Loading...
04/28/1988 Book 3 1\FE DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD April 28, 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 (left at 1:50 p.m. & returned at 4:35 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 #1  George Karas for variances 1) of 11 ft to permit deck 4 ft from rear property line, 2) of 14.7% open space for lot to provide 30.3%, 3) of 11.1% open space for front yard to provide 38.9%, and 4) to permit construction of wall in setback adjoining waterfront, at 660 Snug Island, Island Estates Unit 7B, Lot 63, zoned RS6 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the request is to construct a pool, a wall, and a circular driveway. The proposed deck will be four feet high and anything over 12 inches must be within the setback. ! C.F. Curtis, representing the applicant, stated the house has an elevation of 12 feet. The deck is proposed to be 4 feet high because the owner has had hip surgery and it is his desire to have as few steps as possible. The variance to the front yard open space is to allow the circular driveway. ! Discussion ensued as to whether the circular driveway was included in the open space variance requested for the lot. There was also discussion as to what constitutes the hardship. The Board questioned whether or not the applicant is requesting double variances.! Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Gans moved to *deny* variance #1 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 upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans, Merriam, Homer, and Plisko voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *denied*. ! Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Gans 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 upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Gans, Merriam, and Plisko voted "Aye;" Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *denied*. ! Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Gans moved to *deny* variance #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*. ! Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Gans moved to *deny* variance #4 for a 6 ft wall in the setback adjoining the waterfront 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 #2  Kearsley Lewis for a variance of 5 ft to permit construction of garage 5 ft from rear property line, at 608 Smallwood Circle, Glenwood Estates, Lots 147 & 153, zoned RS8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the aplication in detail. The variance is to construct a garage within 5 feet of the rear lot line between two parcels under the same ownership. He pointed out the soil in the area is highly unstable.! Nancy Lewis stated they feel this is the best location for the garage and there are no plans to sell the rear lot. In response to a question regarding unity of title, she stated it was their understanding that the variance would still be needed because they could cancel the unity of title.! Mike Sofarelli spoke in support and explained he was with Mr. Lewis when the unity of title was explained. He was under the impression the variance would still be needed because the lots might be separated sometime in the future. ! The Assistant City Attorney left the meeting at 1:50 p.m.! 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. 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 #3  Ted Wittner for a variance of .20 floor area ratio to permit .60 floor area ratio on CG zoned portion, at 1465 S Ft Harrison Ave, Belleair Highlands, Blk A, Lots 110 AND Belleair Highlands 1st Addn, Lots 112, zoned CG (general commercial) and RM8 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and explained the floor area ratio is a computation of the floor area in relation to the lot area. In August, 1986, a floor area ratio variance larger than what is being requested today was approved but the permit was not obtained within the allotted time. The portion of the property zoned RM8 is to be developed with a parking lot.! Glen Willard, representing the applicant, stated the bank is the anchor tenant and it took them longer to get their charter than anticipated. Without this anchor tenant, they could not proceed with construction. They have been able to care for the large oak trees because of the delay in construction and feel these trees will withstand the construction better now than if they had started construction immediately. The building has been reconfigured to fit around the oak trees. ! One letter of support was submitted for the record.! Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 #4  Ronald Mueller for variances 1) of 20 ft to permit a 40 ft high pole sign, 2) of one business identification sign to permit 2 such signs, and 3) of 54.78 sq ft to permit a total of 69.78 sq ft of business identification signage, at 100 US 19 S, Sec 182916, M&B 11.13, zoned CH (highway commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail.! Will Griffin, representing the applicant, stated the proposed sign has been permitted and will be ten feet from the rightofway line. They need the pole sign height for better visibility because of the overpass and because the sign will be blocked from northbound traffic by the building itself. The sign on the pole has only the word "Mazda." They feel a 15 square foot business identification sign is too restrictive for this building and the identification on both corners of the building is less than 3% of the total building frontage. The letters on the sign will be 15 inches high. They will remove all existing signage and will replace it with less than what previously existed. The pole sign is only 96 square feet which is 18 square feet less than is permitted. In response to a question, he stated the building is approximately 26 feet high to the roofline. ! Jack Boone, representing the owner, stated Mazda Village is the actual name of the business. Access to the property is very confining and the restaurant sign next door will block their sign. If the sign is placed in front of the building behind the setback, it will be right up against the building. ! Lynn Gibson, of AOK Signs, stated they have made every effort to ask for the smallest variance possible for the Mazda Village sign. ! Discussion ensued with regard to the height and what alternatives there might be. ! Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to *grant* variances #2 and #3 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.* ! 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, and it is not a minimum variance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*. ! ITEM #5  Terrell Hawkins for a variance to permit 3.5 ft high picket fence in structural setback adjoining waterfront, at 430 Leeward Island, Island Estates Unit 1, Lot 46, zoned RS8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the fence is to be placed along the seawall.! Terrell Hawkins stated he has a two year old daughter he wishes to protect from falling into the water. He pointed out there are numerous fences in the Island Estates area. ! There was some discussion as to whether the fence could be placed within the setback.! 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 Plisko voted "Aye;" Mr. Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *granted.* ! ITEM #6  Trustees Skycrest Baptist Church for variances 1) of 2 ft to permit construction of 6 ft high wall (fence) within setback adjoining street rightsofway where property is not addressed and 2) of 42 inches to permit construction of 6 ft high wall within setback adjoining street ROW where property is addressed, at the SE corner of Weber Ave and Airport Dr, Drew Heights, Blk C, Lots 115, 28 & part of Lots 1627 AND Sec 122915, M&B 33.01, zoned RM12 (multiple family residential) and RS8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated Weber Ave is the Keene Road extension.! Mike Sofarelli, representing the owner, stated the request is for a privacy fence for a subdivision. It is his understanding that if a fence is erected, they will not be required to meet the 25 feet setback for pools from the rightofway to the rear of the lots. They plan to install service gates and feel the 6 foot fence will help decrease the noise from the road. ! One citizen residing on McKinley, questioned whether the fence would be along McKinley and whether McKinley would remain a dead end. He was informed that according to the plan, McKinley would not be made a throughstreet.! The Planning Official stated the request for a 10 foot setback from the street rightofway to the rear of the lot would be addressed in site plan approval when the City Commission considers a fence and landscape plan. The height of the fence would not be addressed at that time.! Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Gans moved to *deny* the variances as requested because there is no condition which is unique to the property, and no unnecessary hardship was shown. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*. ! The Board recessed from 3:07 p.m. to 3:17 p.m.! ITEM #7  Nick Basic for a variance of 9 ft to permit addition 1 ft from a street ROW, at 657 Mandalay Ave, Mandalay Unit 5 Replat, Blk 84, Lots 7 & 8, zoned CB (beach commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the variance is to construct an office for an existing motel. The building currently does not conform to setbacks.! Nick Basic stated the office is part of their apartment and interferes with their family life. He wishes the variance to construct an office that is separate from their living quarters. ! One citizen spoke citing concern about trash accumulating in a one foot space between the building and the sidewalk. She requested this area be wider than one foot to allow something to be planted between the building and the sidewalk. ! Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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. Gans and Homer voted "Aye;" Messrs. Merriam and Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *granted.* ITEM #8  Antonios Markopoulos for variances 1) of 55 ft to permit construction on lot 95 ft wide, 2) of 15 ft to permit building zero ft from Coronado Dr and First St rights ofway, 3) of 29.5 ft to permit building zero ft from the S side property line, 4) of 32.5 ft to permit building zero ft from rear (west) property line, 5) of 25% open space to provide zero% open space for lot, 6) of 50% front yard open space to provide zero% open space for front yard, and 7) of 55% building coverage to allow 100% building coverage, at 200 Coronado Dr, LloydWhiteSkinne , Lots 4447, 9097 AND Columbia Sub, Blk A, Lot 1, zoned CR28 (resort commercial). The Planning Official stated the request is for 7 variances to construct a parking garage. The owner has 2 parcels that are divided by a street rightofway. He wishes to construct a parking garage on the corner of First and Coronado. The setbacks are determined by the height of the building and the present plan is for 361 spaces on 9 levels. The upper levels will be accessed by a 2 car elevator. The applicant's hotel and retail property would require approximately 160 of the parking spaces. He discussed the stacking space for cars awaiting the elevator with the Traffic Engineer and feels this should not be an issue before the Board but should be addressed at site plan review. The height is not an issue for the Board to consider as 90 feet is permissible.! William Kimpton, attorney representing the owner, stated the property is undergoing renovation. The plan for the garage does not involve ramp parking as they propose to use an elevator. The Traffic engineer indicated to him that he would be opposed to the project if a ramp system was used. The system will be valet parking. The applicant does not need parking for his hotel/retail property, but he feels the garage will address some of the parking problems on the beach. The property has an 87 unit motel and 22,000 square feet of retail space. The parking garage will provide 100% of the parking needs for the property and also accommodate other area businesses with parking problems. It is his opinion that this is Clearwater Beach's one chance for a parking structure. They need to utilize 100% of the property in order to build the structure. How the spaces are laid out will determine how many floors are built. The parking garage will be available for anyone to use. ! William Paxton, parking engineer representing the applicant, stated they have addressed some of the concerns of the Traffic Engineer and plan to use the lower level for the stacking space. There will be 344 parking spaces on the upper levels. If they are required to conform to the Code, they can only park approximately four or five cars per level and this is not practical. It will be valet parking which will also allow more spaces per level as they can be smaller. ! Ronald Letize, contractor representing the applicant, stated that without the variances, the buildable area is insufficient for a parking garage. They can not provide any more parking spaces in a garage built within the setbacks than can be in a parking lot at ground level. All the variances are interlocking and are needed to proceed with the project. They have had two meetings with Mr. Crawford since his written comments to the Board and feel they have addressed his concerns. ! Antonios Markopoulos stated he needs more parking. He proceeded with the renovation of the motel and retail structure because the roof was in bad need of repair.! One citizen spoke in opposition expressng the need for a comprehensive plan for Clearwater Beach. She did not feel there was a unique hardship and questioned whether or not a unity of title could be done so the parcel with the parking garage could not be separated from the parcel with the motel and retail space. She asked whether motels and hotels are required to meet flood plain requirements and questioned why some setbacks could not be provided.! Mr. Paxton stated there might be a compromise between the minimum and the maximum variances but to grant less than what is requested will present a hardship to the owner.! Mr. Letize stated the variances are required to build a practical functional structure. The lot is fully paved at the present time.! The Assistant City Attorney returned to the meeting.! Discussion ensued as to whether or not this is a commercial venture. It was the consensus that the request to ask for complete elimination of all Code requirements is unreasonable. There was concern expressed that the public may not have been aware of the proposal. It was agreed there is a parking problem, but building a parking garage with multiple variances is objectionable. ! 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 arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by 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.* ! Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mrs. Dobbs moved to *deny* variances #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7 as requested because no unnecessary hardship was shown, they are not minimum variances, they are based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property, they impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, and they violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*. ! ITEM #9  Ordinance #458588  An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, amending Section 136.022, Code of Ordinances, relating to the parking of certain kinds of vehicles in residential areas to provide that the regulations shall apply to all vehicles, boats and trailers in residential areas, the parking of which shall not be deemed an allowable "nonconforming use," providing an effective date. The Planning Official stated when the Code was adopted in 1985, it restricted the parking of large vehicles, boats, etc in residential areas but granted a 60 day period after adoption to give residents time to relocate these vehicles. Approximately a year ago, the 60 day provision was eliminated. Recently, a case heard by the Code Enforcement Board was dismissed because the nonconformity provision had been removed from the Code. The proposed ordinance merely places this back into the Code. ! Mrs. Dobbs moved that the Board recommend the Commission adopt Ordinance #458588. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.! MINUTES Mrs. Dobbs moved to approve the minutes of April 14, 1988, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ! The Planning Official reported the large sign at the Dimmitt dealership was permitted prior to the adoption of the Code. There was some discussion regarding the Dimmitt sign variances heard by the Board on April 14, 1988. ! One Board member questioned the Planning Official with regard to window signage and stated Lokey removed the window signage but had replaced it with advertising. The Planning Official responded that 50% window signage is allowed for up to 30 days and can be removed and replaced every 30 days.! In response to a question, the Planning Official stated he would investigate how Susie's Surplus received approval for a 6 foot fence in the front yard setback.! The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.