Loading...
01/25/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD January 25, 1990 Members present: Kemper W. Merriam, Chairman John W. Homer, Vice-Chairman Thomas J. Graham Emma C. Whitney Member absent: Otto Gans Also present: 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 1:02 p.m. in the Commission Chambers 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. I. Time Extensions ITEM A - (request for time extension) Florida Power Corporation and 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 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 August 24, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM B - (request for time extension) Mobil Oil Corporation for variances of 1) 7 ft 2 inches to permit trash and storage facility 2 ft 10 inches from a side property line, 2) 2% of total paved area interior landscaping requirement to provide 4% total paved area, and 3) 21.26% front yard open space to allow 28.74%, at 1496 S Belcher Rd, Imperial Square Shopping Center, Section 24-29-15, M&B 41.05, zoned CG (general commercial). The applicant withdrew this request. II. Public Hearings ITEM A - (continued from 12/14/89) Brandon Nu-West Clearwater Ltd and Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company/Taheri for variances of 1) 167 parking spaces to allow 811 parking spaces (Proposed Lot 1), and 2) 6 parking spaces to allow 10 parking spaces (Proposed Lot 2), at the northwest corner of U.S.19 N and Northeast Coachman Road, Loehmann's Plaza Sub, Lots 1 and 2, zoned CC (commercial center) proposed to be zoned CPD (commercial planned development). V 89-194 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the site was in the County when it was developed. The applicants desire to split the site for the purpose of separate ownership. Approval of the variances are needed as the CPD Zoning district does not permit discretionary variation of the parking requirements. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Keith Appenzeller, representing the applicant, stated the entire site has to be brought into conformance with Code before receiving preliminary site plan approval. The parking variance is for the developed portion of the property. The Planning Official explained that by combining all the calculations for the entire parcel, the open space requirements will be met. She indicated this parcel will always be viewed as one development under the CPD master site plan. 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 were not caused by the applicant; and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by this property being built and designed in conformance with the County codes when it was originally developed and then annexed into the City causing the non-conformity. The motion was duly seconded. In response to a question, it was indicated the applicant is in the process of going for a rezoning. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM B - (continued from 1/11/90) Peace Memorial Homes. Inc. (Osceola Inn) for a variance of 29 parking spaces to permit 33 additional parking spaces in lieu of the 62 additional parking spaces required by code at 221 Osceola Ave, Section 9-29-15, M&B 43.09, 43.10, 43.101, AND T.H. Kingston, Lots 1-3, AND Hayden's Estate Revised, part of Lot 2, zoned UC(C) (urban center (core)). V 90-01 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the expansion and redevelopment will include a new two-story building and a 13-story residential tower over ground level parking. The Urban Center Core zoning allows for a parking credit for the existing use on this property. The project will be marketed for elderly retirees who will be encouraged to use available public and private transportation. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Steve Klar, architect representing the applicant, stated the proposed project is within the spirit of the code for development in the downtown core for residential use. In response to a question concerning employee parking, Marsh Vivian, administrator at Osceola Inn, stated there are currently 12 employees on each shift and estimates an increase of 18 additional employees with the expansion. It was indicated parking spaces are available across the street from the Inn. She indicated there are presently 6 cars for the 85 residents. 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, being located in the core area with adequate public parking in and about the surrounding site, and was not caused by the applicant; subject to the condition that final site plan approval be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM C - (continued from 1/11/90) Henry and Betty Staniszeski for variances 1) of 8.2 ft to permit addition 1.8 ft from a rear property line, and 2) to permit expansion of a nonconforming use, at 1539 Tilley Ave, Belmont Second Addition, Blk C. Lots 31-34, zoned RM-8 (multiple family residential). V 90-09 The applicant withdrew the application. ITEM #1 - South Main Enterprises VIII, Ltd (Schlott Realty) for a variance of 38 sq ft to permit a total of 42 sq ft business identification signage, at 2420 Enterprise Rd, NTW Sub, Tract 1, zoned CH (highway commercial). V 90-10 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property has only one street frontage on Enterprise Road. A pole sign located near the street and two wall signs on the building identify Schlott Realty. The wall signs are the subject of this variance request. On September 14, 1989, the Board granted a variance of one business identification sign to permit two signs but denied a variance of 84.8 square feet to permit a total of 88.8 square feet of signage and, on October 26, 1989, the Board denied a variance of 65.7 square feet to allow a total of 69.7 square feet of signage. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, indicated there is a potential for 44 square feet of signage if calculated as 4 square foot of signage for each of 11 rental units. He felt the CH (highway commercial) was unusual for this site. He indicated that Schlott Realty is a major tenant in the building with 27 listing agents and is more toward the retail side. Mr. Pressman presented a letter from the property manager of the building advising there would be no problem in limiting exterior signs on the building to the two existing Schlott signs. Larry Remedo, president of Schott Realty, stated the sign company erred in not obtaining a permit. He feels visibility is needed from U.S. 19. and he indicated the signage is aesthetically pleasing and matches the decor of the building. The landlord will not allow any other signage on the front. Discussion ensued in regard to the visibility of the signage from various directions. Mr. Remedo said he was satisfied with the present signage and he indicated they have a 5-year lease. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not a hardship exists and it was indicated the applicant had a choice between additional square footage of signage on the building or the pole sign. Concern was expressed by the Board in regulating the message on the signs and the Planning Official indicated the Code only addresses the size, height, and the number of signs. Mr. Remedo indicated he would be willing to remove the Schott Realty name from the pole sign and the sign on the east side of the building if 42 square footage of signage was allowed on the front. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variance as amended by the applicant 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 location of the building along Enterprise Road and its obstructed view from the street; subject to the conditions that the applicant has offered and the Board has accepted their offer to remove the "Schlott Realty" name from the property identification pole sign; the applicant has also offered and the Board has accepted their offer to remove the "Schlott Realty" sign on the east side of the building; and that this variance of 38 square ft is for one sign only and that no other signage be allowed on the building as requested by the applicant, and 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. Graham and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #2 - Rayford and Betsy Hixon, Jr. for variances of 1) 31 ft to permit dock 66 ft in length, and 2) 2 ft to permit dock 18 ft from an extended property line, at 821 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 39, Lot 1, zoned RS-8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 90-11 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to build a 4 foot catwalk onto the existing 62 foot long dock. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Rayford Hixon stated the catwalk is needed to allow for safe mooring of his boat since the depth of the water is 40 inches at low tide. He indicated the existing tie poles are 3-1/2 feet out from the existing dock and will not be moved out any further. In response to a question, it was indicated the catwalk will continue around the northerly side to allow for the mooring of a small boat. 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; the particular physical surroundings and geographical conditions of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied; and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the depth of the water and the distance between the low tide and the dock to make safe access to the boats; 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 - Twinjay Chambers Partnership (Century 21) for a variance of 14.67 sq ft to permit an 18.67 sq ft of business identification signage at 2469 Enterprise Rd, Renaissance Plaza, zoned CC (commercial center). V 90-12 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating a permit was not obtained for the existing wall sign. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated the business is difficult to locate due to the location of the driveway from the building. He feels the sign is minimal and unobtrusive. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not a precedent for similar requests would be set for other businesses in the center. Mr. Graham 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 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. The Board recessed from 2:35 p.m. to 2:50 p.m. ITEM #4 - Sears and Roebuck & Company for variances of 1) 20 ft to permit screened structure for use as a plant and garden center 55 ft from a street right-of-way, 2) 19 parking spaces to permit establishment of a 3,153 sq ft retail area, and 3) 2 ft in height to allow a 6 ft high steel fence within setback area adjacent to a street right-of-way to which property is not addressed, at 2601-A U.S.19 N, Section 30-28-16, M&B 42.04, zoned CC (commercial center). V 90-13 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant is expanding its retail operation by adding a screened structure for an outdoor garden and plant center. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Tom Tafelski, of Aluminum Craftsmen, representing the applicant, stated the old site for the garden center was abandoned and converted to a service center due to traffic problems and the concerns of the fire marshal. Donald Brash, Sears sales manager, stated an attractive screening will enclose the garden area. Mr. Tafelski noted the bank to the east of the existing automotive center is setback from the north property line along S.R. #580 approximately the same distance as the proposed structure. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, and they arise from a condition which is unique to the property, the previous location of the garden center was not in keeping with the concerns of the fire marshal, 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 #5 - Stephen and Kerry Sherrill for a variance of 4.2 ft to permit second floor addition 0.8 ft from a side property line, at 623 Mariva Ave, Hillcrest Addition, Lot 5, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-14 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variance is the result of an unintentional architectural oversight. The variance would allow the addition to extend 3 feet beyond the existing north wall. This variance is in addition to the setback variance granted on January 11, 1990. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Steven Sherrill distributed a drawing showing the location of the subject property in relation to the adjacent property and utility easement running along the property line and renderings of the front and side elevation of the house. The 3-foot projection from the house was envisioned by all parties involved as being similar to a window seat enclosing the master bathtub. He feels the addition will add to the architectural design of the house. In response to a question, it was indicated the entire bathroom would measure approximately 9 feet wide. Scott Souther, contractor representing the applicant, stated the overhang will be 3 feet to the building line and can be shortened if necessary. Redesigning the addition poses a problem due to the fireplace below. In response to a question, it was indicated the length of the bathroom and dressing room would be approximately 18 feet. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not this is a minimal variance and whether a precedent would be set. It was indicated this was a unique situation due to the location of the utility easement, being located at the end of a cul-de-sac, and the multiple family residences to the north. Concern was expressed in increasing a nonconformity, and it was indicated this would be an attractive addition to the neighborhood possibly encouraging others to revive the area. One letter in support was submitted for the record. 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, being the subject property sits at the end of a cul-de-sac thereby no other homes will be infringed upon as a result of the variance given on the side setback, the subject property adjoins the 20 foot utility easement which is contiguous to multi-family zoning and which development is taking place at the northern portion of that property, and was not caused by the applicant; subject to the conditions that there be no overhang other than a trim board, that this variance is only for a tub alcove addition at 8 feet above finished grade or higher thereby leaving a clear open visual space below, and that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. III. Minutes of January 11, 1990 Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of January 11, 1990 in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. IV. Board Comments The Planning Official reported Julie's is attempting to comply with City codes and will be requesting a conditional use for alcoholic beverage sales for the expanded seating area and parking and distance separation variances. The Board asked the Planning Official to investigate the yellow bus at Ice Cold Air on the corner of Court Street and Missouri Avenue, and the Clearwater Beach Welcome Center located at the northern portion of Howard Johnson's. It was also requested that the Planning Official check on the white storage building in the front yard setback of property on Highland Avenue north of Maple Street. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.