Loading...
04/26/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD April 26, 1990 Members present: John W. Homer, Chairman Thomas J. Graham, Vice-Chairman Kemper Merriam Alex Plisko Emma C. Whitney Also present: Scot Shuford, Planning Manager Sandy Glatthorn, Planning Official Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney (arrived at 1:10 p.m.) Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:01 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 - (continued from 4/12/90) 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 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the applicant leases four occupancies within the center. The business currently has a conforming sign that measures approximately 43 square feet. Staff recommends denial. Dennis MacFarland, A-OK Signs representing the applicant, indicated the business is located far from the main highway with trees along the front of the property blocking the visibility. He felt the placement of the product logos on each side would help to better identify the business without upsetting the harmony of the center. He indicated the applicant required a large amount of space for bedding displays. Discussion ensued in regard to the existing 43 square foot sign and the size of the letters and it was indicated a 48 square foot sign had been permitted. There was discussion regarding the logos being used to advertise top of the line merchandise. *corrected 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 standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code; it arises from a condition where the building is setback substantially from the street with four stores put together which, if these stores were separate, call for greater square footage; subject to the condition that a sign permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney and Mr. Merriam voted "aye," Messrs. Graham, Plisko and Homer voted "nay." Motion failed. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, 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, the strict application of the code does not result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, it is not a minimum variance, the request is based upon a desire for greater financial return from the property and the granting of the variance 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 upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Graham, Plisko and Homer voted "aye," Mr. Merriam voted "nay." Motion carried. Request *denied. ITEM 1 - Robert A. DeFelice for a variance of 10 inches to permit house wall 24 ft 2 inches from a street right-of-way at 1458 Premier Village Way, Premier Village, Lot 7, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-53 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the surveyor made an error which was due to the lot being on a cul-de-sac and having considerable curvature to the front lot line. The house has been constructed. Staff recommends approval. Robert Felice, applicant, indicated the house intrudes 10 inches into the front setback. Discussion ensued in regard to this request being minimal. Based on 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 the strict application of the code would result in an unnecessary hardship on the applicant; it is the minimum necessary to overcome that hardship, the error in laying out the house that caused the wall to protrude 10 inches into that 25-foot setback and the house being located on the corner of a cul-de-sac where there is a variation in the front property line which helped in causing the error; the request is not based upon a desire for a greater financial return from the property and 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM 2 - Igor and Denise Vinner for variances (1) of 2 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is not addressed and (2) to permit zero landscaping on right-of-way side of fence, at 11 Bayview Ave, Sec 16-29-16, M&Bs 22.02 and 22.07, zoned RMH (mobile home park). V 90-54 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the subject property has been developed as a mobile home park and contains a number of mobile homes which do not conform to the setback requirements of the current development code. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Igor Vinner, applicant, indicated the fence would help to address the safety and security concerns of the park. He said residents of other area developments use the park as a cut through to get to the beach and to Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. He felt a 6-foot high fence would be more of a deterent for burglars and vandals than a 4-foot high fence. Mr. Vinner indicated there was inadequate room between the fence and paving to provide for adequate landscaping. In response to a question, it was indicated three accesses to the park would be provided during the day and one access provided at night passing by the manager's trailer. Discussion ensued in regard to the mailboxes along Virginia Street and it was indicated the applicant is negotiating with the post office for a central block located at the entrance. Concern was expressed as to whether or not there was adequate room for the fence or whether it would intrude into the setback area. Mr. Vinner requested the item be continued to the meeting of May 24, 1990 so that a survey could be provided. Mr. Plisko moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 24, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM 3 - Clearwater Beach Development Company, Inc. (Econolodge Hotel and Gulf Sands Beach Resort) for a variance to permit installation of a 4 ft high fence in setback area adjacent to waterfront of both hotels at 625 and 655 S. Gulfview Blvd, Bayside Sub #5, Blk C, Lots 6-11, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-55 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variance request is to permit a 4-foot high fence in the setback area adjacent to the waterfront of both hotels. Staff recommends approval with conditions. William Hess, representing the applicant, indicated this request is the result of the requirement by the insurance carrier to regulate and control access to the pools at both hotels. Discussion ensued in regard to the location, the type of construction materials and the design of the fence. Based on the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko 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 requirement of the insurance company to install a safety fence around the pools, subject to the conditions the fence shall not exceed 4 feet in height, shall be constructed so as to minimize the obstruction of light and air, shall be of the type submitted which is a 4-foot high aluminum picket fence and a building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM 4 - Larry Walsh for variances of (1) 12.5 ft to permit replacement of structure 12.5 ft from a street right-of-way and (2) 9.16% front yard open space to allow zero percent additional open space at 1542 S. Missouri Ave, Carolina Terrace, Blk C, Lots 13-16, zoned CG (general commercial). V 90-56 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the property was developed 30 years ago with three commercial buildings fronting S. Missouri Avenue. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Lynn Dilella, attorney representing the applicant, indicated the variance is being requested to replace a building that was demolished due to termite infestation. She indicated the applicant wants the building to be constructed in the same configuration as originally existed to align with the other buildings as much as possible. Discussion ensued regarding the provision for landscaping around rights-of-way. 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 that hardship, the termite damage and the requirement for the owner to rebuild the existing structure in that location; subject to the conditions the applicant shall provide landscaping along the periphery of the parking lot facing Howard Street and Michigan Street where appropriate and a building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months for this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM 5 - G. Patrick Iley for variances of (1) 8 ft to permit house 17 ft from a street right-of-way and (2) 12.8 ft to permit house 37.8 ft above grade at 810 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay, Blk 5, Lot 4, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-57 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the applicant is requesting to construct a residence on a Gulf-front lot. The subject property is a standard sized lot and a residence formerly existed on this site. A question was raised as to whether the subject property was located in the "V" or "A" zone. It was indicated location in the "A-12" zone reduces elevation requirements. Staff recommends denial. Discussion ensued in regard to a proposed amendment to the Land Development Code that would eliminate the "bonus" provision and permit maximum structure height to be measured from either the at-grade elevation or the base flood elevation, whichever is greater. Steve Siebert, attorney, indicated the ownership of the property has recently changed and he is representing the new owner, Mr. Capra. He discussed the variety of variances that have been granted in this neighborhood and he felt the request would be in keeping with the other newly erected homes. Mr. Siebert indicated the structure, set 8 feet above grade, meets FEMA regulations. He said the parapet wall would conceal all mechanical and electrical appurtances. The house design provides for various setbacks eliminating a box-row effect providing maximum visibility of the water. Discussion ensued in regard to other variances granted in the neighborhood and each being looked at on an individual basis. It was indicated it would be helpful to see the floor plans of the proposed house. Randy Laird, contractor, indicated the garage would have an 8-foot ceiling, the first floor a 10-foot and the second floor a 12-foot which he felt were consistent with today's heights. Patrick Iley, previous owner, indicated the proposed design allows for two-thirds of the house to be open which would provide for a spectacular garden area. He indicated the neighbors were in favor of the design and he felt it would enhance the neighborhood. Seven letters in support were submitted for the record. Concerns were expressed in regard to the garage area elevation, the height of the parapet walls and whether or not this is a minimum variance. It was indicated consideration should be given to determining acceptable heights for buildings in Clearwater and on Clearwater Beach. Mr. Siebert requested the height variance be continued to May 10, 1990. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant variance #1 as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code; it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and it is the minimum necessary to overcome that hardship, that is the lot size and availability of building space on that lot located directly on the Gulf-of-Mexico; 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. Plisko moved to continue variance #2 to the meeting of May 10, 1990 to allow the applicant to present additional information. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting recessed from 2:50 p.m. to 3:10 p.m. ITEM 6 - Antoni and Wendy Fedor for a variance to permit a 4 ft to 5 ft high fence in setback area adjoining waterfront at 411 East Shore Dr, Barbour Morrow, Blk C, Lots 7-9 and part of Lot 6, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 90-58 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant is proposing to erect a 5-foot high fence in the setback area adjoining Clearwater Bay. Staff recomends approval with conditions. Wendy Fedor, applicant, indicated the variance request is the result of her insurance carrier requiring safer regulation of swimming pools. Discussion ensued in regard to a 22-foot section of existing wooden fence to the water being replaced and the applicant indicated she thought it would remain as is. There was discussion regarding a 5-foot high fence and it was indicated the type design desired by the applicant was not available in a height of 4 feet. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko 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, it is the minimum necessary to overcome the insurance company's requirement to fence in the swimming pool; subject to the conditions the fence shall not exceed 5 feet in height, shall be constructed in such a manner as to minimize the obstruction of light and air, this variance shall also apply to the existing 22-foot portion indicated on the site plan to be replaced if it is the open aluminum picket type fence that is approved for the remainder and a fence permit shall be obtained within six (6) months of this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM 7 - Michael Preston for a variance of parking lot landscaping standards to allow zero ft wide landscape strip between parking lot and adjacent commercial properties to the north and the south at 409 Poinsettia St, Barbour Morrow, Blk B, Lot 8, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 90-59 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a parking lot on a vacant parcel having frontage on both East Shore Drive and Poinsettia Street. The property has recently been used as an illegal parking lot. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Michael Preston, applicant, said the parking lot would not adversely affect the community and he indicated the adjoining neighbors did not object. In response to a question, it was indicated the parking lot is for the patrons of the Saltwater Cafe. Two letters in support, one containing three signatures, were submitted for the record. Two citizens spoke in support of the application indicating the applicant has made an enormous effort to provide parking using landscaping where possible. It was felt the property would be upgraded thereby enhancing the neighborhood. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko 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 shape and topographic conditions of the property involved create an unneccessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the code were to be applied and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size and shape, subject to the conditions the site shall be developed as indicated on the submitted site plan and shall include landscaping of the triangular areas at the ends of the parking stalls in a manner acceptable to the City Divsion of Environmental Management, along with ending the paved area of the parking spaces at the wheel stops to provide more room for landscaping and a building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM 8 - Keller/Island Bay Properties, Inc. for variances (1) of 5 ft to permit a 25 ft high pole sign and (2) to permit alteration of a nonconforming sign, at 1825 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 13-29-15, M&B 32.04, zoned CG (general commercial). V 90-60 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the subject property is developed with a restaurant. The existing identification sign does not conform to code. The proposal is to remove the existing sign face and replace it with a smaller panel. However, the height will continue to be nonconforming. The applicant desires to make use of the existing sign structure. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Brian Keller, partner, submitted pictures of the previous business' sign and of the existing sign. In response to a question, it was indicated the requested sign is erected. Mr. Keller indicated lowering the sign 5 feet will place it behind the roof on the east side of the building. The restaurant is having its grand opening today at 4:00 p.m. The Assistant City Attorney returned at 3:35 p.m. Discussion ensued in regard to alternate locations for the size, the sign being non-conforming and whether or not, if the variance is granted, to condition the sign on being brought into conformance with code on or before October 13, 1992. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko 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 and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by existing conditions of this site, subject to the condition the variance will run through October 13, 1992 and the sign must be brought into conformance and a sign permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded, and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Graham, Plisko and Homer voted "aye," Mr. Merriam voted "nay." Motion carried. Request granted. It was noted the negative vote was cast because the board member did not feel the October 13, 1992 conformance date was appropriate. II. Board Comments Discussion ensued in regard to the "bonus" amendment regarding height of structures in flood prone areas, parapet walls and insurance carriers' requirements for pool fences. III. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.