Loading...
12/14/1989 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD December 14, 1989 Members present: Kemper W. Merriam, Chairman John W. Homer, Vice-Chairman Otto P. Gans Thomas J. Graham Emma C. Whitney Also present: James Polatty, Planning and Development Director Sandy Glatthorn, Planning Official Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:10 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 - (request for time extension) Mobil Oil Corporation for variances of 1) 10 ft to permit storage building 10 ft from a side property line, and 2) 5.25% interior landscaping to provide 0.75% interior landscaping for parking lot, at 2696 U.S. Hwy 19, Sec 30-28-16, M&B 31.01, zoned CH (highway commercial). The applicant sent a letter requesting an extension of the time in which to obtain a building permit. Mr. Gans moved to grant a six-month time extension to May 25, 1990 for variance #1 and a six-month time extension to June 8, 1990, for variance #2. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM B - (request for time extension) Clearwater Collections Associates, Ltd. for a variance of 27 sq ft business identification signage to permit a total of 75 sq ft of such signage, at 390 A & B U.S. Hwy 19 N, Clearwater Collection, Lots 2 & 3, zoned CPD (commercial planned development) AND AL/I (aquatic lands/interior). The applicant sent a letter requesting an extension of the time in which to obtain a building permit. Mr. Homer moved to grant a six-month time extension to June 20, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM C - (request for time extension) Wayne Davis for a variance of 20 ft to permit house 5 ft from a street right-of-way, at 970 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 61, Lot 8, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The applicant sent a letter requesting an extension of the time in which to obtain a building permit. Mr. Homer moved to grant a six-month time extension to June 9, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM D - (continued from 11/9/89 & 11/21/89) Forrest and Renee Garrison (Checkers Drive-In Restaurant) for a variance of 30% front yard open space to allow 20%, at 1474 U.S. Highway 19 S, Section 19-29-16, M&B's 41.09 & 41.10, zoned CH (highway commercial). V 89-186 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the requested variance has been reduced to 14% front yard open space. Staff recommends approval. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the open space has been maximized within the constraints of the ingress/egress and parking requirements of the site. The motel owner next door to the proposed establishment spoke in opposition expressing concerns regarding increased traffic on U.S. 19 and parking problems due to the small site indicating this property is not suitable for this type of business. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not this is a minimum variance. It was indicated the site is most difficult to develop and that the applicant has worked very hard to cooperate with staff. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant a variance of 14% front yard open space 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 involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied; and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location of the building and pool on the site and the lot size; subject to the conditions that the variance only applies for the length of time Checkers is using the property 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. Whitney, Messrs. Gans, Graham, and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #1 - Ray and Mary Nelson for a variance of 2 ft to permit storage addition 3 ft from a side property line, at 1325 N Saturn Ave, Highland Pines 8th Addition, Blk 47, Lot 1, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 89-193 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the proposed addition is to convert a garage to living area. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Ray Nelson stated the accommodations are needed for a live-in caretaker for his wife. The addition will serve as an all-purpose room. One citizen spoke in support of the application and one letter in support was submitted for the record. Discussion ensued concerning alternate locations for the addition and whether or not this is a minimum 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 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. Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM #2 - Brandon Nu-West Clearwater Ltd and Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company for variances as follows: Proposed Lot 1 - 1) 167 parking spaces to provide 811 parking spaces, 2) 3.8 ft to allow building 71.20 ft from a street right-of-way, 3) 4% open space for lot to allow 21%; Proposed Lot 2 - 4) 6 parking spaces to provide 10 parking spaces, 5) 147,494 sq ft to permit a 26,746 sq ft lot, 6) 150 ft to permit a 150 ft lot depth, 7) 120 ft to permit a 180 ft lot width, 8) 36.65 ft to permit a 13.35 ft rear setback, 9) 5.05 ft to permit a 44.95 ft setback from a side property line, Proposed Lot 3 - 10) 141,352 sq ft to permit a 32,888 sq ft lot, 11) 135 ft to permit a 165 ft lot depth, 12) 100 ft to permit a 200 ft lot width, 13) 12.41 ft to allow building 62.59 ft from a street right-of-way, 14) 16 ft to permit a 34 ft setback from a rear property line, Proposed Lot 4 - 15) 126,977 sq ft to permit a 47,263 sq ft lot, 16) 150 ft to allow a 150 ft lot depth, 17) 45 ft to lot width to allow a 255 ft wide lot, 18) 23 ft to allow a 27 ft setback from a side property line, at the northwest corner of U.S. 19 N and Northeast Coachman Road, all of Loehmann's Plaza Sub, zoned CC (commercial center). V 89-194 The applicant sent a letter requesting a continuance until issues concerning the preliminary subdivision plat and rezoning are resolved. Mr. Gans moved to defer action for 90 days. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Equitel (Holiday Inn Central) for variances of 1) 83.5 sq ft property identification signage to permit 195.5 sq ft of such signage, and 2) 10 ft in height to permit a 30 ft high pole sign, at 400 U.S. 19 N, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 14.01, zoned CH (highway commercial). V 89-195 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating that due to recent revisions of the sign code, the square footage variance is not needed. Approval was granted by the Board for both variances on April 27, 1989, but the time in which to obtain a permit has expired. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated that due to an error by the sign company in designing the sign, a permit could not be obtained in the allotted time. He indicated business is down due to lack of visibility. The property is located at the bottom of an overpass and behind a service road among a "jungle" of signs. In response to a question concerning reducing or eliminating the readerboard, it was noted the readerboard is part of the Holiday Inn's identity and is used as a marketing tool to welcome guests. Robert Jones, president of J.P. Hotels, stated that due to company guidelines, they must adapt to the new design. A representative of Cummings Sign Company, stated the new design is smaller and more refined in order to fit in with the changing sign codes. They wish to utilize the existing footings when replacing the signage. Discussion ensued as to whether or not a hardship exists. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant variance #2 as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved, being the access road off U.S. 19 and its distance from U.S. 19, and the overpass to the south, 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, Messrs. Gans and Homer voted "Aye;" Messrs. Graham and Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #4 - Vision Cable of Pinellas, Inc. for a variance of 11 ft to permit a building 16 ft from a side property line, at 2530 Drew St, Sec 7-29-16, M&B 44.02, zoned CH (highway commercial). V 89-196 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant is proposing to redevelop the existing site by redesigning the vehicular use areas and constructing a building and parking lot on the adjacent Florida Power easement. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Steve Seibert, attorney representing the applicant, addressing Item #4 and Item #5, stated the site is difficult to develop due to grade changes, drainage problems, and numerous trees. The parking variance is needed to save as many trees as possible. An additional parking area will be leased from Florida Power. All Vision Cable operations, including storage and mechanical needs, will be consolidated in this building. Shrubbery and trees will be planted to shield the satellite dishes from view. In response to a question, it was indicated a separate building rather than an addition was being proposed due to the grading next to the existing building and and the fact that fewer large trees would have to be removed. The Assistant City Attorney returned at 3:50 p.m. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant 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 the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved, significant grade change, 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 one (1) year from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #5 - Vision Cable of Pinellas, Inc. for a variance of 25 parking spaces to provide 166 parking spaces, at 2530 Drew St, Sec 7-29-16, M&B 44.02, zoned CH (highway commercial). V 89-197 Steve Seibert, representing the applicant, stated they are trying to save as many trees as possible on the site. Sandy Lloveras, engineer representing Vision Cable, stated the variance is needed due to the constraints caused by the dedication of an additional 10 feet of right-or-way for Drew Street, the location of the dishes for transmitting, and the desire to save large specimen trees. Additional parking spaces are available on the Florida Power right-of-way. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant 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, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied; and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the number of trees on that site and the topography of the site does not allow its use in a normal development way; 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 - Philip H. and Dorothy R. Hershfelt for a variance of 10 inches to permit pool enclosure 9 ft 2 inches from a rear property line, at 3162 San Mateo St, Del Oro Estates, Lot 44, zoned RS-4 (single family residential). V 89-198 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the enclosure is for an existing pool and deck. Numerous trees drop leaves and other debris into the pool. The existing easement will not be affected and a wood fence buffers the area. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Tom Tofelski, representing the applicant, stated the walkway would be less than 3 feet wide if the variance is not granted. 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 is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by an existing 6-foot privacy fence to the rear of the screened porch which does not allow for safe access around the 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 #7 - Donaldson Company, Inc. for a variance of 6.6% building coverage to permit 36.6% coverage, at 3018 Homestead Court, Homestead Oaks, Lot 21, zoned RS-4 (single family residential). V 89-199 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variance is to construct a home tailored to the special needs of the proposed owners. Due to family and deed restrictions requiring 5 bedrooms, a house of this size is needed. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Peter Sockol, representing the applicant, stated the Donaldson Company is an environmentally conscious builder with their properties having lower than required overall building coverage. He said the owners chose a lot they could afford and indicated the house is in continuity with other homes in the area. This house is custom designed for the prospective owner. Trees will be planted on the site. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not the house is too large for the site. Mr. Sockol said the Donaldson Company purchased the property already platted. In response to a question, it was indicated the owners did not want to construct a two-story dwelling because they felt it would not be energy efficient. He said construction has already been delayed for approximately three months and a five bedroom plan had to be designed indicating the market for one is not out there. One letter in support was submitted for the record. 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 carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #8 - Gary Haines for a variance to permit 4 ft chain link fence in setback area adjoining waterfront, at 691 Snug Island, Island Estates Unit 7B, Lot 21, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). V 89-200 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to enclose the rear yard with chain link fencing one foot inside the side and rear property lines. The property is on the waterfront of Clearwater Harbor. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Marc Bershaw, representing the applicant, stated the fencing is needed for the safety and welfare of his one year old child. Other homes in the area have similar fences. He indicated the neighbors on both sides do not object. The applicant stated he will maintain the area around the fence. The Assistant City Attorney returned at 4:45 p.m. Discussion ensued in regard to other fences in the area. Concern was expressed in regard to the maintainence of the grassy area around the fence and the applicant said he would maintain it. Two letters in support were submitted for the record. Mr. Bershaw stated he was not aware of the required setbacks when he purchased the property. He indicated he would be willing to remove the fencing when his child is older. 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 particular conditions of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied; and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location of property directly on the water and for safety reasons as there is a one-year old child who is a member of the family, subject to the conditions that the fence be an open chain link fence as indicated on the application, the maximum height of the fence be 4 feet, and a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #9 - Daniel L. Akins for a variance of 5 ft to permit building addition 20 ft from a street right-of-way, at 1201 S Myrtle Ave, Milton Park, Blk 3, Lot 9, zoned OL (limited office). V 89-201 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property was developed over 20 years ago when the required setback was 20 feet. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Steve Spencer, architect representing the applicant, stated that 90% of the doctor's patients are elderly usually accompanied by a companion. The enlarged waiting area will offer more comfort for the patients and will be handicapped accessible. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant 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 of the design of the building and does not increase the footprint or the nonconformity of the building, 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 - Thomas Terry, Jr. (Chasers) for a variance of 97 sq ft to permit a 112 sq ft business identification sign, at 1501 U.S. 19 S, Sec 20-29-16, M&B 33.01, zoned CH (highway commercial). V 89-202 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is developed with a building used as a nightclub. One pole structure on the property contains two signs, one with the business name and a changeable message advertising the nightclub and the other is for off-premise advertising. The applicant wishes to paint a sign on the front wall of the building with the identical message as that on the pole sign. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Rick Bono, representing the applicant, stated the building is setback from U.S.19 and other buildings and shrubbery in the area block their visibility from the road. Discussion ensued concerning the existing non-conforming billboard on the property. It was indicated the applicant should be concerned with the prime identification sign fronting on U.S. 19. 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, it is not a minimum variance, 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 #11 - Milton and Linda J. Luria for a variance of 630 ft to permit a group care facility 570 ft from another such facility, at 905 Pineview Ave, Parkwood, Blk E, Lot 2, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 89-203 A letter was submitted to the Board requesting this item be moved to the beginning of the meeting in consideration of the number and age of the people present for this case. Consensus of the Board was to take this item out of order. The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is developed with a single family residence which is proposed to be used as an emergency shelter housing up to six abused and/or neglected children. The State requires a 1000 foot separation from other such community residential homes while Clearwater requires a 1200 foot separation. The purpose of the separation requirement is to decentralize the group homes. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Abe Wasserberger, Children's Home Society of Florida representing the applicant, stated staff has been contacted to determine if the property was properly zoned for this use and they were advised there were no restrictions prohibiting proceeding in this manner. The home will serve up to six children ages six to eleven years old who will be under 24-hour supervision by live-in house parents. All licensing requirements are being followed. There will be weekly monitoring of the home by HRS and CHS representatives. There is a critical shortage for emergency shelters and foster care. He stated he felt the neighbors who object to the proposed home are misinformed as to the intended use of the property. He encouraged community input and cooperation to break the cycle of child abuse, abandonment and neglect. One citizen spoke in support of the request. One citizen spoke in opposition on the behalf of the neighbors expressing concern to over-concentration of such homes in the neighborhood indicating there are other suitable locations. Four letters and a petition with 122 signatures in opposition were submitted for the record expressing concern regarding an establishment of this type being detrimental to the neighborhood, decreasing property values, and creating problems affecting many of the residents in the area. Bruce McDonald stated the variance would be short term allowing time to find a more suitable location. He also indicated a lease for the property had already been signed. In response to a question, it was indicated the need for a variance was first known when a letter had been received from the City Manager on November 6, 1989, indicating same. It was noted that the lease had been signed on October 3, 1989, after hearing from staff. Discussion ensued regarding the need for these types of facilities and whether or not an error had been made by staff regarding local and state requirements in regard to this facility. The Planning & Development Director said he was not certain an error had been made. In response to a question, it was indicated mistakes in regard to code requirements are usually discovered when an occupational license is applied for. Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property, it will be materially detrimental to other property in the neighborhood, 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 #12 - Post Court (Clearwater) Ltd for a variance of 12 ft in height to permit 42 ft high buildings, at 101 S Old Coachman Rd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 11.05, 11.09, 11.11, and 14.04, zoned RM-16 (multiple family residential) and OL (limited office). V 89-204 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant proposes to develop the property with an apartment complex. A similar height variance was granted by the Board in November of 1987, but has since expired. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Michael Stevens, representing the applicant, stated the variance expired in January of 1989. The revised architectural design requires a 12 foot height variance for design, aesthetic appeal, and practicality for the roof itself. In response to a question, it was indicated the complex would be for rental apartments. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant 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 height limitation of the surrounding properties which are P/SP (public/semi-public) and CH (commercial highway), subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within one (1) year from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. MINUTES Mr. Gans moved to approve the minutes of November 9, 1989, and November 21, 1989, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Board requested the Planning Official to investigate possible code violations regarding the storage shed on the northeast corner of Rosemere and Highland, and the large "JOBS" sign at the northeast corner of Bayshore and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The Planning Official reported to the Board that a notice of violation regarding Julie's outdoor seating and lack of parking will be considered by the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. A building permit was not obtained for the deck at Penguin Palace and is being investigated by staff. Chateau de Ville on Nursery Road received a variance for a 6-foot wall on March 9, 1989 and no landscaping has been confirmed. The removal of the existing 2-foot wall was not a condition of approval. The Planning & Development Director requested a meeting be scheduled with the Board sometime in January to receive input regarding possible revisions to the land development code. The meeting adjourned at 5:29 p.m.