04/14/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
April 14, 1988
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Otto Gans, 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.
*In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.*
ITEM A (continued from 3/10/88) Julian Weiss and William Carroza for a variance of 7 parking spaces to provide zero additional parking spaces, at 1740 N Ft Harrison Ave, North Shore
Park, Blk 5, part of Lot 1, zoned CN (neighborhood commercial).
The Planning Official stated the request is to convert a dwelling to office use. This item was continued from the meeting of March 10 in order to allow the owner to develop a parking
plan.
Charlene Weiss submitted an approved parking plan but still requires a variance. If the variance is granted, they will bring the building up to Code. They are able to supply four parking
spaces for an electrical contracting business. The business has two trucks but they are driven home by the employees at night and materials are stored elsewhere.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam moved to *grant* a variance of *three parking spaces* 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.*
ITEM B (continued from 3/24/88) Dan Douglas Enterprises, Inc for variances 1) of 2 business identification signs to permit 3 such signs and 2) of 31 sq ft of business identification
signage to permit 79 sq ft, 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 stating the signs exist and the variances have been requested as a result of enforcement proceedings. There was some question at the
last meeting as to how the variances were computed. After speaking to staff, he agrees with the variances per the application.
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated they wish to amend their variance request to one business identification sign, rather than two as advertised, and a variance of 15
square feet, rather than the 31 square feet advertised. They wish to leave the figures on the north side of the building and the business identification sign on the south side. They
will remove the wording that is on the north side of the building.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to *grant* a variance of *one business identification sign* and a variance of *15 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 and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject
to the condition 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 #1 Lawrence H. Dimmitt III for variances 1) of one property identification sign to permit 2 such signs and 2) of 220 sq ft to permit a total of 332 sq ft of property identification
signage, 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.
Trish Muscarella, attorney representing the applicant, stated the applicant has over 1,000 feet of frontage and approximately 12> acres. The franchise agreement with Chevrolet does
not permit additional signage to be placed on the Chevrolet sign. The signage they are requesting is for an additional franchise at the same location. They submitted several photos of
signage on U.S. 19; they feel their property should not be treated differently.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to *grant* variance request #1 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 it be effective only as long as
there are two separate and distinct dealerships at the this location and that a sign permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote
being taken, Messrs. Gans, Merriam, Homer, and Plisko voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *granted.*
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Gans moved to *deny* variance request #2 as the applicant has not established that a true hardship
would be created by carrying out the strict letter of Section 137.012 in Chapter 34 of the Land Development Code because the request is for more than the minimum needed. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*.
ITEM #2 Clearwater Community Hospital for variances 1) of one property identification sign to permit 3 such signs and 2) 16 sq ft of directional signage to allow 2 signs with a total
of 22 sq ft, 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.
Leo Gielas, representing the applicant, stated the request is for lettering on the north side of the canopy to let people know where out patient surgery is located and for adding the
logo for "AMI" on the front of the canopy. After some discussion, he stated they would be willing to forego the "AMI" logo, but still feel they need the sign for out patient surgery.
One citizen spoke in opposition stating he did not want to see a multitude of signs on the property and could see no reason for the additional signage.
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Gans moved to *deny* variance request #1 because 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. Gans moved to *grant* variance #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, 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 #3 Andrew Palinkas for variances 1) of 5 ft to permit house 15 ft from rear property line and 2) of 3 ft to permit pool enclosure 7 ft from rear property line, at 2904 Eagle
Estates Circle N, Eagle Estates, Lot 32, zoned RS 4 (single family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the variances are to allow the completion of a home that is already under construction.
Emil Pratesi, attorney representing the applicant, stated the builder did not realize the house intruded into rear setback. The house was designed to permit the mother to reside with
the applicant and the foundation has been poured, the walls are up, and the roof has been placed on the structure. The property backs up to a natural area. They are willing to forego
the variance for the pool enclosure.
One citizen, chairman of the architectural committee for the subdivision, stated the applicant never submitted his plan to the committee, which is required by their deed restrictions.
The corner lots in the subdivision are small and they feel granting this variance will affect the other corner lots. Three letters of opposition were submitted for the record.
After some discussion, it was felt a variance would not be necessary for the open space and it was pointed out that the survey did not show a rear setback. The Board discussed the many
problems with regard to this particular subdivision.
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Merriam moved to *deny* the variances as requested because there is no condition which is unique to
the property, the hardship was caused by the owner/applicant, and they are not minimum variances. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Merriam and Gans
voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Homer and Plisko voted "Nay." Motion *failed.*
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to *grant* variance request #1 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 applicant obtain City approval
as to open space and that a building permit be obtained within *30 days* from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Homer and
Plisko voted "Aye;" Messrs. Gans and Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*.
ITEM #4 Lila Henley for variances 1) of 40 ft to permit construction of duplex on lot 50 ft wide at setback line (Lot 1) and 2) of 35 ft to permit construction of duplex on lot 55
ft wide at setback line (Lot 2), at 822 Woodlawn St, Sec 22 29 15, M&B 32.05, zoned RM 8 (multiple family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the request is to construct two duplexes. They wish to subdivide the parcel into two lots which would allow four
units. In its present state, the property can be developed with three units. If the lots are subdivided, they need a variance as to lot width. He requested the Board consider whether
the property should be subdivided into two nonconforming lots with regard to width.
Robert Henley, representing the applicant, stated they are not trying to exceed density. The buildings that will be constructed will meet setbacks and they do not feel there will be
an increase in traffic. In response to a question regarding transfer of ownership of a portion of the property, he stated they sold part of the property to a relative and when they realized
that this created two substandard lots, the property was transferred back to Mrs. Henley.
One citizen spoke in opposition and stated there are many narrow lots in this area that have been developed with single family homes.
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Merriam 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 a minimum variance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*.
ITEM #5 Jeanette Tendl for a variance of 4 parking spaces to provide 3 parking spaces, at 418 Jeffords St, Bluff View Sub, Lot 7, zoned OL (limited office).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the request is to convert a single family dwelling into a child daycare center. The second floor will continue to
be used as a residence.
Jacques Kasparian, representing the applicant, stated he, his wife, and daughter plan to live upstairs and operate a daycare center on the first floor. The property is in a commercial
area and they do not plan to have any pick up or delivery of children at this location. There are two vehicles in the family which are used to transport children and it is possible they
would have one employee other than themselves. They plan to use the room at the back of the garage to store toys.
Discussion ensued as to what other business might operate here should the property be sold. There was concern because the variance, if granted, would run with the land.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam 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 they are the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that it be for the purposes
of operating a daycare center under the conditions specified by the applicant, and that a building permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and
upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans, Merriam, Homer, and Plisko voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *granted.*
The Board recessed from 3:05 p.m. to 3:17 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 134 sq ft to permit a total of 246 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 variance is for a sign for Friday's restaurant. There is an existing nonconforming pole sign for another business
in the development and a similar variance considered last February was denied. They are now requesting a smaller sign.
George Barton, representing Friday's and the applicant, stated they currently have a 35 square foot sign and feel this is insufficient. If the variances are granted for a 96 square
foot sign, which they feel will be competitive for the area, the current Friday's sign will be removed. In response to a question, he stated there is no DOT problem with regard to the
widening of U.S. 19. The building is located over 200 feet from U.S. 19. In exchange for the variance to allow the larger pole sign, they will remove the channel letters which are now
on the building.
Gary Pickle, property manager representing the owner, stated there are two signs fronting on U.S. 19 and DOT already owns the property they need for widening the highway. Friday's occupies
approximately 8900 square feet and the overall development has 42,000 square feet. They feel it is important for Friday's to be able to increase the size of their pole sign.
The manager at Friday's stated he has heard comments from several people that did not realize the restaurant was there or had trouble finding it.
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 applicant agrees
to reduce signage on the south wall to conform with Code requirements, that no property identification sign on the property exceeds 100 square feet in October, 1992, and that a sign
permit be obtained within *3 months* from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Merriam, Homer, and Plisko voted "Aye;" Mr. Gans
voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *granted.*
ITEM #7 Southern Management Service Corp for a variance of 16 sq ft to permit a 40 sq ft property identification sign at 1111 S Highland Ave, Sec 14 29 15, M&B 34.05 & 34.06, zoned
OL (limited office) and RM 28 (multiple family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application in detail.
Don Poteet, representing the applicant, stated there is a nursing home and retirement center on the property and they wish the sign for identification. The current sign is 32 square
feet in area and 10> feet tall. The new sign will be located at the south driveway and will only be six feet high. He submitted several photos of the existing sign and where the new
sign is to be placed. The hardship is that their clientele requires a sign that is more visible.
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 sign permit be obtained
within *90 days* from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted.*
MINUTES
Mrs. Dobbs moved to approve the minutes of March 24, 1988, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Assistant City Attorney reported that during the break he was contacted by the representative for Mr. Dimmitt asking for clarification of the effect of granting variance #1 and
denying variance #2. This allowed the applicant to have an additional property identification sign but the total signage can not exceed what is allowed by Code.
There was some discussion regarding what conditions the Board could place on the granting of variances and the Assistant City Attorney stated they should have the right to grant variances
if they meet the criteria and to place any reasonable condition pertaining to use or any other factor.
There was some discussion as to whether a Board member had the right to speak at a hearing officer hearing. The Assistant City Attorney felt there was no problem with a Board member
being present but he said it would not be proper for a person who has already heard a case to speak regarding that case when it is before another jurisdiction.
The Planning Official reported the signs for the take away deli are 56 square feet. He stated the Supreme Court has refused to take the portable sign case.
Dr. Merriam stated he would be present at the July 14th meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.