Loading...
07/13/1989 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD July 13, 1989 Members present: Kemper W. Merriam, Chairman John W. Homer, Vice-Chairman Otto P. Gans Thomas J. Graham Member absent: Emma C. Whitney (excused) Also present: John D. Richter, Planning Official Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:03 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 6/22/89) Lawrence Dimmitt III for variances of 1) one property identification sign to permit two such signs, and 2) 228.5 sq ft to permit a total of 340.5 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 Planning Official explained the application in detail stating there is an existing 300 square foot nonconforming sign on the auto dealership property. Staff recommends denial of the variances. Maureen Mack, representing the applicant, stated they have been awarded a GEO franchise. The property consists of 10 acres of land with 1,000 feet of frontage. Other dealerships in the area have large property identification signage. A Volkswagon sign was approved last year, but the sign was not erected. Discussion ensued concerning the size of the sign and it was indicated the signage is not excessive for this large property with two auto dealerships. 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 by the lot size and the frontage on U.S. 19 North, subject to the conditions that the new sign allowed is 36 square feet, that the existing sign be brought into conformance with the sign code on or before October 13, 1992, for a total of two signs, one of 36 square feet and one of 112 square feet, 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 #1 - Laura Wagner (Shipwreck Restaurant) for a variance of 5 parking spaces to permit 949 sq ft restaurant addition with zero additional parking, at 647 Mandalay Ave, Mandalay Replat #5, Blk 84, Lot 3 & part of Lot 4, zoned CB (beach commercial). The application was withdrawn by the applicant. ITEM #2 - Roger Golomb for a variance of 15 ft to permit an office addition 10 ft from a street right-of-way (Madison Ave.), at 1122 Druid Rd East, Maryland Sub, Blk B-6, Lots 16-20 & part of Lots 3, 4, & 15, zoned OL (limited office) and RM-28 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are to allow an addition to a doctor's office. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Roger Golomb stated the addition will extend into the existing parking lot. Adequate green space and parking will be provided. Due to the slope of the property, keeping the building one story in height will provide easier access for the elderly and handicapped patients. 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, the health, safety, and welfare of the potential patients of the doctor, and the side setback from a street right-of-way which is really an access street, 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 #3 - James Wells and Julian Hartzog for a variance of 7 ft to permit a 13 ft high pole sign, at 2270 Drew St, Temple Terrace #1, Blk D, Lots 18 & 19, zoned OL (limited office). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the sign height is measured from the existing grade; however, the sign will be located in a swale which is two feet below the parking lot. The Traffic Engineer has requested a 6 foot clear space under the sign due to its proximity to the driveway. Staff recommends approval of a variance of 3 feet in height. Jim Wells indicated a 6-foot variance would be required to be above the driveway because the swale is 2 feet below the parking lot level. Discussion ensued regarding relocating the sign and the possible hardship created by the location of the drainage swale. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant a variance of 6 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 but was developed in accordance with the 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 bottom of the sign be no higher than 6 feet above the driveway and a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #4 - Paul Zambrano (Michelle Bozardt) for variances of 1) 2 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high fence adjacent to street right-of-way to which property is not addressed, and 2) 1.5 ft to permit fence 1.5 ft from a street right-of-way, at 603 Ruskin Rd, College Hill Estates, Lot 26, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to complete an existing fence along Sharkey Road. Staff recommends denial. Paul Zambrano stated the fence is being requested to contain three dogs on the property and to enclose the pool area, thus preventing children from trespassing as there is a school bus stop nearby. The fencing would also allow for an area to store his boat and would prevent the reflection of car lights into the bedroom windows at night. One citizen spoke in support of the application. Two citizens spoke in opposition stating the hardship is self-imposed, and expressed concerns that the fencing would detract from the neighborhood, create a traffic hazard at the intersection of Ruskin and Sharkey Roads, devalue the development, and set a precedent in the neighborhood. Four letters and one petition with 38 signatures in opposition were submitted for the record. Mr. Graham 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, 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 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #5 - James Weber for variances of 1) 13 ft to permit swimming pool 12 ft from a street right-of-way, and 2) 16 ft to permit pool enclosure 9 ft from a street right-of-way, at 221 Orangewood Ave, Glenwood Estates Addition, Lot 63, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail noting the property is a double frontage lot and the swimming pool is modestly sized. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Nancy Weber, stated variances are being requested because of a large house being built on a small lot. 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, primarily the physical surroundings with the road being located directly behind the property so the property fronts on two streets and the conditions along that road are such that most of the neighbors would have the same problem, and they are the minimum necessary to overcome that hardship, 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 - James Fowler for variances of 1) 12 ft to allow boat lift 8 ft from a (projected) side property line, and 2) 3.5 ft to permit a dock 31.5 ft wide rather than 28 ft wide, at 331 Palm Island SE, Island Estates of Clearwater #6A, Lot 47, zoned RS-6 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the existing dock was built by a previous owner. The topography of the bay bottom prevents installation of the cradle lift on the east side of the dock. The lift will not obstruct the adjoining property owner's view. A hedge and fence are already in existence. Staff recommends approval of the variances. As per the City Attorney's memorandum of July 12, 1989, it was indicated Mr. Homer did not have a conflict of interest in this case. Jim Martin, attorney representing the applicant, stated the property is unique due to the curvature of the seawall and the dock placement. He submitted photographs showing differences in the water depth on the east and west sides of the dock. One letter and a petition with 27 signatures in support were submitted for the record. 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, the particular topographical conditions of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the lot size and placement of the present dock, subject to the condition 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, Graham, and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #7 - Paul Monaco for a variance of 42 inches in height to permit a 72 inch high wall in setback adjacent to street right-of-way to which property is addressed, at 3001 Oak Creek Dr N, Oak Creek of Countryside, part of Lot 21, RS-2 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. It was indicated the Traffic Engineer has no objections to the location of the wall. Staff recommends approval. Tom Daniels, representing the applicant and Oak Creek Homeowners Association, stated the wall will identify and improve the appearance of the subdivision's entrance, and will be the only sign identifying the subdivision. Discussion ensued concerning the design of the wall. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham 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 of the subdivision which is unique to the property in that it currently has identification signs in need of replacement and of a size to be seen from the road, and was not caused by the applicant, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location of the wall and sign, subject to the conditions that the wall and sign be located as indicated on the drawing and be no greater in length than 18 feet 3 inches, 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 #8 - John Kavanagh for a variance of 22 ft to permit sunscreen 3 ft from a street right-of-way, at 1724 Sunset Dr, Sunburst Court, Lots 30 & 31, AND North Shore Park, Blk 6, Lot 6, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a sunscreen on his waterfront property over an existing pool and jacuzzi area. The pool currently encroaches into the setback area. Staff is concerned with obstruction of the view of the water and recommends denial of the variance. John Kavanaugh stated his property has setbacks on three sides and the sunscreen is needed because of his wife's health problems. He indicated the neighbors do not object. Mark Coleman, from West Coast Awning, stated the structure will be galvanized painted steel with screening material allowing a 40% light pass through. The four legs of the structure will be set in concrete and the 8 inch valance will be even with the eaves of the house. The sunscreen will be of a coordinating color to match the roof. One letter in support was submitted for the record. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the hardship was self-imposed and whether or not the property was made unique when the pool and sauna were constructed. 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 no unnecessary hardship was shown, the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant, 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 carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #9 - James Butler for a variance of 0.9% building coverage to permit a total of 30.9% building coverage, at 3164 San Bernadino St, Del Oro Estates, Lot 30, zoned RS-4 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variance is to construct a room addition at the rear of the existing residence. Staff feels this is a minimal variance and recommends approval. Michael Mynick, representing the applicant, stated the addition will be used for a family room and indicated all setback requirements have been met. 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 lot size, 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 #10 - Elias Anastasopoulos and Gregory Politis (E & G Investors) (Walgreen's) for a variance of 274.5 sq ft business identification signage to permit an additional 72 sq ft ground sign (existing 202.5 sq ft pole sign), at 678 Gulfview Blvd S, Bayside, Blk B, Lots 7-13 & 15-20, zoned CB (beach commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is a mixed use development with an existing 42 unit timeshare facility on site. Presently under construction is a 13,365 square foot Walgreen's store and a 7,693 square foot retail center. On April 13, 1989, the Board approved a variance to allow a second freestanding sign, but did not approve a variance for square footage. The proposed 6 x 12 foot monument style sign will be placed atop a one-foot foundation planter. Staff recommends denial of the request. Douglas Schwartz, representing Walgreen's, stated the sign will be of a minimal size as to still allow for visibility. Discussion ensued concerning the existing and proposed signage, and the Board indicated preference for an overall sign package for the property. Mr. Graham made a motion to continue this item to later in the meeting to allow the representative to contact the property owners in order to determine the allocation of signage between them. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. After the property owners arrived, the Board expressed their preference the 202.5 square feet of existing signage be allocated between the two signs. Discussion ensued concerning signage in the beach commercial zoning district and the Planning Official noted freestanding signs are not allowed in this district. Mr. Schwartz indicated a willingness to accept 72 square feet of signage for the Water View Shopping Center's Walgreen sign, and Mr. Anastasopoulos, owner, indicated he would be willing to reduce the shopping center sign to 132.5 square feet of signage. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant a variance as follows: up to 72 square feet of signage for the Waterview Shopping Center and an additional sign of 130.5 square feet for a total of 2O2.5 square feet of 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 in terms of size and location on Clearwater Beach, subject to the conditions that the existing sign be reduced to the 130.5 square feet and that the total of the two signs be not more than 202.5 square feet, that the two sign permits be pulled simultaneously within six (6) months from this date, and that the two signs be brought into conformance on or before October 13, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans and Graham voted "Aye;" Messrs. Homer and Merriam voted "Nay." Request continued to July 27, 1989, due to a tie vote. ITEM #11 - Levi Rice for variances of 1) 4 ft to permit garage 21 ft from a street right-of-way, 2) 3 ft to permit garage 7 ft from a rear property line, and 3) 20 ft to permit construction on a 50 ft wide corner lot, at 1101 Marine St, Bay Terrace & Bay Terrace Addition, Blk B, Lot 1, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are to rebuild a detached garage on the property. Because of a large grapefruit tree on the property, the garage will need to be repositioned. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Levi Rice, owner, stated he will remove the existing garage which has termite damage, and build a slightly larger garage. The property is on a 50 foot wide corner lot. 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 hardship created by the substandard size of the property and the required setbacks, 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 #12 - Ronald Pollack for variances of 1) 1.78 ft to permit roof support 23.22 ft from a street right-of-way (Druid Rd.), and 2) 6.37 ft to permit roof support 18.63 ft from a street right-of-way (Orange Place), at 310 Druid Rd W, Harbor Oaks, Corrected Map, Lot 27 & part of Lot 25, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are to construct a roof with an archway over the entry area of the house. The porch canopy will align with the south and west walls which already encroach into the setback areas. Staff recommends approval. Mireille Pollack stated she wishes to cover her existing patio which will add to the beauty and comfort of the home. If placed further back, the roof supports would be in front of the windows. 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 by the house being built in the setback currently and the porch attached to the side of the house, 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 #13 - Branch Sunset Associates (Sports Authority) for a variance of 28 sq ft to permit a 156 sq ft business identification sign, at 1848 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 Lots 1 & 12, zoned CC (commercial center). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the sign is to identify The Sports Authority store, which is a major tenant in the shopping center. On June 8, 1989, the Board denied a variance request of 128 square feet to permit a 256 square foot business identification sign. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Don Jackson, of The Sports Authority, stated they are located in the corner of the shopping center and the existing foliage creates a visibility problem. He stated the word "The" has been eliminated from the corporate name, and to reduce the size of the sign further, would not allow for visibility from U.S. 19. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham 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 the depth of the property from U.S. 19 for identification, 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 #14 - Duane Barton for variances of 1) one parking space to permit establishment of 1344 sq ft office, 2) zero landscaping between vehicle use area and adjacent commercial property, 3) 3 ft to permit circulation aisle zero ft from adjacent commercial property, 4) 1,097 sq ft to permit construction on a 8,903 sq ft lot, and 5) 30 ft to permit construction on lot 70 ft wide, at 514 Brookside Dr, Brookside Sub, Lot 3, zoned CG (general commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are to convert a residence to an office. On October 13, 1988, lot size and width variances were approved, but parking and open space variances were denied. This request is for a minimal parking variance and staff recommends approval of the variances. Duane Barton stated the parking lot will be located at the rear of the property and feels these variances are the minimum necessary to convert from residential to office and save the trees on the property. Two previous variances have expired because permits were not obtained within the time allotted. 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 are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the lot size and current building as applied to a commercial 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 #15 - Ted Julian for variances of 1) 1 ft to permit pool enclosure 6 ft from a rear property line, and 2) 3 ft to permit pool enclosure 4 ft from a side property line, at 1828 Elmhurst Dr, College Park Unit II, Lot 22, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are to construct a pool enclosure around an existing pool. Staff recommends approval. Ted Julian stated the enclosure would provide safety for the neighborhood children and provide swimmers protection from the bug problem. He indicated there are other pool enclosures in the neighborhood. One letter in support with four signatures was submitted for the record. 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, they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by lot size and an existing pool, 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 #16 - (continued from 6/8/89) Ordinance #4827-89 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; creating Sections 135.1001 through 135.1007, Code of Ordinances, to establish the North Greenwood Commercial (CNG) District; providing for permitted and conditional uses within the district; establishing use limitations, dimensional and numerical development requirements, and an optional reduction of parking standards for the district; amending Section 134.010, Code of Ordinances, to establish sign regulations for the North Greenwood Commercial District; creating Section 137.0235, Code of Ordinances, to establish the North Greenwood Design Review Board; establishing the membership, officers, powers and duties of the board; establishing North Greenwood design standards, and a scoring system to evaluate building plans for the district; amending Section 136.006, Code of Ordinances, relating to the minimum structural setback for properties fronting on Greenwood Avenue between Palmetto Street and Marshall Street; providing an effective date. Resolution - Establishing the North Greenwood Design Review Committee to review and evaluate building plans and sign plans for the North Greenwood Commercial District. The Planning Official stated the ultimate aim of the ordinance and resolution is to assist in the revitalization of the North Greenwood Commercial strip. He said there are a number of amendments being proposed to the Land Development Code which would result in establishing a uniform building line similar to Clearwater Beach and the Downtown with the objective of creating a mini-downtown type of business environment; provoking contiguous, compact businesses close to the street; allowing buisnesses to abut one another; allowing for more intensive use of the property consistent with small lot sizes; and providing a marketing strategy to draw from the surrounding neighborhood to create a pedestrian environment. This economic development plan is the result of two years of work by a task force consisting of fifteen public and private sector participants, which include business and property owners along the N. Greenwood strip. Staff recommends the Board consider the ordinance and the resolution and make a recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Homer made a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance and resolution subject to review and approval by the North Greenwood Commercial District Task Force. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. MINUTES Mr. Gans moved to approve the minutes of June 8, 1989, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion ensued regarding upcoming vacations of the Board members. Mr. Graham will be on vacation August 10th; Mr. Merriam on August 24th. Mr. Merriam requested staff to check to see if Ms. Whitney will be in attendance at the next meeting as she is presently on vacation. Mr. Merriam suggested the Planning and Development Department include in their recommendations information regarding previous variance requests for property which is the subject of another variance. It was noted that the pawn shop on Cleveland Street has placed unobtrusive security bars in the inside of the windows. The Board stated their preference that variance requests for signage for a particular parcel be presented as a package, rather than in phases. Mr. Gans presented a list of possible portable sign violations to the Planning Official for investigation. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.