03/24/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
March 24, 1988
Members present:
Otto Gans, Chairman
Alex Plisko, Vice Chairman
Mary Lou Dobbs
Kemper Merriam
John Homer
Also present:
Tom Chaplinsky, Building Official
John Richter, Planning Official
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney (arrived at 1:15 p.m.) 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) Mae Bales for a variance of 10 ft to permit construction of addition 15 ft from Betty Lane ROW, at 1295 Woodlawn Terrace, Shadowlawn Sub, Blk C,
part of Lots 23 & 24, zoned RS 8 (single family residential).
The applicant submitted a letter requesting a six months time extension in which to obtain a building permit for variances granted on 3/26/87. This is the second time extension request.
Mr. Plisko moved to *grant* a 6 months time extension to 9/25/88. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM A (continued from 2/25/88) Joseph Simonelli for a variance of 4 ft to permit steps and platform (landing) located seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, at 860 Eldorado
Ave, Mandalay, Blk 7, Lot 3, zoned RS 8 (single family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.
Donald McFarland, attorney representing the applicant, stated the applicant proceeded without obtaining a permit. There is a hardship on this property which justifies having steps from
the top of the seawall.
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 *2 weeks* from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Request *granted.*
ITEM B (continued from 3/10/88) William Moran for variances 1) of 2 business identification signs to permit 3 such signs and 2) of 30 sq ft to permit a total of 45 sq ft of business
identification signage at 1390 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Knollwood Replat, Blk 2, Lots 19 & 20, zoned CG (general commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and pointed out the existing pole sign is substantially less square footage than what is permitted by Code.
Allen Christianson, attorney representing the applicant, submitted 3 photos of the property. Even with the variances, the total signage will be less than what is permitted by Code.
Six letters in support and one petition in support with 134 signatures were submitted for the record.
William Moran stated people don't notice the pole sign and are looking for signs on the building.
Discussion ensued regarding whether increasing the size of the pole sign, rather than additional signs on the building, would not meet his needs. There was also discussion as to whether
two additional signs are necessary or whether one would be sufficient.
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, 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 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. Merriam moved to *grant* variance #1 for *1 business identification sign* to permit 2 such signs and variance #2 for *15 sq
ft* 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 due to its location and was not caused by the applicant, subject to the condition that the variance will expire in October, 1992, and that a sign permit be obtained within
*3 months* from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.*
ITEM #1 Hugh Grant Realty and Builders, Inc for variances 1) of 7 ft to permit pool 18 ft from a street ROW, 2) of 10 ft to permit pool enclosure 15 ft from a street ROW, and 3) of
2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining a street ROW where property is not addressed, at 2302 Stag Run Blvd, Coachman Ridge Tract A II, Lot 178, zoned RS 6 (single
family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.
Hugh Grant stated the home fronts on three streets which creates a hardship. Several homes in the area have pools that encroach into the setback. The fence will be 13 or 14 ft from
the road. The pool is 10 ft wide at one end and 12 ft wide at the other.
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, they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, 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. Request *granted.*
ITEM #2 Dan Douglas Enterprises, Inc for variances 1) of 2 business identification signs to permit 3 such signs, 2) of 31 sq ft of business identification signage to permit 79 sq
ft, and 3) of 11% window signage to permit 26% coverage, at 225 N Ft Harrison, Jones Sub of Nicholson's Addition to Clearwater Harbor, Blk 5, Lots 8 10, zoned UC(c) (urban core center).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated 48 sq ft of existing signage was replaced last month when the building was repainted. In response to a question, he stated the sign
under the canopy is allowed. The signs are obstructed and because traffic merges in the vicinity, it causes traffic congestion in the area of the property. Many of the clients are elderly
and he feels the window signage is minimal. He submitted a affidavit from the artist who did the signs stating he checked with the City regarding permits.
Three citizens spoke in support stating they felt the signs are artistic, an improvement over what previously existed and are necessary to help identify the building.
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Plisko moved to *deny* variance #3 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Request *denied*.
Mr. Plisko moved to *continue* variances #1 and #2 to April 14, 1988. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #3 Edith Crull for a variance of 3 ft to permit balcony 22 ft from street ROW, at 21 Island Dr, Carlouel Sub, Blk 263, Lot 4, zoned RS 8 (single family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application and stated the request is to allow the addition of a balcony which will intrude into the setback.
Edith Crull submitted a letter explaning her request in detail. Prior to purchasing the home, she inquired into the possibility of adding to the west side of the home in order the increase
the living and dining room area. She was supplied with a survey which showed a 20 ft building setback as was also indicated on her title insurance policy. It was not until after she
had ordered a sliding glass door and the contractor applied for the building permit that she discovered a 25 ft setback was required, not the 20 ft as recorded. Because of the error,
she was unable to add a balcony after enclosing the existing one to enlarge the living area.
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, 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 Gans voted "Aye;" Mr. Plisko voted "Nay." Motion
carried. Request *granted.*
ITEM #4 Sylvan Abbey Memorial Park, Inc for variances 1) of 4 ft to permit a 6 ft 6 inch high wall in structural setback adjoining street ROW where property is addressed, and 2) of
2 ft 6 inches to permit a 6 ft 6 inch high wall in structural setback area adjoining street ROW where property is not addressed, at 2720 Regency Oaks Blvd, Sec 5 29 16, M&B 21.00, zoned
RPD (residential planned development) and P/SP (public/semi public).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the request is to develop the property with a retirement center. The variances involve the construction of a wall
around the property.
Tim Johnson, attorney representing the applicant, stated the property will be developed with an adult congregate living facility and nursing home consisting of three buildings, one
story high, four stories high, and five stories high. The main portion of the wall will 5 feet 10 inches high with the columns being 6 feet 6 inches. When the rezoning of this property
was taking place, the neighboring homeowners primary concern was that there be a high wall surrounding this facility. Oak trees will be planted in wells that are included in the wall.
It will be a brick antique finish.
One letter of support was submitted for the record.
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 building permit be
obtained within *1 year* from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.*
ITEM #5 Branch Sunset Associates, Ltd (Workplace) for a variance of 97 sq ft to permit a 225 sq ft business identification sign, at 1854 U.S. 19 N, Sec 6 29 16, M&B 41.01 & 41.02,
zoned CC (commercial center).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the request is for a business identification sign for a major tenant.
Mike Riggins, representing the owner and the tenant, stated the tenant has 175 linear feet of storefront on U.S. 19. The proposed sign will be 25 feet long. They are a national company
and the proposed sign is their logo. The phrase at the bottom of the word "Workplace" is part of the reason for the size of the variance and makes the sign appear taller than it actually
is. The building is approximately 600 ft from U.S. 19 which creates a hardship. The store area is considerably larger than the 8,000 square feet required for a business to be designated
a major tenant.
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 upon the vote being taken,
Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted "Aye;" Messrs. Merriam and Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *granted.*
The meeting recessed briefly.
ITEM #6 Continental Towers, Inc for a variance of 48.4 ft to permit 4 ft high fence in clear space, at 675 S Gulfview Blvd, Continental Towers, Inc Condos, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial).
The Building Official stated he had difficulty in determining the property line from the survey included in the packet.
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and pointed out that property on the waterfront requires clear space. The applicant wishes to erect a 4 foot high fence on
the sand seaward of the seawall. The property has no open vista but was developed prior to the requirement to provide clear space.
Janet Nassif, representing the applicant with authorization, stated there are 83 unit owners in the condominium. They have a unique location as they are the only residential property
surrounded by commercial property. Their property is undistinguishable from the commercial property and they have problems with trespassing. Their insurance company has stated they will
not provide coverage for them unless their pool is enclosed. She feels fencing the pool only will not eliminate the trespassing problems. There is an existing rope and post fence but
they are proposing a 4 foot chain link fence in sand color that will last 10 to 15 years. She pointed out the clear space is already obstructed. She submitted a list of incidents that
have occurred on the property that required Police investigation.
Five people spoke in support citing the need to protect themselves against trespassers and vandalism and to protect the sea oats. Thirty two letters in support, three of them from environmental
groups, and one petition with eleven signatures in support were submitted for the record. In response to a question by the Chairman, sixteen people in the audience stood up in opposition
to the request. Four citizens spoke in opposition stating the fence should be placed on the seawall rather than on the sand which would satisfy the requirements of the insurance company.
One party in opposition referred to an agreement between the City and several property owners, including Continental Towers, wherein the owners agreed not to erect a fence seaward of
the seawall in connection with a beach construction project. They questioned the right to fence off a portion of the beach. The President of the Board of Directors stated six members
of the Board were opposed to Miss Nassif's proposal and one member was in favor. She was granted her authorization by the head of the fence committee.
Discussion by the Board ensued and several Board members felt the fence was not the proper way to protect the sea oats, that it would be an eyesore, and no hardship was shown.
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Plisko 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Request *denied*.
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND POLICIES
Discussion ensued by the Board regarding the setting of time limits on presentations. They discussed the method used by the City Commission but several Board members did not concur
with those time limits with regard to variances. After some discussion, Mr. Homer moved that the Chairman shall have the right, for unique or prolonged cases, to limit the presentation,
response, and rebuttal in a case. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Plisko, Homer, and Gans voted "Aye;" Mr. Merriam voted "Nay." Motion
to amend the Rules and Procedures approved.
MINUTES
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of March 10, 1988, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. Motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN
Mr. Merriam nominated Mr. Plisko for the position of Chairman. As there were no other nominations, the nominations were closed and Mr. Plisko received a unanimous vote to serve as Chairman.
Mr. Merriam nominated Mr. Gans for the position of Vice Chairman. As the other nominees declined, the nominations were closed and Mr. Gans was elected Vice Chairman unanimously.
The Planning Official briefly explained the differences between the Melges open space variance and the Thomas open space variance which were considered by the Board several meetings
ago. The Planning Official informed the Board there are three appeals pending. The City will adopt an ordinance which requires screening of electrical facilities. This amendment is prompted
by a case heard by the Board several meetings ago.
There was a brief discussion regarding the Pinellas County School Board and Cellular One radio tower.
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.