02/25/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
February 25, 1988
Members present:
Otto Gans, Chairman
Alex Plisko, Vice Chairman
Mary Lou Dobbs
John Homer
Members absent:
Kemper Merriam
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 1:02 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) Hudson Energy Corp for variances 1) of 6% interior landscaping to provide 0%, 2) of 6 parking spaces to provide 9, 3) of 7 business identification
signs to provide 8, and 4) of 218 sq ft of business signage to provide 233 sq ft sign, at 3130 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 16 29 16, M&B 24.07, zoned CG (general business).
The applicant has requested a 6 month time extension in which to obtain the building permit.
Mrs. Dobbs moved to approve a *6 month time extension* to 8/26/88. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM (continued from 2/11/88) 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, 4) of 5.9 ft to permit 7.0 ft clear space, and 5) of 2 parking spaces to provide
20 remaining spaces, at 700 Bayway Blvd, Bayside #5, Blk A, Lot 24, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the request is to convert a restaurant into a police sub station. Variance #2 should be changed to a variance of
3 feet rather than the 13 feet advertised. Variance #4 is unnecessary.
Sid Klein, Police Chief, stated the request is to construct a storage building for various equipment used by the beach patrol. Without this storage facility, the equipment will have
to be kept at the Police station on Pierce Street.
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 #1 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. Presently, there is no setback and the addition will align with the existing building.
Steve Fowler, architect representing the applicant, stated they plan to do a facelift on the structure and improve the parking lot. Currently, there is no landscaping but landscaping
will be added with the improvement to the parking lot. They also plan to eliminate two of the three existing drives onto Gulf to Bay Blvd. He emphasized they will provide the 25 foot
setback from Rogers St.
Discussion ensued as to whether additional open space could be provided.
Mr. Plisko moved to *continue* the item to the meeting of *March 10, 1988*. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #2 Hugh Grant Realty & Builders, Inc for a variance of 4 ft to permit pool enclosure 21 ft from a street ROW, at 2310 Stag Run Blvd, Coachman Ridge Tract AII, Lot 176, zoned
RS 6, (single family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.
Hugh Grant stated the pool is 12 feet wide at one end and the deck and screen enclosure will encroach into the setback. The property fronts on two streets which creates a hardship.
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 #3 Frank Kunnen for variances 1) of 128 sq ft to permit a 192 sq ft property identification sign and 2) of 1 ft to allow a 21 ft high pole sign, at 797 U.S. 19 N, Clearwater
"19" Commerce Park, Lot 1, zoned IL (limited industrial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.
Frank Kunnen stated this is one of the few properties on U.S. 19 zoned IL and, in the area of the sign, the grade drops approximately one foot. They do not have much frontage on U.S.
19. There are approximately 60 tenants and, when the project is completed, there will be approximately 100 tenants. They desire the sign to assist people in locating the project. They
have put up some temporary signs because of the problem with addresses on U.S. 19.
Guy Kunnen stated the tenants need signage and there are signs over each business which measure approximately 1 foot by 3 foot but these cannot be seen from U.S. 19.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mrs. Dobbs moved to *grant* a variance of *48 square feet* for request #1 and to *grant* #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 and they are the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship,
subject to the condition that the sign be located behind the U.S. 19 easement, the maximum size permitted will be 112 square feet, 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 Lawrence H. Dimmitt III for a variance of 21 flags to allow a maximum of 23 flags, at 2285 U.S. 19 N, Sec 32 28 16, M&B 32.02, zoned CH (highway commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and pointed out this variance request has come about as a result of an enforcement proceeding.
Joshua Magidson, attorney representing the applicant, stated the applicant was approached by a flag company regarding the flag display. Section 134.008 of the Code states there may
be a maximum of two flags on non residential property without a permit. He pointed out there is no provision in the Code to issue permits to display additional flags. There are several
locations in the City where more than two flags are displayed. He feels there should be a public hearing to determine how a flag should be displayed and it is in his opinion that the
City's interpretation of this Code section violates constitution rights.
Three citizens, one representing The American Legion, stated they were in support of the display and felt it was patriotic and tastefully done. Two citizens spoke in opposition stating
they felt the flag display was used to attract attention to the business and that the manner in which the flags are displayed does not follow
etiquette. A series of slides was shown to support the opposition and one letter of opposition was submitted for the record.
Mr. Magidson reiterated that the Code states you cannot fly more than two flags without a permit but there is no provision to issue such a permit. It is his feeling the Code is vague
in this regard.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the flags are displayed to attract attention or for patriotic reasons.
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mrs. Dobbs moved to *deny* the variance as requested because it is based primarily upon the desire of the
applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property and it violates the general spirit and intent of this development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Request *denied*.
ITEM #5 Joseph Simonelli for a variance to permit construction of a fence in setback adjoining waterfront, at 860 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay, Blk 7, Lot 3, zoned RS 8 (single family residential).
The applicant has requested this item be continued to the meeting of March 24, 1988. !
Mr. Plisko moved to *continue* this item to the meeting of March 24, 1988. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Meeting recessed from 2:38 p.m. to 2:48 p.m.
ITEM #6 American Trust National Association Real Estate Trust Fund for variances 1) of one property identification sign to permit 2 such signs and 2) of 138 sq ft of property identification
signage (U.S. 19 frontage), at 2435 U.S. 19 N, Sec 31 28 16, M&B 11.07, zoned CH (highway commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the request is to replace an existing property identification sign for a small commercial complex.
Boyd Hippensteil, representing the applicant, stated Friday's restaurant has a 35 square foot sign on U.S. 19 which they wish to replace with a 100 sqaure foot sign. The bank which
is located on the same parcel has a large sign. The applicant feels 35 square feet is insufficient.
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 are the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that the sign not be located
within the easement for U.S. 19, that the variances expire in 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, Mr. Homer voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted "Nay." Motion *failed*.
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Plisko moved to *deny* the variances as requested because there is no condition which is unique to
the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, and they are not minimum variances. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Plisko and Gans
voted "Aye;" Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *denied*.
ITEM #7 Belcher & Gulf to Bay, Inc for variances 1) of 1 property identification sign to permit 2 such signs (one pole) and 2) of 2 sq ft to permit 66 sq ft of property identification
signage, at 2257 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 18 29 16, M&B 32.03, zoned CG (general commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and pointed out the readerboard is existing. This variance request has come about as the result of enforcement proceedings.
Jim Schwartz, attorney representing the owner, stated the present sign is smaller than what was previously there and they feel it is the minimum.
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 and they are the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that both signs be on one
pole 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 Gans voted "Aye;" Mr. Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *granted.*
ITEM #8 Carlouel Yacht Corp for variances 1) of 17.7 ft to permit building 17.3 ft from street ROW, 2) of 3.4 ft to permit building 8.6 ft from side property line, and 3) of 5.5%
front yard open space to provide 49.5%, at 1091 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Replat, Blk 171, Lot 11, zoned P/SP (public/semi public).
Mr. Homer stated he has a conflict of interest with regard to this case.
The Planning Official stated the new building is nonconforming to a lesser degree than the existing building.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the previous construction on this parcel has been at the narrowest portion which creates a hardship. They plan to align the
storage facility with the existing building. There has been discussion regarding tearing down the cabana across the street but he requests that if the variances are granted, they not
be conditioned upon the removal of this structure.
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
with Mr. Homer abstaining. Request *granted.*
ITEM #9 BP Oil, Inc for variances 1) of 18.4 sq ft to permit 33.4 sq ft of business identification signage and 2) of 23 sq ft for directional signage to allow 4 directional signs,
total area of 35 sq ft, at 1996 Gulf to Bay Blvd, sec 13 29 15, M&B 24.08, zoned CG (general commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.
Bob Kolozy, construction superintendent representing Gulf Oil and the owner, stated the request is for two illuminated Gulf signs, the market signs above the doorway, and two car wash
signs.
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 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 #10 Tri Systems for variances 1) of 80 sq ft to permit a 144 sq ft property identification sign and 2) of 11 ft to permit a 31 high pole sign, at 1001 S Missouri Ave, McVeigh
Sub 1st Addn, Blk F, Lot 7 AND McVeigh Sub 2nd Addn, Blk F, Lot 8, zoned CG (general commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the request is for a replacement sign.
Dwight James, representing the applicant, stated the existing sign is overpowered by the signs of the bank and Burger King. They are willing to meet the Code in October, 1992, but feel
they need the larger sign until such time as other people are required to replace existing signs with smaller signs that meet the Code.
Craig Joy, Vice President of Bay Mexican Foods, stated the restaurant has been difficult to find because of the size of the present sign. They are willing to conform to the Code in
1992.
Discussion ensued on the visibility of the current sign and that the proposed sign differs in appearance from the existing sign.
The project manager stated the existing sign is 67 square feet.
The district manager for Taco Bell stated they do have a hardship and the proposed sign conforms to new signage being used elsewhere by Taco Bell.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to *grant* variance #1 to permit a sign with the same square footage as the existing sign because the applicant
has clearly met all 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 carried unanimously. Request *granted.*
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Homer moved to *deny* variance #2 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 #11 Gary Borland for a variance of 3.5 ft to permit roof height of 28.5 ft, at 1629 Maynard Circle, Windsor Woods II, Lot 3, zoned RS 6 (single family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and pointed out the peak of the roof will be 36 feet high.
Gary Borland stated he has spoken with surrounding homeowners and they have no problem with his variance request. The style of the home he wishes to construct requires a high pitched
roof. His deed restrictions require that the developer approve all plans and this has been done. The third floor will serve as an attic and both the first and second floors have 9 foot
ceilings. He has a large easement to the rear of his property and the side gable is barely over what is permitted by the Code. He plans to provide larger setbacks than are required by
Code.
Twelve letters in 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.*
Mr. Plisko pointed out he feels this is a unique architectural style and, because the applicant is providing wide setbacks on the sides, it will not impact negatively on the neighborhood.
ITEM #12 Sun Bank of Tampa Bay for variances 1) of 26 sq ft to allow a 50 sq ft property identification sign and 2) of 14 ft to permit a 20 ft high pole sign, at 2201 Sunset Pt Rd,
Sec 6 29 16, M&B 32.01, zoned OL (limited office).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.
Jim Everett stated the bank has been closed for some time and Florida Power Credit Union is a tenant. This is a busy intersection facing on two major roadways. In response to a question
regarding patrons of the credit union, he stated the credit union is seeking outside depositors.
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 sign permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Request *granted.*
MINUTES
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of January 28, 1988 and February 11, 1988 in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. Motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
There was a brief discussion regarding items submitted to the Board at the hearing and the fact that the clerk must receive copies to complete the official file.
The Chairman requested approval from the Board to send a letter to the Building Director regarding the absence of a building official at the meeting. It was the consensus of the Board
that this should not be done. There was some discussion regarding whether staff should enter more into the decision making process through their recommendations and comments.
The Planning Official pointed out to the Board that many conforming signs have now been erected and are readable.
The meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m.