Loading...
04/12/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD April 12, 1990 Members present: John W. Homer, Chairman Thomas J. Graham, Vice-Chairman Kemper Merriam Emma C. Whitney Member absent: Alex Plisko (excused) Also present: Scott Shuford, Planning Manager Sandy Glatthorn, Planning Official James Polatty, Planning & Development Director (arrived at 1:30 p.m.) Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:03 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 #1 - Florida VOA Elderly Housing, Inc. for a variance of 69 parking spaces to provide 69 parking spaces in lieu of 138 spaces required, in the 1300 block of Franklin St., Hibiscus Gardens, Blk W, Lots 1, 12-18; Blk Z, Lots 4-14 less Coldstream Condominium; AND vacated streets, zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential). V 89-168 The applicant requested a time extension in which to obtain a building permit. The Planning Official stated the final site plan for the project is ready for certification. Mr. Graham moved to grant a six-month time extension to September 28, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #2 - Mobil Oil Corporation for variances of (1) 10 ft to permit storage building 10 ft from a side property line and (2) 0.9% interior landscaping to provide 5.1% interior landscaping for parking lot at 2696 U.S. Hwy 19 N, Sec 30-28-16, M&B 31.01, zoned CH (highway commercial). The applicant requested a time extension to obtain a building permit. Angela Adams, representing the applicant, stated there has been a property dispute regarding condemnation of a portion of the property by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). She indicated the necessary City approvals have been obtained and the applicant is waiting for final FDOT approval. A condemnation hearing has been set for July. She indicated the original variances were modified and the open space variance is no longer needed. Mr. Graham moved to grant a six-month time extension for variance #1 to November 25, 1990 and variance #2 to December 8, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. II. Public Hearings ITEM A - (continued from 2/22/90) 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 Manager explained the application in detail stating variances of interior floor area and seating were obtained for this establishment at the Development Code Adjustment Board meeting of October 12, 1989, subject to the hours of operation being limited from 8:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. Alex Imbert, representing the applicant, stated the Planning & Zoning Board approved an extension of the hours of operation from 3:00 P.M. 10:00 P.M. at their meeting of April 3, 1990. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam 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 inability to stay open during the dinner hour at this location. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM B - (continued from 3/8/90) Valentinos Koumoulidis (Thomas and Nicolleta Severino) for (1) a variance of 10.8 ft to allow encroachment into the clear space for parking, (2) reduction of 83.7 ft from standard lot width to permit construction on a lot 66.3 ft wide, (3) a variance of 2 ft to allow average 3 ft buffer between street right-of-way and parking lot, (4) a variance of 2 ft to permit 1 ft buffer between parking lot and adjacent commercially zoned property and (5) a variance of 1 parking space to permit 7 parking spaces in lieu of the 8 spaces required at 606 Bayway Blvd, Bayside Sub #5, Blk A, Lot 7, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-45 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the item had been continued due to parking configuration and open space/landscaping concerns. The applicant is requesting the variances to permit the alteration of an existing two-story, 6-unit motel to a fast food restaurant with one residential unit. The new plan submitted excludes the motel unit and reduces the number of parking spaces increasing vehicular movement space. Staff recommends denial of the variances. Chris Andros, representing the applicant, stated the building is old and he indicated the applicant wants to conduct his business in his place of residence. The original plan did not show the columns which support the front balcony. He indicated the removal of one of the columns would change the configuration of the balcony. Discussion ensued in regard to the number of accesses to the second floor and whether or not the balcony was necessary all the way across the front and the possible removal of columns. In response to a question, it was indicated a space beneath the balcony could be provided to handle a dumpster. The remaining unit on the ground floor would become part of the living unit upstairs and would be accessed internally making it one contiguous unit. Discussion ensued in regard to the upstairs unit and it was indicated it would include no more than three bedrooms. Discussion ensued in regard to providing additional green space and the elimination of parking on the street. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant variances #1 and #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; 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 the existing lot size and lot width, which is nonconforming with current codes and these sizes were based on old development standards; subject to the conditions there be only two uses provided on this site (1) a single family living unit which comprises the entire second floor and the western one-third of the first floor and (2) a 1,000 square foot snack shop only 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. Graham and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. Mr. Merriam indicated he was opposed to the granting of these variances because he felt the new code was designed to prevent this type of nonconformity and expressed concern regarding landscaping and parking. Mr. Graham moved to deny variances #3 and #4 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, the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant, they are based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property 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 carried unanimously. Request denied. Mr. Merriam moved to deny variance #5 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, it will be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or the neighborhood, it would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Section 131.005 and 131.006 and there is existing reasonable use of the property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #1 - City of Clearwater for a variance of 42 inches in height to permit a 72-inch high fence in a setback area adjacent to a street right-of-way to which property is addressed, at 801 Phillies Drive, New Country Club Addition, Blk D, zoned OS/R (open space/recreation). V 90-38 Ream Wilson, representing the applicant, stated the dumpsters are critical to the operation of Jack Russell Stadium and he indicated the proposed location of the dumpster was in the best interest of all. The Planning Manager stated the facility has recently experienced major expansion and the encroachment is necessary for placement of a visual screen around the dumpster. 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 for the type of use of this property, which is a baseball stadium, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location required by the City Sanitation Department for the dumpster, 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 #2 - Carl F. Wagenfohr for a variance to permit a 4-foot high fence in setback area adjoining waterfront at 424 Midway Island, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 3, Lot 63, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-39 The Planning Official explained the application in detail indicating there is an existing chain link fence extending from the rear of the residence to the side property lines and then to the seawall. This request is to permit the fence to be completed along the seawall to enclose the entire backyard. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Carl Wagenfohr, applicant, stated the fence will provide safety for his young daughter. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merrriam 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, strict application of the code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, the variance requested is the minimum necessary, the request is not based upon a desire for a greater financial return from the property, the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to nearby properties or the community in general and will not violate the spirit and intent of the Development Code, subject to the conditions that the fence shall be of chain link materials, shall not exceed 48 inches in height, shall be maintained so as to minimize blockage of views and air circulation and it shall be removed when the urgent need no longer exists and a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #3 - Don Curtis Pierson for variances of (1) 1,753 sq ft to allow construction of a triplex on a 8,247 sq ft lot, (2) 5 ft to allow construction of a triplex on a lot 95 ft wide, (3) 13 ft to permit construction of a triplex on a lot 87 ft deep, (4) 20 ft to permit triplex 5 ft from a street right-of-way and (5) 2 ft to permit triplex 6 ft from a side property line at 7 Heilwood St, Revised Map of Clearwater Beach, Blk 6, Lot 3 and part of Lot 2, zoned RM-20 per RM-12 (multiple family residential). V 90-40 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating there has been a history of variance requests for this property dating back to 1983. The property is presently developed with a duplex oriented north and south fronting the Gulf of Mexico. A shell driveway exists seaward of the coastal construction line and the residents park under the building. Staff recommends denial of the variances. George Greer, representing the applicant, reviewed the history of the past variances requested and the actions taken. He indicated the requested variances were granted by the Board approximately six years ago; however, the hearing officer did not uphold the Board's decision. He indicated the applicant built essentially what was permitted by code and he said the applicant had a permit from the State to cross the coastal construction control line. Mr. Greer indicated the structure is the only one on Heilwood that meets the flood plain requirements and most every other structure on Heilwood Street extends to the sidewalk. James Polatty, Planning & Development Director, arrived at 1:30 P.M. Mr. Greer indicated there has been property damage and lack of privacy due to cars and pedestrian traffic using the property as an access and turnaround area. He indicated the applicant does not have reasonable use of the property due to the setback requirements and the coastal construction control line. John Blakely, attorney representing property owner immediately to the east, spoke in opposition indicating the property is not unique and he felt the variance was being requested to secure a greater financial return. He submitted photographs showing how the proposed extension of the building would block the view and exposure of Clearwater Beach for his client. Two citizens spoke in opposition indicating the Board has historically denied previous 5-foot setback variances, it is a maneuver for profitability and the proposed development would block the view of the beach and decrease property values. One letter with two signatures in opposition was submitted for the record. In rebuttal, Mr. Greer stated the adjacent neighbor has developed his property with a three-story triplex which blocks the view of the properties to the east and he questioned whether the existing deck was permitted. Don Pierson stated he bought the property in 1962. He indicated there is constant traffic through his property with his driveway being used as a turnaround. He felt construction on the open area would alleviate the problems of trespassing and vandalism. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not the proposed construction would solve the traffic concerns, the uniqueness of the property in being located on the Gulf front with a good portion of it extending beyond the coastal control construction line and whether the setback variances were minimum. It was noted that under the RM-20 requirement three units could be built on the property; however, for triplex type development, RM-12 lot requirements must be met. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant variances #1, #2 and #3 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 physical location of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied; they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location of the lot on Clearwater Beach, specifically on the Gulf side, the existing lot size and the ability for this property to be used in accordance with its development availability; 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. Mr. Graham moved to deny variances #4 and #5 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 they are not minimum variances, they are based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property, they will be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or the neighborhood 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. Graham, Homer and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mrs. Whitney voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM #4 - George J. and Kenneth K. Donovan for a variance of 1.5 ft to allow fireplace 5.5 ft from a side property line at 223 Palm Island SW, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 6A, Lot 6, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). V 90-41 The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Michael Myrick, representing the applicant, stated the proposed location of the fireplace is being requested due to the unique design of the house. He indicated it would not extend beyond the overhang line. Mr. Merriam indicated he is the neighbor immediately to the west where the chimney will be located and he said he had no objection to the request. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam 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 building and was not caused by the applicant; it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location of the building and lot size; 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 - Branch Sunset Associates Ltd (The Sports Authority) for variances of (1) one business identification sign to permit two such signs and (2) 134.4 sq ft business identification signage to permit a total of 262.4 sq ft of such signage at 1848 U.S.19 N, Blackburn Sub, part of Lots 1 & 12, AND Section 29-29-16, M&Bs 41.02 & 41.04, zoned CC (commercial center). V 90-42 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating there is an existing 156 square foot identification sign on the front of the store. Staff recommends denial of the variances. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the additional signage is being requested due to the store's location in the center. He indicated this store is the only one on the south side of the center without two identification signs. The primary traffic flow is from U.S. 19 with no direction to the property and the building is located 750 feet from U.S. 19. He said there has been a history of economic failure for stores in this location. He indicated they would be willing to remove the store name from the pylon sign on the east side and he felt the sign would be a benefit from a traffic flow standpoint. Discussion ensued regarding additional construction along U.S. 19 further impacting the visibility and traffic. 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 the location of the store in the center without adequate view from the main entrances east and north of the center and the presence of new construction of retail building on the eastern side of the property obstructing the view of that entry as well, 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 #6 - E. G. Bradford and Sons, Inc. for variances of (1) 8.6 ft to permit increase in height of building 1.4 ft from a side property line and (2) 7.1 ft to permit increase in height of building 2.9 ft from a rear property line at 111 S Belcher Rd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.03, zoned CG (general commercial). V 90-43 The Planning Official explained the applicantion in detail stating the metal building is existing and the walls will be replaced with concrete block and the original roof will be replaced. Staff recommends denial. The Planning Manager left the meeting at 3:00 P.M. Ernest G. Bradford indicated the 40-year building is currently used for storage and he wants to increase the height of the walls to allow the use of a forklift to provide for additional storage. Discussion ensued in regard to the other building and trucks on the site and the type construction material to be used in replacing the walls. In response to a question, it was indicated there is a 50-foot height limitation but anything higher than 20 feet requires additional setback. Discussion ensued in regard to the site already being developed to the maximum and concerns were expressed regarding the adverse affect on the nearby mobile home park in obstructing the view. The Planning & Development Director arrived at 3:05. P.M. Mr. Graham 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 there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant, they are not minimum variances, they will be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or the neighborhood, 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 carried unanimously and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Graham and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM #7 - Timothy R. Quigg for a variance of 3.73% open space to allow 41.27% open space at 450 Palm Island N.E., Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 6B, Lot 87, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). V 90-44 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a pool and a deck. Staff recommends approval. Steve Siebert, attorney representing the applicant, stated the proposed buyer will close on the property on May 1st. He indicated the variances are needed due to the curvature of the seawall and shape of the lot. A grass fringe is being proposed between the pool and the seawall. The proposed pool is being designed for lap swimming to provide therapeutic care for the prospective buyer. Two citizens spoke in opposition expressing concerns in regard to the reduction in open space, the proximity of the pool in relation to the seawall and diminishing property values by detracting from the community. One letter with six signatures in opposition was submitted. In rebuttal, Mr. Siebert, indicated this was a minimal request. Discussion ensued in regard to the size of the pool and it was indicated the hardship is self-imposed and this is not a minimum variance. In response to a question, it was indicated the decking extends to the corner of the house for the master bedroom on the western side and a doorway is proposed from the master bedroom onto the deck. Mr. Merriam 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 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 - No item. ITEM #9 - University High Equity Real Estate Fund II (Sleeptime World) for a variance of 14.2 sq ft business identification signage to permit 62.2 sq ft of such signage, at 2632 U.S. 19 N, Section 30-28-16, M&B 31.04, zoned CC (commercial center). V 90-46 This item was continued to the meeting of April 26, 1990 due to an error in the authorization from the property owner's managing agents. ITEM #10 - E & R Properties, Inc. (Tio Pepe, Inc.) for variances of (1) 3 parking spaces to permit 123 parking spaces in lieu of the 126 parking spaces required and (2) 5 ft to permit zero landscape strip adjacent to residential zone on the north at 2930 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Section 17-29-16, M&Bs 14.04 & 14.05, zoned CG (general commercial) and CR-24 (resort commercial). V 90-47 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating a front portion of the restaurant was removed to accommodate the proposed widening of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and it is proposed to be enlarged to the north and east to offset the lost floor area. The restaurant has existed at this site for many years. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Donald McFarland, attorney representing the applicant, indicated resolving the situation with the Florida Department of Transportation would take longer than 6 months and requested twelve months to obtain a building permit. 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, they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the taking of the land and the useable space from the restaurant and leaving a need for additional floor area, subject to the conditions that the applicant shall effectively utilize the space between the newly designed angled parking spaces and the mobile home park by installing shrubs to provide a landscape buffer, the plan for said buffer shall be subject to the approval of the Environmental Manager and no certificates of occupancy shall be issued for the expansion until the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan and that a building permit be obtained within twelve (12) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #11 - City of Clearwater (The Center Foundation, Inc.) for variances of (1) 85.25 sq ft to permit a 133.25 sq ft property identification sign and (2) 4 ft 5 inches to permit a 12 ft 5 inch high ground sign, at 1501 N Belcher Road, Section 07-29-16, M&B 22.01, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 90-48 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the subject property is developed with the newly constructed Center Foundation. The subject parcel contains 15.5 acres and is located at the bottom of a hill adjoining a railroad right-of-way. Michael Chawk, West Central Signs of Tampa representing the applicant, indicated this type and size sign is necessary because of the speed limit on Belcher Road, the nonprofit nature of the organization limiting the ability to advertise and the building being setback more than 750 feet from the road. In response to a question, it was indicated the current sign is approximately 8 feet high and the proposed sign would be slightly higher and in the same location. All but a couple of feet of the existing sign will be cut off with the bottom being used as a base. Concern was expressed in regard to the height of the sign and it was indicated the height could be reduced to approximately 10 feet. The applicant requested that the item be continued to later in the meeting so that the total square footage and height of the sign could be recalculated. Mr. Merriam moved that this item be continued to the end of the meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This item was continued at the request of the applicant to recalculate the square footage and height of the sign. (See pages 10 and 11.) Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant variances of (1) 54.66 square feet to permit 102.66 square feet of property identification signage and (2) 2 feet to permit a ground sign 10 feet in height 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 Center Foundation is a unique land use whose non-profit tenants need additional visibility and exposure, the subject site is quite large and is located along Belcher Road which is a major thoroughfare through the City of Clearwater and the size of the sign needs to be such so that it is not distracting for the motorists, the area itself contains predominantly large industrial sites with no proliferation of signage and the granting of these variances is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardships created by the fact there are numerous users of this property all of a non-profit nature; 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 #12 - John Gianfilippo for a variance of 9.8 ft to permit dock width of 31 ft at 206 Bayside Dr, Unit A of Bayside, Blk 1, Lot B, zoned RS-8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 90-49 The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Staff recommends denial. Michael Evans, representing the applicant, indicated the variance is being requested to install a boat lift and a 3-foot walkway. Discussion ensued in regard to the 3-foot walkway and it was indicated it was mostly for convenience. In response to a question, it was indicated the lift would cause an increase in the dock width. Mr. Evans indicated the 3-foot walkway could be eliminated. In response to a question, it was indicated the property owners on both sides of the property do not object. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam moved to grant a variance of 6.8 ft to permit a dock 28 feet wide 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 created by the lot size, subject to the condition that a dock permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Graham, Homer and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mrs. Whitney voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #13 - Nicholas J., Joseph F., and Mary Grasso for a variance of one parking space to permit one commercial boat slip at 50 Royal Way, Mandalay Unit 5 Replat, Blk 77, Lot 1 and part of Lot 2, zoned CR-24 (resort commercial). V 90-50 The Planning Official explained the application in detail indicating the applicant proposes to operate a fishing guide/sightseeing charter boat service from the dock of an existing motel. Approval of the marina use was given by the Planning & Zoning Board on February 27, 1990 subject to conditions. Staff recommends approval subject to the Planning & Zoning Board's conditions of approval. Nicholas Masteritis, representing the applicant, indicated there is no intent to have a marina just a pick-up and drop-off point for passengers. He also indicated the property will not be altered in any way. In response to questions, it was indicated the charter vessel will be a 13-foot Boston Whaler with the charter business being operated on a parttime basis. 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, the strict application of the code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, the variance requested is the minimum necessary, the request is not based upon the desire for greater financial return from the property, the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to nearby properties or the community in general and will not violate the spirit and intent of the Land Development Code; subject to the conditions (1) two of the motel parking spaces shall be designated for the use by permanent signage, (2) no vessel exceeding 18 feet in length shall be used in the charter operation, (3) no overnight boat storage shall be permitted at the motel dock and (4) an occupational license shall be procured within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #14 - Dean Young for variances of (1) 2 ft to permit landscape buffer of 3 ft along Venus Avenue, (2) 5 ft to allow a 5 ft side setback and (3) 5 parking spaces to permit 29 spaces in lieu of the 34 parking spaces required by code at 1778 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Section 14-29-15, M&B 14.24, zoned CG (general commercial). V 90-51 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to redevelop an existing Subway Sandwich Shop at the northwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Venus Avenue. Staff recommends denial. Robert E. Greg, representing the applicant, indicated the building is out of conformity with Subway's specifications. Subway has an option to buy the property. The building has been in disrepair and the owner of the property has no desire to remedy the situation. The applicant desires to do an upscale free standing building. Other variances of this nature have been granted for these type establishments in the area. He indicated there would be less than 6-8 cars in the parking lot at one time. In response to questions, it was indicated there would be a slight increase in seating for a total of approximately 40 seats and a total of 60 percent would be take-out orders at this location. Mr. Greg said the sandwich shop would not have a drive through and indicated its busiest time would be during the lunch hour. Discussion ensued in regard to the dimensions of the building and whether or not all the landscaping requirements had been met. There was discussion regarding eliminating parking along Venus Avenue in order to provide additional landscaping to meet the 5-foot buffer requirement. Discussion ensued in regard to this type use not being as intense as other fast food establishments and concern was expressed in regard to access on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. It was indicated what was being proposed is a substantial improvement over what is presently there. 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 shape of the property involved creates an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied; they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location of the property at the corner of two streets, one of which is a 6-lane road and the other an access to that road, the size of the property and it is a substantial improvement over what exists there presently; 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 #15 - J. C. Weaver Enterprises for variances of (1) one business identification sign to permit two such signs and (2) 21 sq ft to permit a total of 48 sq ft business identification signage at 1865 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Brookside Sub, Lot 1, zoned CG (general commercial). V 90-52 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is developed with a small retail center. The sign directly fronting Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard is a recently permitted placed sign conditioned upon removal of the sign placed over the doorway. Staff recommends denial. Mildred Kelley indicated the sign will provide visibility for the rapidly moving traffic west of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard for her tanning and health salon which is located on a corner lot. In response to a question, it was indicated 27 square feet of signage is allowed at this location. Discussion ensued in regard to dual identification signs for corner businesses which are major stores. It was felt the subject property had good visibility along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Mr. Graham 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 there is no condition which is unique to the property, 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 134.003 and 134.004. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. III. Minutes of the Meetings of March 8 and March 22, 1990. Mrs. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of March 8 and March 22, 1990, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. IV. Board Comments Mr. Graham requested staff investigate whether or not existing development adjacent to Mr. Pierson's property is legal. V. Adjournment The meeting adjourned 4:55 p.m.