. Hughey's Sub, Blk 2, Lot 7 and part of Lot 6, zoned CG (general commercial).
There was a brief discussion prior to the public hearing regarding advertising the incorrect street address. It was pointed out the property owners within 200 feet were notified and
the address should have read 1174 rather than 1175 as advertised. The Assistant City Attorney advised the Board he did not feel it was a problem since notification had been sent to the
proper parties. !
The Planning Official explained the application in detail. !
David Wilson, representing the owner, stated he has a contract to purchase the property and construct an office building. Variances #2 and #3 relate to a substandard lot. They have
been required to give the City an additional 5 feet for right of way and a 5 foot easement on Brownell. Because of the loss of this additional 10 feet, the building was moved forward
toward Court Street requiring a variance for front yard open space. They do meet the requirement for open space for the total lot.!
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, 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 building permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Request *granted.* !
ITEM #4 Fortune Savings Bank for variances 1) of 1 property identification sign to permit 2 such signs and 2) of 67 sq ft of property identification signage to permit 131 sq ft, at
601 S Belcher Rd, Sec 18 29 16, M&B 32.06,
zoned CG (general commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and informed the Board a subdivision plat was recently filed. The lot to the rear of the property will not have street frontage
and will require an access easement. Because of this, a sign on the rear lot would not be seen from the street.!
Margo Pequignot, attorney representing Dr. Turner, stated they are requesting a 33 square foot sign which will be for identification only and contain no advertising. They feel this
is a minimum request.!
Kurt Youngstrom, architect representing Dr. Turner, stated the sign may list one or two tenants and is critical for identifying the location of the building. There will be a second
sign on the rear lot approximately 31 square feet or less. He assured the Board construction will not require the removal of the large tree on the property.
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 property and was not caused by the applicant in that the physical location
of the property does not front on a main street, and they are the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that the variance will be reduced from
131 square feet to 97 square feet for property identification signage in October, 1992, and 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 3:00 p.m.!
Mr. Plisko left the meeting at 2:50 p.m.
ITEM #5 Sunset Coachman Center Condo Association for variances 1) of 64 sq ft to permit 88 sq ft per property identification sign (2 signs), 2) of 10 ft to permit 16 ft high property
identification signs (2 pole signs), 3) of 18 sq ft per business identification sign to allow 22 sq ft in each office complex, and 4) of 5 ft to permit pole sign zero ft from S property
line, at 2349 Sunset Point Rd, Sunset Point Coachman Center, zoned OL (limited office).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.!
Katie Peden, representing the applicant, stated she wished to amend the application. The pylon sign will be sand blasted wood. She is amending variance #1 to a variance of 23.5 square
feet to permit a 47.5 square foot property identification sign with two to be located on the property, variance #2 is to be amended to a variance of 5 feet 6 inches in height per sign.
She explained that variance request #3 is a blanket variance to allow each office in the complex to have a sign on the facia for total business identification signage of 18 square feet.
The signs on the walls will be removed. The pylon sign will contain the name of the development, the street address, and a list of the tenants. The height is needed because the property
is at the bottom of a decline. !
Dr. Scott Ray, tenant in the complex, spoke in support, stating the tenants are willing to remove some of the existing signage since the lettering on the walls is useless. One letter
in opposition was submitted for the record.!
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to *grant* variance #1 in the amount of *23.5 square feet* to permit 47.5 square feet per
property identification sign 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 and upon the vote
being taken, Mr. Homer voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Merriam and Gans voted "Nay." Motion *failed.*!
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Merriam moved to *deny* variance #1 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 Sections 134.003 and 134.004.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*. !
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Merriam moved to *deny* variance #2 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 Sections 134.003 and 134.004.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*. !
The Planning Official responding to a question regarding his opinion, stated he would allow 9 square feet of business identification signage to be placed on the facade per business
establishment which would be a variance of 5 square feet.!
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding square footage needed for business identification signage.!
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam moved to *grant* a total variance of *6 square feet per business establishment* 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 upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Merriam, Homer, and Gans voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *granted.* !
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam 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 sign permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request
*granted.* !
ITEM #6 Gloria Marsh for variances 1) of 18 inches to permit 4 ft high chain link fence in setback area adjoining street ROW where property is addressed and 2) to allow a 36 inch
high fence in setback area adjoining waterfront, at 930 Eldorado, Mandalay Sub, Blk 52, Lot 4, zoned RS 8 (single family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and pointed out the fence is existing. It is his opinion the request is to reconstruct the fence.
Gloria Marsh stated she wishes a fence on the water side to cut off access to the beach. She purchased the property to construct a home and wishes the fence for security. She pointed
out there is an area two lots from her property where people can access the beach. !
Discussion ensued as to whether the 9 month waiting period could be waived to allow the applicant to reapply for a fence if she finds there is a security problem after the home is built.
It was the consensus of the board they did not wish to permit a fence if it was not necessary. Once the property is developed, the problems occurring now could cease.!
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Homer moved to *deny* the variances as requested because the lot is currently vacant with no building
on it, there is no condition which is unique to the property at the present time, and no unnecessary hardship was shown. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request
*denied*.
ITEM #7 Earle B. Lokey Estate for a variance of 4% to 85% to permit 19% to 100% window signage, at 2340 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Gulf to Bay Estates Unit 3, Lots 602 606, AND Sec 18 29 16,
M&B 24.03 and 24.04, zoned CG (general commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated it is the subject of an enforcement proceeding.!
Don McFarland, attorney representing the applicant, stated approximately 9 months ago the applicant was approached by a sign company presenting material for the type of signage which
has been placed in the windows. The applicant assumed the sign company would obtain the necessary permits and meet Code requirements. He questioned the definition of a window and stated
this is not spelled out in the Code. He feels they have a hardship and there is a need for identification. Business has increased since the new signs were placed in the windows and he
requested the variance to maintain the current signage. !
The Assistant City Attorney stated he had discussed the definition of a window with the City Attorney and it is his opinion that, in this particular instance, it is one window rather
than multiple windows. !
One citizen spoke in support stating she felt the sign did not bother anybody, that it is beautiful in appearance, and does not flash. One letter in support and one letter in opposition
were submitted for the record.!
Discussion ensued regarding whether the signage is excessive and the possibility of setting a precedent.!
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, the hardship was caused by the applicant, it is not a minimum variance, and it violates the general spirit and intent of this development
code, Sections 134.003 and 134.004. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*. !
ITEM #8 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 Planning Official reviewed the application stating the plan is to convert 7 buildings consisting of 14 four bedroom units into 7 one bedroom units, 7 two bedroom units, and 7 three bedroom
units. If the Board approves the variance request, he recommends a condition be included to require an amendment to the site plan and a rezoning application if the change causes the
density to increase beyond 8 units an acre.!
Deborah Vincent of Clearwater Housing Authority stated the Housing Authority has had a problem renting the four bedroom units at Condon Gardens. By reducing the number of bedrooms in
a unit, they will lessen the problem of unauthorized tenants as well as reducing the number of children in Condon Gardens. The request will add only 7 additional units to the housing
complex. The site plan will require a minor revision but she feels there will be no rezoning application needed as there is sufficient acreage. !
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 arises from a condition which is unique to the use of the property and was not caused by the applicant, subject to
the condition an amendment to the site plan be filed by the applicant and if the change causes the density to exceed 8 units per acre, a rezoning application also be filed and that a
building permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.* !
ITEM #9 City of Clearwater for variances 1) of 83.5 ft to permit construction on lot 66.5 ft wide, 2) of 13 ft to permit construction of building 12 ft from street ROW, 3) of 11.5
ft to permit construction of building 0.5 ft (6 inches) from side property line, and 4) of 5.9 ft to permit 7.0 ft clear space, at 700 Bayway Blvd, Bayside #5, Blk A, Lot 24, zoned CR 28
(resort commercial).
This item was continued to the meeting of February 25, 1988.!
MINUTES
Mr. Homer stated he had a correction to be made to the minutes but did not have the information with him at the meeting. Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of January 28, 1988,
with the understanding that he would call the City Clerk's Office with the correction. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The vacation schedule was discussed and, as there would not be a quorum present for the July 28th meeting, consensus of the Board was to cancel the July 28, 1988 meeting. !
Mr. Merriam stated he would be absent from the meeting of February 25, 1988.!
The Building Official reported the Building Department had investigated the J & B Restaurant repair work and found nothing in violation. He also stated the Clearwater Beach McDonald's
site plan had been investigated and the refrigerator was shown on the original plan.
The meeting adjourned at 5:18 p.m.