Loading...
09/14/1989 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD September 14, 1989 Members present: Kemper W. Merriam, Chairman John W. Homer, Vice-Chairman Otto P. Gans Thomas J. Graham Emma C. Whitney Also present: John D. Richter, Planning Official James Polatty, Planning and Development Director 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 8/24/89) Steve and Kathleen Annas for variances of 1) 20.7 ft to permit carport and foyer additions 4.3 ft from a street right-of-way, 2) 9.6% open space for lot to allow 25.4%, and 3) 3.2% front yard open space to allow 36.8%, at 766 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay, Blk 4, Lot 4, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 89-145 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are being requested to add a carport, shade deck, and storage area to the residence. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Art Shand, of Williams Architects, stated the storage addition and carport will be done in the same character to match the house. The carport will be utilized for additional parking. The wooden deck will be open without a roof. Discussion ensued concerning previous front yard open space variance requests. Mr. Shand stated this is a unique situation due to the lack of parking area and feels the design is compatible with the neighborhood. Concern was expressed in regard to extending an existing nonconformity causing loss of open space. Mr. Gans 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 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 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and, upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans, Graham, Homer, and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mrs. Whitney voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM B - (continued from 8/10/89 and 8/24/89) 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 Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are for existing signage. Staff recommends denial of the variances. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated the sign company failed to obtain the sign permits. Schlott's Realty is willing to remove the pole sign and not erect additional wall signs. He indicated Schlott Realty is a major tenant operating in 20% of the building with 27 listed agents and is more retail in nature. Larry Romedo, president of Schlott Realty, stated he had no knowledge that sign permits were not obtained and he would like to remedy the situation. 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, its location on Enterprise Road and its visibility from U.S. 19 N. and Enterprise Road and was not caused by the applicant; the particular physical surroundings, shape or conditions of the property 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 unnecessary hardship created by the location of the building near U.S.19 N. on Enterprise Road; 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. Mr. Graham moved to deny variance #2 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, 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 134.003 and 134.004. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #1 - Branch Sunset Associates Ltd (American Savings) for variances of 1) one business identification sign to permit two such signs, and 2) 59.6 sq ft of business identification signage to permit a total o f 107.6 sq ft of such signage, at 1856 U.S. 19 N, Section 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). V 89-154 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the signage will be on two sides of the establishment. Staff recommends denial of the variances. Catherine Dixon of A-OK Signs, representing the applicant, stated this is a corner property with two entrances. She indicated a need for high visibility because of their distance from U.S. 19 and Sunset Point Road and to be able to compete with other banking facilities in the center. Ms. Dixon said it was her understanding that two signs were allowed if there were two entrances. The Planning Official said this provision applied to major tenants. Discussion ensued concerning the need for visibility on both streets and it was felt a hardship exists due to the location in the shopping center and that two signs were reasonable. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 was not caused by the applicant, and the particular physical road surroundings create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, subject to the condition that a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant a variance of 48 square feet to allow no more than 48 square feet per sign for a total signage of 96 square feet, because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, and the particular physical road surroundings involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, subject to the condition that a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and, upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney and Messrs. Gans and Graham voted "Aye;" Messrs. Homer and Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #2 - Harry and Chris Provatas for a variance of 2 ft 5 inches to permit pool enclosure 2 ft 7 inches from a side property line, at 2004 Del Betmar, Cedar Hts, Lot 42, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 89-155 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating staff recommends approval of the variance. The Public Works Department has approved the 5 foot encroachment of the enclosure into the easement along the rear property line. Harry Provatas stated the enclosure would protect the pool from falling leaves from the neighbor's trees. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the 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 #3 - Mac and Naomi Williams for variances of 4.8 ft to permit an addition 20.2 ft from Ridge Ave right-of-way, and 2) 11.6 ft to permit addition 13.4 ft from Carroll St. right-of-way, at 1300 Ridge Ave, Highland Pines 1st Addition, Blk 8, Lot 6, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 89-156 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant is proposing to build an addition onto the south end of the house. Staff recommends approval of Variance #1 and denial of Variance #2. Michael Myrick, representing the applicant, stated the addition is for a 12 by 18 foot master bathroom and a walk-in closet off the existing master bedroom. The home was originally built under County regulations and later annexed into the City and now encroaches into the setback area. Discussion ensued as to whether or not the addition could be at the rear of the house thereby reducing the variance. 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 was not caused by the applicant; the particular physical surroundings of the property, the current setback of the building and other houses in the area, 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 unnecessary hardship created by the existing setbacks; 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, Mrs. Whitney and Messrs. Graham, Homer, and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mr. Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. Mr. Graham moved to continue Variance #2 to the meeting of September 28, 1989. The motion was duly seconded and, upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney and Messrs. Graham, Homer and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mr. Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. Variance #2 continued to September 28, 1989. The Board recessed from 3:05 p.m. to 3:20 p.m. ITEM #4 - William Shephard, Trustee, (Lagoon Resort Hotel, Inc.) for variances 1) of 67.7 ft to permit building additions 4.5 ft from a side property line, and 2) to allow an additional 6 parking spaces in clear space, at 619 Gulfview Blvd, Section 17-29-15, M&B 22.01 AND Bayside Sub #5, Blk C, Lots 1-5, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial) and OSR (open space/recreation). V 89-157 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the hotel renovations include two building additions and parking lot changes. The parking lot is already in the setback. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Mr. Graham stated he has a conflict of interest in this case. Mr. Graham noted the variance for parking spaces has been withdrawn. Robert P. Resch III, representing the applicant, stated the variance is being requested for the renovation of an existing building. The original placement of the building to one side of the property creates a hardship. The landscape and traffic plans are being coordinated with the Traffic Engineer and City Forester. The natural vistas of the Gulf will be maintained. He indicated the addition will conform with the existing rear setback and felt this was the best location for the five additional units. Bill Shephard stated extensive renovations of the hotel are being done. In response to a question, he stated the pool building and storage area for chemicals will be relocated. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship in that the setback area is currently being used as a laundry room and is being renovated, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #5 - 2045 Corporation (Blockbuster Video) for variances of 1) one business identification sign to permit two such signs, and 2) 76 sq ft business identification signage to permit a total of 124 sq ft of such signage, at 2045 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Section 13-29-15, M&B's 42.03, 42.04 and part of 45.03, zoned CG (general commercial). V 89-158 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating Blockbuster Video will have 7,000 square feet of gross floor area and will be one of three tenants in the shopping center. Staff recommends denial of the variances. Timothy Johnson, Jr., attorney representing the applicant, stated the store is located on the west end of the shopping center and the applicant wishes to place signs on the store's west and north canopies. He feels Blockbuster Video should be given the same consideration as a major tenant because of its size and the number of trips generated. It is the most successful video rental outfit in the country, and a large attractor of business. The store's view is blocked by other stores and most of its business is done in the twilight hours. The signage is needed to give the visibility to customers without causing a traffic hazard. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not these are minimum variances or a hardship exists. Mr. Homer moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 28, 1989. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #6 - John and Jane Miller for a variance of 3% open space for lot to allow 57% open space for lot, at 2775 Camden Rd, Chelsea West, Lot 15, zoned RS-2 (single family residential). V 89-159 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is a double frontage lot. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Elise Winters, attorney representing the applicant, stated the setbacks are not being violated, the variance requested will preserve the architectural standards of the neighborhood and is compatible with the houses in the area. Because the owner has physical problems, the house needs to be one story high. She indicated the neighbors do not object. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the single story structure due to physical limitations of the owner, 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 #7 - Willow Run, Inc. (A.A.J.R.) for a variance of 8 parking spaces to provide zero additional parking spaces to permit expansion of restaurant with package sales store, at 1045 N Greenwood Ave, Section 10-29-15, M&B 24.01, zoned RM-24 (multiple family residential), proposed CNG (N Greenwood commercial). V 89-160 The applicant has requested this item be continued to the meeting of September 28, 1989. Alfred Bridges, president of Willow Run, Inc,. indicated there is some confusion concerning the property ownership. The property was sold on August 25, 1989. The application was filed prior to the ownership change. Mr. Bridges indicated he would be out of town on September 28, 1989. Mr. Homer moved to continue this item to the meeting of October 12, 1989 so that the application may be reviewed. The motion was duly seconded and, upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney and Messrs. Graham, Homer, and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mr. Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. Item continued to October 12, 1989. ITEM #8 - Perkins of Clearwater, Ltd., for variances of 1) 21 ft in height to allow a 41 ft high pole sign, and 2) 98.4 sq ft of property identification signage to permit a total of 322.4 sq ft of such signage to allow the existing pole sign to remain after October 13, 1992, at 2626 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Section 17-29-16, M&B 23.07, zoned CH (highway commercial). V 89-161 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the height variance is not unreasonable because of the overpass. The second variance proposes perpetuating the non-conforming signage beyond the 1992 conformance date. Staff recommends denial of the second variance. In response to a question, the Planning Official stated the sign face could be changed without a variance. The extension beyond the conformance date requires the variance. Ronald Nichols, representing the applicant, stated the height variance is needed due to the grade of the overpass. The sign face change is imminent and, before money is expended, they wish to know if the signage can remain after October, 1992. The face change will advertise their bakery. Discussion ensued regarding the Board approving any exceptions to the 1992 sign conformance and whether or not a hardship exists for the height variance. Mr. Gans 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 the applicant can make any desired changes as stated which precludes the establishment of a hardship, they will be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or the neighborhood, they would detract from the appearance of the community, 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 carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #9 - City of Clearwater for a variance of 394 parking spaces to provide 362 additional parking spaces in lieu of 756 additional parking spaces required to permit a 1889 seat stadium expansion, at 801 Phillies Dr (Jack Russell Stadium), New Country Club Addition, Blk E & part of Blks A & D, zoned OS/R (open space/recreation). The Planning Official explained the application in detail noting other parking is available in the area but not contiguous to the site. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Ream Wilson, Parks and Recreation Director, stated the variance is being requested to allow a 1889 seat expansion for Jack Russell Stadium. There are a total of 756 parking spaces available in the vicinity; however, only 372 of the spaces are contiguous to the property. Off-site parking spaces are available in the vicinity at City parks and fields. In response to a question, it was indicated the Phillies games are played during the day and would not interfere with the other recreational activities. He feels the stadium expansion is necessary to keep the Phillies in Clearwater. The off-site parking is within three blocks of the stadium and would be used approximately 8-10 times a year for sellout games. The property around the stadium is heavily developed and there is little land to purchase for parking. Clearwater and Countryside High School band booster clubs would direct fans to the parking areas. James Polatty, Planning and Development Director, indicated staff is in support of the expansion and it would help in the commercial and residential revitalization of the North Greenwood area. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. The Board requested the Planning Official investigate the "JOBS" sign on the northeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard by the Causeway. The Planning Official reported enforcement proceedings have started concerning yellow bus at Ice Cold Air. A Board member inquired concerning a new office building located behind First National Bank meeting the parking requirements before being sold. Discussion ensued regarding the comment sheets provided by the Planning and Development Department. The Board requested the Planning and Development Department provide in their recommendation definitive reasons for approval or denial of variance requests. The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.