Loading...
02/23/1989 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD February 23, 1989 Members present: Alex Plisko, Chairman Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman Kemper Merriam John Homer Member absent: Mary Lou Dobbs (excused) Also present: John Richter, Planning Official 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 - (request for time extension) Jay Shoemaker for a variance of 15 ft to permit building 10 ft from a street ROW, at the northeast corner of S.R. 580 and Charles Ave, Acker's Sub, Blk 2, Lots 1 & 23, zoned OL (limited office). The applicant sent a letter requesting an extension of the time in which to obtain the building permit. Mr. Merriam moved to grant a time extension of six months. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #1 - Joseph Fowler for variances of 1) 2 ft to permit dock 30 ft wide, and 2) 13 ft to permit dock 7 ft from extended property line, at 331 Palm Island SE, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 6A, Lot 47, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). Mr. Homer indicated he has a conflict of interest concerning Item #1. The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Tom Nash, attorney for the applicant, stated the variances are being requested to avoid having to tear down the existing dock and rebuilding it to meet Code. The present dock is positioned on the curve of the seawall. The area east of the dock is too shallow and it is difficult to maneuver around the tie poles at his neighbor's dock. There is no covered boat dock at the present time. The angle of the seawall creates a hardship. One citizen spoke in opposition to the variances indicating that as more construction is permitted, the rate of the water flow in the channel is affected and sediment builds up. He also indicated that docks like the one proposed obstruct views of the bay. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam moved to grant variance #1 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, subject to the condition that a dock permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being take, Messrs Gans, Merriam, and Plisko voted "Aye." Mr. Homer abstained from voting. Motion carried. Request granted. Mr. Merriam 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 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, and Plisko voted "Aye." Mr. Homer abstained from voting. Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM #2 - William R Jacobsen for a variance of 6 ft to permit dock (boat lift) 14 ft from extended property line, at 461 Palm Island NE, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 6B, Lot 92, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. William R. Jacobsen, applicant, stated he is requesting a variance to allow an existing dock to remain and add a covered boat lift. He has a 50 foot boat and, without the variance, the existing dock would have to be removed. He indicated there would be an 18 foot boat in the boat lift house. Three citizens spoke in opposition to the variance stating the construction of the covered boat lift would obstruct the view of neighbors. They felt the applicant should comply with Code and that the hardship is self-imposed hardship. 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, the hardship in part was caused by the owner/applicant, and it is not a minimum variance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #3 - Countryside Point Inc for a variance of 10.36 sq ft of business identification signage to permit a 14.36 sq ft identification sign, at 1875 Belcher Rd N, Belcher Point, Blk D, zoned OPD (office planned development). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. The variance is for a business identification sign. Discussion ensued regarding what signage currently exists on the poles. Parker Stafford, representative of Countryside Point, Inc., indicated they have frontage on Sunset Pt Road, which allows them an additional sign. They have looked at all possibilities and feel this is more aesthetically pleasing than several individual business signs. He stated this is a minimum variance request. Discussion ensued concerning the necessity for the third sign. 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, subject to the conditions that upon the installation of this sign, no further tenant signs be permitted, 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 #4 - United Schools Inc for variances of 1) 10 ft in height to permit 16 ft high ground sign, and 2) 27.4 sq ft of property identification signage to permit same sign to be 51.4 sq ft in area, at 831 Hercules Ave, Hercules Professional Office Centre I Condo AND R H Woodley, Blk 1, Lot 2, zoned OL (limited office). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Eric Sekeres, representing United Schools, indicated they want a sign that is visible from the road and the height requested is necessary because it is a large parcel. The owner wishes to incorporate the company logo on the sign. The readerboard would contain information regarding enrollment and courses. Both buildings on the property are used by United Schools. The meeting recessed from 2:20 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Discussion ensued concerning the size of the sign and whether or not it could be reduced. Mr. Merriam moved to deny the variances 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, they are not minimum variances, and they would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Section 134.003 and 134.004. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #5 - Florida Convalescent Centres Inc for variances of 1) 42 inches in height to permit a 72 inch high wall in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way where property is addressed, 2) 2 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high wall in setback area adjoining street right-of-ways where property is not addressed, and 3) access gates to allow zero access gates to non-address street right-of-ways, at 3461 Landmark Dr, Florida Convalescent Centers, Lot B, zoned RM-8 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Roger Bauer, representing the applicant, stated they wish to construct a wall similar to the one at Regency Oaks which is a 6 ft 6 inch high wall with 8 foot columns. There was some discussion that the item may have been improperly advertised because the ad requires the columns be no higher than 6 feet. William Kimpton, attorney representing the applicant, expressed concerns that continuing the item would delay their appearance before the Development Review Committee. The Planning Official stated continuation would not delay their appearance before the Development Review Committee. Mr. Kimpton stated he desired to modify the request to allow a 6 foot high wall with 6 foot high columns. They propose to construct an exclusive single family development with a wall located 35 feet behind the sidewalk, landscaped beyond Code requirements, and maintained by the homeowners association. He stated they have a hardship due to the heavy traffic and because a subdivision of this type needs limited access. Further discussion ensued as to the property address. Because this property is unplatted, the Board and the Planning Official informed Mr. Kimpton they had to consider it as one parcel addressed on Landmark Dr. Mr. Kimpton and Mr. Bauer indicated this presented a problem because the variances were applied for based on the property being addressed on the private road within the proposed subdivision. Because of the problems, it was determined it would be best to continue this item. Mr. Homer moved to continue Item #5 to the March 23rd meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Board recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:40 p.m. ITEM #6 - Aristide Cecchi for a variance of 5 ft to permit addition 20 ft from a street right-of-way, at 750 Lantana Ave, Mandalay, Blk 24, Lot 17, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. He stated the garage is within the setback and the addition will align with the existing garage. Frank Grillo, representative for the applicant, stated the garage intrudes into the setback and the addition will align with the garage. He submitted pictures of the garage area. 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 is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship of the particular size of the lot, 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 - Arthur Bruno (Turtles) for a variance of 28 sq ft of business identification signage to permit a total of 76 sq ft of such signage, at 1665 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Gulf to Bay Shopping Center, Lot 4, zoned CC (commercial center). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, indicated the sign was put up illegally and will be removed. They desire a sign that will let the public know what type of store it is. In answer to a question, Mr. Pressman indicated the hardship is that the store is set back quite a distance from the street and can not be seen. 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 or applicant, it is not a minimum variance, and it is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #8 - Gertrude Nall for a variance to permit alteration of a nonconforming sign, at 2950 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 17-29-16, M&B 14.052, zoned CG (general business). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Tim Coustis, representative for the applicant, indicated they want to reverse the positions of the restaurant sign and the other sign on the pole. The restaurant sign cannot be seen by the people from the road. 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 it is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of visibility, subject to the conditions the sign be brought into conformance before 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 #9 - Florida Dept of Transportation (Greater Clearwater Chamber of Commerce) for a variance of 13 sq ft of business identification signage to permit 28 sq ft of such signage, at 3350 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 16-29-16, M&B 14.02, zoned OS/R (open space/recreation). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. He indicated it was an identification sign for the front of the building. Steve Seibert, attorney for the applicant, indicated the Chamber of Commerce wants to have a map which shows the location of the hotels in the area. The wall sign cannot be seen from the street. There will be up to 165 plates on the sign representing businesses. Membership in the Chamber is not a prerequisite. In answer to a question, Eva McNider of the Chamber of Commerce stated the sign would be covering the lower portion of the window on the front of the building. 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 to better serve the tourist visiting Clearwater, 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 - William Short, Jr and Joanne Rogers for variances of one property identification sign to permit two such signs, and 2) 19.75 sq ft of property identification signage to permit a total of 83.75 sq ft of such signage, at 300 Belcher Rd S, Short and Short Sub, Lot 1, zoned CG (general commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Minard Fischer, representing the applicant, stated he needs a sign that is easily visible to the heavy traffic in the area. One letter of support was submitted for the record. It was the consensus of the Board that a hardship exists but they requested Mr. Fischer contact the owner regarding a compromise on signage with the other tenant. Mr. Gans moved to continue Item #10 to the March 23, 1989, meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. In answer to a question, the Planning Official stated the murals on the Key West Antiques building on Ft Harrison are murals and not signs. In answer to a question concerning the chicken shaped sign at a deli on the beach, the Planning Official explained the sign was scaled down and a permit issued. The Planning Official was asked to look into the legality of the radio tower at Belcher Plaza and the two property identification signs at the Belcher Point office complex. Mr. Merriam brought up a question concerning absences from advisory board meetings. It was the consensus the Board that the minutes should reflect whether an absence is excused or not. Mr. Merriam requested the file on the Chelsea Woods wall and columns variance be reviewed to determine how that request is different or similar to the request in Item #5. The Board expressed its appreciation to Mr. Plisko and Mrs. Dobbs for their 6 years of service to the Board. The Board discussed reviewing the Rules and Procedures at a future date. MINUTES Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of February 9, 1989, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.