Loading...
11/10/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD November 10, 1988 Members present: Alex Plisko, Chairman Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman Kemper Merriam John Homer Member absent: Mary Lou Dobbs 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 2:35 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 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 - 610 Island Way Development Corp for a variance of 43.7 ft to permit carports 4 ft from side property line, at 650 Island Way, Sec 5-29-15, M&B 31.012 & 31.03, zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Carlton Ward, attorney for the contractor, stated the City of Clearwater asked them to rework the parking plan to accommodate the garbage truck and allow for better ingress and egress from parking. Additionally, he indicated the Fire Department required 4 parking spaces which are over fire line. The loss of the spaces in the reorganization of the parking plan and the loss of spaces to the Fire Department does not allow enough spaces to be carported for the 47 of the residents who require them. He further stated the variance would allow construction of the carports on the north side of the property thereby allowing the front of the property to stay aesthetically pleasant. Discussion ensued as to whether there is a hardship and why carports cannot be located in the interior portion of the property. One citizen spoke in favor of the variance indicating that with the carports on the north side of the property the front of the property is clear and more attractive. He also pointed out the Bay House has parking on the City's right-of-way. Twenty-four letters in support were submitted for the record. Two citizens stated the full length of the south line of their property is next to 610 Island Way. The entire 75 plus residents object to the carports being on the north side of 610 Island Way due to the fact that the carports will obstruct the view of the entire ground floor facing that direction. The natural light will be affected and the noise from rain will be detrimental. Photos were submitted to the Board reflecting the raised grade of the property. Access to their property by fire equipment is from the south side of property and carports would obstruct fire equipment. The carports are being sold for $5,000 and that is a profit item. Carlton Ward, attorney for developer, indicated the carports were being sold for $2,500 and he did not know if this was a profit item. He further stated the developer would be willing to use noise decreasing materials. The fire equipment should enter 660 from the front of the property to fight a fire. There is a covered walkway on adjacent property. The carports would be 9 feet high. The fire line caused a change in parking. The view would be obstructed by hedge when it has grown to its expected height of 6 to 7 feet. Discussion ensued as to whether it is the minimum and whether there is a hardship. It was pointed out that aesthetically it is better to have the carports in a line together rather than scattered throughout the complex. Mr. Merriam moved to deny the variance as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012 (d) of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, it is not a minimum variance, and it would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Section 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Plisko, Gans, Merriam voted "Aye;" Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM #1 - Gertrude Nall (Menna-DiGiovanni) for a variance of 5 ft to allow 3 pole signs to be placed zero ft from the property line abutting street right-of-way., at 2940, 2950, 2960 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Sec 17-29-16, M&Bs 14.051, 14.052, & 14.053, zoned CG (general commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. He further stated the State is taking the property the signs are on for widening S.R. 60. Patrick Maguire, attorney representing the applicant, stated nonconforming signs may be relocated if it is due to eminent domain. The signs were permitted to be installed in the easement. DOT will have to pay more if the variance is not granted. Discussion ensued as to whether there is a hardship other than financial to the State and whether the variance is actually needed. M.A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney, explained the ordinance as being an exception to general rule and the variance is needed because they are requesting a zero setback. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has 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 as explained by supporting documents by Bill Baker and Joe McFate, subject to the condition that the signs be in conformance on or before October, 1992,and a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans, Homer, and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mr. Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #2 - Howard Groth for a variance of 2 ft to permit an addition 23 ft from a street right-of-way, at 2078 S Druid Circle, East Druid Park, Lot 10, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Howard Groth stated he had lived in the house 5-1/2 years and the house is 21 years old. The dining room is in the center of the house which makes the area very dark. The plans are to extend the front with a bay window which will allow more light to the dining area reducing the heavy use of artificial light. Discussion ensued concerning the variance. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially 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 six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #3 - Clearwater Collections Associates, Ltd. for variances of 1) 3 business identification signs to permit a total of 4 such signs, and 2) 62 sq ft of business identification signage to permit a total of 110 sq ft of such signage, at 390 A & B U.S.Hwy 19 N, Clearwater Collection, Lots 2 & 3, zoned CPD (commercial planned development). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and further stated the business is a bank requesting variances for 3 signs for their main building and their separate drive-up facility. Will Alexander, representive for the applicant, stated the bank is part of a strip shopping center. The signs are required to assist people to see the facilities from U.S. 19 as well as the shopping center and reducing the traffic congestion. The developer plans a new extension which will add more to the confusion and traffic congestion. Discussion ensued regarding whether the three signs are necessary and what remedies could be granted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant a variance of 2 business identification signs for variance #1 because the applicant has 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 conditions the sign on the canopy be limited to the west side of drive-in facility canopy and a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Mr. Gans moved to deny variance #2 as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012 (d) of the Land Development Code because no unnecessary hardship was shown, and it is not a minimum variance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #4 - Larry Main for a variance of 2 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way where property is not addressed, at 2000 McKinley St, Skycrest Terrace, Blk A, Lot 6, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). This item was withdrawn by the applicant. The Board recessed from 4:45 p.m. to 4:55 p.m. ITEM #5 - Lee Purcell for a variance of 3.5 ft to permit a shed 1.5 ft from side property line, at 1012 N Osceola Ave, J J Eldridge, Blk A, Lots 1 & 2, zoned RM-8 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Lee Purcell stated the shed is already built and he did not know the builder did not have a permit or that the shed was too close to the property line. He further stated the land slopes and the shed is in the best location. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially 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 one (1) month from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #6 - J. Marvin Guthrie for a variance of 7 ft in height to permit a 32 ft high addition to house, at 1006 Bay Ave, Harbor Oaks, Lots 123 & 125, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application and further stated the addition to the west side of the house would be built up 32 feet to match the ridge of the existing unit. Susan Guthrie stated the L-shaped addition to the rear of the house was built 5 feet lower than the present house which is on a built-up foundation. By allowing the variance, the step up and down to the addition can be eliminated. The house will be in keeping with the general surroundings. Two letters in support were submitted for the record. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has 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 - Countryside Village, Ltd (Bookstop) for variances of 1) 1 business identification sign to permit 3 such signs, and 2) 10.6 sq ft of business identification signage to permit a total of 213.1 sq ft of such signage, at 2541 Countryside Blvd, Countryside Village Square, Lots 5, 7, & 8, zoned CC (commercial center). Mr. Plisko indicated he had a conflict of interest on this request and he would not vote. The Planning Official explained the application for variance. The tenant is a major tenant. The Code permits 200 square feet and they are requesting approximately 210 square feet. David Perry, architect for the applicant, stated the owner is asking for an additional sign to face U.S. 19. The previous tenants were three small tenants with three signs on the building. This is a minimal request. Earl May, general manager of the shopping center, stated the main entrance to the shopping center is off U.S. 19 and with three entrances, the signs will draw people to unused parking in the center. Discussion ensued concerning the signs and their locations. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant variance #1 as requested because the applicant has substantially 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 sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans, Homer, and Merriam voted "Aye;" No one voted "Nay." Mr. Plisko abstained. Motion carried. Request granted. Mr. Homer moved to deny variance #2 as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012 (d) of the Land Development Code because no unnecessary hardship was shown. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans, Homer, and Merriam voted "Aye;" No one voted "Nay." Mr. Plisko abstained. Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM #8 - Gateway Investments for a variance of 45 sq ft business identification signage to permit a 60 sq ft business identification sign, at 1051 U.S. Hwy 19 S, Sec 17-29-16, M&B 33.04, zoned CH (highway commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Richard Silvers, representative of the applicant, stated the building setback is more than normal due to the retention pond. The sign cannot be placed south because of the building location. The property identification sign is obstructed by a tree from the north. Without the variance, the sign cannot be read from U.S. 19. Discussion ensued as to whether there is a hardship and whether the property identification sign could be moved for better visibility. The Planning Official stated the sign size has relationship to building size but questioned why property identification sign cannot be relocated. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially 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 sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #9 - Mountasia Fantasy Golf of Florida for variances of 1) 24 ft to permit handrails atop bridges 151 ft from centerline of U.S. Hwy 19 N, and 2) 42 inches in height to permit a 72 inch high chain link fence in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way where property is addressed, at 2040 U.S. Hwy 19 N, Blackburn's Sub, Lot 7, zoned CH (highway commercial). The Planning Official explained the request in detail. John Powell, representative for the applicant, stated the handrails are for three bridges which are below elevation and height of the handrails is 48 inches. The second variance is for a 6 foot high black vinyl fence required for security for the golf course. Discussion ensued concerning the handrails and the fence. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, 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, 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 #10 - The Babcock Company for variances of 1) 9.3 ft to permit house 20.7 ft from a street right-of-way, 2) 1% lot open space to allow 54%, 3) 9.3 ft to permit pool enclosure 20.7 ft from a street right-of-way, and 4) 6 ft to permit swimming pool 24 ft from a street right-of-way, at 3378 Lake Shore Lane, Wynwoods Landings, Lot 12, zoned RS-4 (single family residential). ITEM #10A - (continued from 10/27/88) The Babcock Company for a variance of 1.25% building coverage to permit 31.25% building coverage, at 3378 Lake Shore Lane, Wynwoods Landings, Lot 12, zoned RS-4 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the requirement for building coverage was continued from a previous meeting. Hilda Heitler, representative for the applicant, stated the applicant was withdrawing Item #10A and Variance #2 under Item #10. There is a hardship because it is a double frontage lot and there is an angle on the front property line. They have reduced the size of the house 18 inches. Item #10A was withdrawn because they will establish a deed restriction that prohibits access to 66th Street. Discussion ensued concerning the variances. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variances #1, #3, and #4 as requested because the applicant has substantially 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 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 #11 - Branch Sunset Associates, Ltd. for variances 1) of 212.4 sq ft to permit a total of 596.4 sq ft property identification signage where a maximum of 384 sq ft is allowed, and 2) to permit alteration of a nonconforming sign, at 1856 U.S. Hwy 19 N, Sec 6-29-16, M&Bs 41.01, 41.02, 41.04, 41.05, 41.06 and Blackburn's Sub, part of Lot 12, zoned CC (commercial center). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and the maximum sign size permitted is 384 square feet. Matt Smith, representative for the owners, stated the shopping center is old and is being renovated and the sign requires some refurbishing to tie in the shopping center. The shopping center sets 1,000 feet from the highway and it is difficult to see signs on buildings because of the trees. The actual square footage of the signs is 225 square feet. Discussion ensued regarding the signs and the signs that are now on the buildings. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, and the particular physical surroundings based on the fact that the center is 1,000 feet away from the sign and results in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, subject to the conditions that the signs be brought into conformance with the Code on or before October 13, 1992, there be no messages erected on the space frame, "Workplace" may not be placed on this sign unless they conform to current sign code with the sign on the building, and a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans, Plisko, and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. MINUTES Mr. Gans moved to approve the minutes of October 27, 1988, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. One Board member asked the Planning Official what the setbacks and requirements for satellite dishes are. The Planning Official stated they must be placed behind all setback lines, be no higher than maximum height permitted in zoning district and with a maximum diameter of 12 feet. The meeting adjourned at 6:38 p.m.