Loading...
08/24/1989 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD August 24, 1989 Members present: John W. Homer, Vice-Chairman Otto P. Gans Thomas J. Graham Emma C. Whitney Member absent: Kemper W. Merriam (excused) Also present: John D. Richter, Planning Official Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney Mary K. Diana, Assistant 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 7/27/89 & 8/10/89) Diana Mendez for variances of 1) 66 inches in height to permit a 72 inch high wall with 96 inch high pillars in setback adjoining a street right-of-way (Magnolia Dr) to which property is addressed, 2) 3 ft in height to permit a 5 ft high wall with 7 ft high pillars in setback adjacent to street right-of-way (Druid Rd) to which property is not addressed, 3) 3 ft to permit wall zero ft from both street right-of-ways, and 4) 25 ft to permit 6 ft high wall zero ft from waterfront, at 205 Magnolia Dr, Harbor Oaks, Lot I & part of Lot J, zoned RS-2 (single family residential). V 89-136 This item has been withdrawn by the applicant. ITEM B - (continued from 8/10/89) South Main Enterprises VIII, Ltd for variances of 1) one business identification sign to permit two such signs, and 2) 84.8 sq ft to permit a total of 88.8 sq ft business identification signage, at 2420 Enterprise Rd, NTW Subdivision, Tract 1, zoned CH (highway commercial). V 89-140 The applicant has requested this item be continued to the meeting of September 14, 1989. Mr. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 14, 1989. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM C - (continued from 8/10/89) Texaco, Inc for variances of 1) 5 business identification signs to permit a l of 6 such signs, and 2) 133.3 sq ft to permit a total of 148.3 sq ft business identification signage, at 1898 Highland Ave, Section 2-29-15, M&B 32.01, zoned CN (neighborhood commercial). V 89-138 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating this item was continued from the August 10th meeting. Ernest Simmons of Woodall Signs stated they reduced the size of the "TEXACO" letters from 3.6 feet to 2 feet high. The signage will consist of two signs with the "TEXACO" name and two logo signs. In response to a question, the Planning Official stated staff is recommending approval. Discussion ensued regarding whether a hardship exists and whether or not these are minimum variances. It was indicated the variances being requested are reasonable for this location and because of the length of the company name. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variances of 3 business identification signs to allow a total of 4 such signs and a variance of 41 square feet to permit a total of 56 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, they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and were not caused by the applicant and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship considering the lot size, traffic congestion, and the length of the applicant's identifying name, 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 #1 - Steve Annas for variances of 1) 20.7 ft to permit carport and foyer additions 4.3 ft from a street right-of-way, 2) 19% open space for lot to allow 16%, and 3) 3% front yard open space to allow 37%, at 766 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay, Blk 4, Lot 4, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 89-145 The applicant has requested this item be continued to the meeting of September 14, 1989. Mrs. Whitney moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 14, 1989. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #2 - Roberta Green for a variance of 2 ft to permit addition 3 ft from a side property line, at 1133 Harvey's Lane, A. H. Duncan's Sub, part of Lot 9, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 89-146 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is developed with a modestly sized single family home. The proposed addition will align with the existing line of the house. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Roberta Green stated the house is small and she needs additional room for her large family. In response to a question, she stated the large tree on the property will not be removed. 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 this property, the particular location of the house being within 3 feet of the property line, and this condition is an extension and not an increase of an existing nonconformity; and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship of the location of the house on this 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 #3 - Neal Richardson and Elizabeth Ventura for a variance of 2.5 ft to permit a swimming pool enclosure 7.5 ft from a side property line, at 3045 Homestead Court, Homestead Oaks, Lot 9, zoned RS-4 (single family residential). V 89-147 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the lot is located in a new subdivision. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Peter Sockol, representing the applicant, stated the house and driveway were offset and the size of the pool was reduced in order to preserve oak trees on the site. Discussion ensued concerning granting setback variances, especially in new subdivisions, other house design possibilities, and whether this is a minimum variance. 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 not caused by the applicant; the particular physical surroundings and conditions of the property involved, particularly the location of the 18 foot and 22 foot oak trees and the problem of the location of a storm water drainage inlet in locating a driveway on the east side, would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the code were applied; and it is the minimum necessary to overcome that hardship; the topographical conditions of this particular property make it unique; and the vote is based strictly on this property and is not to set a precedent, 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 #4 - Alana Sabatine, Joseph and Mary Ann Yusas, and Theodore and Sapho Mentaylos for variances of 1) 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining street right-of-way to which properties are not addressed, 2) 42 inches in height to permit a 72 inch high fence in setback area adjoining street right-of-way to which property is addressed (Grovewood Rd), 3) 2 ft 8 inches to allow 4 inch setback from street right-of-way, and 4) to allow zero access gates, at 2200 Grovewood Rd, Grovewood, Lots 122, 123, & 124, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). V 89-148 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property consists of three double frontage lots. The wall/fence will be constructed along Belcher Road and will connect with the existing wall. Staff recommends approval of the variances subject to the condition that the homeowners association maintain the landscaping. Alana Sabatine stated she wishes to reconstruct a 6 foot high wall/fence that was torn down due to a automobile accident. The wall/fence would provide for the safety of the neighborhood children and buffer traffic noise and light coming from Belcher Road. The wall/fence will be concrete block and in alignment with the existing wall. She indicated there will be adequate traffic visibility. Robert Caldwell submitted photographs of the area and the landscaping plan and indicated the homeowners association will maintain the landscaped areas. In response to a question, he stated there are no plans to paint the wall. One citizen spoke in support of the application stating he feels the wall will increase the value of the area. He indicated the homeowners association plans to replant the entire area. A phone message and a letter in support were submitted for the record. Discussion ensued regarding painting and landscaping the wall/fence. 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 were not caused by the applicant; and the particular physical surroundings involved would create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied; subject to the conditions that the homeowners association maintain the right-of-way between the fence and the sidewalk; the landscaping be replanted matching, as closely as possible, the adjoining landscaping; and in consultation with the Environmental Department, the newly constructed fence be painted in a uniform way and color and constructed of the same materials as the existing wall continuing along the same line; 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 - Penelope Engel for a variance of 2 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining street right-of-way to which property is not addressed (Otten St), at 1435 Bentley St, Brentwood Estates 1st Addition, Lot 104, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 89-149 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is a double frontage lot and the applicant wishes to erect a fence along Otten Road. Otten Road is a residential street, not a major thoroughfare, and other fences in the area are 4 foot high chain link. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Penny Engel stated there is considerable traffic in her area as well as children walking by her property on their way school. The higher fence would confine her large dog, who needs to be outdoors frequently, providing protection for the children in the neighborhood. The fence would also provide privacy and security as well as block out car lights from the street. The fence will be constructed with see-through slats and 2 feet of lattice across the top and landscaped with a 5 foot hedge. She feels it will not detract from the neighborhood and indicated her neighbors on Otten Street do not object. Eleven letters in support were submitted for the record. Three citizens spoke and submitted a letter in opposition stating the wooden fence would obstruct the view and air circulation and devalue the neighborhood. Discussion ensued concerning other fencing in the neighborhood being 4 foot chain link and other methods of securing the dog in the yard. Mr. Graham moved to deny the variance 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 there is no condition which is unique to the property, the hardship was caused by the applicant, it is not a minimum variance to overcome that hardship, the placement of a 6 foot high fence would be visually detrimental to other property in the neighborhood and would detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, it would increase the danger of fire, and it would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Section 131.005 and 131.006 in that it is a double frontage lot and Otten Street is not a heavy traffic street or major thoroughfare. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #6 - G & G Realty (Army's) for a variance of 18 ft to permit structure 7 ft from a street right-of-way (Meteor Ave), at 1920 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Skycrest Unit D, Blk B, part of Lot 6 AND Section 13-29-15, M&B 24.03, zoned CG (general commercial). V 89-150 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the present restaurant is nonconforming in several areas. Staff recommends approval of the variances with conditions. Jim Powell, attorney representing the applicant, stated they want to replace the existing metal structures with a concrete block storage/cooler building. Bill Losch, architect, stated the main building cannot be moved but the entire site will be upgraded by replacing the existing metal structures. Discussion ensued concerning the permeable open space and landscaping requirements. Mr. Powell stated they plan to remodel in approximately two years and have no problem addressing staff's concerns. 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, the particular physical surroundings or shape of the property and particular location involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, it is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size and particular location of the building, subject to the following conditions that the new storage/cooler building be given the same exterior treatment including color and texture as the existing restaurant building, at least 50% of the setback area directly in front of the restaurant adjacent to Gulf-to-Bay Blvd be returned to permeable open space, a native plant buffer 30 inches high shall fill the permeable areas within the 25 foot setback adjoining Gulf-to-Bay Blvd with final inspection and approval by the City Forester prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new storage/cooler building, 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 2:50 p.m. to 3:05 p.m. ITEM #7 - Sea Stone Ltd for a variance of 42 inches in height to permit a 72 inch high fence in setback adjoining street right-of-way to which property is addressed (Hamden Dr), at 445 Hamden Dr, Columbia Sub #5, Lots 4-9, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial) and AL/C (aquatic lands-coastal). V 89-151 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the hotel's dumpsters are inconveniently placed. The Sanitation Division and the property owner wish to relocate a dumpster in the setback area and enclose it with a 6 foot high fence. Don Seaton stated the dumpsters are located under the building which is unsafe because of the grade for access. The dumpster will be relocated on vacant land between Gulfview Boulevard and the new Sea Stone. The Sanitation Division has approved the relocation. One letter in support was submitted for the record. 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, the condition being the particular physical surroundings with reference to the current dumpster location which causes a very dangerous situation in moving the dumpster in and out with no other reasonable location on the site for the dumpster, would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant if a strict interpretation of the development code were applied; and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship; 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 #8 - Florida Power Corporation & Opus South Corporation for a variance to parking lot surfacing requirements to permit grass surface in lieu of permanent all-weather paving material, at 2605 Enterprise Rd E, Section 32-28-16, M&B 22.02 AND Chautauqua Unit 2 Section A, Blk 3, Lots 3, 4, 23 & 24, Blk 4, Lots 3, 4, 23 & 24, zoned OG (general office), P/SP (public/semi-public) and AL/I (aquatic lands-interior). V 89-152 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to use the Florida Power right-of-way easement for office building parking. Staff is recommending approval. Discussion ensued concerning the type of surface for the parking lot. Pat McQuire, property manager, stated Metropolitan Life needs additional parking due to its growth increasing the number of employees. Florida Power has agreed to allow use of the right-of-way but will not allow a retention area. Bill Kemp, project manager of Opus South corporation, stated the lot will be properly lighted, have a turf block surface driveway, medians with vegetation and trees, and a continuous hedge around the area. Landscaping will be coordinated with the City Forester, and maintained by the property management company. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not a precedent would be established for using Florida Power right-of-ways where there is insufficient parking. It was noted that the parking requirements have been met on site and the additional parking would be considered overflow. 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 this property in that it was designed in accordance with the City's parking regulations for 4.5 parking spaces per thousand; the particular physical surroundings, with reference to the Florida Power easement and their standard of not allowing retention areas within their easements, would result in an unnecessary hardship on the applicant if a strict interpretation of this development code were to be applied; and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship; subject to the conditions that the driveways and parking spaces be surfaced with a turf block material or other as acceptable by the City Engineer and the Traffic Engineer, drainage be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer, proper illumination be provided for within the parking lot, City landscaping requirements for a parking lot be met or exceeded in this area, the parking lot be maintained by the applicant as long as Metropolitan Life remains a tenant, that this variance run with the lease with Metropolitan Life and terminate at the end of that lease, and a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #9 - Elias and Helen Anastasopoulos (Jo-Go Amusement Center) for variances 1) of 18 inches in height to permit a 48 inch high split rail fence in setback adjoining street right-of-way to which property is addressed, and 2) to permit fence in excess of 30 inches in height to be placed zero ft from a street right-of-way, at 630 S Gulfview Blvd, Bayside Sub #5, Blk B, Lots 2-4, 24, 25 & part of Lot 1, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 89-153 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are to enclose a miniature golf course. Staff recommends approval with conditions of the 3 foot setback variance except where the golf course juts out. Phil Walters, project engineer for the golf course, stated there is an existing 4 foot high fence around the project that they wish to replace with a split rail fence. Landscaping would be provided behind the fence as it is easier to maintain. Discussion ensued regarding the Board's preference of keeping the required setbacks as much as possible and providing appropriate landscaping. 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, in being located on the beach; the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved, the new golf course layout, create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of this development code were to be applied as he has torn down the existing 4 foot high chain link fence and intends to replace it with an open split rail fence; and it is the minimum necessary to overcome that hardship; subject to the conditions that landscaping be installed in accordance with Section 136.01(6) of the Land Development Code, the applicant provide for staff a revised drawing indicating the locations where the fence would be within 3 feet of the right-of-way and that the fence be setback 3 feet from the property line, where possible, and encroach only in the 3 foot areas in locations of the existing course layout, and the revised drawing presented by the applicant meet with approval of the staff on encroachment, 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 #10 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Sections 134.008, 134.010, 134.012, and 134.013, Code of Ordinances, relating to exempt signs, additional identification signs based upon public street frontage, pole signs and window signs; providing an effective date. LDCA 89-10 In June of 1988, the Chamber of Commerce organized a Task Force, interfacing with the Planning and Development Department, to review Clearwater's sign regulations. The recommended changes are as follows: 1. The cumulative area of temporary and permanent window sings not exceed 50% of the area of the window, rather than the current 65% limit. 2. Menu signs be permitted on exterior walls, in doors, or inside and visible through windows or doors of a restaurant. 3. Identification signs for properties with generous street frontage continue to be permitted on the basis one sign per 500 feet of frontage, but the practice of requiring that the signs also mark driveway entrances to the property be discontinued. 4. Building identification signs be permitted on the basis of one sign per office building containing a minimum of 40,000 square feet rather than one sign per building per property that is developed with two or more buildings have more than 40,000 square feet. 5.Permanent window signs be permitted to cover 20% of the area of a window in lieu of the current 15% limit. 6. The allowable area for pole signs be permitted to be divided and placed as two signs on the same pole. 7. Multiple signs in windows of an occupancy be permitted under one application and one fee. Discussion ensued concerning the recommended changes. Mr. Graham moved to approve the ordinance subject to the following conditions: 1. The surface area for permanent window signs not exceed two times the business identification sign size allowed; and 2. Menu signs be framed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. MINUTES Mr. Homer requested that page 4, paragraph 8 of the minutes of July 13, 1989, be amended to read as follows: "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." Mr. Graham moved to approve the minutes of July 13, 1989, as amended, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mrs. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of July 27, 1989, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Gans moved to approve the minutes of August 10, 1989, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Homer inquired concerning verbatim transcripts of each meeting being prepared. He was informed it would not be cost effective as it would be very time consuming. The meeting adjourned at 5:28 p.m.