Loading...
05/11/1989 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD May 11, 1989 Members present: Kemper Merriam, Chairman John Homer, Vice-Chairman Otto Gans Thomas J Graham Michele Krentzman (arrived 1:03 p.m.) Also present: John Richter, Planning Official Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney (arrived 1:13 p.m.) 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 - (continued from 4/27/89) 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). Mia Blackwood, representing the applicant, stated the variances are being requested to identify the shopping center. The Board summarized the discussion concerning this item from the meeting of April 27, 1989. The item had been continued due to a tie vote. The Planning Official explained the application stating the two variances are to relocate the "Las Vegas" sign lower on the building and put up a new sign to identify the shopping center. He sees the need to identify the shopping center, but questions whether or not the proposed square footage is reasonable. The Board discussed that the variance had been reduced at the last meeting. Mr. Graham moved to deny the variances 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 no unnecessary hardship was shown, and the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant, 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 upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Krentzman and Messrs. Gans and Graham voted "Aye;" Messrs. Homer and Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM #1 - Orlando W Colonial Inc (Hampton Square Associates) (Dinker's) for a variance of 56 parking spaces to allow 19 parking spaces in lieu of the 75 parking spaces required to permit a 3,000 sq ft expansion of a 4-COP State alcoholic beverage licensed facility, at 2794 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 17-29-16, M&B 24.02, zoned CG (general commercial). Mr. Graham abstained from voting due to a conflict of interest. The Planning Official explained the application stating the variance is to allow the expansion of an existing alcoholic beverage establishment. The shopping center has 107 existing parking spaces with the overall parking requirement being 219 spaces. Bruce Heisler, agent for the shopping center owners, stated Dinker's wants to add 3,000 square feet of floor area. Pat Quinlan, representing the applicant, stated they were unaware of the change in the parking requirements. Under the old requirements, a variance of only ten parking spaces would have been required. He feels they have adequate parking. They operate a sports theme establishment and plan to add a full kitchen, expand the menu, and create a separate family area. One petition in support with 35 signatures was submitted for the record. The Planning Official stated the parking is adequate unless another business in the shopping center operates at the same hours as Dinker's. Mr. Gans 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, it is not a minimum variance, 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 upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Krentzman and Messrs. Gans, Homer, and Merriam voted "Aye." Mr. Graham abstained from voting. Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM #2 - Michael Maughan for variances of 1) 5 ft to permit garage addition 5 ft from rear property line, and 2) 15 ft to permit construction on lot 65 ft deep, at 1100 Ewing Ave, Magnolia Hts, Blk 5, part of Lots 1, 2 & 3, zoned RM-8 (multiple family residential) per RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Richard McClellan, representing the applicant, stated the proposed garage addition will align with the house. A tree and bedroom window would be lost if the proposed addition has to be moved relocated. Michael Maughan stated the addition will be used for his car and laundry facilities. 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, 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 a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #3 - S J Vaccaro for variances of 1) 6% building coverage to permit 36% building coverage, 2) 0.23 floor area ratio to permit 0.53 floor area ratio, and 3) 14% lot open space for RM-8 zoned portion of property to allow 21% lot open space, at 1011 N Ft Harrison Ave, J J Eldridge, Blk C Lots 21-26, 28, 29 AND Palm Bluff #1, Lot 1, zoned CN (neighborhood commercial) and RM-8 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are for a 10,000 square foot expansion. Variances of building coverage and floor area ratio to develop this property were approved in August, 1987. In June, 1988, variances were denied by the Board. The decision was appealed and the Hearing Officer upheld the Board's decision. The proposed variances are much smaller than previously requested. S.J. Vaccaro stated the expansion has been downscaled and redesigned. He feels the inventory of boats needs to be kept inside due to the high crime rate in the area. The site has less than the required green area in the RM zoning, but more than required in the CN zoning. He is willing to sign a unity of title. The expansion will have storage on the second floor and the rear half of the first floor with the front half of the first floor being for retail boat sales. The parking exceeds the required number by three spaces. Four citizens spoke in support of the application noting the applicant's efforts have been a great improvement to the neighborhood. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not the excess parking spaces could be eliminated to raise the green space ratio. The Planning Official suggested, if the variances are granted, there should be a condition that no outside storage be allowed. 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 create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship in view of the fact that the open space will exceed the requirement in front, subject to the conditions that no outdoor storage of boats and related displays shall be made in excess of 24 hours, that unity of title be made, 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 2:47 p.m. to 3:05 p.m. ITEM #4 - John Sloan for variances of 1) 42 inches to permit a 72 inch high fence in setback adjacent to street right-of-way to which property is addressed, and 2) 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback adjoining street right-of-way to which property is not addressed, 310 Druid Rd W, Harbor Oaks, Lot 27 and part of Lot 25, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. The fencing will align with the house, which is nonconforming. Mireille Pollack, representing the applicant, stated the variances are to put the fence in alignment with the existing house. The fence is for privacy and to contain the dog. In response to discussion regarding the ornaments on the fence, the Planning Official stated lights would be permitted to exceed the allowed fence height, but ornamental decorations would not. 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 create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship, subject to the conditions that the fences be made of the same material, that the design be as illustrated on the sketch, that the fence on the Druid Road side and Orange Place be in alignment with the existing house, and that a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #5 - Weiland Irle for variances of 1) one business identification sign to permit two such signs, and 2) 211 sq ft business identification signage to permit a total of 259 sq ft of such signage, at 1300 N Ft Harrison Ave, Enghurst #1, Lots 41-43 and part of Lot 40, zoned CN (neighborhood commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are for a 192 square foot wall mural and 67 square feet of canopy signage. The signs have not been permitted. There is a 49 square foot aluminum property identification sign which has been permitted on the site. John Nakis, tenant representing the applicant, stated he did not know the signs were in violation. He feels the mural is artistic and improves the area. The store's visibility is blocked by Bill Irle's restaurant to the north and by a vehicle sales business to the south. Seven citizens spoke in support of the application stating the store needs visibility and the mural improves the neighborhood. Two petitions in support, one with 1,000 signatures and another with 41 signatures, were submitted for the record. The Planning Official pointed out that there are two signs, one wall mural and one wraparound sign on the canopy. He recommended approval of the variances because this is a fragile neighborhood, and the applicant has the strong support of the neighbors. He feels the front portion of the canopy sign, should be eliminated to make the canopy signage conforming. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant Variance #1 as requested and Variance #2 for 203 square feet of signage to allow 251 square feet total, 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 desire of the neighborhood to have the mural sign at this location and the unique location of the North Fort Harrison area, subject to the conditions that the mural sign and variances shall be applied so long as Nakis remains owner/operator of the business, 192 square feet of the signage apply strictly to the mural on the north and east sides of the building, 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, Mrs. Krentzman and Messrs. Gans, Graham, and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #6 - Harbor Bluffs Waterfront Condominiums for variances of 1) 26 ft to allow 22 ft wide clear space, and 2) 36.5 ft to permit carport 11.5 ft from a side property line, at 500 N Osceola Ave, Harbor Bluffs Waterfront Condos, zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail noting the new carports will align with the existing ones. Edward Berry, president of Harbor Bluffs Waterfront Condominium Association, stated they want to replace the carports damaged by Hurricane Keith. Tom Tefalski, contractor representing the applicant, stated the carports will be rebuilt to conform with the existing ones which were built at the time the condos were constructed. The condo owners would like to regain the use of carports and feel that the damage was beyond their control. One citizen spoke in opposition stating he is the adjacent north property owner and is concerned about his clear view to the water and the unsightly view of the cars. He suggested a 3 foot wall be built on top of the existing wall to conceal the cars. Tom Tefalski stated the carports have been there for many years and were there when the condos were purchased. The Planning Official stated the clear view will not be obstructed any more than by the existing carports. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham 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 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 the unnecessary hardship created when Hurricane Keith came through, 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. The Board recessed from 4:55 p.m. to 5:05 p.m. ITEM #7 - Orlandi, Inc (Goodwill Industries) for a variance of 20 parking spaces to provide 40 spaces in lieu of the 60 spaces required by Code, at 1135 Turner St, Sec 15-29-15, M&B 31.19 AND Turner Street Groves, Lots 14-22 & part of vacated Madison Ave, zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential). There has been a request to continue this item to the meeting of May 25, 1989. Mr. Gans moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 25, 1989. The motion was duly seconded and, upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans, Graham, Homer, and Merriam voted "Aye." Mrs. Krentzman was not present. Motion carried. Item continued. ITEM #8 - Jacqueline Nicolaou Bovis for a variance of 5 ft 5 inches to permit a porch addition 4 ft 7 inches from the rear property line, at 1365 S Hillcrest Ave, Brookhill #5, Blk Q, Lot 5, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Jacqueline Bovis stated she wishes to extend the existing slab and enclose the porch area. She feels a hardship exists because her house is set back into a corner at an angle. The existing porch is 6 feet from the property line and she would like to extend the porch area 5 feet to the south, and 4 feet to the north, keeping the same width. The addition is being requested because her father is moving into the house. She indicated the neighbors have no objection. 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 arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, but as a result of the way the house was placed on the property, 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 #9 - James Wells and Julian Hartzog for a variance of 7 ft in height to permit 13 ft high pole sign on an OL zoned property, at 2270 Drew St, Temple Terrace #1, Blk D, Lots 18 & 19, zoned OL (limited office). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Julian Hartzog stated they wish to erect a pole sign in front of their new office building. The top of the sign will be 13 feet high. A previous variance was denied. The square footage has been reduced. They feel a lower sign height would create a traffic hazard because there would be no visibility over or under the sign. Most signs in the area are nonconforming. The standard State Farm sign is 3 feet by 8 feet. 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 134.003 and 134.004. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #10 - Marilyn Woodring for variances of 1) the interior landscaping requirement for parking lot to provide no such landscaping, and 2) 10 ft to permit canopy zero ft from a rear property line, at 1283 S Lincoln Ave, Oakland Heights, Lots 8, 9, & 44-49, zoned CN (neighborhood commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are for a postal carrier facility. The variances have been greatly reduced since previously presented to the Board, and the variances are for the postal facilities only. Kurt Youngstrom, architect representing the applicant, stated the site will have a loading dock with canopy. Because postal carts are smaller than cars, they were able to reduce the size of the parking spaces. He indicated the neighbors have no objection. 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, they arise from a condition which is unique to the property for the use intended and was not caused by the applicant, 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 conditions that the variances be based on the tenancy by the U.S. Postal Service and a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #11 - Rolf Robert (Checkers Drive-in Restaurants) for variances of 1) 45 ft to permit building 5 ft from a side property line, 2) 10 ft to permit building 65 ft from a street right-of-way, 3) one business identification sign to permit two such signs, 4) 19 sq ft to permit a total of 67 sq ft of business identification signage, and 5) sign requirement to permit signs to extend above canopy, at 1947 U S Hwy 19 N, Sec 5-29-16, M&B 23.05, zoned CC (commercial center). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to build a fast food restaurant. The Code requires substantial setbacks in this zoning district. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated they are asking for a larger sign because the location's visibility is blocked by other buildings and signage in the area. The building will comply with the front setback and only the canopies will encroach into the other setbacks. Two signs are allowed because the location is on two major thoroughfares. This is a heavy traffic impact area. There will be no ingress or egress from U.S. Hwy 19. In response to a question, Mr. Cline stated several variances are needed because they are developing problem properties. 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, 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 conditions that the variances apply only as long as the property is doing business as Checkers, 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 #12 - Sylvan Abbey Memorial Park Inc (Regency Oaks) for variances of 1) one identification sign to permit two such signs, and 2) 24 sq ft of identification signage to permit 48 sq ft total of such signage, at 2720 Regency Oaks Blvd, Sec 5-29-16, M&B 21.00, zoned RPD-8 (residential planned development), P/SP (public/semi-public) and AL/I (aquatic lands-interior district). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. David Carlton, attorney representing the applicant, stated the property's entrance is recessed and the signs would help identify the property. Since this is a retirement center and nursing home, the signs would also help emergency personnel locate the center. 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, 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 the unnecessary hardship created by the type of facility that would be located here, 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 #13 - (continued from 4/27/89) Samuel Hillman for variances of 1) 11 ft 3 inches to permit deck with railing 8 ft 9 inches from a rear property line, and 2) 9% lot open space to permit 46% open space for lot, at 3337 San Jose St, Del Oro Groves, Lots 169-171, zoned RS-4 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are needed to permit an existing deck to remain. The deck was constructed in 1985. Samuel Hillman stated he was unaware a permit was needed for the deck. The house was built into a hillside. The deck offers privacy and security. It would be costly and difficult to remove the deck. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham 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 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 the unnecessary hardship based on the existing conditions on the property, 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 #4815-89 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 134.008(2), Code of Ordinances, relating to political signs; increasing the maximum cumulative surface area of political signs in commercial and industrial zones from twenty-four square feet to thirty-two square feet per property; providing that no political sign shall be placed on any privately owned property without the authorization of the property owner or tenant in possession of the property; providing that no political sign shall be placed on any public property; providing an effective date. The Planning Official explained the ordinance. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not 60 days was too long to display political signs and whether or not written permission from the property owner should be obtained. It was the consensus of the Board that 60 days was an appropriate time period and that it would be difficult in some instances to obtain written permission from a property owner. Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance #4815-89. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. MINUTES Mr. Graham stated the minutes of April 13, 1989, should be amended on Page 1, Paragraph 7, to read: "engineer representing the applicant..." rather than "architect representing the applicant...". Mr. Gans moved to approve the minutes of April 13, 1989, as corrected, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Graham moved to approve the minutes of April 27, 1989, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. There was some discussion concerning what constitutes a conflict of interest and when a Board member should abstain from voting. The Board felt that a conflict of interest needs to be clarified by the City Attorney's Office. The meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m.