Loading...
10/11/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD October 11, 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 1:02 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 #1 - Stanislaw and Kazimiera Budzinski (Britt's Restaurant) for a variance of 23 parking spaces to allow 2560 sq ft restaurant with 2-COP State alcoholic beverage license at 201 S. Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd White Skinner Sub, Lots 48-52 and Lot 98, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-123 The Planning Manager stated that on October 2, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended denial to the conditional use permit associated with this request. He suggested that the Board continue the item until the appeal period is over. George Greer, representing the applicant, stated he intended to file an appeal today. He requested the Board continue this item. Mr. Graham moved to continue this item for a maximum of 90 days or after such time that an appeal has been made and a judgment has been rendered. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #2 - Branch Sunset Associates, Ltd. (Publix Super Market) for a variance of 0.54% building coverage to permit 25.54% building coverage at 1856 U.S. 19 N., Sunset Point "19" Shopping Center, Sec 6-29-16, M&Bs 41.01, 41.02, 41.04, 41.05 and 41.06, together with Blackburn Sub, Part of Lots 1 and 12, zoned CC (commercial center). V 90-129 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the variance is being requested to modernize this older Publix outlet by providing the enhancements of an expanded delicatessen, bakery and produce department. Of the 7000 square foot expansion, 1500 square feet will used for an entrance vestibule. Richard Fricke, representing the applicant, stated that Publix wants to enhance this facility to make it more competitive in the marketplace. In response to questions, it was indicated they do not have the available square footage available to upgrade the bakery and produce departments and approximately 10-1/2 feet of sidewalk will removed for the vestibule. Concern was expressed that removing part of the sidewalk would force pedestrians to walk into the parking lot area creating a safety hazard. It was requested the item be continued due to Mr. James Leckey, the designated representative, not being present. Mr. Graham moved to continue this item until the meeting of October 25, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - William G. and Aniseta J. French for a variance of 5 ft to permit spiral stairs 20 ft from a street right-of-way at 1608 Harvard St., Keystone Manor, Blk G, Part of Lots 20 and 21, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-130 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the variance is being requested to permit the installation of an outside spiral staircase leading to an artist's studio, which is proposed to be built above the existing garage. William French, the applicant, stated he desires to establish an art loft for his wife which will be used strictly for pleasure. In response to questions, it was indicated Mr. French may not need the full 5 feet requested. Originally, he wanted to put a pull-down ladder in the garage, but was told he could not. He does not intend on having any plumbing installed. 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, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant and is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of the location of the garage to the side property lines, subject to the conditions that 1) no plumbing be added to the new addition over the garage, 2) that the variance only applies to the spiral staircase, 3) that the proposed artist's studio shall not be used to create an additional living unit and 4) that a building permit be obtained within six months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #4 - Gerrit K. and Joanne M. Keats for a variance of 2.5 ft to permit addition 4.5 ft from a side property line at 615 Harbor Island, Island Estates Unit 7C, Lot 7, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). V 90-131 The Planning Officer explained the application in detail, stating the variance request is related to a proposed expansion of the master bedroom. Gerrit K. Keats, the applicant, stated he is requesting to extend the wall approximately 4 feet to enlarge the master bedroom, closet and bathroom. Discussion ensued in regard to this request being minimal. 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, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings and shape of the property involved and the strict application of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and is the minimum necessary to overcome that hardship, which is the shape of the lot in that area, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within six months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #5 - Ronald I. Day, Trustee of Ronald I. Day Family Trust (Days Furniture) for a variance to permit nonconforming signs to remain after expiration of amortization period at 1277 S. Highland Ave., Forest Hill Estates Unit 5, Part of Lots 1 and 2, zoned CG (general commercial). V 90-132 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating this request is to allow nonconforming signage to remain after October 13, 1992. In response to a question, it was indicated the pylon sign may also have to be reduced. Discussion ensued regarding direction by the City Commission for staff to prepare amendments to the Land Development Code placing sign variance requests under their review. The Development Code Adjustment Board would continue to review the sign variance requests until the sign ordinance is amended and adopted. Ronald I. Day, the applicant, stated it would be impossible to downsize the sign and still maintain the same logo. He said all of his business cards, newspaper ads and other materials containing the logo would have to be changed creating a hardship. Day's Furniture is used as a landmark by businesses in the area and, if part of the signage is removed, would create a hindrance to the community in locating other businesses. In response to a question, Mr. Day indicated he did not want to wait until the last minute to apply for this variance. Also, he was told that effective October 31, 1990, the application fee for a variance would increase. A citizen representing the Citizens for a Better Clearwater, read a letter in opposition to the request. Concern was expressed for the future visual environment of the City. Pictures of surrounding businesses and drawings of suggested sign reductions for this business were submitted. Mr. Day stated he did not feel the existing signage presented a visual hindrance to the community. 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, it is not a minimum variance 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 upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Merriam, Graham and Plisko vote "Aye;" Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM #6 - George E. and Rita M. Cousin for a variance of 18 ft to permit addition 7 ft from a rear property line at 205 Magnolia Dr., Harbor Oaks, Lot I and Part of Lot J, zoned RS-2 (single family residential). V 90-133 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the variance is being requested to permit a one-story addition to an existing garage apartment which will be in line with the existing south wall of the structure. It was noted the Harbor Oaks Historic District contains numerous structures which do not meet current setback requirements. Steve Seibert, attorney representing the applicant, presented a picture and architectural drawings of the house and proposed addition. He stated their intent is to add a one-story garage to house more than two cars. He indicated there is a block wall separating the neighbor to the south and said the addition will not be visible from the street. He said there will be no additional intrusion into the setback and indicated there is no objection from the neighbor. The addition will be consistent with the existing house. There are presently three flat roofs on this house. In response to a question, it was indicated a pool will be installed adjacent to the garage. George Cousin, the applicant, stated retaining walls will be necessary, as well as some changes in elevation when the pool is installed. He said he is concerned with the architectural integrity of the property. In response to a question, it was indicated a wrought-iron fence with stone columns will be erected around the property. 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, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant, the particular shape of the property involved and the strict application of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and is the minimum necessary to overcome that hardship, which is the narrowness of the property (100 feet in depth) and the current existing location of the garage and garage apartment on the property, subject to the conditions that 1) the proposed addition shall be architecturally compatible with the other structures on the site, 2) the apartment portion of the existing garage apartment shall not be extended to include additional square footage (in particular, no plumbing shall be installed into other areas of the garage apartment) and 3) the building permit shall be obtained within six months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #7 - Golden Shoreline Ltd. Partnership/H.B. Showe Bldr. Fla. Inc. (Arbor Shoreline Office Center) for a variance of 7 sq ft to allow a 15 sq ft address sign at 19321-19361 U.S. 19 N., Sec 20-29-16, M&Bs 23.01, 23.011, 23.02 and 23.03, zoned OG (general office). V 90-134 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating that the Arbor Shoreline Office Center is comprised of six distinct buildings with six distinct addresses. Robert Aude, architect representing the applicant, stated the buildings are not readily visible from U.S. 19. In 1981, when the project was constructed, there were two signs erected at the entrance to the project. He said last year one of the signs was damaged and not replaced and the U. S. Postal Service changed the addresses along U.S. 19 resulting in an extra digit being added to the address numbers on the buildings. He indicated the developer has no intention of enhancing a commercial presence along U.S. 19 by adding additional signage. The project is very sensitive to environment in that area. Because the buildings are located a distance from U.S. 19, it is felt each building should be identified by a separate address. In response to questions, it was indicated five of the six addresses were listed on the previous sign, the former letters were smaller than those being requested and the original sign was approximately the same height. Discussion ensued in regard to the need for the buildings to have distinct addresses due to the confusing system of address numbering on U.S. 19. It was felt this request was minimal for this location. 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, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings and conditions of the property involved and the strict application of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and is the minimum necessary to overcome that hardship, which is the location of the buildings in relationship to U. S. 19 which makes the buildings obscured by trees on the site and therefore the buildings require distinct numbering identification, subject to the condition that a sign permit shall be obtained within six months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. The meeting recessed from 2:30 p.m. to 3:47 p.m. ITEM #8 - David P. and Maude Lou Thompson/Michael D. Thompson (Cruise America) for a variance of 30 inches to allow a 60 inch high security fence in setback area adjoining street to which property is addressed at 2898 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Sec 17-29-16, M&B 14.03, zoned CG (general commercial). V 90-135 The Planning Officer explained the application in detail stating the request is for the purpose of securing recreational vehicles which will be leased to travel customers. The application cites a variance granted for the adjoining property although the records do not reveal one was obtained. Michael D. Thompson, the applicant, stated the landlord is in the process of verifying the location of the property line. He said the security fence will be in line with the front of the building, not in the 10-foot green area. He said the City's requirement for shade trees in this area would cause more of a visual hindrance than the fence. He stated a 30-inch high fence would not provide the desired security for the site. He presented a drawing depicting what is being proposed for the site indicating it is crucial to secure the area due to a million plus dollars worth of vehicles. In response to questions, it was indicated that Cruise America is primarily in the business to lease vehicles. Michael Marseen, manager of Cruise America on Gulf-to-Bay, stated the majority of their company locations have 5-foot or higher fences. He said their biggest security problem is with the small-time thief or vandal. Due to the size of the vehicles, it is difficult to see from one end of the lot to the other. Discussion ensued in regard to locating the fence further back on the property which would not require a variance. The applicant indicated, if the fence was moved back, approximately 4,000 square feet of space would be lost. Staff was requested to check to see if a fence permit has been obtained for the property next door. 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 hardship was caused by the owner or applicant, it is not a minimum variance, it is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property, it would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the neighborhood, it would adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare of the community 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 #9 - Pinellas County for variances of 1) 30 ft to permit addition 5 ft from a street right-of-way and 2) 10 ft to permit addition 15 ft from a rear property line at 201 Rogers St., Turner Sub #3, Blk 3, Lots 1-4, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 90-136 Mr. Plisko declared a conflict of interest in regard to this case. The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the request will allow the expansion of the Pinellas County government facility management offices. The proposed structure will be in line with existing structures on this site in an area that was developed before the current Land Development Code requirements were in place. Gerry Cora, Pinellas County facilities planner, stated a Master Plan has been prepared for the entire Clearwater campus. The proposed expansion of the "white house," will provide additional employee space and still maintain the same character of the neighborhood. The County has been acquiring similar houses through the years for extra space and is committed to keeping the landscaping appropriate and well-maintained. He indicated there will be no increase in staff. Richard Churchill, Pinellas County architectural consultant, presented a picture of the existing house stating this house has a character representative of Clearwater years ago. There is a large oak tree on the site which they wish to save. He indicated the green area would be increased as interior landscaping would be provided in the existing parking lot. He indicated, due to the size of the addition, it is not desired to attach it to the existing house. A question was raised as to whether or not the asphalt area would be removed, and it was indicated this area has not yet been addressed; however, it could be used for green space or handicapped parking. Currently, there are no handicapped spaces. 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, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings of the property involved and the strict application of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and is the minimum necessary to overcome that hardship, which is the location of the existing house and parking areas on this property and the surrounding use of the land, numerous nonconforming properties are in this area and this is very much in keeping with the architectural integrity of that area, subject to the condition that a building permit shall be obtained within six months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously with Mr. Plisko abstaining. Request granted. ITEM #10 - City of Clearwater (Clearwater Executive Airpark) for 1) a height variance of 24 inches in the setbacks of Gilbert St. and Airport Dr. to erect a 6 ft high security fence and 2) a variance of 42 ft for portion of fence within setback area next to Hercules Avenue at 1000 North Hercules Ave., Part of Tract A, Replat of Blks 1-19 of Marymont, zoned P/SP (public/semipublic). V 90-137 The Planning Officer explained the application in detail stating the height variance is being requested to erect a 6-foot high chain link security fence surrounding the Clearwater Airpark. Moving the fence out of the setback area would create a problem of encroachment into the F.A.A. clear zone. Allen V. Mahan, City airport staff coordinator, stated the portion of fence along Hercules will not be replaced. The proposed fence would be placed along the present fence line, including that portion that divides the airport from the golf course. Since 1982, there have been approximately 25 incidents around the airport, involving breaking and entering, airplane theft, airplane tampering, auto theft, and trespassing from golfers. The City desires using three-strand barbed-wire on that portion of the fence dividing the airport from the golf course. Mr. Mahan submitted a report of incidents at the Airpark since 1982. Discussion ensued regarding the use of Tampa firms and it was indicated the firm who supplied most of the design plans for the Airpark engages airport engineers. It was indicated a Clearwater firm would be used for the fencing. 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, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings and shape of the property involved and the strict application of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and is the minimum necessary to overcome that hardship, which is the safety and welfare of the public and the City in and around the airport and the security of the airport, subject to the conditions that 1) shrubs shall be planted in front of the fence along Hercules Avenue and Airport Road 18 inches high at planting and placed every 3 feet on center, 2) the existing or proposed barbed wire fence shall be located on the fence between the golf course and the airport only, 3) the Traffic Engineer's concerns about sight distance shall be addressed in the permit and 4) that a fence permit shall be obtained within six months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. 11. Clearwater Collection Associates, Ltd. for variances 1) for alteration of a non-conforming sign to allow same square footage as previously granted on August 27, 1990 and 2) to permit sign to remain permanently as granted by variance after the expiration of amortization period at 21680 U.S. 19 North, The Clearwater Collection, Lots 2 and 3, zoned CPD (commercial planned development). V 90-138 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the request is to allow for modification of existing signage on U. S. 19 in a manner which will retain the same number of square feet as permitted in an earlier variance granted August 27, 1987. Alan Thomas, representing the applicant, stated a unique situation exists in that the subject property is in a commercial planned development district which requires a reduction in signage as compared to surrounding properties on U.S. 19 that have a General Commercial zoning. He indicated similar signage is needed in order to be competitive with the surrounding businesses on U.S. 19. In response to questions, it was indicated the previous variances granted were not conditioned upon the October 13, 1992 conformance date. Discussion ensued in regard to previous sign variances granted for other businesses in the center and, if this property were zoned for the U.S. 19 corridor, a variance would probably not be necessary. The Assistant City Attorney left the meeting at 3:35 p.m. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko 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, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant and is the minimum necessary to overcome that hardship of this particular zoning on U. S. 19, subject to the condition that 1) the sign shall be brought into conformance with the sign code on or before October 13, 1992 and 2) a sign permit shall be obtained within six months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to deny variance #2 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 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. ITEM #12 - (continued from 9/13/90 and 9/27/90) An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 135.164, Code of Ordinances, to delete the provision for transfers of development rights from the open space/recreation district to upland property; amending Section 136.011, Code of Ordinances, to amend provisions relating to transfers of development rights; deleting the provision for a transfer of development rights across the coastal construction control line (CCCL) and deleting the authorization for such transfers; amending Section 137.005, Code of Ordinances, to amend the definition of net acre to exclude areas seaward of the coastal construction control line; providing an effective date. The Planning Manager stated staff is requesting withdrawal of this ordinance until the effects of the CCCL resurvey can be analyzed. Discussion ensued regarding the direction the line would take, and it was indicated the resurvey is being done by the state and they would decide. Mr. Graham moved to withdraw this item. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. II. Board Comments Discussion ensued regarding extended vacation requests being presented to the Board. Discussion ensued in regard to evidence given under oath by the applicants being binding as this testimony is part of the record. The Planning Manager recommended addressing specific concerns in the motion. Concern was expressed the code does not address retaining wall of massive size. Discussion ensued in regard to the sign on the old "Temple Orange" building and the remodeling that has been done. It was indicated they would be requesting a parking variance. III. Minutes Mrs. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of September 13, 1990, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:04 p.m.