Loading...
10/25/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD October 25, 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 (arrived at 1:10 p.m.) Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 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 10/11/90) 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 permit an expansion of the Publix Super Market. James Leckey, representing the applicant, stated a revised site plan has been submitted reflecting the reduction in the size of the vestibule, the new modern front being used by Publix and the proposed landscaping. Richard Fricke of Delta Engineering stated landscaping and irrigation has been added to the interior of the parking area. Through the elimination of four parking spaces and the construction of two additional islands, the number of landscaped areas has been increased. This will break up the parking area, providing green area and shade. In response to questions, it was indicated the landscaping plan has not been reviewed by City Environmental Management and the old Publix entrance will be maintained. Len Craven of Architectural Images stated with the new prototype for Publix, the vestibule will be recessed and will not encroach into the walkway. A dining area with a small window section projecting approximately 6 feet into the walkway, is being added and the bakery and deli are being redone to make the store more attractive. It was indicated that by moving the outside enclosure further north there would be little effect on pedestrian traffic. Concern was expressed in regard to locating entrances in the sidewalk area. 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 and location 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 the hardship which is the location of the useable space on this site for a store of this size, subject to the conditions 1) that the requisite amended site plan as presented today shall be certified within six months from the date of this hearing, 2) that in keeping with the spirit of modernization and enhancement of the public's environment, the interior parking lot landscaping in front of Publix, Hallmark Cards and Eckerd Drugs (8 rows, 499 spaces) shall be upgraded and maintained in full compliance with Section 136.023 of the Land Development Code. Such should include the incorporation of additional interior parking lot planting areas to break up the existing expanse of pavement, including irrigation. A landscaping plan implementing this additional landscaping shall be submitted to the City's Planning and Development Director and Environmental Management for approval prior to seeking a building permit and 3) that a building permit be obtained for this addition within six months after site plan approval. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #1 - Florida Bypass Properties for variances of 1) 11.6% building coverage to allow 41.6% of building coverage where 30% is permitted; 2) 0.116 floor area ratio to allow a 0.416 floor area ratio where 0.3 floor area ratio is permitted; 3) 13 feet to allow addition 2 ft. from the rear property line where 15 ft. is required; 4) 7 ft. to allow addition 3 ft. from side property line where 10 ft. is required at 906 and 908 S. Ft. Harrison Ave., Harbor Oaks Sub, Lots 67, 69 and Part of Lot 71, zoned OL (Limited Office). V 90-139 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the variances are being requested to permit a one-story 440-square-foot building addition to its northernmost medical office buildings. There are two medical office buildings existing on Lot 67, the remaining property is utilized for existing parking and open space. The subject site is under one ownership, with two zoning districts (OL and RS-6) splitting the parcel and two land use categories (residential/office and low density residential). The subject site is a result of grandfathering the existing parcel into its present two zoning categories. A completed Unity of Title would resolve the uncertainty of future plans for the site. It was noted the total site has a floor ratio area and building coverage of 16 percent. Steve Klar, architect representing the applicant, and Dr. Creighton Pruitt, Cardiac Surgical Association, were present to answer questions. It was indicated with a Unity of Title everything would be satisfied except for variance #4. 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 variances arise 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 the hardship which is the location of the existing building adjacent to the property and the two separate zoning types involved in this property, subject to the conditions 1) that the owner provide a Unity of Title to the City's Planning and Development Department within six months of the date of this public hearing and be responsible for its recording within six months of the date of this public hearing and 2) that a building permit be obtained within six months of the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #2 - Clearwater Marketplace Partners for a variance of 22 sq. ft. of property identification signage to allow 86 sq. ft. property identification sign (a 31 sq. ft. addition to the existing 55 sq. ft. pylon sign) at 1600 McMullen-Booth Road, Clearwater Marketplace Shopping Center, South Oaks Fashion Square Sub., Lot 1, zoned IPD (Industrial Planned Development). V 90-140 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the variance is being requested to permit an addition to an existing pylon sign. He said the applicant's request is addressing a problem created by commerical use of industrial zoned property. If the property was commercially zoned, it would be eligible for a larger sign. In response to a question, it was indicated the parcel is subdivided into two separate lots and the individual outparcels appear to be part of the overall shopping center proper. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated the property is a development of approximately 165,000 square feet of retail space located at the corner of State Road 590. It is represented by a single pole sign on McMullen-Booth Road. He said from the street level, the property rises very quickly and slopes off as it approaches the stores causing many of the tenants' wall signs to be obstructed. The landscaping requirements contribute to a uniqueness of this property. He submitted photographs of the property viewed from McMullen-Booth Road. In response to a question, it was indicated one or two of the larger tenants, whose wall signage is blocked because of the slope in elevation on this site, would be represented on the proposed sign. A size increase, rather than a height increase, is requested because of the difficulty with the wall signage. The Board expressed their desire to have a drawing depicting the type of sign being proposed for the site. Mr. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of November 8, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Garden Avenue Interests/David Gale for variances 1) of 16 sq. ft. of property identification signage to permit a 64 sq. ft. property identification sign and 2) to permit sign to remain after expiration of amortization period at 131 Garden Ave. No., Gould and Ewing's 1st Addn to Clearwater, Blk. 7, Lots 1 through 4, zoned UC/C (Urban Center Core). V 90-141 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the applicant contracted with a Texas sign company to build a sign in compliance with the City code. The sign company mistakenly constructed a 64-square-foot sign, instead of a 48-square-foot sign. The applicant desires to utilize the sign, rather than having the Texas company correct their mistake. Jere Jarrett, chiropractor representing the applicant, stated he did not like the appearance of the previous sign and contracted for the new sign. In response to questions, it was indicated the sign would be placed along the wall on Drew Street where the present painted building sign temporarily identifies the area. Dr. Jere said his office is between the back part of the building with no identification out to the front on Garden Avenue. There is an office between his business and Garden Avenue with that business being eligible for a sign on Garden Street and he for one sign on Drew Street. The parking lot and entrance are located on Garden Avenue and patients have difficulty locating his office from Garden Avenue. Dr. Jarrett stated there is a possibility of the sign company rectifying their error; however, it would involve litigation. Discussion ensued in regard to whether or not the only hardship was financial. It was indicated other businesses occupying the building would be allowed signs and Dr. Jarrett indicated the owner is willing to limit signage on Drew Street. It was felt the layout of the building makes it difficult to locate even with signage. 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, more specifically, because it is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of identification on Drew Street, subject to the conditions 1) that there be only one business identification sign on Drew Street and that sign be this 64 square foot identification sign and 2) that a sign permit be obtained within six months of this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Graham, Homer and Plisko voted "Aye;" Mr. Merriam voted "Nay." Request granted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to deny Variance #2 as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code have been met 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 #4 - V. Jack Kennedy/Life Financial Corporation for variances of 1) 7 parking spaces to permit a total of 11 parking spaces in lieu of 18; 2) 5 ft. to permit addition 15 ft. from rear property line; and 3) 20 ft. to permit a lot width of 100 ft. located on the north side of Drew Street 201 ft. east of U.S. 19, Sec. 8-29S-16E, M&B 33.07, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). V 90-142 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the request is for the construction of a Quick Lube Car Wash facility. It was pointed out the property is located on the northwest corner of Drew Street and the access drive to Life Savings and Loan. Richard Beckish from Spring Engineering, representing the applicant, stated the intent is to reangle the parking spaces to adjust for traffic flow at the entry to the facility. In response to a question, it was indicated the variances can be restricted to the actual tenants. 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 variances arise 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 the hardship which is the size of the property and its location on the access drive on Drew Street, subject to the conditions 1) that this variance be limited to the use of Clearwater Quick Lube and terminated at the termination of business of Clearwater Quick Lube at this site, 2) that the five parking spaces located on Drew Street be arranged to flow with the traffic and meet with the approval of the City's Traffic Engineer, 3) that the facility must be utilized as a flow through facility, as proposed by the applicant, rather than a drop off/pick up service center and 4) that a building permit be obtained within six months of this date,. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #5 - Bert Beigel, Norma Friedman, and Everett Burrell for variances of 1) 5 ft. to build a pool deck 25 ft. from street right-of-way, 2) 30 ft. to permit 120 ft. lot width and 3) 10.3% to permit 39.7% front yard open space at 50 Somerset St., Mandalay Unit No. 5 Replat, Blk. 83, Lots 5 and 6, zoned RM-20 (Multiple-Family Residential). V 90-143 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating this is a request to construct an inground swimming pool and deck at a motel on Clearwater Beach. He indicated a variance would be required to construct a fence around the pool as is now being required by insurance carriers and suggested continuing this application to allow that variance request to be added. Sharon Castillo, representing the applicant, stated she wanted to proceed with the original request because there is a 30 day period before construction starts with a minimum of six weeks construction time. She said, if they are not able to follow that schedule, it will put them into construction during their peak season. Ms. Castillo indicated, when she applied for the variances, she was informed her insurance carrier may require a fence; however, was not aware a variance would be required for this fence. A citizen spoke in support of the application. He expressed concern that the motel business is a dying industry on Clearwater Beach due to certain restrictions. Ms. Castillo stated she and her husband are in the process of buying the motel which they have managed for three years. She said all of the units are either efficiencies or four-room apartments that cater to families. 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 they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of this Development Code would result in unnecessary hardship on the applicant and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of the existing buildings located on the site, the size and shape of the property and the preexisting zoning regulations on Clearwater Beach, subject to the conditions 1) that the front area along the pool shall be landscaped with one tree per each 40 feet of property frontage and shrubs shall be placed every three feet on center in this area, exclusive of paved areas 2) that the landscape plan be approved by the City's Environmental Management Division and Director of Planning and Development and 3) that a building permit shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #6 - Monique C. DeBlois for a variance of 18 inches to erect a 48 inch high fence within front setback area at 346 Hamden Dr., Columbia Sub No. 3, Lots 8, 9 and 9A, zoned CR-28 (Resort Commercial). V 90-144 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the variance is being requested to permit erection of a 48-inch high fence around a newly constructed pool. In response to a question, it was indicated the requirement for landscaping along the exterior of a fence with a 3-foot setback would be 18-inch high shrubbery planted continuously along the fence. Mark Caldwell of Burton Fence Company, representing the applicant, stated the applicant wishes to install a Victorian style 4-foot high PVC fence. He said the fence would provide privacy as well as security for the guests. In response to questions, it was indicated insurance companies are requiring a minimum of a 4-foot high fence. Mr. Caldwell said the fence would be erected 24 feet back from the center of the street, 15 feet back from the curb and 9 feet from the property line, only encroaching one foot into the setback. Discussion ensued in regard to the necessity for a survey in order to determine whether the fence would encroach into the right-of-way. Concern was expressed regarding whether or not the landscaping requirements could be met. Mr. Caldwell said Ms. DeBois did not want to have a survey done as it would present a financial burden. In response to a question, he indicated the deck in front of the pool is 8 feet wide. A question was raised if a survey had been done when the pool was installed. The meeting was recessed to give the Planning Manager an opportunity to investigate. The Board recessed from 2:43 p.m. to 2:55 p.m. It was determined a survey was not required for the installation of the pool. In response to a question, Mr. Caldwell indicated Ms. DeBois did not wish to continue this request in order to have a survey. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to deny the variance as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that she has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code because the information presented has not been adequate to inform this Board of the precise locations of the property line and that the relationship to the fence from the property line is critical in the Board's determination as to whether or not this request meets the requirements of Section 131.005 and Section 131.006 of this Land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #7 - Herbert A. and Ericka M. Phillips, Harold R. and Dorothy S. Taylor, William J. and Helen A. Tito, Joan G. Reynick, Allen R. and Grace A. Hocking, Henry E. and Joan E. Zega, Charles J. and Alda A. Fuetterer, Jr., Ernest and Sylvia Schnur, and Juanita R. Battaglia for variances 1) of 2 ft. to permit a 6 ft. high wall adjacent to street right-of-way from which the property is not addressed, 2) of 42 inches to permit a 6 ft. high wall adjacent to street to which property is addressed, 3) of 32 inches to permit wall 4 inches from property line setback, 4) to allow zero landscaping (shrubs) along right-of-way side of wall, and 5) of one access gate to allow zero access gate on Lot 117 at northwest corner of Jaffa Pl. and Barber Dr., Grovewood Sub, Lots 101 through 108 and Lot 117, zoned RS-6 (Single Family Residential). V 90-145 The Phillips have requested this item be continued as they will be out of state on family business. Mrs. Whitney moved to continue this item to the meeting of November 8, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #8 - Scot M. Trefz for a variance of 7 ft. to build an addition 3 ft. from a side property line at 125 S. Belcher Rd., Sec. 18-29-16, M&B 23.04, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 90-146 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating conditional use approval for the expansion of pet boarding facilities was given by the Planning and Zoning Board on May 2, 1989. The applicant was granted an extension on November 15, 1989; however, a building permit was not obtained in the allotted time. In response to a question, Anna Trefz, applicant, indicated a site plan had been submitted. Concern was expressed the site plan submitted was incomplete as it did not show parking, the relation of one building to another, detention, etc. for the site. The applicant has requested this item to be continued so that a more complete site plan could be submitted. Mr. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of November 29, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #9 - James F. and Cecelia L. Wilson for variances of 1) 6,576 sq. ft. to permit lot area of 8,424 sq. ft. where 15,000 sq. ft. is required, 2) 10 ft. to permit lot width of 60 ft. where 70 ft. is required, 3) 3% open space to permit 32% open space where 35% open space is required, and 4) 5% front yard open space to permit 45% front yard open space where 50% front yard open space is required at 244 Dolphin Point, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 5-A, Part of Lot 21, zoned RM-20 (Multiple-Family Residential). V 90-147 The applicant has requested this item be continued as their representative has a conflict in schedule. Mr. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of November 8, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #10 - Richard P. Levy for variances of 1) 50 inches to allow two 80 inch high walls within setback area and 2) of 10 parking spaces to allow 16 parking spaces in lieu of 26 spaces required at 1498 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Boulevard Heights Sub, Blk. G, Part of Lots 5 and 8 and all of Lots 6 and 7, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 90-148 This item has been withdrawn by the applicant. Mr. Graham moved to withdraw this item. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. II. Minutes Mrs. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of October 11, 1990, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. III. Board Comments Discussion ensued in regard to the need for complete site plans and surveys to be submitted with applications. In response to a question, it was indicated the Board has the right to impose reasonable conditions when granting a variance. Discussion ensued in regard to Gionis Plaza in their testimony limiting their own seating capacity even though it was not made part of the motion. Assistant City Attorney recommended addressing specific concerns in the motion. The Planning Manager reported the landscaping plan for Sunset Point Shopping Center has been reviewed by the City's Environmental Department, the fencing adjoining the Cruise America property has been up since 1982 and the Buick sign at Highland Avenue and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard is permitted and meets code. III. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:33 p.m.