Loading...
04/27/1989 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD April 27, 1989 Members present: Kemper Merriam, Chairman John Homer, Vice-Chairman Otto Gans Thomas J. Graham Member absent: Michele Krentzman (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 A - (continued from 4/13/89) Florida Power Corp (Pattemore's) for a variance of parking lot surfacing requirements to permit grass parking lot, at 2516 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 14.06, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to use the Florida Power right-of-way for grass surface parking. Grass surface parking is allowed for infrequent use and remote areas. William Kimpton, attorney representing the applicant, stated they are leasing the property from Florida Power. The Greek Church also uses the parking area on Sundays and for special events. If the variance is not granted, parking on streets and other areas may result. Paving the area would result in considerable property being lost to setbacks, and problems with water runoff. Also, Florida Power may not allow them to pave because of pipelines located in this area. They have the necessary number of parking spaces and this area will be used for overflow parking. There will be no ingress or egress on Gulf to Bay Blvd. Robert Gray, architect representing the applicant, stated there is a cross parking easement agreement with Republic Bank for 60 parking spaces. The applicant has 200 parking spaces, which more than meets the Code requirement of 178 parking spaces. The subject grass area is to be used for the nightclub's overflow parking only. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not the parking requirements for the bank and the nightclub are being met. Mr. Gray stated parking needs would not conflict because the hours of operation for the two businesses are very different, and he also reiterated the variance is for the overflow parking only, not a variance from the required parking. The Planning Official stated the grass parking would be acceptable if it is landscaped, irrigated, and maintained as a parking lot. 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 it is within legal setback limitations as prescribed in the Development Code through use of appropriate landscaping, parking be limited to after 5:00 p.m., the applicant be required to submit a comprehensive parking plan for approval to the Traffic Engineer prior to any construction on the lot, there be no entry or exit on Gulf to Bay Blvd and only one entry/exit on Old Coachman Road, and that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans, Merriam, and Graham voted "Aye;" Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM B - (continued from 4/13/89) Vernon Ford for variances of 1) 9.52 ft to permit encroachment of structure into clear space, 2) 9.52 ft to permit building 26 ft from a side property line, and 3) 15.7% front yard open space to allow 34.3% front yard open space, at 115 Brightwater Dr, Bayside Sub #2, Lots 3-5, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail noting the front yard open space will be increased in this proposal. Vernon Ford stated he combined his properties into one lot on the advice of the City. Ed Paul, representing the applicant, stated two units would be unrentable if they had to build without variances. The cost is prohibitive to build on top of the existing structure. The new addition will eliminate 4 parking spaces in the front, and, therefore, increase the open space. Discussion ensued concerning redesigning the site in order to build with fewer variances. Mr. Graham moved to deny Variances #1 and #2 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 the hardship was caused by the owner, they are not minimum variances, and they 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. Requests denied. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant variance #3 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 to the location of that property, subject to the conditions that the driveway width be 24 feet, that the site plan meet the approval of the Traffic Engineer 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 #1 - Florida Clearwater Beach Hotel Company for variances of 1) one property identification sign to permit two such signs, and 2) 42.1 sq ft to permit a total of 98.1 sq ft of property identification signage, at 500 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Resub, Tract A & adjacent 15 ft vacated street & part of vacated Ambler St and Beach Dr, AND Clearwater Beach Park, Lots 1-5 & Lots 49-52, AND Miller's Replat, Lots 1 & 10 & part of Lot 9, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). This item is to be continued to the meeting of May 25, 1989, at the request of the applicant. Mr. Gans moved to continue Item #1 to the meeting of May 25, 1989. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #2 - Lakeside Corp for variances of 1) two business identification signs to permit three such signs, and 2) 68.14 sq ft business identification signage to permit a total of 83.14 sq ft of such signage, at 2515 Countryside Blvd, Sec 30-28-16, M&B 34.05, zoned OG (general office). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant has reduced the northern sign to 72 square feet total. The property is permitted two property identification signs because it is on the corner of two major thoroughfares. Robert Wright, representing the applicant, stated Crist Realty has been sold to Prudential and the signage needs changing. The business is not very visible to the heavy traffic because the present sign is too high. The new signage will help, not create, a traffic hazard and it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. They only want the wall sign on the building's north side and are willing to reduce the sign to 3 ft by 10 ft. The owner is reluctant to remove the pole sign. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant a variance of one sign to permit two signs 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 involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, 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. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant a variance of 15 square feet for total of 19 square feet 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 involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, 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. The Board recessed from 3:05 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. ITEM #3 - Equitel (Holiday Inn) for variances of 1) 83.5 sq ft property identification signage to permit a total of 195.5 sq ft of such signage, and 2) 10 ft in height to permit a 30 ft high pole sign, at 400 U.S. Hwy 19, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 14.01, zoned CH (highway commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the signage on the pole is being treated as one sign, from the top of the "Holiday Inn" to the bottom of the changeable message board, and is 195.5 square feet. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the new sign was installed two years ago. The actual area of the signs is less than the Code allows. The property has no visibility to the highway because it is located at the base of an overpass, behind service and exit roads. Other businesses in the area have large pylon signs and some of them block the Holiday Inn's signage. The revenues and occupancy rates are down because of the loss of drive-by customers. He also noted that Holiday Inn was at this location before the overpass was built. They are asking for a 25 foot high sign with a 5 foot base. 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 the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, subject to the condition that the sign be as per plans submitted 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 - Countryside Village Ltd for a variance of 2 ft in height to permit an 8 ft high fence around trash compactor service area behind setback area from street right-of-way, at 2547 Countryside Blvd, Countryside Village Square, Lots 5, 7 & 8, zoned CC (commercial center). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Richard Churchill, architect representing the applicant, stated they wish to relocate their trash compactor/service area to conceal it from view. The fence will hide the compactor and freezer and blend in with 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, and the particular physical surroundings and shape of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, 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 #5 - Mae Bales for a variance of 10 ft to permit an addition 15 ft from a street right-of-way to which property is not addressed, at 1295 Woodlawn Terrace, Shadow Lawn, Blk C, pt of Lots 23 & 24, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variance is for a 600 square foot addition to the house. The addition will align with the existing house and was previously approved in March, 1987, but the variance expired. Mae Bales stated the bedroom addition is for her daughter who is in poor health and needs to stay with her. 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 the unnecessary hardship created by the health of the applicant's daughter, 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 - Samuel Hillman for a variance of 11 ft 3 inches to permit deck with railing 8 ft 9 inches from a rear property line, at 3337 San Jose St, Del Oro Groves, Lots 169-171, zoned RS-4 (single family residential). This item is to be continued to the meeting of May 11, 1989 at the request of the applicant. Mr. Gans moved to continue this item to May 11, 1989. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #7 - Richard Dimmitt for variances of 1) two property identification signs to permit three such signs, 2) 466 sq ft to permit a total of 578 sq ft property identification signage, and 3) 10 ft in height to permit a 30 ft high pole sign, at 2201 U.S. Hwy 19 N, Sec 32-28-16, M&B's 32.08 & 32.10, zoned CH (commercial highway) and AL/I (aquatic lands - interior). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to add one additional freestanding sign on the site. Maureen Mack, representing the applicant, stated the sign is needed for their new franchise. Their dealer agreement requires signage for the new dealership. The sign is the standard Suzuki highway signage. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not this is a minimum variance. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant variance #1 of one property identification sign to permit two such signs, 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 because the particular physical surroundings being located on U.S. Hwy 19 S, and the shape and size of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, subject to the conditions that all the signs be brought into conformance on or before October 13, 1992, and a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant variance #2 for 362 square feet to permit a total of 474 square feet of property identification signage, 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 being located on U.S. Hwy 19, subject to the conditions that all signs be brought into conformance on or before October 13, 1992, and a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Mr. Graham moved to deny variance #3 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, and approval of this variance 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 #8 - 610 Island Way Development Corporation for variance of 6 months extension to allow residential development sales office (temporary building) to remain on site beyond date of final inspection of first 50% of units to be constructed or completion date of project, at 650 Island Way, 650 Island Way Condos, zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the permit for the trailer was issued in November, 1987. The trailer should have been removed in October, 1988, when over 50% of the units were completed. Kathy McNamara, representing the applicant, stated the temporary construction/sales trailer is still needed to oversee construction on the remaining carports. One citizen spoke in opposition stating the "temporary" building has been there for five years and is unsightly, noisy, and a nuisance. He feels one of the empty condominium units could be used. A petition with 37 signatures and a letter in opposition were submitted for the record. Mr. Graham 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, 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 #9 - Elias Anastasopoulos and Gregory Politis (E & G Investors, Inc) for a variance of 20 parking spaces to provide 106 parking spaces in lieu of 126 required by Code, at 678 Gulfview Blvd, Bayside #5, Blk B, Lots 7 - 13 & 15 - 20, zoned CB (beach commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. The variance will allow the tennis courts to remain. Presently, there are parking is less than 1-1/2 parking spaces per unit. George Greer, attorney representing the applicant, stated the 42 units are treated as condominiums by the Code, but are actually used as motel units. When occupancy is 100%, there are still available parking spaces. They would like to keep the tennis courts and maintain a 1:1 parking ratio. Two letters in support were submitted for the record. One letter in opposition was submitted for the record. The Planning Official stated the commercial portion of the property has adequate parking and the 1:1 parking ratio for the other portion does not seem unreasonable. 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, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, in that they are called condominiums because of the size of the units, but are used more like a motel, subject to the conditions that the applicant and all future owners not build in the tennis court area, and a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #10 - N L Clearwater Associates Ltd for variances of 1) one business identification sign to permit one additional such sign, and 2) 336 sq ft of business identification signage to permit relocation of a 132 sq ft sign and placement of a 252 sq ft sign, at 2350 U.S. Hwy 19 N, Sec 31-28-16, M&B 14.06, zoned CH (commercial highway). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. The applicant wishes to relocate the "Las Vegas" sign lower on the building and put a new "Cabaret Center" sign in its place. Mia Blackwood, representing the applicant, stated they removed the shopping center's name from the pylon sign to make room for the tenants' signs. They need to identify and promote the shopping center by name. The owners changed the signage not realizing they could not add the center's name on the pylon sign. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant variance #1 as requested and a variance of 273 square feet for variance #2, 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 the unnecessary hardship created by the difficulty in locating the shopping center, subject to the conditions that the tenant agrees to put up channel letters not to exceed total signage of 189 square feet, all signs conform on or before October 13, 1992, and 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. Homer and Merriam voted "Aye;" Messrs. Gans and Graham voted "Nay." Motion failed due to a tie vote. Item continued to the meeting of May 11, 1989. Discussion ensued regarding whether of not the Board could include a statement that conformance to the sign code in 1992 would be at no cost to the City. The Planning Official stated the reimbursement pertains to billboards only. The Board discussed whether or not the 10 red neon wings and open signs at the Wings store are a violation. The Planning Official stated they are allowed up to 15% window signage. There was further discussion regarding the Code mentioning white light in conjunction with signs. The Planning Official stated sign design guidelines had never been established by the City Commission. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.