Loading...
05/10/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD May 10, 1990 Members present: John W. Homer, Chairman Thomas J. Graham, Vice-Chairman Kemper Merriam Alex Plisko Emma C. Whitney Also present: Scott Shuford, Planning Manager 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 1:01 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. Extensions A.(3rd request for time extension) Dean Young for variances of (1) 60 ft to permit second story addition and garage seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, (2) 85 ft to permit pool deck greater than 1 ft above grade seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, and (3) 5 ft 8 in to permit second floor addition 30 ft 8 in high at 1176 Mandalay Pt, Mandalay Pt Sub 1st Addn, Lots 20, 20A, 21, 21A, 22 and 22A, zoned RS-4 (single family residential) Harry Cline, representing the applicant, indicated the extension was being requested due to FEMA restrictions. It was indicated the City is presently holding all permits for renovations or additions on Clearwater Beach. Mr. Graham moved to grant a six-month time extension to December 20, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Merriam, Graham, Plisko and Homer voted "aye;" Ms. Whitney voted "nay." Motion carried. Extension granted. B.(1st request for time extension) Farmers State Bank of Greenfield for a variance of 8% lot open space to permit 37% lot open space at 420 Palm Island NE, Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 6B, Lot 84, zoned RS-6 (single family residential) V 89-183 The applicant requested a time extension in which to obtain a building permit. Mr. Plisko moved to grant a six-month time extension to November 9, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Extension granted. II. Public Hearings A.(Contd. from 4-26-90) G. Patrick Iley for a variance of 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 stated on April 26, 1990 the Development Code Adjustment Board granted an 8-foot front setback variance and continued the request for a height variance in order for the applicant to present a design plan of the house and to obtain a determination as to whether the property is in an "A" or "V" zone. Steve Siebert, attorney representing the applicant, submitted a rendering of the stepped back design of the proposed house. He indicated the newly constructed homes in the neighborhood are relatively tall. Mr. Siebert indicated the applicant is now requesting a 36.9-foot high structure from grade to the top of the parapet wall. Due to the inexactness of the FEMA line and the location of the property on the beach, the property could be considered to be in either an "A" or "V" zone. He indicated the elevation of the house was in line with the other homes in the neighborhood and he felt the 8-foot elevation met FEMA regulations. He said the parapet wall would aesthetically finish off the house and visually and audibly buffer the neighborhood from the mechanical equipment on the roof. He indicated the neighbors were in support of the design of the house. Discussion ensued in regard to the elevation of the house and the elevation requirements for "A" and "V" zones. Concern was expressed in regard to setting a precedent for other proposed structures on the beach. Patrick Iley spoke in support stating the proposed design of the house was reasonable and he indicated this design would allow two-thirds of the house to be open maximizing visibility and air flow. Seven letters in support of the application were submitted for the record on April 26, 1990. Concern was expressed regarding this not being a minimum variance as it was felt the structure could be built in accordance with code requirements. Discussion ensued in regard to the "bonus" provision requiring additional setbacks for higher elevations and it was indicated the applicant did not want to change the side setbacks to allow for the provision. Based on the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant a variance of 11.5 feet to permit a house 36.5 feet above grade 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 and topographical conditions of the property involved would create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied and that hardship was caused primarily by the location of the property in a velocity zone on the Gulf side of Clearwater Beach, subject to the conditions the roof surface shall not be used as a recreational deck but only for maintenance and repair of the roof and mechanical equipment and 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. Merriam, Graham and Homer voted "aye," Mr. Plisko voted "nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM 1 - David H. and Joan Nathan for a variance of 14.5 ft to permit a dock 42 ft in length rather than the 27.5 ft maximum length allowed at 171 Bayside Dr, Bayside Sub #4, Block B, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 90-6 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the applicant is requesting a dock length of 42 feet. There is an existing pier which extends perpendicularly 30 feet into Clearwater Harbor. Robert Moore, representing the applicant, indicated the dock to the east blocks the applicant's access in getting his boat in and out. He indicated all engineering and environmental impacts have been considered. In response to a question, it was indicated the tie poles are 55 feet from the seawall. Mr. Moore presented a county aerial showing the location of the docks on the fingers perpendicular to the seawall and the lengths of the two docks next door. One citizen spoke in opposition to the proposed dock extension obstructing his view; however, withdrew his objection when he was informed the dock he was objecting to was not the applicant's. 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 conditions of the property involved would 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 existing dock and the inability of the owner to have boat access to this dock, 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, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Graham, Plisko and Homer voted "aye," Mr. Merriam voted "nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM 2 - Kenneth C. Machan for variances of (1) 5.5 ft to permit building addition 4.5 ft from a side property line, (2) 13,500 sq ft lot area to permit construction on a 6500 sq ft lot and (3) 50 ft to permit construction on a 50 ft wide lot at 1133 Seminole St, Green Field Sub, Lot 2, zoned IL (limited industrial). V-90-62 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the applicant is requesting an addition to an existing non-conforming structure on a lot currently zoned IL (limited industrial). The subject property and structure predate current code. Kenneth Machan indicated he is requesting the variances to permit the proposed addition to align with the side wall of the existing structure. He indicated Traffic Engineering has approved the additional parking. In response to a question, it was indicated the three additional parking spaces would be provided along the east side of the building and would be parallel spaces. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam 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 since it was built prior to current code and the applicant wishes to expand in line with existing building, the strict application of the Code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, they are the minimum necessary, the request is not based upon a desire for a greater financial return from the property, they 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 (1) the parking plan shall be approved by Traffic Engineering, (2) the site shall be developed as indicated on the submitted site plan and (3) a building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months of this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM 3 - Northside Square Associates (Kahles Furniture) for a variance of 36 sq ft property identification signage to permit a total of 148 sq ft of such signage at 3211 U.S. 19 N, Northside Square, Lot 1, zoned CH (highway commercial). V 90-63 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the request is to permit a major tenant to place an identification sign on an existing pole sign. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, indicated Kahles Furniture has over 8,000 square feet of leasable floor area. He indicated they will not use 112 square feet of additional wall signage due them as a major tenant. The store does a high volume of newspaper advertising and is bordered on the south by a mobile home park which is in the County. One citizen spoke in opposition to the request indicating it is inconsistent with the code, is unnecessary, would be distracting to motorists, would set a precedent and would create visual clutter. Concern was expressed regarding whether all existing signs on the property were permitted. Discussion ensued in regard to whether or not a hardship exists. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, 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 of the shopping center and it would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 134.003 and 134.004. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM 4 - Alfred and Ruby Clark for variances (1) of 30 in to permit a 6 ft high wall with pilasters 78 in high and (2) to allow zero access gates at 3003 Curlew Rd, Florida Convalescent Centers Sub, Lot C, zoned RM 8 (multi-family residential). V 90-64 The Planning Manager stated the applicant is requesting to connect and extend an existing wall which was approved by the Development Code Adjustment Board on March 23, 1989. Concern was expressed regarding an embankment in the area creating a grade of 8-9 feet. It was indicated the existing wall was conditioned upon it being no more than 6 feet above the crown of the road. Jerry Gottlieb, attorney representing the applicant, indicated the proposed wall would not impede traffic visibility as there is a traffic signal at the corner of the development. He said the wall would reduce the vehicular noise problem and provide visual privacy. 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 conditions which are unique to the property, strict application of the Code would result in an unnecessary hardship on the applicant, they are the minimum necessary, the request is not based solely on the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property, they will not be detrimental to nearby properties or the community in general, they do not violate the spirit and intent of the Land Development Code, and this is a continuation of a previously granted variance, subject to the conditions the applicant submit and receive approval of a revised subdivision plat which includes and delineates the division of Lot C into Lots 13 and 14, base of measurement of the wall height subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer and Public Works Department and the building permit be obtained within six months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Item #5 - Robert L. Bradley (Sand Dollar Apartment Motel) for variances of (1) 3.3% lot open space to allow 21.7% lot open space and (2) 86.6 ft to allow construction on a lot 63.4 ft wide at 128 Brightwater Dr, Bayside Sub #2, Lot 51, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 90-65 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the applicant is requesting to construct a commercial swimming pool to enhance his motel operation located on Clearwater Beach. Robert Bradley indicated the request is being made in order for his business to survive as most of the motels in the area have pools and tourists vacationing on Clearwater Beach expect this type facility. In response to a question, it was indicated the concrete area will be replaced by a wooden deck; however, it is not considered to be part of the open space requirement. One letter in opposition was submitted for the record. Discussion ensued in regard to none of the existing parking being eliminated and this being a minimal request. 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, the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship of the nonconforming structure and parking on the site, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Item #6 - Harbour Condominium Association for a variance to permit a fence in setback area adjoining waterfront at 1581 and 1591 Gulf Blvd, Sand Key, The Harbour Condominium, zoned RM 28 (multi-family residential. V 90-66 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the applicant is requesting to enclose two existing swimming pools located on the grounds of the condominium. Harold Fenton, representing the applicant, indicated the fence is required by the insurance company. In response to questions, it was indicated the proposed fencing will abut the seawall to the east, there will be a 4-foot dock around the seawall outside the fence and the distance from the northeast edge of the pool to the seawall is 16 feet. Discussion ensued in regard to the fencing being placed on the edge of the deck confining residents in the pool area and the location and length of the dock in relation to the seawall. 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 this property and was not caused by the applicant, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship which is requirement by the insurance company to have a fence around the pool, subject to the conditions that the fence shall not exceed 4 feet in height and shall be designed as proposed of aluminum vertical rail to allow maximum visibility, air and light and a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Item #7 - Mobil Oil Corporation for variances of (1) 1 ft 10 in to permit gasoline dispensing island 13 ft 2 in from a property line and (2) 11 feet to permit canopy supports 14 ft from a street right-of-way at 1601 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Longview Sub, Lots 1 and 2, zoned CG (general commercial). V 90-67 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the applicant desires to redevelop and renovate an existing 20-year service station structure. In response to a question, it was indicated the canopy area could extend to the property line if sufficient vehicular space was provided. Bruce Kaschyk, representing the applicant, indicated the request is being made to replace the existing canopies and gas pumps and to shift the islands closer to the building. He indicated more room is needed for door swings and maneuverability. Discussion ensued in regard to landscaping and the relocation of the gas pumps. In response to a question, it was indicated the dumpster would remain in the same location. Concern was expressed regarding whether or not this was a minimum variance. Discussion ensued in regard to setback requirements for building fascias (canopies) anchored into the ground and canopies attached to buildings. It was indicated the requirements needed researched. Mr. Graham moved to defer this item to later in the meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Planning Manager left the meeting to research the setback requirements and upon his return he recommended this item be continued so additional information could be obtained. Mr. Plisko moved to continue this item to the meeting of June 14, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #8 - Ronald G. and Cheryle Boyce for variances of (1) 10 ft to permit screen room addition 10 ft from a (secondary) street right-of-way and (2) 22.45 sq ft to permit 372.45 sq ft screen room addition at 1806 Springwood Cir N, Spring Lake of Clearwater, Lot 96, zoned RPD 7.6 (residential planned development). V 90-68 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant desires to construct a screen room addition on an existing slab. The total building coverage will be less than the maximum permitted for this lot, therefore, there is no need for a variance to the building coverage as requested on this application. In response to questions, it was indicated the proposed room addition/pool meets the 20-foot setback requirement, meets the open space provision and the required front setback requirement for this development is 20-25 feet. Ronald Boyce indicated the slab was existing when the house was purchased and he said the screen room would provide protection from the elements and insects. 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 was not caused by the applicant, the particular shape of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location of this lot on a cul-de-sac causing the house to be pushed back further than other houses in this development, 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. The Assistant City Attorney left the meeting at 2:55 p.m. Item #9 - First Bay Interests, Inc. (Florida Spine Institute) for variances of (1) 32 sq ft to permit a 56 sq ft property identification sign and (2) 7 ft 6 in in height to permit pole sign 13 ft 6 inches in height at 2250 Drew St, First Addition to Temple Terrace, Block D, Lots 20-23, zoned OL (limited office). V 90-69 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is being developed with an office building. Vernon Wursch of Sign Crafters, representing the applicant, indicated the building will house two independent medical corporations. He said that due to the length of the names larger signs would be required. He indicated this was not an area of sign clutter. Discussion ensued in regard to the sign being located in a swale and it was indicated the sign would measure 13.6 feet above grade. In response to questions, it was indicated no signs are proposed to be placed on the building, there will be one entrance off Drew Street and the building will contain two separate suites. Discussion ensued in regard to the possibility of alternative signage and it was indicated the pole sign would provide greater readability as the majority of the patients would be elderly. There was discussion regarding the alternative signage, relocation of the proposed pole sign and whether or not a hardship exists. Mr. Graham moved to deny variance #1 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. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant a variance #2 which would allow the applicant to have the top of the sign located at a maximum of 6 feet above the adjacent asphalt parking area on the property, if the sign is located in a swale, 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 topographical conditions of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location of the swale along the Drew Street side of the property, 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 #10 - Bailey Mortgage Co for variances of (1) 4 ft to permit house 26 ft from a street right-of-way and (2) 4 ft to permit pool enclosure 26 ft from a street right-of-way at 2801 Chancery Lane, Chelsea Woods Phase II, Lot 1, zoned RS 4 (single family residential). V 90-70 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the subject property is a corner lot proposed to be developed with a single family home including a swimming pool and pool enclosure. Joseph Miller, representing the applicant, indicated a wall exists along Soule Road, this is a low traffic area and similar variances have been granted in this area. Discussion ensued in regard to other properties in this subdivision having been developed in the County and then annexed into the City. 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 were not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the corner lot and the offset of the street, 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 #11 - James E. and Rebecca N. Burnham for a variance of 3 ft to allow addition 22 ft from a street right-of-way, at 1582 Midnight Pass Way, Coachman Ridge Tract A, Lot 49, zoned RS 6 (single family residential). V 90-71 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant is requesting the variance to allow the enlargement of a bath/shower. The subject property was developed under County jurisdiction. Walter Osinga, representing the applicant, indicated this plan was the most feasible from an economic standpoint in avoiding a major renovation. The Assistant City Attorney returned at 4:25 p.m. 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 unnecessary hardship created by it being built in the County and then brought into the City limits, 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 #12 - Trizec Properties, Inc. (The Soup Exchange) for variances of (1) one business identification sign to permit two such signs and (2) 97 sq ft business identification signage to allow a total of 225 sq ft of such signage at 505 U.S. 19 S, Suite 400, Sec. 17-29-16, M&Bs 32.01 and 32.02, zoned CC (commercial center). V 90-72 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the business qualifies as a major tenant in the center. There is an existing 120 square foot business identification wall sign on the store front. Discussion ensued in regard to the existing sign and whether or not it is visible. Concern was expressed in the interpretation for determining whether or not a sign can be seen from a right-of-way. Dennis MacFarland, representing the applicant, presented photographs to the Board showing the signage for the various businesses in the mall. He indicated that having no sign on the south side of the building gives the appearance of the building being vacant. There is an emergency door on that side. Discussion ensued in regard to additional signage being allowed for entrances. 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, strict application of the code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, they are the minimum necessary, the request is not primarily based upon a desire for a greater financial return from the property, they 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 condition that a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. The Assistant City Attorney and Mr. Plisko left the meeting at 4:43 p.m. III. Approval of Minutes of April 12 and April 26, 1990 Mr. Graham moved to approve the minutes of April 12, 1990 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Merriam moved to approve the minutes of April 26, 1990 as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. IV. Board Comments It was noted Mr. Homer will not be in attendance on May 24th, Ms. Whitney on June 14th and Mr. Plisko on June 28th. June's vacation schedule will be firmed up at the next meeting. V. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.