Loading...
08/31/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD August 31, 1988 Members present: Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman Mary Lou Dobbs Kemper Merriam John Homer Member absent: Alex Plisko Also present: John Richter, Planning Official Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Vice-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 #1 - Florida VOA Elderly Housing, Inc for a variance of 69 parking spaces to provide 69 parking spaces, at property located between Pierce and Franklin Streets, east of Waverly Way at Stevenson Creek, Hibiscus Gardens, Blk W, Lots 1, 12-18, Blk Z, Lots 8-14, part of Lots 6 & 7 and vacated streets, zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. A variance regarding parking was considered in July and was denied. The current proposal provides more parking than previously proposed. Diana McIver, representing the applicant, stated the applicant is a national non-profit organization. The project consists of 92 units for elderly housing of which 22 are efficiencies, 69 are one-bedroom units, and there is one two-bedroom unit for the resident manager. Their average occupancy is 1.1 resident per unit with a median age of 75. It is required that all residents be at least 62 or handicapped. They are proposing to provide .75 parking spaces per unit. Because of Stevenson's Creek, there is an easement 125 feet wide which has grown since the property was acquired. The height of the buildings will be four stories where 80 feet is allowed. They feel a four story tall building is more compatible with the surrounding area. They checked with managers of similar projects and found none have the required parking and use less than what is provided. The average parking City-wide for this type of project is .7 parking spaces per unit. There is additional room on the property for more parking, if needed, but it is not as readily accessible and will reduce their allowable density. The actual parking spaces are not considered with regard to density, but the driveways and Stevenson's Creek are. They feel .75 spaces per unit is sufficient and if they are required to put in additional parking, they will lose two to three units because of density. Raul Albaisa, architect representing the applicant, stated they have room to put in more parking but he can not recommend it as he does not feel it is needed. If necessary, they can add parking to provide one space per unit. One citizen, manager of Clear Bay, a similar project, spoke in support stating they have more parking spaces than they need and there is not a lot of visitor traffic. One citizen spoke in opposition citing concern regarding the lack of parking in the area and that this project was not compatible with the neighborhood. 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, evidence has been given that the proposed use does not necessitate the required parking, and it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, subject to the condition that the 23 parking spaces shown on the site plan will be developed if more parking is needed and that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #2 - Henry Henriquez for a variance of 5 ft to permit construction of elevator 20 ft from street ROW, at 716 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 2, Lot 5, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application and stated the request is to add an elevator. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the house is on stilts. The owner is in his seventies and in deteriorating health. The house has been built to existing setbacks, but there is no buildable space left without obtaining variances. 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, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #3 - Island Escape Associates for a variance of 42 inches to permit a 72 inch high wall in setback area adjoining a street ROW where property is addressed, at 325 Island Way, Island Estates Unit 2, Lot 13 & part of Lots 12, zoned RM-20 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application and stated the request is to build an enclosure around the dumpster. Timothy Murphy, representing the applicant, stated they wish to construct a wall around the dumpster. It will be stuccoed and painted like the building with wooden gates. They were going to place the dumpster further back but the Utilities Department requested that it be moved up front. The City would not certify their site plan unless the dumpster was moved. There is considerable landscaping on the property which will soften the effect of the wall. 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, the site plan approval required the dumpster be moved up front, the request is to build a wall around the dumpster, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship of having the dumpster uncovered in the front yard, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within six (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;" Mr. Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #4 - John Schultz for a variance of 5 parking spaces to permit 775 sq ft outdoor seating area with zero additional parking, at 409 Mandalay, Barbour Morrow Sub, Blk A, Lot 15 & part of Lot 35, zoned CB (beach commercial). The applicant's representative requested by letter that this item be continued to September 22, 1988. Mr. Homer moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 22, 1988. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - Babcock Company for variances of 1) 13 ft to permit swimming pool 17 ft from a street ROW and 2) 20 ft to permit pool enclosure 10 ft from a street ROW, at 3330 Lake Shore Lane, Wynwoods Landing, Lot 20, zoned RS-4 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail . Hilda Heitler, representing the applicant, stated they wish to stipulate that these lots will front on Lake Shore. A wood fence has been constructed and landscaped so that the lots do not have access to 66th Street. It was an oversight on the developer's part that this requirement was not placed on the approved site plan. In response to a question, the Planning Official stated the rear yard setback applies to the secondary frontage if there is a fence and landscape plan which eliminates access from all lots to the secondary street. Once the site plan has been approved, however, this can not later be added and the lots in question are subject to a double frontage setback. 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, and they are the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #6 - Robert Dahlgren for a variance of 12.5 ft to permit screen room addition 7.5 ft from a rear property line, at 700 Monterey Ave, Del Oro Estates, Lot 48, zoned RS-4 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Hilda Heitler, representing the applicant, stated the owner's child has a reaction to mosquito bites and they wish to construct a screen room to allow her to play outside. They gave some consideration to changing their address which would place the screen room at the rear of their home. After some discussion, it was determined that even if the address was changed so the house fronted on San Mateo, the rear setback would be ten feet and a variance would still be needed. 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 six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #7 - Anthony Alexiou for variances of 1) 63 ft to permit construction of deck seaward of Coastal Construction Control Line, and 2) 9 parking spaces to provide zero additional parking for restaurant expansion, at 7 Rockaway St, Miller's Replat, Lots 2 & 3, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial) and 0S-R (open space/recreation). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. The request is to add an 18 by 30 foot area of decking over the sand on the west side of the restaurant. The construction will also require State approval. Kenneth Sunne, attorney representing the applicant, stated they have tenants with a long term lease who wish to add outside seating because indoor seating is limited. Hilda Heitler, representing the applicant, stated they have already received State approval. The present decking was not permitted, but it and the proposed decking were included in the approval given by the State. The Department of Natural Resources has instituted code enforcement proceedings against the previous lessor for constructing the existing decking without the necessary permits. There is an alcoholic beverage license which covers all the existing areas. The State plans to look at the placement of the Coastal Construction Control Line in this area in 1990 because of the accreted land. She pointed out that the Clearwater Hotel extends beyond the point the applicant is proposing. Discussion ensued as to whether the existing decking was included when the variances were calculated. After a brief recess, Hilda Heitler reported the parking was calculated only on the proposed decking and did not include the existing decking. This item was continued to the meeting of September 22, 1988 to allow recalculation of the parking requirement and re-advertising. ITEM #8 - Ternick, Inc for a variance of 3 ft to permit pole sign to be relocated 2 ft from property lines, at 64 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Unit 5 Replat, Blk 79, Lot 3 & part of Lot 2, zoned CR-24 (resort commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the sign falls within the allowable size. Nick DiDomenico, owner, stated he purchased the property approximately one year ago and has done extensive repairs. The existing sign is cracked and in poor condition and he proposes to replace it with a slightly larger sign. If he is required to meet the setback requirement, it would place the sign in the swimming pool. There is no other alternate location for the sign on the property. Jim Blahut, representing the applicant, stated there is no other area to place the sign that would be acceptably visible. The sign is being placed in the same area as the old sign but is providing a greater setback from one of the other streets. 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 is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship relating to location of the sign, subject to the condition that a sign permit be obtained within six (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;" Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. The Board recessed from 3:00 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. ITEM #9 - Robert Cass (Taco Bell) for variances of 1) 5 parking spaces to provide 24 parking spaces, 2) 2 business identification signs to permit 3 such signs, 3) 30 sq ft to permit 45 sq ft business identification signage, 4) signage to allow directional signs to be in shape of logo, 5) 16 ft to permit menu sign 24 ft from a street ROW, and 6) 18% front yard open space to allow 32% front yard open space, at 1824 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 13-29-15, M&B 23.03, zoned CG (general commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the request involves the demolition of a service station in order to replace it with a fast food restaurant. Tim Johnson, Jr., attorney representing Taco Bell and the owner, stated Taco Bell has contracted to purchase the property. Under their proposal, they will provide 875 square feet of open space and 2,025 square feet of landscaping. Currently, the property is 100% impervious surface with no landscaping. The fast food operation will incur approximately 465 vehicle trips per day, as opposed to approximately 800 for a service station. The four existing curb cuts will be reduced to two and the change of use will include the removal of hydrocarbons which exist on the site now. In looking at the request, they have determined they still require variances #1 and #6 but are withdrawing #2, #3, #4, and #5. The Code requires the operation have 29 spaces and they are proposing to supply 24. He pointed out that other areas have a lesser parking space requirement than the City and he feels the 24 spaces they propose will not create parking problems. They propose to have 32% open space for the front yard. This variance is partly necessitated to accommodate the drive in front of the building. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant variance requests #1 and #6 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 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 six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #10 - Jay Shoemaker for a variance of 15 ft to permit building 10 ft from a street ROW, at the northeast corner of SR 580 and Charles Ave, Acker's Sub, Block 2, Lots 1 & 23, zoned OL (limited office). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Donald Francis, representing the applicant, stated they wish to put an office building on the property. Other properties in the area are also developed with office buildings. He feels they have a hardship because the property has three street frontages which allows only 42% usable area without variances. The property meets all other building requirements. 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, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property size 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 six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #11 - Robert Alpaugh and E Eugene Sitton for variances of 1) one business identification sign to permit 2 such signs, and 2) 60 sq ft to permit a total of 90 sq ft business identification signage, at 2551 Drew St, Campus Walk, Lot 2A, zoned CH (highway commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the second sign is to provide exposure to U.S. 19 for the PIP Printing store. Charles Frank, property manager for Campus Walk Shopping Center, stated PIP Printing is located behind Bob Evans Restaurant which limits the visibility of the store. Paul Dorris, of Sewell Signs, stated PIP Printing is a new business in the shopping center and did not realize the visibility problem. He feels the store will be lost behind Bob Evans Restaurant. Discussion ensued as to whether the size of the signage and sign letters were minimal and whether the visibility problem is a self-created hardship. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mrs. Dobbs 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 six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Gans and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Request granted. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the signs. 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 upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans, Homer, and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM #12 - Lawrence Dimmitt III for variances of 1) one property identification sign to permit two such signs, and 2) 178 sq ft to permit a total of 290 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, stating the bulk of the 290 square feet of signage is in an already existing sign. The new sign will be 48 square feet which is downsized from 80 square feet. Will Griffin, representing the applicant, stated the variance for the second sign was approved in April, 1988, but the variance for the square footage was denied. They are reducing their new sign to 40 square feet which would meet City as well as franchise requirements and reduces the variance requested to 170 square feet. Discussion ensued regarding the large Chevrolet sign. Maureen Mack, representing the owner, stated the sign is leased from General Motors. The prior approval was with a 1992 date of compliance. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam moved to grant variance #1 as requested and a variance of 170 square feet for variance #2 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 total sign variance is for 170 square feet and the signs will be brought in to comformace by October 13, 1992, and that a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #13 - Morton Plant Hospital and Metco Real Estate & Insurance, Inc for a variance of 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high wall in setback area adjoining a street ROW where property is not addressed, at 430 Pinellas St, Sec 21-29-15, M&B 12.14 & 12.141 AND Reynolds Sub, Lot 9, zoned P/SP (public/semipublic). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Emil Marquardt, Jr., attorney representing the applicant, stated the fence is to hide the mechanical equipment for the pool for arthritic patients. The equipment is five feet high and cannot be moved closer to the building where a six foot high fence would be allowed. 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 six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #14 - Ordinance #4648-88 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; creating Section 136.027, Code of Ordinances, to provide that no property owner shall be entitled as a matter of right to a permit or approval for the development of a parcel of property which was created as the result of an unlawful subdivision, where such subdivision resulted in the dimunition of required parking or the violation of certain requirements or regulations applicable to any parcel of property created as a result of the unlawful subdivision, without the prior approval by the City of a plan to mitigate the nonconformity and any variances made necessary as a result of the unlawful subdivision; providing an effective date. The Planning Official stated the ordinance involves mitigating the non-conformity and variances needed for approval of a site plan when property has been sub-divided resulting in the parking being reduced. One citizen spoke in support stating he watched the City deteriorate due to lack of enforcement of regulations. The ordinance partly came about because of a proposal from Maas Brothers to sell off part of their parking lot. Mr. Homer moved that the Development Code Adjustment Board strongly recommends adoption of Ordinance #4648-88. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #15 - (For discussion only) Consultant Study Evaluation of City's Permitting Process Development, Review Procedures and Information Dissemination Practices. David Healey stated he is involved in reviewing the development review and permitting process for the City. It is being looked at from the standpoint of development review permitting process, physical arrangements of divisions and departments, and informational tools both for developers and the public. He has interviewed key staff members and is working with a task force and the Chamber of Commerce. He handed out a questionnaire to the Board members asking that they fill it out so it can be discussed at the meeting of September 8, 1988. There was some discussion regarding the Planning and Zoning Board considering variances when needed in conjunction with a conditional use to speed up the process. It was pointed out that variances and conditional uses are looked at in different prospectives and there are different criteria for approval. The Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Zoning heard special exceptions and when the Land Development Code was adopted the Board's name changed, special exceptions became known as conditional uses and were directed to the Planning and Zoning Board. Signs, which had been previously heard by a separate board, were directed to the Development Code Adjustment Board. It was suggested that some consideration should be given to returning the conditional uses to the Development Code Adjustment Board and establishing a separate board for signs. One board member felt the current system works well but, for an applicant, it is a nightmare. Another member expressed the opinion that inspection and enforcement were the most frustrating aspects of the procedure. Mr. Healey stated the City Clerk has received numerous complaints regarding the lack of notification with regard to approval of site plans and this area would also be looked at. He advised he would return to the meeting of September 8, 1988, to discuss the results of the forms. The Planning Official stated his department has established a policy regarding parking that when a property changes use, if it can be determined which spaces are allocated for each business, the entire use must then be brought up to Code. If the allocation of spaces is unclear, the applicant will only be asked to provide the additional parking that is necessary. There was a brief discussion regarding the accusation of selective enforcement. The Planning Official will check into the possibility that a previous applicant is not conforming to conditions placed on the granting of a variance. Mr. Merriam stated he had some concern with regard to some of the wording in the motions, in particular, "...has clearly met..." It is his feeling that this should read "... has met..." or "...has substantially met..." There was also some discussion that the motion to deny should contain the Code section which establishes the standards for approval. It was the consensus of the Board that Mr. Merriam draft the changes and they will be discussed at the next board meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.