Loading...
07/12/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD July 12, 1990 Members present: John W. Homer, Chairman Thomas J. Graham, Vice-Chairman Emma C. Whitney Alex Plisko Absent: Kemper Merriam (excused) Also present: Scott Shuford, Planning Manager Sandy Glatthorn, Planning Official Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:04 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 5/24/90) 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 B - (continued from 5/24/90) 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 C - (continued from 5/24/90) 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 Planning Manager explained Item A in detail stating the property is developed with the Holiday Inn Gulfview and the variance is being requested to add a new logo to their sign and to allow continuation of the signs beyond the October 1992 compliance date. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, requested to address Items A, B and C together as the requests are the same. It was indicated this would not present a problem as long as each item was voted on separately. The Planning Manager explained Items B and C in detail indicating variances are being requested to allow modification of the business identification sign and to allow continuation of the signs beyond the October 1992 compliance date. Mr. Cline stated the increases in the square footage of the proposed signage would be minimal. A starburst logo would be added and the shape of the "Y" in "Holiday" would be redesigned. He indicated these stylistic changes are necessary to conform with the corporate requirement for Holiday Inn signage. He noted the subject hotels are in heavily traveled areas of the City and the standard corporate signs aid tourists in identifying Holiday Inn locations. He indicated the Gulfview sign is a small sign compared to other signage in the area, the U.S. 19 location has visibility problems due to the service road and overpass and the Surfside building is the largest of the Holiday Inns having the smallest sign. Mr. Cline said all the locations are unique properties having unique characteristics. In response to a question, Mr. Cline stated the starburst logo is already on some of the Holiday Inn pole signs, and it was indicated this is a permitted face change to the sign. Discussion ensued regarding reducing the size of the signs because there are existing pole signs at each location. A citizen spoke in opposition and presented slides of two business signs at the Holiday Inn Central location. He questioned whether or not these two signs were considered when calculating the maximum allowance for the sign at this location. He expressed concern regarding modifying signs that are already nonconforming. Discussion ensued in regard to the above signs and it was indicated they may be in violation of the code. Staff is to investigate. A citizen stated that the purpose of the sign ordinance is to reduce signage in the community; and indicated if a precedent is set now, the 1992 conformance date would be difficult to adhere to. One letter of objection was submitted for the record. Discussion ensued regarding the City of Clearwater being a tourist community and it was indicated Holiday Inns provide a service for the tourist and that their corporate logo makes it easier to identify and locate their hotels. It was felt the requests were minimal in bringing the signs into conformance with corporate policy. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant the variance as requested for Item A 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 hardship imposed upon the applicant by the national franchise and this is a diminutive request for a variance, subject to the conditions that the sign be brought into conformance with the sign code on or before October 13, 1992, and that a sign 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. Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant the variance as requested for Item B 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 hardship imposed upon the applicant by the national franchise and that this is a diminutive request for variance, subject to the conditions that the sign be brought into conformance with the sign code on or before October 13, 1992, and that a sign 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. Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant the variance as requested for Item C 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 hardship imposed upon the applicant by the national franchise and that this is a diminutive request for variance, subject to the conditions that the sign be brought into conformance with the sign code on or before October 13, 1992, and that a sign 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. Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #1 - Roberta M. Golding and Loren M. Pollack (Checkers) for variances of 1) 3.77 acres to permit construction on a 0.23 acre (10,000 sq.ft.) lot, 2) 200 ft. to permit construction on a 100 ft. wide lot, 3) 200 ft. to permit construction on a 100 ft. deep lot, 4) 55 ft. to permit building 20 ft. from a street right-of-way, 5) 30 ft. to permit building 20 ft. from the north (side) property line and 23 ft. from the south (side) property line, 6) 24 ft. to permit building 26 ft. from the rear property line, and 7) to allow canopy sign to extend above top of canopy at 1877 N. Highland Ave., Sunset Square Sub, Lot 3, zoned CC (commercial center). V 90-99 The Planning Manager stated the applicant is requesting a continuance of this item to the meeting of August 9, 1990. Patty DeWitt, representing the applicant, presented a letter from the applicant stating the continuance is being requested due to discrepancies between the survey and the site plan. A question was raised regarding the six proposed parking spaces on the parcel, and it was indicated they would qualify as legal spaces if a shared parking agreement is obtained. Mr. Plisko moved to continue this item to August 9, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #2 - Antonietta and Pasquale Baccilieri for variances of 1) 12.5 ft. to permit decorative pillars 17.5 ft. from a street right-of-way and 2) 2.05 ft. to permit house 17.95 ft. from a rear property line at 1493 Country Oaks Lane, Country Oaks Sub, Lot 7, zoned RS-4 (single family residential). V 90-100 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating Country Oaks is a recently developed seven lot subdivision. The variances are required for the completion of a house and to allow existing freestanding pillars to remain. Hilda Heitler, representing the applicant, stated the house was incorrectly positioned on the property by surveyors to preserve a large oak tree. She indicated the error was discovered when the tie-in survey was done. In response to a question, Ms. Heitler indicated the decorative pillars would provide lighting for the walkway. She said the surrounding neighbors do not object and felt there would be no adverse effects on the neighborhood. 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, that condition being the house was shifted to save a large tree, and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the configuration and location of the trees on the property, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within one (1) month from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Graham and Plisko voted "Aye;" Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #3 - Neuhaus Massivhaus Baugesellschaft m.b.h. for variances of 1) 2 ft. 4 in. to permit increase in height of existing building 22 ft. 8 in. from a street right-of-way and 2) 9 ft. to permit increase in height of existing building 1 ft. from a side (west) property line at 271 Windward Passage, Island Estates Unit #5, Blk C, Lots 6-8, zoned CG (general commercial) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 90-101 The applicant submitted a letter requesting a continuance of this item to the meeting of August 9, 1990. Mr. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of August 9, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #4 - John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. (Munchies) for a variance of one parking space to permit a 250 sq.ft. outdoor seating area in shopping center at 2508 A McMullen Booth Rd., Northwood Plaza, Sec 28-28-16, M&B 33.02, zoned CC (commercial center) and OL (limited office). V 90-102 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variance is for the expansion of an existing alcoholic beverage establishment. The Traffic Engineer has some concern that a potential hazard exists due to the outdoor seating's proximity to a driveway along with possible obstruction of the handicapped access ramp. The subject seating area has been in existence for some time. Mr. Plisko moved to continue this item to the end of the meeting since the applicant or representative was not present at this time. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Graham moved to deny this item since the applicant or representative was still not present at the end of the meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Graham moved to rescind his motion of denial for the above item. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Graham moved to void the application since the applicant or representative was not present for the hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - Virginia M. Wynne for a variance of 18 in. to permit a 48 in. high fence in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is addressed at 830 Bruce Ave., Mandalay Sub, Blk 17, Lots 3-4 and 9-11, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-103 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to erect a wood picket fence around the pool area. Their insurance company has requested the fence for liability purposes. Jim Van Kleeck, representing the applicant, stated the double frontage property causes safety concerns due to the pool. In response to a question, he stated the fence will be located 18 inches back from the inside of the sidewalk. Discussion ensued regarding moving the fence back behind the berm or in between the two berms on the property. Mr. Van Kleeck indicated moving the fence back would obstruct the view of the landscaping and would detract from the attractiveness of the property. Concern was expressed regarding this being a substantial request and whether or not granting this variance would set a precedent for similar requests on Clearwater Beach. The applicant requested a continuance to consider relocating the fence. Mr. Plisko moved to continue this item to the meeting of July 26, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. II. Minutes of June 28, 1990. The approval of the minutes of June 28, 1990, was continued to give the Board time to review. III. Board Comments The Board expressed their approval of the revised staff comment sheets. Discussion ensued regarding off-street parking lots on Clearwater Beach charging for parking, a possible storage problem behind Home Depot, and the Vasilaros deck on Heilman Street, Clearwater Beach. Staff is to investigate. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m.