05/12/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
May 12, 1988
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Otto Gans, Vice Chairman
Mary Lou Dobbs
Kemper Merriam
John Homer
Also present:
Sandy Glatthorn, Planning Official
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney (left at 1:45 p.m., returned
at 3:36 p.m.)
Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:05 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) Post Court, George Huzni, Abdul Al Jeraisy, and Abudalla Bamogaddam for a variance of 9.5 ft to permit proposed multi family structure with a maximum
height of 39.5 ft, located E of Old Coachman Rd ROW and S of Campus Walk between Drew St and Gulf to Bay, Sec 16 29 16, M&B's 11.05, 11.09, 11.11, and 14.02, zoned
RM 16 (multiple family residential); OG (general office), and CH (highway commercial).!
Michael A. Stevens, representing the applicant, stated they requested a variance on November 12, 1987, which was granted. For various reasons, they have been unable to proceed with
construction and are requesting an 8 month time extension in which to obtain a building permit. !
Mrs. Dobbs moved to *grant* an 8 month time extension to January 12, 1989, in which to obtain the building permit. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.!
ITEM #1 John Gallant for a variance to permit a fence in setback area adjoining waterfront at 643 Harbor Island, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 6D, 7A, 7C, Unit 7C, Lot 12, zoned
RS 6 (single family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application.!
John Gallant discovered there were termites in the wooden fence. He discussed replacement with his neighbors and, when he went to inquire about a permit, he was told he could repair
the fence without a permit. After starting the work he discovered the termite damage was very extensive and he proceeded to replace the entire fence. In response to a question as to
why the fence could not be chain link, he stated it would not be practical because of problems between his dog and his neighbors' dogs.!
Two letters in opposition were submitted for the record.!
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, and it is not a minimum variance. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mrs.
Dobbs and Messrs. Homer and Plisko voted "Nay." Motion *failed.*
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 of replacing a previously existing fence, subject to the condition that a building permit
be obtained within *one* month 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.* !
ITEM #2 Morton Plant Hospital for a variance to allow a temporary building to remain on site for a period of 2 years, at 323 Jeffords St, Sec 21 29 15, M&B 12.15, zoned P/SP (public/semi public).
This request was withdrawn by the applicant.
ITEM #3 Automanage, Inc for a variance of 33 sq ft of business identification signage to permit 48 sq ft, at 505 U.S. 19 N, Sec 8 29 16, M&B 33.02, zoned CH (highway commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application.!
Lee Haas, representing the applicant, stated they didn't know they needed a variance but staff changed its position with regard to the site plan and they now require the variance. The
property is developed with two different dealerships and a third will soon be added. The building is set back from U.S. 19 and traffic from the north will have difficulty seeing the
sign even as it is proposed because they are on a service road. In response to a question regarding the elimination of the word "Clearwater" from the sign, he stated the business is
known as Toyoto of Clearwater. The third dealership will be located south of the Mitsubishi dealership. !
The Assistant City Attorney left the meeting at 1:45 p.m.!
Because of some question as to why City staff changed its position the Board decided to continue this matter until someone could report on the events that occurred with regard to this
property.!
Mr. Homer moved to *continue* the item to the meeting of May 26, 1988. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.!
ITEM #4 Melissa DeCastro for a variance of 14 ft to permit swimming pool 11 ft from a street ROW, at 1875 Albright Dr, College Park, Lot 32, zoned RS 6 (single family residential).
The Planning Official explained the application.!
Melissa DeCastro stated she has three children and wishes to build a pool for their use. Because there was some question as to whether the pool would interfere with the widening of
Sunset Point Road, she contacted Pinellas County and was told there would be no problem.!
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 carried unanimously. Request *granted.* !
ITEM #5 was withdrawn.!
ITEM #6 Grand Prix, Ltd for a variance of 10.5 sq ft to permit a 13.5 sq ft directional sign, at 1880 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 13 29 15, M&B 23.07 AND Skycrest Unit D, Blk A, part of
Lot 5 AND strip of land 27.5 ft MOL W of Lot 5, zoned CG (general commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application. !
Nelson Hendry, representing the applicant, stated they purchased the car wash and worked to improve its appearance. There was an Avis car rental agency on the property, but when they
left, approximately 100 square feet of signage was removed. They placed two Grand Prix flags on their canopy not knowing they could not replace removed signage. During the tourist season,
they had some problem with tourists turning directly into the tunnel and decided they needed a directional sign. They removed the flags on the canopy and replaced them with an arrow.
!
Based on 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 of approval as
listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship of providing directions for persons using the car wash subject
to the condition that a sign permit be obtained within *one* month from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Gans and
Plisko voted "Aye;" Messrs. Merriam and Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request *granted.* !
ITEM #7 Highland Plaza Associates for variances 1) of one property identification sign to permit two such signs, and 2) of 83.5 sq ft of property identification signage to permit
a total of 147.5 sq ft, at 1609 N Highland Ave, Sec 11 29 15, M&B 21.01 & 21.02, zoned CG (general commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application.!
Dennis Dean, representing the applicant, stated there are two parcels. The small parcel contains a strip shopping center and the larger parcel has approximately 51,000 square feet of
mini warehouses. They propose to reduce the existing 190 square foot sign to 97> square feet and to put up a 50 square foot pole sign for the mini warehouse business. Currently the
parcels are under the same ownership but there are plans to possibly sell the property in which case it may be under different ownership. !
The Planning Official stated the property went through the site plan process as a single parcel and they will have to go through the subdivision process in order to split the ownership.
If this is done, each parcel would be entitled to a 64 square foot sign.!
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mrs. Dobbs moved to *deny* the variances as requested because no unnecessary hardship was shown, they are
not a minimum variance, and they violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. 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 *denied*. !
ITEM #8 Maurice Rothman for variances 1) of one business identification sign to permit two such signs and 2) of 31.5 sq ft to permit 79.5 sq ft of business identification signage,
at 390 U.S. 19 N, #F, The Clearwater Collection, Lot 3, zoned CPD (commercial planned development) and AL/I (aquatic lands interior).
The Planning Official explained the application.!
Wayne Thomas, representing the owner and lessee, stated Silverberg Jewelry will have two entrances to its building. They wish to have one business identification sign facing U.S. 19
and another facing the parking lot, so people entering from Drew Street will be able to find them. Their main concern is being able to have identification on both store fronts; the variance
for square footage is not a major concern.!
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 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.* !
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Gans moved to *deny* variance #2 as requested because it is not a minimum variance. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*.
ITEM #9 James Standridge for a variance of 4 parking spaces to provide 4 parking spaces in lieu of 8 required by Code, at 521 Clearwater Pass Ave, Bayside Shores, Blk A, part of Lot
2, zoned CB (beach commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application. !
Roger Lawson, attorney representing the applicant, stated the proposed project will have 8500 square feet of floor area, 2000 square feet of which they propose to use for fast food.
The variance they are seeking is for a yogurt shop. The yogurt shop has been considered a fast food establishment for determining the number of parking spaces needed. He cited several
statistics which indicate the yogurt shop does not have the same traffic pattern as other typical fast food establishments. He requested it be considered retail space rather than fast
food, in which case they would have sufficient parking. They are willing to have the Board place a condition on the granting of the variance that no more than 2,000 square feet of the
project will be used for fast food. There will be two tables and some chairs in the yogurt shop. It is his opinion the yogurt shop does not meet the criteria for typical fast food establishments
and it is a hardship to consider it fast food rather than retail space.!
One citizen stated if the space is used as proposed he has no objection, but should the building be sold and the space used in another manner with a higher parking requirement, he would
object. !
Discussion ensued regarding whether the yogurt shop met the typical criteria for fast food or whether it could be considered retail.!
Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Gans 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 upon
the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans and Homer voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Merriam and Plisko voted "Nay." Motion *failed.*!
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, subject to the condition that the variance is granted only for the operation of the Country's Best Yogurt Company and in
the event the Country's Best Yogurt Company discontinues operation, fast food establishments shall not exceed 2,000 square feet for the total project and 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 and Plisko voted "Aye;" Messrs. Homer and Gans voted "Nay."
Motion carried. Request *granted.* !
The meeting recessed from 3:08 p.m. to 3:22 p.m.!
ITEM #11 S.J. Vaccaro for variances 1) of 2 ft to permit 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining street ROW where property is not addressed (Garden Ave) and 2) of 2 ft to permit
6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining a street ROW where property is not addressed (Cedar St), at 1011 N Ft Harrison, J.J. Eldridge Sub, Blk C, Lots 21 26, 28, 29 and part of Lot
27 AND Palm Bluff 1st Addn, Lot 1 and part of Lot 3, zoned RM 8 (multiple family residential) and CN (neighborhood commercial).
The Planning Official explained the application.!
S.J. Vaccaro stated he had seven break ins in nine weeks. He has demolished several buildings on his property. A four foot fence will prevent people from driving onto his property but
will not stop the break ins. He proposes to relocate a portion of an existing six foot fence and put up additional six foot fencing to protect his property. In response to a question,
he stated the granting of the conditional use for the parking was conditioned upon there being a six foot fence.!
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, 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.* !
The Assistant City Attorney returned at 3:36 p.m.!
ITEM #12 Anna Mittelhauser for a variance of 5 ft to permit addition 10 ft from rear property line, at 2779 Poppyseed Court, Countryside Tract 90 Phase I, Lot 19, zoned RS 6 (single
family residential). !
The Planning Official explained the application.!
Michael Kelly, representing the applicant, stated the applicant has an eight foot wide room and wishes to construct a five foot addition to make the room more useable. !
John Mahon, husband of the applicant, stated they are only trying to make the room more useable.!
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 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.* !
MINUTES
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of April 28, 1988, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Gans stated he would be unable to attend the meeting of June 23, 1988. It was the consensus of the Board that if Commission Chambers is available to re scheduled this meeting for
June 30, 1988.!
There was a brief discussion regarding the Hearing Officer hearing on the Dimmitt flag appeal and how important it is to cite reasons for denying a variance.!
The meeting adjourned at 3:53 p.m.