Loading...
12/08/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD December 8, 1988 Members present: Alex Plisko, Chairman Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman Kemper Merriam John Homer Mary Lou Dobbs Also present: John Richter, Planning Official Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:15 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) Limited Properties, Inc for variances of l) 25 ft to permit addition to building zero ft from street right-of-way, 2) 4 ft to permit a sign one ft from side property line, and 3) 43.4% front yard open space to allow 6.6% front yard open space, at 2800 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Sec 17-29-16, M&B 13.07, zoned CG (general commercial). The applicant wrote a letter requesting a six months time extension in which to obtain a building permit. Mr. Homer moved to grant a time extension in which to obtain the building permit to June 9, 1989. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM - Elias Anastasopoulos and Gregory Politis (E & G Investors, Inc) for a variance of 21 parking spaces to provide 42 parking spaces for 42 time-sharing units, at 678 Gulfview Blvd, Bayside Sub #5, Blk B, Lots 7-13 & Lots 15-20, zoned CB (commercial beach). The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the property is developed with a time-sharing facility and the applicants wish to add 20,000 sq ft of retail. The variance is needed because the time-sharing part of the property has less parking than the required 1-1/2 spaces per unit. Total characters seen = 1665, rejected = 4, percent = 99.76 Charles Decker, attorney representing the owners, stated the time-share is a "right to use" type and has been in effect for 7-1/2 years. The use of the facility is more like a hotel/motel. Only half of the units are over the 500 sq ft limit which necessitate the parking variance. They have done surveys of the guests and feel they only require 1 parking space per unit because many people do not have cars or only one car. There is no parking problem at this facility. They have room for 8 more parking spaces but wish to keep more green space for aesthetics. Phase II has been abandoned. In response to questions, John Ehrig, architect for the owners, stated parking could possibly be reconfigured. Discussion ensued regarding parking overlapping between the commercial and the time-share uses. Gregory Politis, one of the owners, stated they purchased the property last year and only 50-60% of the parking is used. He feels one space per unit is sufficient. Discussion ensued as to whether the facility is used as hotel/motel daily use or apartment use. Mr. Decker stated rental could be for any length of time, but the units would not be used as apartments. One citizen spoke in support of the application stating he is a motel owner from across the street and has never seen the parking lot full, nor has he seen any parking on the street. One citizen, an attorney representing a unit owner, spoke in opposition stating they were opposed to the commercial development of the property. He also stated that the owners of the time-share units should have been notified of the changes on the property, and they were denied a list of owners by the time-share management. In response, Charles Decker stated notification of the time-share unit owners is not required, but he had offered the owners list to the objecting unit owner. He also stated he feels the time-share portion of the property should stand on its own regarding parking. The new owners should not be penalized for what former owners of the property have done. Discussion ensued regarding owner notification not being an issue, and whether or not there is a hardship. Mr. Homer 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, the hardship was caused by the owner/applicant, it is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property, 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 carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #1 - Philip Sibley for a variance of 2 ft to permit pool enclosure 8 ft from rear property line, at 2978 Eagle Trail, Eagle Estates, Lot 51, zoned RS-4 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Philip Sibley stated he purchased the home a few months ago on a foreclosure. He had asked the homeowners association for their consideration but since their meeting was not until December, he decided to apply for the variance. The enclosure will be 3 ft from the edge of the pool which is a minimum since that is what the Code requires. One citizen spoke in support stating he felt the screen enclosure is a good idea for safety of neighborhood children. Thirty letters in support were submitted for the record. Two citizens spoke in opposition stating the variance had been denied in July, 1987, there are deed restrictions against this, the homeowners association opposes the variance, there may be flooding problems if retention wall is taken down, and there are other alternatives to a pool enclosure. Two letters in opposition were submitted for the record. Discussion ensued concerning this being a minimal variance, applicant's willingness to work with neighbors concerning the retention wall, and the site being a unique shape. 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, the particular physical shape 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 it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship created by the reduction of the size of the lot due to the turn in the road, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within three (31 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Plisko, Gans, Homer, and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #2 - Frederick Pinchin (Charles Wenglasz) for a variance of 2 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining a street R.O.W. where property is not addressed, at 3074 Oakhill Rd, Shady Oak Farms, Blk B, Lot 4, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail noting that a post and rail fence was provided in conjunction with site plan approval. Pam Wenglasz stated they wish to have the fence because of their dogs, future children, the road widening, and to cut down noise and car pollution. The post and rail fence will be taken down and replaced. The fence will be on four sides of the property, set back 4-6 ft, and landscaped. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer 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 it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship of the expansion and the noise and pollution of cars from McMullen Booth Road, subject to the conditions that landscaping will be according to code and a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #3 - United Daughters of the Confederacy for a variance to permit shell as a parking surface rather than a permanent, all-weather paving material, at 3158 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Sec 16-29-16, M&B 24.08, zoned CG (general commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Daniel Echols, representing the applicants, stated the parking lot is used only once a month for meetings by the United Daughters and some of the members do not drive. There will be a concrete apron off Gulf-to-Bay Blvd going into a shell parking lot. Often, because of flooding problems, they cannot get to the building. The Planning Official stated the grass parking area is allowed for seldom used sites such as churches. In his opinion, grass would be better than shell. 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, 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 conditions that this variance be applicable only for the present use by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, 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 #4 - John Demetrakis and Harry Kahajas for variances of 1) 3 business identification signs to permit 4 such signs, and 2) 71.88 sq ft business identification signage to permit 86.88 sq ft total signage, at 1759 Drew St, Sky Crest Unit #2, Blk D, part of Lot 2 AND Sky Crest Unit #3, Blk C, Lot 1, zoned CG (general commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are for four signs on a Texaco service station canopy. Ron Bingham of Risser Oil, representing the owners, stated they need the signage to meet Texaco's standards of excellence. They will take down the old pole and sign. Discussion ensued regarding the sizes of the signs and the letters. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variance #l 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 it is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of visibility, 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. Mr. Gans moved that variance #2 be continued to December 20, 1988. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - William Myers for variances of 1) 20 ft to permit second floor addition 5 ft from a street R.O.W., and 2) 10 ft to permit construction on a 60 ft wide corner lot, at 850 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 7, Lot 1, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Kathleen Myers stated they wish to build an addition to the second story of their house. They need more bedroom space for their parents and children. The addition will be on the rear of the house. A setback variance for the property was approved in July, 1968, when the house was built. The Planning Official stated the variance granted at the time of the original construction does not apply to the addition now being proposed. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer 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, and they are the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the conditions that they be restricted to the proposed plan as submitted, and that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. The Board recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:43 p.m. ITEM #6 - Fortune Federal S & L Association (Jerald Turner) for variances of l) one property identification sign to permit two such signs, and 67 sq ft to permit a total of 131 sq ft property identification signage, at 601 S Belcher Rd, Turner's Professional Park, Lots 1 & 2, zoned CG (general commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail noting the property does not have road frontage. The existing bank sign is nonconforming. A previous application was granted, but the time to obtain the permit ran out. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated this application is the same as the one the Board granted on February 11, 1988. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer 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, they are the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the conditions that the approval is for the doctor's 33 square foot sign at that site and location, that it does not relieve the bank from bringing its sign into conformance in October, 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 #7 - Lois Clymer for a variance of 24 sq ft to permit an 80 sq ft property identification sign, at 401 Coronado Dr, Columbia Sub #4, Lot 1, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail, noting this establishment is a deli, which is allowed. A fast food restaurant use is not permitted on the property because it does not have the parking needed for a restaurant use. Jean Clymer stated the variance is needed because of the airspace around the sign. This sign will be higher than the existing sign. Visibility is a hardship because this is a small building among many larger hotels. The business will be strictly take-out. Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that she 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, it will be by design materially detrimental to other property or the neighborhood, and it would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #8 - Clinton Carter for variances of 1) 3 business identification signs to permit a total of 4 such signs, and 2) 71.88 sq ft to permit a total of 86.88 sq ft, at 1285 S Highland Ave, Forrest Hill Estates #5, part of Lot 1, zoned CG (general commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Ron Bingham, representative for the owner, stated this service station changed from Gulf to Texaco. The variances are similar to Item #4 on this meeting. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variance #l 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 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. Mr. Gans moved to continue variance request #2 to the meeting of December 20, 1988. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #9 - Tio Pepe, Inc (E & R Properties) for a variance of 5 ft to permit sign zero ft from property lines, at 2930 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 17-29-16, M&B's 14.04 & 14.05, zoned CG (general commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the relocation of the sign is due to the widening of Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. The sign will be on the right-of-way line with a zero setback. Don McFarland, attorney representing the applicant, stated locating the sign anywhere else on the property would cause loss of parking spaces. The building has a zero setback. 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, 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 and the fact that the sign is smaller than the allowable size, 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 #10 - Pinellas County for a variance of view corridor requirements to allow less than 40% clear view to water, at 310 Court St, Sec 16-29-15, M&B 13.10 AND A.C. Turner's Sub, Blk 2, Lot 2, Blk 3, Lots 1 & 2, Blk 4, Lot 1 & part of Lot 2, zoned UC(B) (urban center - bayfront). The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating Pinellas County wishes to add a parking garage by the Utilities Building as part of the new County Government Complex. Carl Baron, representing Pinellas County, stated they are consolidating several permitting departments in to one building. The reasons for picking this site are aesthetics, minimal impact on site, meeting needs of citizens, and S.R. 60 possibly being channeled to Court St. The maximum height of the garage will be 16 ft which is within the height requirements, and there will be a net gain of 75 parking spaces. Paula Harvey, Director of the Planning Department, spoke in support of the application stating she was speaking on behalf of the City Manager. The application is supported because present County employees will remain in downtown Clearwater and additional employees will be brought in, it is a commitment by Pinellas County to remain in downtown Clearwater, and it has the unanimous approval of the Downtown Development Board. The site plan has preliminary approval by the City Commission. Discussion ensued regarding the project's impact on the adjacent retirement home. 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, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, and the particular physical surroundings and topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application 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 (l) year from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #11 Ordinance #4727-88 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 136.022(k), Code of Ordinances, to require that all handicapped parking spaces shall be conspicuously outlined in blue paint, as required by Florida law; providing an effective date. The Planning Official explained the amendment stating the State of Florida regulation was passed in October, 1988. It was the consensus of the Board to recommend adoption of Ordinance #4727-88. MINUTES Mr. Gans moved to approve the minutes of November 22, 1988, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.