Loading...
06/22/1989 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD June 22, 1989 Members present: Kemper Merriam, Chairman John Homer, Vice-Chairman Otto Gans Thomas J Graham Michele Krentzman Also present: John Richter, Planning Official James Polatty, Jr., Planning and Development Director Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:05 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) Chautauqua Co for a variance of 10 ft to permit 25 ft structural setback from secondary street right-of-way (2nd St E only), at 2185 and 2186 Centerview Ct N, and 2107 and 2108 Centerview Ct S, Lake Chautauqua Estates, Lots 7, 8, 13 & 14, zoned RS-2 (single family residential). (part of above request for time extension) Chautauqua Co for a variance of 10 ft to permit 25 ft structural setback from secondary street right-of-way (McCormick Dr only), at 2150 Centerview Ct N, Lake Chautauqua Estates, Lot 1, zoned RS-2 (single family residential). The applicant sent a letter requesting a one year time extension in which to obtain a building permit. The Planning Official stated he had no objection to the request. Mr. Gans moved to grant a one year time extension to June 30, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM A - (continued from 5/25/89) Branch Sunset Associates Ltd for a variance of 4 ft in height to permit a 10 ft high chain link fence about a loading dock, at 1842 U.S. Hwy 19 N, Sec 6-29-16, M&B 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 stating the existing fence was erected for security reasons. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Mark Schneberger, representing the applicant, stated vandalism has been a problem during construction, and feels it will continue to be a problem due to the type of merchandise, electronic equipment, in the store. Due to miscommunication between the applicant and the contractor, a permit was not obtained to erect the fence. 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 the unnecessary hardship created by putting up a standard size fence, subject to the condition that a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM B - (continued from 6/8/89) Elias Anastasopoulos and Gregory Politis (E & G Investors) for a variance of 7 parking spaces to provide 8 parking spaces in lieu of the 15 parking spaces required by Code, at 678 S Gulfview Blvd, Bayside Sub #5, Blk B, Lots 7-13 & 15-20, zoned CB (beach commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variance is to allow a 2,665 square foot restaurant within a retail center. Staff recommends denial of the variance. William Kimpton, attorney representing the applicant, stated there is only one freestanding restaurant in the area and feels there is a need for another restaurant of this type within walking distance at the south end of the beach. He stated the subject property includes a time-share resort and does not utilize all available parking. Frank Mudano, architect, stated he is of the opinion that, if a commercial development is a mixed use facility, the uses and traffic generated by such a facility are averaged out. Four citizens spoke in support of a restaurant at the south end of the beach. Twelve letters and two petitions in support, one with 14 signatures, and one with 17 signatures, were submitted for the record. Two letters in opposition to a restaurant citing a parking shortage on the beach were submitted for the record. In rebuttal, Mr. Kimpton stated this will be a family oriented restaurant and feels the parking requirement has been met. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not parking requirements for mixed use facilities should be calculated according to land use and activity, or according to the size of the commercial center. 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, 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, Mrs. Krentzman and Messrs. Gans and Merriam voted "Aye;" Messrs. Graham and Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM C - (continued from 6/8/89) Elias Anastasopoulos and Gregory Politis (E & G Investors) (Walgreen's) for variances of 1) 3 business identification signs to permit 5 such signs, and 2) 69.5 sq ft to permit a total of 165.5 sq ft business identification signage, at 657 Bayway Blvd, Bayside Sub #5, Blk B, Lots 7-13 & 15-20, zoned CB (beach commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are for building signs identifying Walgreen's and its services. Staff recommends denial of the request. Douglas Schwartz, representing Walgreen's, stated they have reduced the signage to 12 inch high letters. He feels the signs are needed because the Walgreen's name and their services may not be familiar to some of the public, especially tourists. A question was raised as to what message would be displayed on the pole sign on the property and it was indicated this was not part of the application. Calvin Smith, architect, noted to the Board they are requesting a minimum variance. Discussion ensued regarding the need for Walgreen's services to be identified to the public and whether or not these are minimum variances or a hardship exists. The Planning Official noted there is a prohibition of pole signs in the beach commercial zoning district. Mr. Homer 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 upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Krentzman and Messrs. Homer and Graham voted "Aye;" Messrs. Gans and Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM D - (continued from 6/8/89) Lawrence Dimmitt III for variances of 1) one property identification sign to permit two such signs, and 2) 182 sq ft to permit a total of 294 sq ft property identification signage, at 2285 U.S. 19 N, Sec 32-28-16, M&B 32.02 & 32.03 zoned CH (highway commercial). The applicant has requested this item be continued to the meeting of July 13, 1989. Mr. Gans moved to continue this item to the meeting of July 13, 1989. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Board recessed from 3:00 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. ITEM #1 - Kay Soful for variances of 1) 10 ft to permit expansion of attached dwelling unit to zero ft of side property line, and 2) 8.2 ft to permit construction of addition 1.8 ft from a street right-of-way, at 399 Mandalay Ave, Barbour-Morrow, Lots 17-20 & 34, zoned CB (beach commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating these variances are being requested to allow the expansion of a second story residential dwelling above retail uses. The addition will align with the existing building. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Louis Peronis, son and representative of the applicant, stated he has three children and needs extra living space. He will be adding a bedroom and bath as well as expanding the kitchen. He indicated the neighbors have no objection to this request. 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 arise from a condition, the preexisting structure, which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, 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 #2 - Sunshine Terrace Condominium Association for variances of 1) 3 parking spaces to permit 83 spaces in lieu of the 86 parking spaces required by Code, and 2) 7 ft 6 inches to permit carport structure 4 ft 6 inches from a side property line, at 1247 South Greenwood Ave, Sunshine Terrace Condominiums, zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Staff recommends approval of Variance #1 and denial of Variance #2. In response to a question, it was indicated that the reduction in the number of parking spaces will allow for the carport poles. Herbert Wright, representing the condominium board of directors, stated 80% of the tenants are at least 55 years old and drive larger cars. He feels larger parking spaces are needed for maneuverability as well as for the carport poles. The carports were part of the original plan but the developer did not complete them. The residents are now requesting that the 24 carports be completed and have already paid for them. One resident spoke in support stating the carports will be covering existing parking spaces which are located close to the building and elevator. He indicated four handicapped spaces will be provided. Discussion ensued regarding relocating six of the spaces on the property so as not to conflict with future development on the vacant lot to the south. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham 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, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and type of use and was not caused by the applicant, and the particular physical surroundings, involved which is the number of parking spaces needed for this type of condominium group which has elderly residents and residents who do not drive, and would 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. Mr. Graham moved to continue Variance #2 to the meeting of July 27, 1989. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Orlando Colonial (Hampton Square Associates) (Dinker's) for a variance of 38 parking spaces to permit zero additional parking for a 1523 sq ft restaurant addition (4-COP alcoholic beverage license), at 2794 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 17-29-16, zoned CG (general commercial). Mr. Graham indicated he had a conflict of interest regarding Item #3. The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Patrick Quinlan, representing Dinker's, stated they have downscaled the addition to 1,500 square feet with 500 square feet for public use. He indicated there are no objections from the neighbors. A previous parking variance for a 3,000 square foot expansion was denied on May 11, 1989. In response to a question, he stated the expansion will extend into an existing cubicle. 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, it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the lot size of the area, subject to the conditions that this variance is only granted and applicable upon the increased use of the facility with approximately 595 square feet for public use and approximately 921 square feet for kitchen, storage, and cooler use, 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, Mrs. Krentzman and Messrs. Gans, Homer, and Merriam voted "Aye." Mr. Graham abstained. Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #4 - Carlen Realty Co for a variance of 2 ft to permit an 8 ft high fence where a maximum height of 6 ft is allowed, at 529-531 Cleveland St, Gould & Ewing's 2nd Addition, Blk 4, Lot 9, part of Lot 10, and vacated alley on south, zoned UC/C (urban core/center). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the business fronts on Cleveland Street and the applicant wishes to fence the storefronts and have gates at the doorways. Concern was expressed that fences in the downtown area would not be aesthetically pleasing and may give the impression of a high crime area. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Patrick Henry, of Loyal Loan and Pawn, stated he has had several break-ins and has investigated other security devices, but finds them to be either too expensive or inadequate. Discussion ensued concerning security methods used by other businesses in the area and various alternatives for protection. Mr. Henry stated he has a security system, but feels more protection is necessary. Transients are a problem in the area. In response to a question, the Planning Official indicated the applicant could erect a six foot high fence without a variance. 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, no unnecessary hardship was shown, it will be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or the neighborhood, it would detract from the appearance of the community, endanger the public safety, substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property, it would adversely affect the public health, safety, order, convenience, or general welfare of the community, 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. MINUTES Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of May 25, 1989, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. James Polatty, Planning and Development Director, reported that the Land Development Code is in the review process and discussed possible changes in procedures for variance applications. Mr. Merriam announced that Michele Krentzman is resigning from the Board. She will not be at the meeting of July 13, 1989, but will continue to be present at meetings until a replacement is chosen. Mr. Merriam suggested that the Board members attend a hearing officer appeal to see how appeals are handled. The Planning Official reported that Joel and Jerry's are to replace their present sign with a conforming sign. He also reported the Planning Department is working with L.L. Wings concerning their signage. There was some discussion concerning possible ways of limiting the number of variance cases so as to avoid lengthy meetings. Mr. Gans requested the Planning Official investigate Discount Radiator's portable sign and David Little's signs. He also suggested possibly fining the sign or fence company when illegal work is done instead of penalizing just the property owner. The meeting adjourned at 5:22 p.m.