Loading...
02/22/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD February 22, 1990 Members present: Kemper W. Merriam, Chairman John W. Homer, Vice-Chairman Otto Gans Thomas J. Graham Emma C. Whitney Also present: Sandy Glatthorn, Planning Official Scott Shuford, Planning Manager Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney (left at 2:10 p.m.) Susan Stephenson, Deputy 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. Public Hearings ITEM #1 - Joseph A. and Frances P. King for a variance of 3 ft to permit pole sign 2 ft from a side property line, at 110 Island Way, Unit B, Sec 8-29-15, M&B 13.05, zoned CG (general commercial). V 90-20 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the sign conforms to code in all regards except distance from side property line. Due to landscaping and site design, loss of parking would result if the sign is placed behind the setback. Staff recommends approval of the variance with conditions. Beverly Orr, representing the applicant, stated the variance was granted previously but the permit was not obtained in the allotted time. The sign above the door is not easily visible. The proposed sign will help patients locate the parking facilities and office. 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; and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the restrictive lot size; subject to the conditions that 1) a revised variance application be signed by the owner of the property, Joseph King, acknowledging Beverly Orr as legal representative; 2) the sign shall be the size and type as specified by the applicant and located according to information presented by the applicant, and its message be limited to what appears on the application; and that a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #2 - University High Equity Real Estate Fund II (National Operating L.P./Countryside Plaza for variances of 1) 136 sq ft to permit a total of 256 sq ft of property identification signage, and 2) two property identification signs to permit a total of three such signs, at 2630 U.S 19 N, Sec 30-28-16, M&B 31.04, zoned CC (commercial center). V 90-21 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the variances are to replace the existing sign with another nonconforming sign. Three signs exist on the property where only one sign is permitted. The Countryside Plaza sign has assisted motorists in locating the access to the subject property. Staff recommends approval of the variances with conditions. Mark Willett, representing the applicant, stated there are three signs on the subject property. All the signs were permitted under the old code. The "outparcels" were never sold but were leased to Shell Oil and Long John Silver. Some leases state the tenant must be included on the Countryside Plaza sign. The pole sign will be lowered for better visibility. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the "outparcels" should be treated as separate parcels in regard to signage and whether the property is allowed additional signage due to generous frontage. It was determined that the property did not meet the generous frontage required for additional signage and because the "outparcels" were not sold, they are a part of the shopping center property. The Planning Official indicated reducing the height of the sign is of sufficient importance to allow the other two signs to remain. Mr. Gans indicated he felt the hardship is self-imposed and violates the spirit and intent of the Land Development Code. 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; the particular location of the property involved creates 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 frontage of the property on U.S.19 and the need for identification on that road; subject to the following conditions: 1) the proposed sign shall be of a size and type as specified by the applicant and located according to information presented by the applicant; 2) that all other provisions of the sign regulations pertaining to the proposed sign shall be observed; 3) that the other two property identification pole signs located on the subject property shall be removed on or prior to October 13, 1992, the date established in Section 134.015(c) of the Land Development Code for amortization compliance of all nonconforming signs within the City; 4) that condition 3 shall be observed regardless of (and as a condition of) any future subdivision of the subject property; and that a building permit for the proposed signage shall be procured within six (6) months from the date of variance approval. The motion was duly seconded and, upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Graham and Homer voted "Aye;" Messrs. Gans and Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #3 - UPARC Foundation for variances of 1) 5 ft to permit building 8 ft from a side (north) property line, 2) 3 ft to permit building 10 ft from a (south) side property line, 3) 29 parking spaces to allow 4 spaces in lieu of the 33 parking spaces required by Code, and 4) 150 sq ft habitable floor area to permit 400 sq ft floor area in lieu of the 550 sq ft average required, at 1225 N Highland Ave, Sec 11-29-15, M&B 21.11, zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential). V 90-22 The applicant requested the item be continued to the meeting of March 22, 1990. Mr. Graham moved to continue the item to the meeting of March 22, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #4 - Ruby C. Blevins for a variance of 155 ft to permit establishment of A.C.L.F. (family care facility) 845 ft from another such facility, at 1014 Osage St., Navajo Park, Blk F, Lots 12 and 13, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-23 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the City's 1200 ft separation requirement for ACLF's has been superceded by a State law which has a 1000 ft separation requirement. The ACLF's in question are situated in two separate and distinct neighborhoods. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Mary Blevins, representing the applicant, stated her mother-in-law wishes to remain in her home, but due to health problems, needs supervision. They plan to have a supervisor on the premises during the day, but that person will not reside there. HRS regulations concerning care for unrelated persons have been met. Physical boundaries such as North Ft Harrison Avenue and its commercial corridor, Stevenson's Creek, and the railroad serve to separate this home from the other ACLF located on Sunburst Court. 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; the geographic conditions, i.e. physical separation of the area into two distinct neighborhoods by Ft. Harrison Avenue, which is a main artery, and the actual distance from the two locations as illustrated by the map which shows the separation of the areas involved, create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied; subject to the conditions a) a maximum of four elderly residents shall occupy the premises; b) there shall be no resident supervisors or care-givers; and c) the current property owner shall be one of the residents of the facility, with any change in this condition requiring the conversion of the facility back into a single family residential use within six (6) months of the date of the change; and 2) that all necessary licenses and permits for the facility shall be obtained prior to the creation of the facility and the facility shall be operational within nine (9) months from the date of variance approval. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. The Assistant City Attorney left at 2:10 p.m. ITEM #5 - Ted P. Wittner (Le Petit Cafe) for a variance to previous condition of approval related to closing hours, specifically to allow 10:00 p.m. limit, at 1465 S. Ft. Harrison Ave., #105, Belleair Highlands, Blk A, Lots 1-10, AND Belleair 1st Addition, Lots 1-12, zoned CG (general commercial) and RM-8 (multiple family residential). V 90-24 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating variances were approved on October 12, 1989, with a closing time of 3:00 p.m. as a condition of approval. The Planning and Zoning Board attached the same condition to the conditional use approval. The condition was imposed to alleviate concern due to the close proximity of the restaurant to residences. Staff recommends denial of the requested modification to the condition of approval that would extend the hours of operation from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Anna Imbert stated she wishes to extend the hours of business to 10:00 p.m. to include the dinner hour. Discussion ensued concerning alcoholic beverage sales and extending the hours of operation to 10:00 p.m. It was indicated the variance approval was conditioned with 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. hours of operation due to the close proximity to a residential area and the Planning and Zoning Board also limited the hours of operation as a condition of their approval. It was suggested the case be continued to the meeting of April 12, 1990, after the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of April 3, 1990. Mr. Gans moved to continue the item to the meeting of April 12, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #6 - Salvation Army to permit a variance of 12 inches to permit 42 inch high fence in setback adjacent to a street right-of-way to which property is addressed, at 1625 N Belcher Road, Sec 7-29-16, M&B 22.012, zoned P/SP (public/semi public). V 90-25 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the fence is located along a hazardous creek bank. Fencing was advised by their insurance company to assure safety for program participants. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Captain Don Canning stated the property is utilized as a church and community center with recreational activities. The creek becomes very turbulent during rains. He indicated they wish to protect the children and still keep the fencing aesthetically pleasing. 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 physical surroundings, shape and geographic 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 the creek within the site area and to provide a safe environment for the children and other people who use this facility, subject to the conditions that 1) the railing be designed in accordance with the railing requirements for the Standard Building Code; 2) the railing be subject to approval by the owner's insurance company; and that the fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. The Board recessed from 2:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. ITEM #7 - Orville C. and Florence C. Bickel, Jr. for variances of 1) 19 ft to permit handrail 6 ft and second floor addition 21 ft from Clearwater Harbor, 2) 14.18 ft to permit handrail 10.82 ft and second floor addition 13.82 ft from a street right-of-way (Somerset St.), and 3) 10 ft to permit construction on a 60 ft. wide corner lot, at 693 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Replat #5, Blk 76, Lot 1, zoned RM-20 (multi-family residential). V 90-26 The applicant requested the item be continued to the meeting of March 8, 1990. Mrs. Whitney moved to continue the item to the meeting of March 8, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #8 - Waclaw E. and Zenona J. Niewiarowski for a variance of 5 ft to permit pool enclosure 10 ft from a rear property line, at 2366 Wetherington Road, Coachman Ridge, Tract A-III, Lot 251, zoned RS-2 (single family residential). V 90-27 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating variances were previously approved by the Board on January 26, 1989. Since the permit for the enclosure was not obtained within the alloted time, they must reapply. The lot has an unusual configuration. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Waclaw Niewiarowski stated leaves are accumulating in the pool. 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; the particular shape or topographical conditions of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by these conditions; and this is the same variance as previously requested on January 26, 1989, and the variance is necessary because of the expiration of the six months time period in which to obtain the permits, subject to the conditions that landscaping shall be provided along the rear lot line and that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #9 - John S. Taylor, III and Jean T. Carter for variance of 5 ft to permit construction of restroom facility 10 ft from a street right-of-way, at 10 Marianne St, Sec 8-29-15, M&B 23.01, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial) and OS/R (open space/recreation). V 90-28 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating there is a shortage of public restrooms on Clearwater Beach. The proposed location will be visible and easily accessible to the public. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Ream Wilson, Parks and Recreation Director, stated that, due to a demonstrated need, they are placing public restrooms along the beach areas. They prefer not to place the facilities in the Marianne right-of-way due to future parking plans for that location. The restrooms will also alleviate use of Holiday Inn restrooms. The City has a license agreement with Holiday Inn for this location. Discussion ensued concerning why this particular location was chosen and why the structure could not be located on public property rather than private property. Terry Jennings, of the Public Works Department, stated they have tried to conform to the regulations as much as possible. He indicated the City prefers not to place structures in rights-of-way. Discussion ensued as to whether Holiday Inn would need variances for open space due to the placement of the restrooms on their property. It was stated if they were needed, the City would come back to the Board. Mr. Homer moved to continue further discussion of this item to the end of the meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Planning Official indicated open space and clear space variances might be needed for the Holiday Inn property. One citizen spoke in opposition stating it is a poor location and expressed concern about open and clear space requirements. Terry Jennings indicated they try not to build in the right-of-way if there is another reasonable alternative. The Board indicated they would rather use public land than private even if some parking spaces are lost. 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, the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant because the restrooms could be located on public property, 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 #10 - City of Clearwater for a variance of 15 0 ft to permit construction of restroom facility seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, at 412 S. Gulfview Blvd, Lloyd White Skinner, Lots 1-32, zoned OS/R (open space/recreation). V 90-29 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the project will need the approval of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Existing dunes will not be disturbed. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Ream Wilson, Parks and Recreation Director, stated this will be the southernmost restroom on the beach. The nearest existing restroom is at South Beach Pavilion. Hours will be from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 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 the Coastal Construction Control Line and the intended use is for public bathrooms only, subject to the condition that a permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. II. Minutes Mr. Merriam requested the minutes of February 8, 1990, be amended to add the following on page 3 after paragraph 4: "Mr. Merriam noted his vote in opposition is due to the conditions imposed on the approval." Consensus was for approval of the amendment. Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of February 8, 1990, as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. III. Board Comments Mr. Gans requested a copy of David Healey's report. Mr. Graham reported there will be a meeting of the Land Development Code Task Force on March 9th. The Planning Manager reported the Planning Department is working on several amendments to the Land Development Code, some of them brought about by changes in the Comprehensive Plan, and invited comments from the Board members. There was some discussion regarding a memorandum from the City Attorney to the Planning and Development Director concerning McDonald's on the beach indicating he would review the McDonald's lease in view of the conditions placed on the granting of the variances. It was reported Frenchy's on the beach is using a parking lot that is not paved. The Planning Manager stated there will be a memorandum to the Board responding to inquiries they made previously. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.