Loading...
05/24/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD May 24, 1990 Members present: Thomas J. Graham, Vice-Chairman Kemper Merriam Alex Plisko Emma C. Whitney Member absent: John Homer, Chairman (excused) 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 1:12 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 A - (Continued from 4/26/90) 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 applicant stated he is requesting a continuance because of difficulty in obtaining an economically feasible survey of his property. The Planning Manager stated the Engineering Department could assist in locating the right-of-way lines. Mr. Plisko moved to continue this item to the meeting of June 14, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #1 - Capel Properties, Inc. for a variance of 34 parking spaces to permit 16 parking spaces in lieu of the 50 spaces required by code, at 2180 Calumet St., Clearwater Industrial Park, part of Lot 11, zoned IL (limited industrial) V 90-73 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the property was annexed by the Commission on May 17, 1990. The property will be developed with a 20,000 square foot facility for the manufacture of large industrial parts. He indicated there are presently nine employees and he feels the number of parking spaces provided is sufficient. Bobby Capel stated the property was annexed into the City to obtain sewer service. They will manufacture large electronic and aerospace parts which will require a large storage area for long durations. The maximum number of employees would be thirteen. The facility will be space intensive, not people intensive. There will be very few customers or deliveries to the plant. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the parking requirements are too restrictive for this type of use. 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 applicant's operation of the business and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the code on parking, subject to 1) the completion of the annexation process, 2) the recording of a document signed by the City and the owner reciting this action and limiting the life of the variance to the present owner and the specific number of employees to be accommodated in order that any expansion, change of specific use or change of ownership would trigger the requirement for a review of the need for additional parking and that 3) a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #2 - Gerald A. and Catherine L. Roscio for variances of 1) 5.5 ft. to place swimming pool 19.5 ft. from a street right-of-way and 2) 8.5 ft. to place pool enclosure 16.5 ft. from a right-of-way at 2935 Deer Run S., Northwood Estates, Tract F, Blk I, Lot 6, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-74 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating there are site constraints due to existing development; however, the request is in character with the other properties that back up to Enterprise Road East. Gerald Roscio stated the pool and enclosure will encroach into the setback from Enterprise Road. Other pools in the area encroach into the setback. 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 that is the property fronts two street rights-of-way, 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 created by the double frontage lot, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #3 - Donald R. Bax for variances of 1) 5 ft. to permit construction of house 20 ft. from a street right-of-way and 2) 13 ft. to permit construction on a 57 ft. wide corner lot, at 963 Bruce Ave., Mandalay, Blk 58, Lot 6 and the west 10 ft. of Lot 7, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-75 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the existing house will be razed and a stilt house will be built on the corner lot. The requested variance does not include the outside stairway and a variance will be requested if necessary. Don Bax stated the present side setback is 3 feet with a proposed setback of 20 feet for the new construction. The proposed house will be an A frame. Discussion ensued in regard to moving the house back and relocating the staircase. Six letters with eight signatures in opposition were submitted for the record. Mr. Bax stated parking will be under the house alleviating any parking problems on the street. He indicated he would consider relocating the stairs. 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 not caused by the applicant, the particular size of the lot makes it difficult to meet current setback requirements, and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the lot size, subject to the conditions that the staircase be brought into compliance with the variance granted, 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 #4 - Wayne E. Lee for a variance of 11 ft. to permit porch addition 14 ft. from a street right-of-way, at 1690 Linwood Dr., Woodmont Park Est. 1st Addn., Lot 91, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-76 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating other porch additions in the area appear to be constructed under the existing rooflines. Joe Page, representing the applicant, stated the roofed porch enclosure had been removed due to termite damage. The applicant wishes to rebuild enlarging the porch area making use of the existing architecture. Mr. Plisko moved to deny the variance as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, it is not a minimum variance and it would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. Concern was expressed that granting of this request would extend an existing non-conformance. ITEM 5 - Speros and Joan Frangedis for variances of 1) 10.33 ft. to permit structure 2.52 ft. from a side property line and 2) 91.2 ft. to permit construction on a 58.8 ft. wide lot, at 437 S. Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd White Skinner, Lot 81, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-77 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are being requested to locate six columns within the setback area to support a new roof system and fascia. The existing wall and foundation will not support the new construction. The setback requirements have been increased since the original construction of the building. Graham Cliff, architect representing the applicant, stated the proposed 2.6 foot fascia overhang from the existing building line will be less than the existing overhang. Michael Frangedis stated the fascia will be moved back and support columns added to support the roof system due to concerns regarding construction next door causing cracks in the building. 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 not caused by the applicant and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the 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 #6 - Joseph Caraco and Franco Iocolano for a variance of two parking spaces to provide zero additional parking spaces to permit retail use (550 sq.ft.) to become fast food use, (condition of approval for existing fast food use allows a yogurt shop only), at 432 Poinsettia #2, Barbour-Morrow, Blk A, Lot 41, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 90-78 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating on August 25, 1988, a parking variance was approved with the condition that the variance apply only during the time it remains a yogurt shop. The applicant wishes to change to a fast food carryout catering to walk-ins. Gregory Haputa, representing the applicant, stated only changes to the food items on the menu are being proposed and no changes are being proposed to the building. One letter with 20 signatures was submitted for the record. Concern was expressed regarding a possible future request for interior/exterior seating. 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 a continuation of a similar business at this location that has been granted the same variance, subject to the conditions that 1) there shall be no interior or exterior seating applicable to this carryout under this variance, 2) an occupational license be obtained within six (6) months from this date and 3) that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. The meeting recessed from 2:37 p.m. to 2:47 p.m. ITEM #7 - Equitel (JP Hotels/Holiday Inn Gulfview) for a variance of 249.57 sq.ft. to permit a total of 264.57 sq.ft. business identification signage, at 521 S. Gulfview Blvd., Sec 17-29-15, M&B 22.02, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-79 ITEM #8 - Equitel (JP Hotels/Holiday Inn Central) for a variance of 216.6 sq.ft. business identification signage to permit a total of 231.6 sq.ft. of such signage, at 400 U.S. 19, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 14-01, zoned CH (highway commercial). V 90-80 ITEM #9 - John S. Taylor III and Jean T. Carter (JP Hotels/Holiday Inn Surfside) for a variance of 82.5 sq.ft. to permit a total of 97.5 sq.ft. business identification signage, at 400 Mandalay Ave., Sec 08-29-15, M&B 23-01, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-81 The applicant's representative sent a letter requesting continuance of Items #7, #8 and #9 due to a conflict in schedules. Robert Dickenson, attorney from the representative's firm, stated Mr. Harry Cline would not be available to appear at today's meeting. Mrs. Whitney moved to continue this item to the meeting of July 12, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #10 - Valentino Koumoulidis for variances of 1) 10.6 ft. to allow 2.0 ft. clear space, 2) 3 ft. to permit zero width landscaping between parking lot and adjacent property and 3) 85 ft. to permit construction on lot 65 ft. wide at setback line, at 612 Bayway Blvd., Bayside Sub #5, Blk A, Lot 8, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-82 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the variances are being requested to permit a fast food restaurant on a sub-standard lot. The applicant abandoned plans to convert another property to a restaurant and is now pursuing construction on an adjoining parcel. Chris Andros, design engineer representing the applicant, stated numerous design schemes were tried. He said the Traffic Engineer suggested putting all paving in front with green space on the sides and rear. He indicated the current setbacks would be an adverse impact on the applicant as the other buildings are not set back as far. Discussion ensued in regard to whether a hardship exists due to the size of the site. Discussion ensued in regard to moving the building back providing for a 5 foot setback between the building and the handicapped parking spaces to allow more room for maneuverability and the placement of a dumpster. In response to a question, it was indicated the elevation meets flood plain requirements. 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, strict interpretation 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 1) the site shall be developed as indicated on the submitted site plan, except that (a) the paved depth of the parking stalls shall be 16.5 ft with landscaping of the car overhang areas at the ends of the parking stalls, (b) the building shall be setback an additional five (5) ft to permit additional turnaround space between the building and the last parking space and (c) all landscaping shall be installed in a manner acceptable to the City Division of Environmental Management, 2) this variance shall be rendered invalid if the applicant undertakes development activity pursuant to Variance #90-45, and 3) that a building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. The Assistant City Attorney returned at 3:15 p.m. ITEM #11 - Stanislaw Budzinski (Britt's Restaurant) for a variance of two parking spaces to provide 31 spaces in lieu of the 33 spaces required at 201 Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd-White-Skinner, Lots 48-52 and Lot 98, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-83 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating illegal parking spaces were counted in the parking requirement. The current owner appears to have been unaware of the illegal spaces when he purchased the property. Elizabeth Manuel, representing the applicant, stated alcoholic beverages are being offered with meals free of charge until the parking problem is resolved. She indicated the applicant desires to file a petition to vacate First Street and would like to hold the landscaping issue in abeyance until after the vacation request. Ms. Manuel indicated the restaurant has been in operation for six weeks and she said public parking is available across the street and most of the clientele will be walk-ins. Discussion ensued in regard to this being a minimum variance. 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 and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created through a misunderstanding in the review of the site plan submitted for permit. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #12 - Post Court Ltd. and Florida Power Corp. for variances of 1) one business identification sign to permit two such signs, 2) 16 sq.ft. business identification signage to permit a total of 40 sq.ft. of such signage and 3) 26 in. to permit wall 56 in. high in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is addressed, at 101 S. Old Coachman Rd., Sec 18-29-16, M&Bs 11.05,11.09,11.11,14.04 and part of 11.10, zoned RM-16 (multi-family residential), OL (limited office) and PSP (Public/Semi-Public). V 90-84 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the proposed signs are to be placed on the entrance walls of a multi-family development currently under construction. The total surface area of the signs is less than the maximum allowed, therefore, variance #2 is not necessary. Terry Crews, representing the applicant, stated the site plan has been approved. He indicated the proposed development is to be set back 200 feet from Coachman Road with both the driveway and entrance walls to be placed on a 150 foot Florida Power easement. The proposed radius sign walls would give exposure entering and exiting the development. The actual wall height will be 48 inches with the columns extending up to 56 inches in height. There was discussion regarding gradually tiering down the remainder of the walls from the area of the signage. Discussion ensued in regard to this being a minimum variance. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant variance #1 as requested and a variance of 18 inches to permit a 48 inch high wall in a setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is addressed 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 hardship created by the easement to enter into this project, subject to the conditions that the 48 inches be defined as the portion where the sign is mounted, it shall then decrease down to the 30 inch standard set in the ordinance, the two end columns proposed can be a maximum height of 48 inches and that a fence 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 Plisko voted "Aye;" Mr. Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #13 - Robert L. and Jacki R. McMinn for a variance of 2 ft. to permit a 6 ft. high fence in setback area adjacent to street right-of-way to which property is not addressed, at 2310 Stag Run Blvd., Coachman Ridge, Tract A, Lot 176, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). V 90-85 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating most of the homes backing up to Old Coachman Road in this area have 6 foot high fences to provide privacy and provide a buffer from the traffic. Robert McMinn stated there is a bus stop directly behind the house causing frequent pedestrian traffic. Due to the elevation of the house, there is a lack of privacy and security. 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 physical surroundings, shape or 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, it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the double frontage lot and the elevation of the house in relationship to the street, 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. The Assistant City Attorney left the meeting at 4:00 p.m. II. Minutes Mr. Merriam moved to approve the minutes of May 10, 1990, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. III. Board Comments Mr. Plisko noted he will not be in attendance on June 28th and Mrs. Whitney stated she will be on vacation on June 14th. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.